It's Monday, which means another column focused on the free to play MMO market by veteran gaming journalist Richard Aihoshi. This week, he hits back the argument often found in his discussion threads: that F2P MMOs intentionally disadvantage players who don't spend massive amounts of money on a game. Find out his opinion then let us know yours on the forums.

If communities are critically important, then why would developers design their games in a way that seriously disadvantages a substantial majority of their users, including the ones who don't buy anything plus those who only spend small amounts? Do they deliberately ignore all those players? Are literally hundreds of teams and thousands of designers afflicted with some malady that causes them all to be shortsighted in the same way? Or are they all simply that stupid?

Read it all here.

Well I have to completely disagree with your contention that how much you spend in these games does not affect game play.  While I can't say that for every f2p out there, I don't think anyone has the time to even try them all, I am basing that on the major titles I have tried, which in this case seem to be the most popular.

That does not preclude having fun in these games, but it does put you are a major disadvantage in parts of the game that support pvp for example.  So if you are not really into pvp, it does not effect you as much, but there is still some effect felt. 

It  is hard to talk generalities when there are so many of these games out there and they are all different in the manner of how spending effects them.  I can only base my opinion on the most popular ones that I have tried.  In those games I have found those that spend to have significant advantages over those that don't. 

I guess in some respects we should thank these big spenders as they keep the game free for the rest of us, but if you really want to enjoy any of these games fully, then they are most certainly not free and how much you spend will increase how much of the game is available to you.

Now of course the bane of most subscription games for many is how much time players are able to put into it.   Some like Eve have lessened this handicap some.  So there is the reverse side of the coin to look at.  Many of these f2p players that do spend in the item shops do so because they don't have the time to put into a subscription game and can get quality character advancement using their money instead of time.  There are a lot of people in this group and there is nothing wrong with doing that.  The important thing is that they are deriving enjoyment from the game. 

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Well I have to completely disagree with your contention that how much you spend in these games does not affect game play.  While I can't say that for every f2p out there, I don't think anyone has the time to even try them all, I am basing that on the major titles I have tried, which in this case seem to be the most popular.

That does not preclude having fun in these games, but it does put you are a major disadvantage in parts of the game that support pvp for example.  So if you are not really into pvp, it does not effect you as much, but there is still some effect felt. 

It  is hard to talk generalities when there are so many of these games out there and they are all different in the manner of how spending effects them.  I can only base my opinion on the most popular ones that I have tried.  In those games I have found those that spend to have significant advantages over those that don't. 

I guess in some respects we should thank these big spenders as they keep the game free for the rest of us, but if you really want to enjoy any of these games fully, then they are most certainly not free and how much you spend will increase how much of the game is available to you.

(1) Why do you have to completely disagree with a contention that wasn't made?  Even if it was made, a complete disagreement would tend to be undermined by the first sentence of your third paragraph.

(2) Do you agree or disagree with this contention made by the author? "What's more, it's never supported by any kind of solid data. Even examples are lacking..."  Your post seems to support it.

 People put down f2p games because they are universally abyssmal...not necessarily because you have to pay to get exclusive items/content.

 OR, people put down F2P games becouse most of them are grind focused. And actually people DO spend a LOT of money in F2P games. People in Atlantica Online, some of them, spend thousands of dollars to get their best gear tuned to +10 so that they can win in Free League against other players. Spendings in Atlantica vary from 10 to hundreds of dollars a week and to thousands of dollars a month. Usually it happens only once, until some other player decides to play the gamble and after spending hundreds of dollars finally wins the armed tiger, or the armed griffin which is the latest mount. Its good that some people still have common sense and stop at some point before they max their credit cards.

In case of nDOORS, Atlantica Online developers in a lot of cases developer first of all is concerned about how well the Items on Item Mall will be sold and then what the rest of gamers (none paying) suggest and ask. And thats why Atlantica Item Mall for example is full of gamble boxes. Other games offer a bit different service, a bit cheaper but if the same nature - to give advantage to paying "customers".

