In his latest column, "Out of Sight, Out of Mind II," Richard Aihoshi talks to Sean Kauppinen of Frogster America and Jonathan Belliss of Perfect World Entertainment about F2P MMOs and the coverage, or lack thereof, they receive.

Check back every Monday for Richard's continuing column that hones in on this kind of game.

Kauppinen cites casual games as another category where, although the mindset is changing, the game media has not kept up with the broadening of the overall market. And he sees the result as self-detrimental. "I think on a lot of levels the core gaming press is losing some of its importance with regard to games," he states "since the audience has grown exponentially over the last several years, and it's not just 13 to 30 year-old males playing them."

Read the entire article here.

Well first off games like Perfect World, Runes of magic, Altantica have racheted up the quality in this marketplace.  Anyone of them could compete with the subscription market games.  There are more of these coming.

While I know these publishers are in the business of making money, I find these games are really not free to play unless you want to always be a 2nd class citizen.  I actually find them to be more expensive than the subscription games if you intend to "keep up with the Jones".

I do play some of these games, but don't mind considering being a 2nd class player, I spend very carefully in these games.  But that means that pvp is pretty much out of the question and features like Territory Wars in Perfect World also. So you have to be content with excluding yourself from major portions of the game if you intend to not spend much on it.

I have to catorigize all the publishers of these three games as overly greedy at the moment, although I might consider a subscription plan if they ever offered one.

Going further, he feels some major media outlets even have rules against covering F2Ps, and that such an attitude reflects a mix of stubbornness and laziness. He does understand they don't want to waste their time reviewing undistinguished games, but considers it part of their job to sift through those in order to find the ones worth covering.

He "feels" they have rules against this? So he doesn't "knows for fact" he just... "feels" it?

Maybe its because there is almost no new gameplay elements, awful design choices and "the long mindless grind" I have experienced in so many "f2p" games.

Why should a professional review a game with cookie cutter gameplay, a trash development cycle, and a rip off item mall?

On a positive note it seems Runes of Magic is among the first f2p games to really (or seemingly) dedicate a lot to their game and playerbase. But no "f2p" games even gets close to offering 50% as much content as p2p games.

If you disagree, I DARE you to prove that any one of these f2p games offers more content, polish, and a dedicated team then a p2p.

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Well first off games like Perfect World, Runes of magic, Altantica have racheted up the quality in this marketplace.  Anyone of them could compete with the subscription market games.  There are more of these coming.

While I know these publishers are in the business of making money, I find these games are really not free to play unless you want to always be a 2nd class citizen.  I actually find them to be more expensive than the subscription games if you intend to "keep up with the Jones".

I do play some of these games, but don't mind considering being a 2nd class player, I spend very carefully in these games.  But that means that pvp is pretty much out of the question and features like Territory Wars in Perfect World also. So you have to be content with excluding yourself from major portions of the game if you intend to not spend much on it.

I have to catorigize (sic) all the publishers of these three games as overly greedy at the moment, although I might consider a subscription plan if they ever offered one.

I realize it's currently in fashion to label publishers of F2P titles as greedy, but I'd like to hear someone articulate a coherent rationale for that characterization.  I haven't heard one yet, and, unless I'm interpreting the relevant posts incorrectly, it sounds like they're being labeled as greedy because they create an environment in which there is a possibility that some people may spend more than they would on a monthly subscription.  That attribution seems to ignore the following things:

1 - The vast majority of the content is given away for free;

2 - There is no requirement that anyone purchase anything from the cash malls; and

3 - Because of 1 and 2, the publishers are taking a risk that publishers of subscription games do not take.

It seems a bit paradoxical in light of these items to characterize the publishers as greedy.  They leave it up to the players to decide whether to spend any money at all and what to spend it on.  A player's own fiscal irresponsibility or ardent desire to be better than those around him does not, at least in my mind, make the publishers "overly greedy."  Take a look at SOE and the fact that they've started to implement cash malls in subscription games, and compare that with these publishers.  I'm not an SOE-basher, and don't want to divert the thread from the original F2P topic, but the word "overly" as used here seems a bit overly over the top.

