The argument seems to continue year after year about whether or not there is actually a game that is truly "free to play". In today's Devil's Advocate, we take a look at the F2P designation and examine the argument from both sides. Read on and then leave your thoughts in the comments.

“The free-to-play MMO does not exist.” I have been fascinated by this idea for the past two months, mulling it over in my head while writing other pieces for MMORPG.com. I've also been wondering what this statement actually means, not only as an analysis of definitions and revenue models, but also as a concept, one that has repercussions when it is taken as truth by gamers and game developers.

I doubt today's Devil's Advocate will be the definitive reaction to the statement, but at least the thought will finally be out on the internet for people to read and (hopefully) out of my head.

Read more of Victor Barreiro Jr.'s The Devil's Advocate: The F2P Misnomer.

The problem with all known to me F2P titles is developing game features around items from cash shop instead making certain features fun. Going with LOTRO it's the legendary items. Neat feature that should develop into weapon that grows with you(levels, has skills, damage type, gems). Instead it went the horrible grind way, which you need to repeat every time level cap is rised for every character. Of course you can skip too much grind(which is I agree relative) with special items from...you guessed it cash shop! This sort of issues make F2P games almost unplayable long term without spending huge amount of money, making F2P model really bad for people who like to invest(as an entertainment) in single MMO.

The good part with F2P is a'la carte option or buy box option(like GW2). Purchasing features that you need/enjoy is what people like. For example if I hate raiding why should I pay first monthly 15$ and then 50$ for expansion that focuses on that? Or if I like PvP why I should sponsor PvE content development? GW2 model could be an interesting one, granted they don't go with what I wrote in 1st paragraph. Instead giving players free content updates, they can and should give paind minor/major updates. That's nice and gives not only more freedom but alos doesn't limit you from playing curently owned content.

Hybrid systems(sub/b2p) could be nice if it wasn't for cash shop, which ends again with first paragraph issues. Instead on focusing to offer two ways of playing - buying content and paying monthly, companies go with double or even triple charging. For expansion(f2p and subs), for various boosters in cash shop(f2p and subs) and content(f2p). Instead cash shop part should be either free for subscribers(with cosmetics exception) or it shouldn't have any gameplay influencing items(just cosmetics/namechange and such). I'd also go with expansions being free for subscribers, after all they did pay for it monthly and will lose access when they stop paying, while f2p players will still have it after purchase.

Anyways my main problem with every f2p title I have played is GREED that changes fun games into korean grinders with "cash shop is here to save you!".

I completely agree with this article. "Free to play" while TECHINCALLY true, is often a misnomer. Also, many gamers (wrongly, in my opinion) take this marketing tactic at face value, and for some reason expect a free version of a AAA title game, with no advertizing or monetization model. Businesses, being businesses, need to make money and obviously try to encourage or otherwise wheedle money from their user base.

This is not a problem to me. I understand that businesses need to make money and have no issues paying NOTHING for an experience with the understanding that I'll be paying later if I like what I see. But for some reason, most gamers get offended at free to play games since apparently most of them are self-entitled children who have no idea how businesses work.

The problem with many free to play games is the MODEL by which they attempt to make money. And I think increasingly, companies are learning models that people are ok with.

I like Free to Play, but I feel that I have realistic expectations of what that means. Most people, I feel, don't.

Originally posted by wayward516

I like Free to Play, but I feel that I have realistic expectations of what that means. Most people, I feel, don't.

THIS!

the problem is that everyone expect free lunch. 

it's just different, more flexible business model than the traditional and aged p2p...

it gives a chance more people to try and play  without having to spend money every month. most people opens their wallets, once the game satisfies them. 

you can pay for month or two and after that to stop paying. it's just  flexible.

in case you've payed every month for sub for game X, and game X becomes f2p, i see no reason why not to pay again...

on top of that, in big percent of the f2p titles, it's just cheaper to unlock averything for 2-6 months and after that there's no need to spend money atleast for some time (until x-pack etc.)