Do they think about gamers? Maybe, in that extent that would allow developers to create more items that could be bought for real money. Every real F2P is focused on Item Mall sales and that is always the outmost concern for developers of those games. They will always adjust the overall game to keep the money income through the Item Mall sales constant and then add the content accordingly to the sales versus the game mechanics.

I would like to highlight one aspect that this Blog talks about, which me and a few friends and colleagues (a few of us have already worked on MMORPGs a while ago) have come up with as well: That the non-paying customer is there for a reason, too, and that his function is integral for the paying customers to spend money.

You see, a lot of people, especially those who are actually willing to put in money and time to achieve something, want audience. Why do you think back when WoW still had a normal difficulty curve did you see people posing in front of the auction house with their big bad epic weapons? The nonpaying "pawn" players are the backdrop against which the paying guy can set himself apart. They are the "faceless masses" from which to excel, and which to impress.

That is something that is becoming less and less existant in Pay-to-Play, where the general direction is to give anyone everything with comparable ease, to prevent envy problems and exclusivity which drives away people who may not have the time nor skill, but nevertheless the wish to "be someone" too, or at least not be left behind.

F2P customers who never pay provide "content" for the paying ones, in a way.

Hmm, personally I quit many games with great (server) communities. Community has never and will never be a reason for me to keep playing a game which I don't like anymore.

I have this personal prejudice against F2p games though; that they attract a younger audience and for relatively shorter amounts of time due to less involvement. But I could be very wrong in that one.

I do dislike the idea that the amount you spend in RL cash influences in what way you have advantages over others. I detest that, actually. I love the idea of your character having to work for every good thing and thus 'earning' the reward rather than having his god (me) toss him some epics from heaven. In that regard the extreme examples you gave baffle me ... but ofcourse there will always be people with enough moneyz to build a scale model of the Great Wall of China and have plenty to go around after that.

Once again, Richard Aihoshi was right on the money. (<-- pun)

However most of the dislike about F2P games, are jelisly or some mythical sense of "balance" (Most of the time, in games where jim bob having the sword of gold does not impact you, or your play, at all).

Even in a p2p game:

"You are over charging 50% of your player base, and undercharging the other 50%"

When you consider that in all MMO's items = time. Why should someone with less time, NOT be able to enjoy the game, and maybe spend a little more to do so. The rest of you are more than welcome to spend more time in the game, but how dare you tell others that the way they choose to enjoy the game, is somehow inferior, or wrong. Especially, when they ALL boil down to time.

"Whats it to you?"

If someone try's to argue that Game X is designed to steal your money, my counter is "Did playing a game somehow drain you of all your financial common sense, by gun point?"

There used to be an age when time was indeed the single most determining factor. However, that was really, really long ago. With EverQuest a few new things entered the equation and are just left out to make a point and deride MMORPGs. Social Ties and Competence, ie being able to find, form, maintain and in general function in a guild is far more important than sheer time. Sheer time can make up for it, especially in the latest MMOs mostly suited to soloplay and easymode, but the top league of MMO Achievers doesnt play that much. Top WoW Guilds, Top EQ1 Guilds back in the day and so on are primarily about organization and team spirit. Time helps, but you can achieve everything in WoW with a good guild in which you take part normally and 3 normal evenings.

The time argument is just an excuse from people who want to put their inability to achieve things that they honestly want really badly on the circumstances of the game.

In Free-to-Play, its also not as simple as Money = Success. You ll need a modicum of time, and in many of them also a decent guild for the top-notch stuff.

So lets not oversimplify here. Socialization and Organization are more important if you wish to achieve stuff in MMORPGs than either time or money, regardless of the genre.

Originally posted by Khaunshar

There used to be an age when time was indeed the single most determining factor. However, that was really, really long ago.

No. Even your example is simply a matter of time.

You also seem to confuse "Challange" with "Time".

I used to argue against it full out,then i started seeing more and more polls stating community is #1.What really set it apart was when EQ2 came out,then in haste to match them Blizzard followed with WOW about 3 weeks later.As i always tend to try anything new on the market,i played both Eq2 and WOW.It was like day and night for community.The WOW community was incredibly childish,not only in chat ,but out in the game.I was quickly transformed into a communioty matters the most kind of guy,because i quit WOW on that premise alone.

