Free to play games are destined to die... want proof, look at a comparable market... email.

You dont see anyone using free email. That is only for casual users, hardcore users will pay a monthly fee for this service, so that they can have higher quality. It is clear that the free email fad passed, and everyone moved back to the paid email, because it was so much better.

Note: Sarcasm/Parody intended. Some of us remember this exact same debate when 'low quality' free email services hit the market, and it was declared a passing fad.

Have you ever thought that the commercials are short for a reason?

What they didnt show was the crash that happened immediately after the commercial cut out.

This is a good example of P2P + Microtransactions. It is always good to see companies giving the customer what they want.

---

Originally posted by Evile
 
 
 
F2P is a big LIE.
It is MICROTRANSACTION!!!!

---

Here, let me fix this for you:

F2P is a big LIE.
It is a MONTHLY FEE!!!!

The reality is that ALL F2P games charge for stuff, this is how they make money, and that is why we call this a business model. F2P is not about how they make money off of you once you are in the game.... it is about how they got you in the game for free, so that they could make money off of you.

I think you are looking at the WoW sucess through rose colored glasses. I still remember when it was 'heckled' as a failure, because it did not cater to the hardcore crowd.

The simple truth is this. They were at the right place, at the right time, witht he right product. If WoW were to launch today, it would just be another game, and nothing special. The same would have been true, if it had launched a few years earlier.

Blizzard got lucky (even they admit it) in the fact that they launched a game targetted for an audience that was untapped, with a product that was still unproven. The first 'big' MMORPG was Everquest. The fact that they hit 300k users changed the gaming industry, and set the pace for everything after that.

Everquest 2 was destined to be the 'sucesor' to EQ (and it was expected that EQ would die when EQ2 launched). However, Blizzard launched a MMORG at the same time, and it wasnt seen as a huge threat... because it didnt primarily appeal to the 'established' EQ MMORP market.

The comparable in todays market is Farmville. It a combination of the right place, time and product. It appeals to an untapped market. It changes the gaming industrty because of its sucess.

Originally posted by TygerTrax

Originally posted by Seffren

Well we all know a game turns ftp when it's becoming/is crap .... so we will know what the majority thinks of wow at that stage.

 

Not entirely true. LotRO is going ftp not because it's "becoming/is crap", but because going ftp turned DDO from a failing game into a smashing success. No subscription fee + microtransactions ( "Free to play" or "f2p" is a bit of a misnomer, but simpler ) is becoming more and more viable these days, and even looking more profitable than the traditional subscription fee format. Why do you think so many f2p games have cropped up these days? Because the system WORKS. And extremely well.

DDO is F2P + Subscription and/or Microtransactions. LoTR looks to be the same.

I think WoW would do well as F2P + Subscription (Like Runescape). I dont see Microtransactions working well unless the game had a major redesign.

Originally posted by Narmah

I only wanted to ask, why is it that Guild Wars model is unique? why haven't other companies taken their succesfull example?

Guild Wars is NOT Unique.. it is old school.

This is THE classic example of P2P. You purchase a retail box (classic P2P), and get the online component for free. GW is only unique in the aspect that there is no offiline component. This is how it used to be done for EVERYONE.

This is what P2P is all about... the initial sale. This is why P2P will be dominant in all retail venues. It is ONLINE sales that are moving towards F2P, because they are not looking for that initial money, they are looking for money over time. They realize that they can make more by charging a little here, and a little there, rather than all at once.

Look at it this way. If the price of a boxed game is $45, and instead they give it away, with a monthly fee of $15, then as long as the average person plays 3 months, they make the same money. If they can get people to play for 6 months, then they just doubled their income... and dont have to pay for the box/DVD or give the retailer a cut.

F2P is just a way to get your merchandise into the hands of the customer quickly and cheaply... so that you can get your money from a wider base of customers without having to share the profits.

I am currently using Onlive (google it) and this allows me to play both console and PC games on my laptop. This is a new type of service that has a great potential. The idea of using a (lower spec) machine to play different consoles, as well as PC games without any of the hassles of  having to deal with the hardware myself.

This is a really interesting development for people that have good connections.

This article is great.... because it holds a hidden catch.