Originally posted by Player_420

 Maybe its because there is almost no new gameplay elements,

This is funny, considering you see more innovation in F2P games.

 Great read. I think advertising seems to making the difference, but at the same time there are a million F2P's (that are really, really bad) still clogging up the airwaves.

 You still have to do a lot of legwork to find a great one, but that is changing.

 And the greatest thing is? THEY'RE FREE! :) Try as many as you like!

 Beau

Just a passing thought (that I don't know the answer to off the top of my head):

What is the relationship between advertising expenditures and press coverage? IE is the willingness of publications to review a game related to that games willingness to spend marketing bucks paying for advertising with that publication?

Originally posted by ericbelser

Just a passing thought (that I don't know the answer to off the top of my head):

What is the relationship between advertising expenditures and press coverage? IE is the willingness of publications to review a game related to that games willingness to spend marketing bucks paying for advertising with that publication?

Not if that publication wants to maintain integrity. I can't speak for other outlets, but the two are un-related here. Usually it comes down to a combination of - available writing talent, willingness to cooperate of the dev team, and the liklihood that the articles will be read by a large number of people (ie: reader interest). Just a  thought.

I played Perfect World and Runes of Magic. I didn't find either of those games polished enough or familiar enough as P2P games, yet you still had to pay money if you wanted a decent leveling curve or the best stuff. In that case, I compare F2P and P2P games to each other, and pick the game that is the best. In this case, I find WoW to be a better game than RoM and Perfect World, and since all three games cost money, I'm going to pick WoW.

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

Originally posted by Player_420

 Maybe its because there is almost no new gameplay elements,

This is funny, considering you see more innovation in F2P games.

9 Dragons was one of those games that I found had innovation. Their character development system and the quests that immersed you into the plight of the warring clans really had me interested.

Originally posted by Stradden

Originally posted by ericbelser

Just a passing thought (that I don't know the answer to off the top of my head):

What is the relationship between advertising expenditures and press coverage? IE is the willingness of publications to review a game related to that games willingness to spend marketing bucks paying for advertising with that publication?

Not if that publication wants to maintain integrity. I can't speak for other outlets, but the two are un-related here. Usually it comes down to a combination of - available writing talent, willingness to cooperate of the dev team, and the liklihood that the articles will be read by a large number of people (ie: reader interest). Just a  thought.

I can vouch for the fact that they're entirely separate here. The people who handle the ads don't even live in the same country as those that do the editorial. I doubt Jon knows what a CPM is, much less worries about it when doing editorial.

Originally posted by bmdevine

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Well first off games like Perfect World, Runes of magic, Altantica have racheted up the quality in this marketplace.  Anyone of them could compete with the subscription market games.  There are more of these coming.

While I know these publishers are in the business of making money, I find these games are really not free to play unless you want to always be a 2nd class citizen.  I actually find them to be more expensive than the subscription games if you intend to "keep up with the Jones".

I do play some of these games, but don't mind considering being a 2nd class player, I spend very carefully in these games.  But that means that pvp is pretty much out of the question and features like Territory Wars in Perfect World also. So you have to be content with excluding yourself from major portions of the game if you intend to not spend much on it.

I have to catorigize (sic) all the publishers of these three games as overly greedy at the moment, although I might consider a subscription plan if they ever offered one.

I realize it's currently in fashion to label publishers of F2P titles as greedy, but I'd like to hear someone articulate a coherent rationale for that characterization.  I haven't heard one yet, and, unless I'm interpreting the relevant posts incorrectly, it sounds like they're being labeled as greedy because they create an environment in which there is a possibility that some people may spend more than they would on a monthly subscription.  That attribution seems to ignore the following things:

1 - The vast majority of the content is given away for free;

2 - There is no requirement that anyone purchase anything from the cash malls; and

3 - Because of 1 and 2, the publishers are taking a risk that publishers of subscription games do not take.