Now what bothers me the most,is how can it matter a lot to myself and every poll states the same,yet WOW continued to build upon itself with arguably the worst community i have ever seen in a game?I have played hundreds of online games and what i have found is actually the opposite.Although community matters to SOME,the majority could not care less.

Look no further than the demand for PVP,that is all about killing the OTHER guy,it is not about getting along or working together.I have also found that the MAJORITY in PVE games are of a selfish nature,they are not about the good of the game or what is best for the entire community,they want whats best for themselves.I came to these conclusions based on arguments i have heard from class builds to GUILD chat,from partying,i have taken in a LOT of information from fellow players.Look no furhter than the massive greed for cheating ,be it botting,exploits or RMT .These are all done selfishly,not for the good of the community or the game.

You can Google any RMT or bot /cheat/exploit and you find thousands of sites.These sites do not flourish because nobody is using them[lol]they flourish because MANY are using them,actually more than many...MOST/majority.

It seems the VERY few actual mature gamers left,are standing on thin ice that is ready to break,community will soon become the least cared about aspect of gaming.

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth

Originally posted by Khaunshar

There used to be an age when time was indeed the single most determining factor. However, that was really, really long ago.

 

No. Even your example is simply a matter of time.

You also seem to confuse "Challange" with "Time".

Its no challenge to behave in a way that allows you to play with people consistently, and in general allows a guild to not break up every other month due to conflicts of interest (read:loot). Its a challenge to train and lead people into some of the heavily scripted boss fights in some raiding games, but the very basis of success in the long run is a community of people able to coexist without breaking apart due to social incompetence or greed. Which is not about time at all, because if you are an individual who just cant mesh with others, and just has to bring out the worst in people, no amount of time will get you into a pre.3.0 Sunwell, or to the bleeding edge of raid progression for the first 6 or so years of EQ1. On the other side, even people who invest little time, but are likable, not overly egoistic and able to set aside their own selfish priorities now and then for a guild effort, will likely see almost all challenging content and overcome it.

Its just social competence, which is no matter of time, nor challenge.

Wiz, although your points may be valid, you're holding a completely different discussion than Richard Aihoshi.  He was using a different definition of community in his article.  He was talking about the playerbase and the importance of their needs and desires to the developers, rather than a sense of belonging, friendship, and community amongst the playerbase generally.

Reading the title alone could be confusing because of the fact that the term "community" gets thrown around a lot in the forums.

What I don't like about FTP are the mechanisms that are integrated in the game mechanics in order to control certain aspects the gaming, like for instance gaming volume.

Any good FTP is very careful about not creating an inescapable class divide between those that spend and those that don't, right? So instead, they need some sort of way to limit the players ability to replace the effects that spending gives.  As a result, a FTP can kinda feel like existing in a strict mathematical timeline model, wether you spend or not.

That is a kind of manipulation a sub based game doesn't have to worry about and thus the sub based game may be a model that has more potential for artistic integrity.

In some other ways I really like the FTP model, but that's another post.

Something i have yet to see much mention of is the effect of the "item mall" or "cash shop" items on the economy within the game.   A vast majority of the F2P games that i have played allow for the sale of the item mall things for ingame currency within the confines of the game via trade and/or player "shops". (There are usually some items not allowed to be traded but those are labled as such in the mall itself and also in the item description as well) There's also the ever popular "join my guild! Get *insert cheap cash shop item name here* after 2 weeks!"  Wether people actually a) fall for that or b) follow through is another matter entirely.  And not all the people that buy said item mall items do so for personal profit, although that'd be yet another way of having an advantage ingame. I've come across a few that will buy cash shop items simply to give them away as prizes for "guild events" or random contests they personally host. I once asked someone why they did such a thing... "because i like doing it" was the answer. I can't say i'd do the same but more power to them. It's their money. These games continue to thrive for a reason... people have fun, cash shop items or not.