Biggest problem for me with F2P, freemium and B2P a la GW2 is that their shops sell in game items and even sometimes gold (directly or indirectly).

If someone would made a model that would have some sort of CS that would sell ONLY things like:

1. Unlocks

2. Services (transfers, name changes)

3. Adventure Packs (DLC's)

4. Annual Expansion

Then it would be very nice.

Thing is - there is no such model. Always games have some in-game items, even best CS-es still have in-game items like clothes, xp boosters, drop chance increse, etc

And later on - those CS frequently increase on those thing and start adding advantage items, which turn whole idea to crap for me.

Originally posted by bugse82

on top of that, in big percent of the f2p titles, it's just cheaper to unlock averything for 2-6 months and after that there's no need to spend money atleast for some time (until x-pack etc.)

Actually this is as naive perception as expecting free lunch. Of course you would like to unlock and have no need to spend extra cash. But devs update their cash shop far more often then game itself. Furtehrmore they make some cash shop items needed in order to have fun and those items are by accident consumable and temporary.

So sure you can stop paying and still play content you bought but you might find that it's not nearly same game. But compared with subscription you either pay more in long term or play poor mans version of game(THIS is what people often not realize) while being satisfied that you paid less.

Interesting article but I don't really see publishers taking your advice and dropping "F2P" as a label in favor of more explicitly descriptive label of thier particular revenue model. The reason being is that "Free to Play" is a popular buzz-word in the industry today.

As with every other industry...marketers and promoters love buzz-words precisely because of thier ambiguity and imprecision. It allows them to push or hype a product or concept simply based upon the vague impression they can plant in the consumers mind that it is "Good" or "Hot" or "The thing to do." It's malleable, it can be anything or nothing all at the same time thus they can twist it to thier own needs of the moment, to create the impression they want to create.

Those folks tend to fight against precise terms and technicaly accurate descriptives because they leave very little room for "hype"....and marketers live on hype. If the consumer knows precisely what they are getting...then they eliminate part of thier potential market. This dynamic is not unique to MMO's or gaming....the buzzword mania exists in many different verticals. It's only in very limited and specialized markets where the consumer really isn't moved by hype or adverising or traditional marketing....that you don't see this buzzword phenomen. It's only there where you see precision in terms used to advantage in sales (i.e. if you are selling material to an Engineer to build a bridge who won't purchase any material without knowing the exact tensile strength first).

Marketers can't seem to help themselves in this regard...they tend to live on buzzwords and hype...I think it's something in thier blood.

Originally posted by Ausare
B2p is not going to be better. The only way the game developes income to keep developing content is to make a shop with items people "need" to buy. It will be no different then say Lotr.

B2P is better. the game I'm playing right now only has two things that people might find the need to buy but don't have to to play. Bank space and character slots and really that's if they are an altaholic. 5 Characters is pleanty due to the sheer size of the world in this title. Three guesses which one. hehe.

It's not cutting off content like LOTRO, SWTOR, EQX. 

Originally posted by itgrowls

Originally posted by Ausare
B2p is not going to be better. The only way the game developes income to keep developing content is to make a shop with items people "need" to buy. It will be no different then say Lotr.

B2P is better. the game I'm playing right now only has two things that people might find the need to buy but don't have to to play. Bank space and character slots and really that's if they are an altaholic. 5 Characters is pleanty due to the sheer size of the world in this title. Three guesses which one. hehe.

It's not cutting off content like LOTRO, SWTOR, EQX. 

Not right now, no... I am ready and prepared to buy additional content in the future though.

SOE's the devil with their god awful F2P model,  that korean music video, yeah yeah we know,  but in those links I found information on Sociolotron which was something new and "What the hell..." to me while reminding me of UO, so that was nice...

Originally posted by wayward516

I completely agree with this article. "Free to play" while TECHINCALLY true, is often a misnomer.

This is completely untrue.   There is no truth to F2P.  It is possible to play a Cash shop based game freely, but the cost is either the time sink, or playing with a gimped character.

