Richard Aihoshi: Out of Sight, Out of Mind

F2P's have been mostly ignored by me because when I gave them a go, they did not meet the quality standards of most P2P games.

I recently gave Runes of Magic a go and found that the gap has narrowed significantly.  Its not perfect by any means, but its a really good WOW clone that I'm still enjoying playing after a month now.  (many other MMO's failed to grab my attention).

So perhaps with higher quality F2P/s coming out, they'll be more excitement and interest in the games.

But one other factor that hurts coverage is that their very category, F2P seems deceitful to most people.

Let's face it, no one creates a game to really be played for free.  They all are designed to somehow get you to spend your cash in their item shop (or pay a montly sub fee) and do so by enticing you with many offers.

From extra content, to better gear , to simple fluff items, they all try hard to separate the player from his money, and sometimes at much higher rates than a typical P2P.

While I can understand the interest in the F2P market from an analytical viewpoint and intellectual exercise, as a gamer they are of zero interest to me. I (like most of the readers here I suspect) are from that portion of the market that does go out and buy that smoking hot video card and does upgrade/replace their gaming PC every 2 years or less. As such, I really have no interest in what to me are pieces of low tech garbage with all the gameplay restrictions imposed by their universalist nature.

Add to that the fact that the F2P business model relies entirely on direct sales of in-game items, abilities and perks to survive; many gamers find that very objectionable - I certainly do. It's a completely different consumer mindset from the subscription based MMO. (Almost akin to the difference between players of conventional PnP RPGs and players of collectible trading card games)

So, at least for me, while I am interested in the market and development aspects of F2P games; the fluff press, hype and product reviews that generally make up most of the discussion here is really of no interest whatsoever.

Originally posted by Kyleran

F2P's have been mostly ignored by me because when I gave them a go, they did not meet the quality standards of most P2P games.

I recently gave Runes of Magic a go and found that the gap has narrowed significantly.  Its not perfect by any means, but its a really good WOW clone that I'm still enjoying playing after a month now.  (many other MMO's failed to grab my attention).

So perhaps with higher quality F2P/s coming out, they'll be more excitement and interest in the games.

But one other factor that hurts coverage is that their very category, F2P seems deceitful to most people.

That is the most intelligent thing, I have read all day!

Let's face it, no one creates a game to really be played for free.  They all are designed to somehow get you to spend your cash in their item shop (or pay a montly sub fee) and do so by enticing you with many offers.

From extra content, to better gear , to simple fluff items, they all try hard to separate the player from his money, and sometimes at much higher rates than a typical P2P.

 

 

 

Originally posted by Kyleran

But one other factor that hurts coverage is that their very category, F2P seems deceitful to most people.

Let's face it, no one creates a game to really be played for free.  They all are designed to somehow get you to spend your cash in their item shop (or pay a montly sub fee) and do so by enticing you with many offers.

From extra content, to better gear , to simple fluff items, they all try hard to separate the player from his money, and sometimes at much higher rates than a typical P2P.

Are there really people over the age of 17 on this planet that actually thought otherwise?

Granted I have not played all the f2p games out there, not even close, but there is one overriding factor that is evident in everyone I have tried.  How much you spend in the Cash shop determines how advanced your character is.

Most of the pvp in these games is significantly effected by the cash shop too.

So, it is rather disconcerting for me, when the prevalent method to success in these MMO's is to buy your way. 

Because of this one factor and the fact that none of the f2p games currently has even close to the content of any of the subscription models.  It is quite evident to most of us, that the subscription game model is superior at this point in time.

It would be NAIVE to think that the companies who make F2P games are doing this for the SPORT of it. Well let me rephrase this that I'm sure that GAMING companies who PRODUCE the F2P games want to SHOWCASE there talents to the PUBLIC so F2P is a good option. LETS face it people LOVE the word free. Anywho, unfortunately MOST of these companies of course don't have the BACKING that lest say BLIZZ dose, So it seems in order to get ANY kind of playing action they need and ANY kind of reaction from GAMERS they need to DRAW us in.

So now what? Now once we decide to DOWNLOAD the game and give it a try we REALIZE that we are not going to have the best armor or gear or whatever the case maybe unless we buy from that games SHOP henceforth the game no longer becomes FREE to play.