It seems a bit paradoxical in light of these items to characterize the publishers as greedy.  They leave it up to the players to decide whether to spend any money at all and what to spend it on.  A player's own fiscal irresponsibility or ardent desire to be better than those around him does not, at least in my mind, make the publishers "overly greedy."  Take a look at SOE and the fact that they've started to implement cash malls in subscription games, and compare that with these publishers.  I'm not an SOE-basher, and don't want to divert the thread from the original F2P topic, but the word "overly" as used here seems a bit overly over the top.

I would have to say I agree with you here.

wow im surprised he didnt mention Guild Wars.  You by the game and there is no monthly fee.  I have treid several other F2P games and while somelook nice, my main gripe is that if you want any real susstiance to your paly you gotta hit up the cash shops.  In Atlantica for example, if you want to get into a serious raiding group and are not outfited with stuff from the cash shop..they wont even let you in the door.

Instead of cash shops that offer game altering content, I would rather a game followed the model that guild wars runs...buy the game,...no monthy fee..their cash shop has nothing tha alter actual game play, instead it offers additional character slots, storeage panels, appearance changes...stuff like that. 

I guess Im just not big on the game altering cash shops

Originally posted by ericbelser

Just a passing thought (that I don't know the answer to off the top of my head):

What is the relationship between advertising expenditures and press coverage? IE is the willingness of publications to review a game related to that games willingness to spend marketing bucks paying for advertising with that publication?

 

MMORPG covers Free to Play games, and as a result Free to Play gamers come read stuff on MMORPG.  Since Free to Play gamers come read stuff on MMORPG, Free to Play publishers buy ads on MMORPG.

Now just take that flow of events and reverse engineer it.  That's why big major media sites are starting to turn their heads and cover Free to Play.

F2P games are evil, you will usually find yourself with a huge grind for content and if you pay more than you would on a subscription-based P2P you will "balance" it.

Still, this is a kind of game that appeals for those with money, as they will enjoy speeding through content and crushing those that spend less, creating a vicious cycle in which the poor will work to become richer and spend more in the game to beat the ones that spend more, and so it goes on, and that is how this industry is growing, it starts with a gameplay that does not require you to play and then slowly increases the necessity to pay, especially when it comes to PvP and higher-end content.

Originally posted by bmdevine

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Well first off games like Perfect World, Runes of magic, Altantica have racheted up the quality in this marketplace.  Anyone of them could compete with the subscription market games.  There are more of these coming.

While I know these publishers are in the business of making money, I find these games are really not free to play unless you want to always be a 2nd class citizen.  I actually find them to be more expensive than the subscription games if you intend to "keep up with the Jones".

I do play some of these games, but don't mind considering being a 2nd class player, I spend very carefully in these games.  But that means that pvp is pretty much out of the question and features like Territory Wars in Perfect World also. So you have to be content with excluding yourself from major portions of the game if you intend to not spend much on it.

I have to catorigize (sic) all the publishers of these three games as overly greedy at the moment, although I might consider a subscription plan if they ever offered one.

I realize it's currently in fashion to label publishers of F2P titles as greedy, but I'd like to hear someone articulate a coherent rationale for that characterization.  I haven't heard one yet, and, unless I'm interpreting the relevant posts incorrectly, it sounds like they're being labeled as greedy because they create an environment in which there is a possibility that some people may spend more than they would on a monthly subscription.  That attribution seems to ignore the following things:

1 - The vast majority of the content is given away for free;

2 - There is no requirement that anyone purchase anything from the cash malls; and

3 - Because of 1 and 2, the publishers are taking a risk that publishers of subscription games do not take.