 

Also, many gamers (wrongly, in my opinion) take this marketing tactic at face value, and for some reason expect a free version of a AAA title game, with no advertizing or monetization model. Businesses, being businesses, need to make money and obviously try to encourage or otherwise wheedle money from their user base.

This is not a problem to me. I understand that businesses need to make money and have no issues paying NOTHING for an experience with the understanding that I'll be paying later if I like what I see. But for some reason, most gamers get offended at free to play games since apparently most of them are self-entitled children who have no idea how businesses work.

The problem with many free to play games is the MODEL by which they attempt to make money. And I think increasingly, companies are learning models that people are ok with.

I like Free to Play, but I feel that I have realistic expectations of what that means. Most people, I feel, don't.

I don't find it unrealistic to expect a game to be totally free when it is labeled "free to play".   If parts of the game are not free, then they should label it as such.  

Here is why F2P just doesn't work.

LOTRO offers limited access to their content without purchasing anything from the cash shop.  It is possible to earn credits while playing the game to purchase this content.   It labels itself as a type of F2P game.

EVE allows players to purchase a monthly subscription from other players via in game currency.  It would be possible to play a free trial and earn enough in game currency to do so.  It labels itself as a P2P game.

Both games allow players to play for free, but both consider themselves a different type of game. 

Originally posted by crazynanny

Originally posted by bugse82

on top of that, in big percent of the f2p titles, it's just cheaper to unlock averything for 2-6 months and after that there's no need to spend money atleast for some time (until x-pack etc.)

Actually this is as naive perception as expecting free lunch. Of course you would like to unlock and have no need to spend extra cash. But devs update their cash shop far more often then game itself. Furtehrmore they make some cash shop items needed in order to have fun and those items are by accident consumable and temporary.

So sure you can stop paying and still play content you bought but you might find that it's not nearly same game. But compared with subscription you either pay more in long term or play poor mans version of game(THIS is what people often not realize) while being satisfied that you paid less.

 

 

oh, realy?

i think it depends for the game and the person who plays it.

and maybe it's just me, but the miss of any temporary consumables isn't fun/game breaker for me.

This has to be one of the best articles I've read on the matter.  I definitely agree that an element of "truth" in advertising would go a long way in removing some of the pointless arguments and bad feelings toward the model.  Sure, others would remain - but so much of it comes down to the lies from the marketing folks as they try to push the game.  Most industries have regulations in place to prevent this sort of thing - it's horribly missing from the game industry.  They should make their Gangnam Gambit... those that make it early, could even use that as additional pull by pointing to their competitors that have not....

edit: And btw, that video is eerily addictive.

Originally posted by bugse82

Originally posted by crazynanny

Originally posted by bugse82

on top of that, in big percent of the f2p titles, it's just cheaper to unlock averything for 2-6 months and after that there's no need to spend money atleast for some time (until x-pack etc.)

Actually this is as naive perception as expecting free lunch. Of course you would like to unlock and have no need to spend extra cash. But devs update their cash shop far more often then game itself. Furtehrmore they make some cash shop items needed in order to have fun and those items are by accident consumable and temporary.

So sure you can stop paying and still play content you bought but you might find that it's not nearly same game. But compared with subscription you either pay more in long term or play poor mans version of game(THIS is what people often not realize) while being satisfied that you paid less.

 

 

oh, realy?

i think it depends for the game and the person who plays it.

and maybe it's just me, but the miss of any temporary consumables isn't fun/game breaker for me.

Tolerance indeed depends on person. One will grumble at experience booster, other at skill reset and third will grind anything devs throws at him. That doesn't change that without those consumables you still do play poor mans game version.

Here is clear example from lotro as it's only F2P game I played for longer period. With F2P they took away ability to unslot relics(basically gems) from weapons, but lessened amount of currency to get those. With time amount grew and now the amount is even higher then before as new and best relics cost more and more(aka growing punishment for not using cash shop). This leads either to buying from cash shop or using inferior relics/grinding aka playing poor man's game version.