Dir Sir,

Richard, I am directing this thought to you in a respectful way. Just mono E Mono or it would of been if I sent you my opinion in a PM to you. Instead I thought I would like post this opinion to this recent thread and ask you for a public response.

I want to have a mature conversation in the open in hoping that we can find some kind of middle to this current debate on F2P games. I am after all a reasoning person maybe you can help me with your logic to give F2P games a fair shot.

First I will give you my basis for my dismay to F2P games.

1. First as the word "Free" is appealing to most however it draws a unsavory crowd that may not normally play these games for the simple reason that it is free. What I mean by unsavory is that these people are known as "no lifer's" these ones who will for instance will camp out spots in the game and for lack of better word but it fits Horde the rare drops on certain games. Not sure which ones at this time but for certain it is a fact.

2. BOTS a players worst nightmare. These Cheaters are in every game. Even P2P games so I can not blame F2P games on these cheater's however F2P games make it more accessible for these unsavory individuals. More then likely they are younger adolescents who have nothing better to do then showcase there hacking talents to the gaming world and unfortunately F2P gets hit the hardest because well lets face it they love the word "free" but to give this thought a fair chance it is also a know fact that the P2P game WoW has had there fair share of botters. Thankfully they are dealing with these cheater in a legal way. Granted Most F2P companies do not have the resources that Blizzard and other P2P companies do. On the Flip side maybe they might have more resource if they actually converted there F2P to a P2P format maybe the thought would be perhaps a month to month fee of 5.00 even for that matter which is not a bad point all around for any gaming company.

3. Yes some argue even myself has mention that shops in F2P games make the game lopsided I can see you point were you mention and I quote... "In reality, F2P developers are completely aware that most users will pay little or no money. They also know that a few will spend a lot" I have to agree with you on this statement. I also see your point that and I quote..."Those were both anomalies. What matters in terms of an F2P surviving and succeeding is appealing to and retaining enough players with sufficient Average Revenue Per User (ARPU). Theoretically, even one person paying a whole lot of money would work, but realistically, those willing to spend substantial amounts probably want to do so in popular games, be it because they want the sense of recognition they get from their respective communities, or for whatever other reasons they may have. And what does that mean? For one thing, that the developers need to aim at attracting lots of players they know will spend less than the ARPU, including a good number who won't pay a cent." Yes I actually read your words and yes I do see a very intelligent point of view.

4.Community Matters. I, 100% agree with you on this after all this is the very basis for RL so in conclusion I humbly accept your view point on F2P games and yes I even agree with you for the most part it is just that as a serious gamer I try to look for a game that is balance for the community in general and truthfully I have given F2P games a chance. I feel at this time I will not name which games I have tried for I do not wish for others to take a crack shot at some of these titles. Truthfully It only has been less then a handful only because and unfortunately it was due to the Community and all the above mention that left a bad taste in my mouth for F2P games.

Now please Sir I like to invite you give a personal reply to this post and please maybe even suggest some F2P games that do not have these disadvantages that I have mention in above then by all means I will go there right now and download and play to give any of these F2P games a fair shot.

Thank you for your time.

Bill

 I believe the author of this article is being just as black and white as the folks he is accusing of the same..

The fact of the matter is.. that in the striving to make the "for pay" content compelling, many/most? of the F2P + microtransaction type games.. do create a less than ideal enviroment for the free/low paying consumer.. to the point where said consumer doesn't stick around or feel a part of the community .. 

Yes, you do need what the author originally said to validate/encourage the paying player to continue to do so, IE a large group of people for said players to show off to.. 

What you don't need is the SAME group of free players... IE no effort is made at retaining free players, merely at collecting them/converting them.. IE they are not considered a part of the community as free players.. they are not considered "customers" or even "Consumers" of the service ..

By that I mean despite being "needed" they are not treated as even similarly important.. if what the original author said was true universally or even partially, then there wouldn't be a distinction between free/for pay they would let it sort itself out.. and let the game stand on its own merits. Instead they try to bribe the few, and use massive churn in the free dept to drive the epeen of the for pay portion of the playerbase.