It seems a bit paradoxical in light of these items to characterize the publishers as greedy.  They leave it up to the players to decide whether to spend any money at all and what to spend it on.  A player's own fiscal irresponsibility or ardent desire to be better than those around him does not, at least in my mind, make the publishers "overly greedy."  Take a look at SOE and the fact that they've started to implement cash malls in subscription games, and compare that with these publishers.  I'm not an SOE-basher, and don't want to divert the thread from the original F2P topic, but the word "overly" as used here seems a bit overly over the top.

All I can say is you have not played any of these games extensively, hence don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Let's take Perfect World as an example(they all have similar prices).  A mount costs $20-30 and to speed it up you can spend another $15 on it.  Faster wings and the speed ups again the same.  Charms, which are a necessity in pvp, easily $15 a month, leveling enhancers again easily $15 a month.  Have you figured out where I am going yet, because I have not hit on the big ticket items yet....  How about a pet that costs roughly $250, again highly desirable for a pet class in pvp...

I have not even touched on getting enhanced equipment.

Sorry to make you look ridiculous, but then you asked for it.

Yes, you don't have to spend a dime, that is quite true, but then you are not in any way competitive.  You will end of many levels below friends you make since many of them are using the cash shop.

 I would love to see a financial report on P2P vs F2P games that show how expensive it really is to play these games, over a short term and over a long term use, are P2P really cheaper and more for value than a F2P or are they cheaper?

Also let's stop pigeon holing these games, let's start naming them, which ones are rip off's and which ones are safe games and I'm talking about both types of games F2P & P2P,

No more hyper-theoretical or personal opinions, lets see the numbers and name the games individually, then let's compare!
 

www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.phpOriginally posted by redcap036

 I would love to see a financial report on P2P vs F2P games that show how expensive it really is to play these games, over a short term and over a long term use, are P2P really cheaper and more for value than a F2P or are they cheaper?

Also let's stop pigeon holing these games, let's start naming them, which ones are rip off's and which ones are safe games and I'm talking about both types of games F2P & P2P,

No more hyper-theoretical or personal opinions, lets see the numbers and name the games individually, then let's compare!
 

Ok, I can do that please allow me to give you the link with and explanation to those not stock market savvy.

First up I will look at some co's that have successful games in the F2P arena;

1) Perfectt world co. trades here under PWRD, they are currently worth a touch over 1 billion dollars and last year they made rought over 1,400,000 usd. Not a bad play on their part, their biggest winner is Perfect World Int. ( I played the game for 1 day )

2) Next up is a mixed Bag called Shanda Interactive, they trade under SNDA for about 50 bucks a share, they are worth approx 3 1/2 billion dollars and made about the same in revenue. I would say they have a mixed bundle and a unique marketing play with Maplestory, not only is the game F2P with cashshop, but they also sell cards that can be used online. Their biggest failure IMO is DDonline. They also make the very popular Co. of Heroes, big seller and a big company.

3) and last but not least in the F2P corner I will put Gravity games, so small. Trades under GRVY for about a buck and make roughly 23 million last year. ALL OF THEIR GAMES ARE F2P. From Ragnarok Online and ROSE online and the newest one is Requiem:Bloodymare. Which I am currently playing, I feel it's very good for the budget and will continue playing it for a few months. I like it and will invest in the cashshop through a subscription and certain items (a darn mount).

Ok, now you can see sort of what the F2p model companies make, now are you ready to be amazed?

ATVI , this is the combined company of Activision and Blizzard Ent. realistically a pure game company between console and PC. They made about 3 billion last year and just posted earnings of record number, close to 1 billion in sales. Biggest sales:WOW and Geetar heero.

NCsoft, now they dont trade here so I had to do a little digging. They trade on the Korean Exchange for a wopping 145 dollars in american money. Here is a news article stating that they posted record number and due to the release of AION they made over 27 million just in profit alone. They are know for City of Heroes/Villains, Lineage 1 and 2 and the newest is the AION phenomena that is taking over the eastern MMO market by storm. Don't believe me? Read the articles. And all these games I mentioned are P2P for NCSoft, With the exception of dungeon runners and xteel. 