My issue is not with limitations or buyable content itself, but with developing game to be unfun in order to get $. In time your tolerance will have to grow or you have to stop playing. Which is bad for me as I find MMOs experience as long term - you meet people, form guild and have fun together - this takes time. Here F2P games fail hard with offering good payment solution for people who want to fully experience game aka you have to pay much more then subscription would ever cost you.

If you have an inordinate amount of time to play a game you can play most of these games for free.  Problem is that most of us have lives outside of gaming hence you end up spending money if you want to continue playing the game.  Usually you reach this point about the middle of the leveling process.  

The games I object to are games like Perfect World, Runes of Magic, and many many others where you actually have to gamble with cash shop purchases to upgrade.   Any game that does that is a huge rip off.

Originally posted by crazynanny

Originally posted by bugse82

Originally posted by crazynanny

Originally posted by bugse82

 

oh, realy?

i think it depends for the game and the person who plays it.

and maybe it's just me, but the miss of any temporary consumables isn't fun/game breaker for me.

Tolerance indeed depends on person. One will grumble at experience booster, other at skill reset and third will grind anything devs throws at him. That doesn't change that without those consumables you still do play poor mans game version.

Here is clear example from lotro as it's only F2P game I played for longer period. With F2P they took away ability to unslot relics(basically gems) from weapons, but lessened amount of currency to get those. With time amount grew and now the amount is even higher then before as new and best relics cost more and more(aka growing punishment for not using cash shop). This leads either to buying from cash shop or using inferior relics/grinding aka playing poor man's game version.

My issue is not with limitations or buyable content itself, but with developing game to be unfun in order to get $. In time your tolerance will have to grow or you have to stop playing. Which is bad for me as I find MMOs experience as long term - you meet people, form guild and have fun together - this takes time. Here F2P games fail hard with offering good payment solution for people who want to fully experience game aka you have to pay much more then subscription would ever cost you.

While you argument isn't in and of itself invalid, the example that you use is. Using a game that changed from p2p to f2p is invalid as the devs didn't develop the game from inception as a f2p game. Also what you would consider the "poor man's version" of a game is exactly what some players are looking for.

Here's some examples using games that were developed with f2p as a target: I've played both Grand Fantasia and Eden Eternal. These two games were developed by the same dev and puplished by the same publisher for the english relese. Now these are pretty much you're typical Korean grinder mmo; yes cash shop is patched at least once a month with new items/older items removed. Yes actual content patches are few and far between now that both titles are over level 90 as max level. Yes, the cash shops offer boosters (exp, drops, gold per mob), name changes, mounts (% speed boost over "in game" mounts), clothing skins (some of which have stat boosts).

Here's the thing about all that: it's only the poor man's version if your main focus in game is "end game". If you're there to socialize with friends, party up with random ppl to defeat world boss x, or solo grind mob x for rare drop d then none of those items are of any real worth to someone interested in those activities. The only people who "must have" those items are the pvp intense players/guilds. I can (given enough time) reach level cap without having spend one red dime, having had just as much fun with friends, as a player who spent a fortune buying the latest mount, clothing skin, boosters, warehouse/backpack expansions, etc. If my goal isn't to "rule the arena/guild wars", then getting those things (beyond exp boosts) just doesn't make any sense. And as almost all cash shop items are tradable, I can use in game money instead of irl money to buy what items I do want. The only time either of these games become the "poor man's version" is when you pvp, otherwise the experience is exactly the same for the cash shopper and the free player.

F2P games offer a clear choice: spend time or spend irl money to get what you want. Beyond that all players have access to all content all the time.

Side note: games that "convert" to the f2p model are the derth of the mmo industry. Do like I do and avoid them like the plague.

Good read. I would like to see something in a "Part 2" that addresses the pyschology of consumers that think that "free" really means "you have to pay to get that" mentality. Or, why people flock to anything just because it has the "free" terminology in the title of the "payment model".  

Anyway, I give this a 4 out of 5 free stars.