A significantly more successful model imo would be the title that treats every player as a consumer and crafts a compelling enviroment that makes people WANT to convert to paying.. on the merits of the game, not by making the free game essentially unplayable.

 Yes, every cash shop* game I have ever played has had placed me at a disadvantage for not spending money. All of them. The very least disadvantage was a time disadvantage and since I value my time it's the most annoying disadvantage. You're welcome to point out any I may have missed. I suppose in most of them if you were willing to put up with the increased grind you could probably compete. But why would I? It's just for many of us the perception is greater than the reality.

Community is a red herring. There are communities who will put up with the disadvantage. I'll never be a member of that community. The developers can accept that. No commnity will cause people to play a game they dislike. There are plenty of other fish in the sea though. 

*These games are not really free. Shadowbane was free. You couldn't pay to play if you wanted to and there was no disadvantage to not paying.

Wow, that Richard, for someone who apparently follows the genra sinse the 90's he sure is stale and very "general" in his musings on the topic. 

Community matters in F2P mmorpgs?  There's a destinction between playerbase in general and ingame community.  Ingame community mattered in the good ol' Ultima Online because the game was designed by creative people for change and who created an optimal sandbox for social interaction. Not in this era..

It's not even about F2P formula or P2P formula. Mmorpgs in general (i blame goddamn WoW) took a turn for the worst when they took the RPG out of it and revolved the whole damn game around rewarding impatient players with shiny trinkets because there is no other insentive for these players to kill 10,000 wild pigs with limited and repetitive combat.  The games started shamelessly advertising features like "Boss raids" to promote some sort of dwindling ingame player interaction/teamwork...pathetic. I have never seen a more antisocial environment in my entire life.

So to reiterate: The ammount of people playing, paying or not, that's the only thing that seems to matter to developers nowadays.  Retention factor? Hah, i can name countless players who play ALL..not one..not 2, but ALL of the F2P mmorpgs:

These people log on with their buddies, couldn't give less damn about the game world or it's lore because they know it's the same chinese mythology theme with a slightly diffrent texture...and procede with the routine, because all of these games are completelly same.  The reason they are playing them: some sick sense of competition but mainly...addiction to gambling.. The joy of suspense of random loot drop from a boss seems enticing for some reason. These people could not give less damn who bought some ugly glowing wings in a cash shop..  And that is where i disagree with buddy Richard:

Most F2P mmorpgs sell aesthetics in their cash shops and not overpowered items. But these games will have huge playerbases regardless wether someone buys themselves to the top...the people i'm talking about will gang up on that paying custommer and PK his ass over and over out of spite...won't stop them from playing. So overall i see not much connection between playerbase and unfair advantage of paying custommers.

Originally posted by Duckish

... because they know it's the same chinese mythology theme with a slightly diffrent texture...and procede with the routine, because all of these games are completelly same. 

 This is the crux right here. As the great Karl Marx espoused, good ideas are few. When someone has a good idea, the result is extreme crowding-in. While the original good idea may have been wrought forth from the desire to be different, creative, and was literally stumbled upon, the slop that follows in is motivated, fundamentally, by greed. Any producer who truly values community, as more seasoned mmo players think of it, would not consider cutting their subscription model if they could help it. It is the subscription fee which is a baracade to the "unsavory" individuals.

The free2play mmorpgs are flooding the market with watered down, curbside deserving, garbage. Anyone who can say a free2play game is as quality as a premier subscription based game is delusional.

The reality is the free2play model is one of predation. Weak individuals who are attracted by the word free find themselves addicted. And I could be wrong, but as I am informed, many a successful free2play games are making quite a bit of money compared to subscription based. A lot of the "unsavories" are willing to fork out money, which the free2play model makes all too accessible. Its like putting an ATM in a casino hall. All precisely to stand out among cheap-os out to kill time.

Let us not confuse community and playerbase. In the post-World of Warcraft days, quality communities have dwindled, conversely to player base. Im sure we can all reason why crowds of millions create an environment of competition, unlike the solidarity fostered by small groups of tight nit communities. Just look at the world. And honestly, to say most players value community as #1 seems to be quite an outdated opinion.