Both mythic( WAR ), Turbine (Lotro) and Funcom trades in Olso, Financial Report Here. They made about 40 million bucks for the entire year of 2008. Yay D: But they are all basically pay 2 play models. Bad ones, but still.

I hope this helps what you asked for, I enjoyed writing it.

Now my thoughts on F2P and P2P. First off Free isnt really free, I played runes from closed beta and can tell you that game is cashshop dependant and imbalanced due to the power of the CS. It cost me almost 15 bucks a month just to keep my storage open. And then when you got down to the upgrades and mounts, forget it. I know people that went all out and spent almost 1,00 dollars already. I quit it about 4 weeks ago after they released a cashshop dependent instance, that was too much for me. The game isnt half bad on the play, but it's very limited compared to P2P models.

Perfect world, when I started the game and created a character, some of the customizations used cashshop. Thats redicuslous! @ Character creation! Deleted.

WoW is wow, and you get exactly what you pay for. However the first thing you see is the account pade when you start the game and they offer you packages ranging from 15 a month to over 80 for 6 months and up. They hit you early. But what you see is what you get, for 15 bucks it becomes just a time investment after that. Want that new mount, grind for it. Want some new gear, raid for it. Want that new enchant, sell stuff for it,rinse twice and repeat.

So compare the two, I think Mr Aihoshi's point is that this is a customer friendly model due to tough economic times. I agree, it is attractive and fun to download software and play for free for a bit. NEW GAME WOOW! But do these games have the staying power to outlast the larger co's that bring in steady revenue? I think he ended the article with the correct note it's about quality. 

Originally posted by randomuser83

Originally posted by ericbelser

Just a passing thought (that I don't know the answer to off the top of my head):

What is the relationship between advertising expenditures and press coverage? IE is the willingness of publications to review a game related to that games willingness to spend marketing bucks paying for advertising with that publication?

 

 

MMORPG covers Free to Play games, and as a result Free to Play gamers come read stuff on MMORPG.  Since Free to Play gamers come read stuff on MMORPG, Free to Play publishers buy ads on MMORPG.

Now just take that flow of events and reverse engineer it.  That's why big major media sites are starting to turn their heads and cover Free to Play.

This was more the thrust of what I was getting at - I'm not trying to start some witchhunt for corruption or payola, more a question of resources and clever marketing. Do sub-based games throw around more money in on-line advertising? do F2P games? Is there enough potential marketing money out there to "attract" a site and induce it to start covering F2P games in hopes of getting a slice of the pie?

Again - not attacking the integrity of the reviews, just speculating on the fairly obvious desire of any business to expand its market and revenue. (As I assume most review sites aren't non-profit)

Originally posted by Dana

Originally posted by Stradden

Originally posted by ericbelser

Just a passing thought (that I don't know the answer to off the top of my head):

What is the relationship between advertising expenditures and press coverage? IE is the willingness of publications to review a game related to that games willingness to spend marketing bucks paying for advertising with that publication?

Not if that publication wants to maintain integrity. I can't speak for other outlets, but the two are un-related here. Usually it comes down to a combination of - available writing talent, willingness to cooperate of the dev team, and the liklihood that the articles will be read by a large number of people (ie: reader interest). Just a  thought.

 

I can vouch for the fact that they're entirely separate here. The people who handle the ads don't even live in the same country as those that do the editorial. I doubt Jon knows what a CPM is, much less worries about it when doing editorial.

 

Its a working relationship, both sides do things to keep each other sweet. From my experience the site will do anything that benefits them without money backing it up, obviously reviews / exclusive content / etc fall into this. When the developer wants the publication to do something out of the norm, that is when the publication will make subtle hints about how they'd like the developer to do a little more advertising on their site / magazine.

I'm not aware of any MMO site that has paid for reviews though, they all seem pretty honest at the moment.