Did you know that monthly subsciptions is the #1 method of monitizing F2P games in the western market?

What? You didnt know that?

Yes, the unspoken truth is the monthly fees are the top method of making money off F2P. The biggest examples of this are Runescape, and Club Penguin. You may not think that these games apply, but they are in the top 10-15 games in the world, and if you browse the list of other top games, you will find that most are F2P, and that their western versions use monthly fees.

Subscription isnt dying, and F2P is a good example of that.

Originally posted by Tarka

This doesn't surprise me after hearing about THQ's Company of Heroes Online.  Just a move to squeeze more money out of players by adding "achievements" and progression in an avatar.

After having tried Company of Heroes Online, and seeing how well this works, I think it would be a great idea to do a Call of Duty version in a similar fashion. It is good to see that they are making games better, as I can think of so many examples of failed games, that it is finally good to see that someone it thinking of doing it better.

The option that I would choose is not even on the list:

F2P + $10 Month and/or item mall

DDO (and soon LOTR) have this business model, and they work great. My kids pay the monthly fee (and play a lot more) but I ocassionally play with them, and use the item mall when needed. I am looking for games that give me the OPTION to pay in whatever form works best for me... not games that dictate how I pay, and then I have to decide whether they are worth it.

Originally posted by DustyBallz

I never understood the lie that is the name "free-to-play" as it is not free.  You will have to spend real money on normal in-game items like more inventory space and mounts.  Sure, you can download and install and create a character for no cost at all, but to actually PLAY is not free, not for more than a week.  I prefer the name "subless" aka subscription-less.

 

Calling games "free-to-play" and saying they are "100% free to play" is trickery.  It's just a free trial, in essence.  They are, in fact, subscription-less games.  Think about it, what cash shop offers items for free?  You can usually grind for months to maybe earn enough in-game coin to buy cash shop currency, but the "free-to-play" games you are writing about and are advertised all over this website are all Asian grinders.  How about some fun, some worthy content, some good monster AI, and some reason to play the game, instead of being forced to enslave and prostitute yourself to the game to get ahead "for free?"

 

Just something to think about, Mr. Aihoshi.  Good articles, though.

'Free' is a marketting term. It is used to imply that you get something for nothing... but you never do. There is always a catch, for example:

Free (with purchase of additional item)

(Buy one) Get One Free

Free (Trial)

Free (for limited time)

Free (with limited usability)

Free (after rebate)

etc. (you get the picture).

This has been ongoing for decades, and has been a major part of all marketing for the US (not certain of other regions) and has been used by all major industries, from automotie to retail to high tech.

F2P is just another word for limted trial. It just works better for marketting...

The reason that people seem to have issues is basic... lack of understanding.

F2P is a basic marketting term for free client + free account. It is just a snazzy way of saying free trial.

P2P is a basic marketting term for paid client/account. It is a snazzy way of saying you have to buy it first.

Both F2P and P2P are only actually applicable at the point of sale (remember when games were all about the point of sale, and not what you paid after that). These are terms that were coined early in the industry to apply to the marketting approach that was taken to the initial sale.

Both F2P and P2P have traditionally supported many secondary means of revenue, to include advertising, monthly fees, item mall and/or microtransactions. These secondary payment options have over time become the LARGER revenue source and the focus of revenue growth. This means that the initial sale has become less valuable, and as such F2P options more desirable.

The problem is that people generally are not thinking logically about this (and are not in the industry). They make emotional statements without actually understanding what they are saying.... and as such act as a mindless mob. Everyone is quick to jump on the bandwagon about how terrible (or great) something is, but most of them dont even take the time to think about what they are saying.

Things change. Everybody knows this. However people dont ask what they can do to make the change more acceptable, they raise their fists and shout at the wold about how they are not going to take it...

Which leads to this article. A rant about the rant.

Originally posted by steeler989

there is no free to play option in WoW anyways. just the 10 day free trial.

 

back to my question, in Allods Online, are there different races and classes?

You mean, where you download the game, and play... for free....

That is what F2P means. I do agree that it kinda sucks as a free game, but hey WoW is a F2P,  Pay to Win game.