On a side note GAMES like Free Realms have a happy MEADIUM were the game itself is LIMITED to play for free or very cheap to play But if you want lets say a pet you have to SPEND money for that vanity. SO go figure a Rock and a HARD place Lol

The F2P games remind me of the call in tv shows where they aim at the few very dumb persons willing to spend lots of money on a winning chance tending towards zero.

To me it is just a very questionable morality to base a business on the dumbness of a few spending vast amounts of money for a virtual uber-personality.

Sure, everyone decides with his own free will to partake in that but exploiting the simple minded just leaves a very bad taste.

 The only thing I wish people would get straight is that you indeed do NOT need to spend money to be "competitive" or to "succeed" in almost any of the F2P MMO's.

 I have found that usually the people that say that have played but a few.

 I also find it funny that people seem some kind of difference between paying for access and paying for items like mounts or potions. There is no difference. It is simply a different way to hand the game company your money.

 I said on my blog/podcast, and I'll stick by it...within two years time the F2P model will be the norm, and I can't wait. 

 Beau

"Free to lose"/item mall games don't get much coverage in a lot of places that cover the premium MMORPGs for the same reasons that single-player console games don't:  they're a different market.  A considerable fraction of the people who play MMORPGs won't consider a game where winning and losing depends primarily on how much you spend on the game, more so than what you actually do in the game.  Another considerable fraction won't consider a game where you have to have a credit card and pay a subscription to play.  Either one of those groups is likely larger than the one that frequently plays both basic business models.  While there is some overlap, there's also overlap between people who play MMORPGs and those who play first-person shooters, real time strategy games, or whatever other genre you pick.

There are sites that are dedicated primarily to the "free to lose"/item mall games, and those can be a good reference for people who prefer that sort of game.  To try to make a single site cover all types of games would mean that for most players, most of the games can be dismissed out of hand.  Most people don't have a PC and a Wii and a Playstation 3 and an Xbox 360 all at once.  Most gamers aren't simultaneously interested in MMORPGs, first person shooters, real time strategy games, console platform games, console sports games, turn based strategy games, casual card games (e.g., solitaire or freecell), and every other type of game out there.  Someone who is looking for a particular type of game and goes to a site that tries to cover everything will have to wade through a lot more stuff he isn't looking for to find what he is.

 "Win or Lose?"

 There is no winning or losing. None of these MMO's, even the PvP ones, are a competition. You are not booted from the game if you die. In fact, you do not die, you just respawn with different results, depending on the game.

 GIve me some examples of a game that has such specific goals that you are forced to either "win or lose." Notice that most MMO's have quite a few goals, and provide enough flexibility to allow a player to play however they want. 

 You can name me the most competitive area of a typical MMO (raiding) as an example of someone "winning" or "losing." But how would you define who won or not? You could say that the first to get a certain piece of gear could win, but the other player could get that same piece of gear. Not a single MMO has a system that only allows for one copy of any piece of gear. There are as many copies as players that want it.

 Beau

Originally posted by beauturkey    

 "Win or Lose?"

 There is no winning or losing. None of these MMO's, even the PvP ones, are a competition. You are not booted from the game if you die. In fact, you do not die, you just respawn with different results, depending on the game.

...

So baseball, soccer or football are not competitive because noone dies in the act of playing?

Without the competition there would simply be no PvP because the goal is to defeat the opponent and to achieve a higher rank/better gear/etc. as someone else, simple as that.

You might not be interested in compairing to someone else in an MMO but F2P games highly base their business model on the human fault of wishing to be superior. Without enough people thinking that way, these games simply wouldn't exist.

And it is not restricted to the PvP aspect. Especially the younger customers feel forced to have more pets, shinier armor etc. leading to pervertism of spending hundreds or even thousands of dollars a year for an MMO.

Originally posted by beauturkey

 "Win or Lose?"

 There is no winning or losing. None of these MMO's, even the PvP ones, are a competition. You are not booted from the game if you die. In fact, you do not die, you just respawn with different results, depending on the game.

 GIve me some examples of a game that has such specific goals that you are forced to either "win or lose." Notice that most MMO's have quite a few goals, and provide enough flexibility to allow a player to play however they want. 

 You can name me the most competitive area of a typical MMO (raiding) as an example of someone "winning" or "losing." But how would you define who won or not? You could say that the first to get a certain piece of gear could win, but the other player could get that same piece of gear. Not a single MMO has a system that only allows for one copy of any piece of gear. There are as many copies as players that want it.

 Beau

 

 

 

That's a bit disingenuous. The only thing that can be won or lost in any game is the time it takes to play. The better you play the quicker you achieve your goals.  Even the best of the cash shop games will beat you to death with mind numbing grind if you don't pay for cash shop items. People want to have fun they don't want to grind. So F2P developers choose between denying you competative gear unless you pay cash for it or making you grind to get said gear to try to force you to pay for it..  Because really it's all about forcing you to pay for it.The psychology makes it unattractivew so it's not going to dominate the western markets. I'd rather pay a fixed amout on a monthly basis and get a better product. Now if we can only get pay to play to deliver what we pay for.

As for a game where you can actually lose? Shadowbane. Losing a city is such a crushing blow that guilds have been known to quit en mass after losing them. There are others.

I only read a couple paragraphs in and lost interest.

Frankly, F2P games just aren't very good. As long as that fact holds true, I have very little interest in reading about them.

Free2Play games will gain respect when they change their name to reflect the type of game they really are. It's that simple really. Developers behind these games know that the word free2play is just another business scheme to get people into your game to spend money. There is nothing wrong with this, but at least call it what it is. This column won't help their community and is a waste of space until they except what they really are. Plus, let's be real. There is really only maybe a handful of these games that semi try to be unique. So what is there really to talk about? More ideas to incorperate cash shops?

Originally posted by beauturkey

 The only thing I wish people would get straight is that you indeed do NOT need to spend money to be "competitive" or to "succeed" in almost any of the F2P MMO's.

 I have found that usually the people that say that have played but a few.

 I also find it funny that people seem some kind of difference between paying for access and paying for items like mounts or potions. There is no difference. It is simply a different way to hand the game company your money.

 I said on my blog/podcast, and I'll stick by it...within two years time the F2P model will be the norm, and I can't wait. 

 

 Beau

 

 

I DISAGREE. because the NORM always been paying a MONTHLY fee since the launch of Ultima Online when EA set that tone. It is HARD to ARGUE the fact that BLIZZ thrives on Monthly fee's BOTTOM line people will pay for QUALITY entertainment.

I cannot (maybe will not) get over my dislike of a mode of play that allows people to get better gear/fluff because they spend more $$.  If there was a cap of say $15 dollars a month that you could spend in a cash shop f2p game or something then maybe the idea wouldnt be as unpleasant but currently it seems to me like having a "i win" button for $20 dollars a shot in a game.

I like the fact in subscription games if you see someone in cool armour/weapons/random gear you know you have a chance yourself if you want to work at it to get that same gear, and thats half the fun of most mmo's progressing your character from rags to riches - insert the ability to skipp that character development by purchasing gear with $ then I think you loose at least half the fun and all the sense of achievement that comes wtih questing/raiding/crafting/etc for your gear.

Originally posted by beauturkey

 "Win or Lose?"

 There is no winning or losing. None of these MMO's, even the PvP ones, are a competition. You are not booted from the game if you die. In fact, you do not die, you just respawn with different results, depending on the game.

 GIve me some examples of a game that has such specific goals that you are forced to either "win or lose." Notice that most MMO's have quite a few goals, and provide enough flexibility to allow a player to play however they want. 

 You can name me the most competitive area of a typical MMO (raiding) as an example of someone "winning" or "losing." But how would you define who won or not? You could say that the first to get a certain piece of gear could win, but the other player could get that same piece of gear. Not a single MMO has a system that only allows for one copy of any piece of gear. There are as many copies as players that want it.

 Beau

If you have a good time you win, otherwise you lose. That is how MMOs work.

Originally posted by Isturi

I DISAGREE. because the NORM always been paying a MONTHLY fee since the launch of Ultima Online when EA set that tone. It is HARD to ARGUE the fact that BLIZZ thrives on Monthly fee's BOTTOM line people will pay for QUALITY entertainment.