Originally posted by steeler989

you pay $15.00 a month to play Wow. lol

Free to play does not mean that there is no monthly fee option. It just meanst that you can download and play for free, vs P2P, where you need to shell out money up front to play.

Try WoW.. it is the worlds largest MMO, and F2P:

http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/downloads/wowclient-download.html

There is one basic flaw with your logic:

Top 10 Money Making Games of 2009

http://blogs.forbes.com/velocity/2010/06/10/top-moneymaking-online-games-of-2009/

1. "World Of Warcraft" by Blizzard Entertainment (U.S.): $1 billion
2. "Fantasy Westward Journey" by NetEase (China): $400 million
3. "Perfect World" by Perfect World (China): $300 million
4. "Lineage I" and "II" by NCsoft (South Korea): $270 million
5. "Tian Long Ba Bu" by Changyou (China): $250 million
6. "Aion" by NCsoft (South Korea): $230 million
7. "MapleStory" by Nexon Corporation (South Korea): $200 million
8. "ZT Online" by Giant Interactive (China): $190 million
9. "The World Of Legend" / "Legends Of Mir" by Shanda Interactive Entertainment (China): $150 million
10. "Final Fantasy XI" by Square Enix (Japan): $117 million

As you can see, a large portion of the most profitable games are F2P. They are not losing money, they are making it.

It could even be aurgued that WoW is technically F2P at this time, and that it includes an item mall.

The reality is that F2P does very well, because it allows people to try the game, before paying for it. This is what people have been clamoring for, for years...

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by cyphers

Another for the guessing game: how large a player population do you think DDO and LotrO have now?

 

This is what we know:

 

Martin Trembley said this in an interview a couple of days ago:

"MT: That's right, Dungeons & Dragons Online right now is about eight percent of the market, LOTRO  is number eight in the marketplace with five percent. Combined, thirteen percent of MMO gamers are playing Turbine games. Combined, thirteen percent of MMO gamers are playing Turbine games. That positions Warner Bros. right away in MMOs, and that's clearly a direction we're headed in the future."

 

And this is what was being said in March about active player and subs of DDO:

[since F2P] the peak CCU (peak concurrent users, the maximum number of players online at any given time) did go up by five times since the subscription days, monthly active players went up by ten times, and monthly revenues have risen by five times

 

Problem is, it's hard to guess what exactly they're measuring in the first statement: we can only say for sure that the number of MMO gamers playing DDO is 160% of those playing LotrO. And 8% of the total market, how should I read that? Can this be correct?

If we say that WoW has 10 million of players, then LotrO would be at least 5% = 500,000 gamers. At least, because I haven't even added all the other MMO games. Or has there been an extensive market research under all kinds of MMO gamers, on which the results are based upon? At the moment the 5%-8% seem strange.

But if LotrO has a marketshare of 5% now, I expect it to at least double when it goes into the F2P hybrid model (it doesn't seem full-F2P, as far as I've read).

 

If you are going to use WoW for figuring out the market share I would probably only go with the subscriptions in North America and the EU/Aussie locations not worldwide.  Not sure how many that equals for WoW but it would make more sense to have 5% + 8% = 13% of NA and EU/Aussie for LOTRO. I only say this because 500,000 subs to LOTRO seems a bit on the high side but not unbelievable by any means.

Try 3.5M for NA + EU this puts LoTRO at 175k+

People tend to make this overly complicated. It is very simply supply and demand.

There are items that people can BUY with gold, that they do not feel are worth the time effort to get themselves. These items are cheap in gold value, but are expensive in time/effort value. People have simply done the math, and decided to take the more efficient route.

This is not about being lazy. It is about being efficient. People buy their groceries not because they are too lazy to grow them, but because the tradeoff of time/money/effort makes it more productive to just buy them.

The solution to gold sales problems is to adress the issue in game (not outside of the game). Make the gold buy less of the items that people want, and make them more desirable to achieve themselves. This makes buying gold less atrractive, and doing it yourself more desirable.

If you are looking at a 50 man company, then ~20 of those are developers, and the rest gets eaten up by everything else.

You also have to take into consideration that most games have 4x the development team for the intial development, then get scaled down after release. If the company has the money to run multiple projects, then the staff gets transfered to another game, else they get laid off.