Depends on how you mean. Blizzards old .Battlenet was supposed to have used a P2P system to but Jeff Strain said he quited unless they made it free (Jeff programmed .Battlenet, Diablo, Warcraft 3 and Guildwars).

Guildwars 2 will use a third model, same as the first GW but it is not a instanced low budget game like the first but will instead have a big open world. If it becomes a hit it will really hurt both P2P and F2P.

The bet is open, I prefer Arenanets model (which BTW Turbine used to LOTROs life time membership also), I dont mind paying up a handsome sum at start and buy an expansion pack every year. GW have sold 6 millions so the model works.

I am careful about F2P games cash shops, particulary in PvP games. Any item that changes the balance is bad, customizing options like clothes, special apperences for the avatar, furniture for player housing like in EQ2 all works fine but actual items that makes you better sucks.

You can of course do like SOE Free realms that have adds as an alternative to paying monthly fees but that might be easy to crack for pirates.

But regular monthly fees are not the only good way as a business model.

It seems that everyone is talking about the "disadvantage" between the paying player and the free player. Don't play the game competitively until you are sure you actually WANT to compete. That's the thing, in F2P's they get you to bite the carrot by wanting to be the very best and strongest in the game.. That IS the carrot, and they are just trying to see how far you'd go to be the best.. If you'd just play the game to enjoy the world and play casually then you really have no problem enjoying the free side. On the casual side it seems the carrot always involves fluff items that change your appearance to be more "unique" and stand out.

Ultimately I feel that F2P's (especially the older generation of Diablo II clones) catered the potential "greatest warrior ever", someone who wanted to be the best, but now you say "Doesn't everyone want to be the best?", well how about if I told you that I am selling "Best Pills" in my shop for 5 bucks.. If everyone wants to be the best, wouldn't everyone be buying these best pills? Especially if one of the potential greatest warriors kills another potential greatest warrior by using the "Best Pill", obviously one of them is going to be upset and want to buy the "Best Pill" also or quit from frustration..

I never play F2P's competitively UNLESS they include factional warefare, that way your goal is to be the potential best faction which doesn't exactly single out anyone who doesn't use the cash shop and at least gives everyone including free players a shot at becomming and  being beneficial..

Originally posted by beauturkey

 The only thing I wish people would get straight is that you indeed do NOT need to spend money to be "competitive" or to "succeed" in almost any of the F2P MMO's.

 I have found that usually the people that say that have played but a few.

 I also find it funny that people seem some kind of difference between paying for access and paying for items like mounts or potions. There is no difference. It is simply a different way to hand the game company your money.

 I said on my blog/podcast, and I'll stick by it...within two years time the F2P model will be the norm, and I can't wait. 

 

 Beau

 

 

If that would prove to be true then I would give up on online games in a heartbeat.

I guess it depends on what you consider the norm, I think there will be more f2p games out there but they won't have more players the the pay to play games. I hate f2p and micro transactions, I hate having to buy items in game, character slots etc. it makes me sick. I also find f2p games lack a lot of the quality of pay to play games. There is a reason the industry has always been pay to play and why you have to buy FPS and RTS games, so they can fund making them and make them good.

If the F2P model becomes the norm, this genre deserves to be strung out and put to rest. I'd love to say that the genre would die; but WoW has proved far too successful for money grubbing business cretins to ignore.

The idea that most F2P games are pay for gear are funny.

Some allow you to buy crafting materials to have a chance of crafting an already in game item.  You just by pass the need to farm  and buy the mats in game that is it.

Good F2P's do nothing more than speed the game up for the player that plays.

Example Increasing item drop rates and increase exp gain from mobs.
 

Bad F2P's allow players to buy their way to uberness, those are the ones to stay away from and that seems to be what everyone thinks F2P games are.

And when someone said that F2P will be the way games are done later on is 100% true.  If you guys think blizzard makes a lot of money off of WoW now, imagine for 5 bucks a player could reset a raid dungeon for a raid group after it has already been completed for the week.

This does nothing more than allow the player to get what he disires faster, it does not hand out good items.  As said before games that hand out the best gear for cash are what I consider to be broken and just complete money scams.

But the usual model of F2P is just a way to speed the game up for the player that pays.  As well as add items that make your character unique like someone else said.

Originally posted by onlinenow225

The idea that most F2P games are pay for gear are funny.

Some allow you to buy crafting materials to have a chance of crafting an already in game item.  You just by pass the need to farm  and buy the mats in game that is it.

Good F2P's do nothing more than speed the game up for the player that plays.

Example Increasing item drop rates and increase exp gain from mobs.
 

Bad F2P's allow players to buy their way to uberness, those are the ones to stay away from and that seems to be what everyone thinks F2P games are.

And when someone said that F2P will be the way games are done later on is 100% true.  If you guys think blizzard makes a lot of money off of WoW now, imagine for 5 bucks a player could reset a raid dungeon for a raid group after it has already been completed for the week.

This does nothing more than allow the player to get what he disires faster, it does not hand out good items.  As said before games that hand out the best gear for cash are what I consider to be broken and just complete money scams.

But the usual model of F2P is just a way to speed the game up for the player that pays.  As well as add items that make your character unique like someone else said.

Because pay or be forced to grind is sooo much better

/sarcasm

Buying game advantages is odious to many no matter how you try to cover the smell.  A company has a vested interest in forcing you pay for the game. There's an oversaturated market for hat sort of thing but it's not free by any means and it doesn't provide enough income to properly build and maintain a first quality game.

Originally posted by Loke666

Originally posted by Isturi

I DISAGREE. because the NORM always been paying a MONTHLY fee since the launch of Ultima Online when EA set that tone. It is HARD to ARGUE the fact that BLIZZ thrives on Monthly fee's BOTTOM line people will pay for QUALITY entertainment.

 

Depends on how you mean. Blizzards old .Battlenet was supposed to have used a P2P system to but Jeff Strain said he quited unless they made it free (Jeff programmed .Battlenet, Diablo, Warcraft 3 and Guildwars).

Guildwars 2 will use a third model, same as the first GW but it is not a instanced low budget game like the first but will instead have a big open world. If it becomes a hit it will really hurt both P2P and F2P.

The bet is open, I prefer Arenanets model (which BTW Turbine used to LOTROs life time membership also), I dont mind paying up a handsome sum at start and buy an expansion pack every year. GW have sold 6 millions so the model works.

I am careful about F2P games cash shops, particulary in PvP games. Any item that changes the balance is bad, customizing options like clothes, special apperences for the avatar, furniture for player housing like in EQ2 all works fine but actual items that makes you better sucks.

You can of course do like SOE Free realms that have adds as an alternative to paying monthly fees but that might be easy to crack for pirates.

But regular monthly fees are not the only good way as a business model.

 GW is actually not much different from the newer Free to play models these days. They don't make money off any subs so they have to make it somewhere else, what would they do? Charge you for every single piece of content that is usually free in P2P games. Barber shop: pay 10$, extra storage: 10$, pet pack: 10$,  and bonus mission and PvP pack .

With GW2 I only expect this list to keep on growing. I don't see how else they could pull off an open world and a regular mmo with no subs.

Originally posted by Cynthe

Originally posted by Loke666

Originally posted by Isturi

I DISAGREE. because the NORM always been paying a MONTHLY fee since the launch of Ultima Online when EA set that tone. It is HARD to ARGUE the fact that BLIZZ thrives on Monthly fee's BOTTOM line people will pay for QUALITY entertainment.

 

Depends on how you mean. Blizzards old .Battlenet was supposed to have used a P2P system to but Jeff Strain said he quited unless they made it free (Jeff programmed .Battlenet, Diablo, Warcraft 3 and Guildwars).

Guildwars 2 will use a third model, same as the first GW but it is not a instanced low budget game like the first but will instead have a big open world. If it becomes a hit it will really hurt both P2P and F2P.

The bet is open, I prefer Arenanets model (which BTW Turbine used to LOTROs life time membership also), I dont mind paying up a handsome sum at start and buy an expansion pack every year. GW have sold 6 millions so the model works.

I am careful about F2P games cash shops, particulary in PvP games. Any item that changes the balance is bad, customizing options like clothes, special apperences for the avatar, furniture for player housing like in EQ2 all works fine but actual items that makes you better sucks.

You can of course do like SOE Free realms that have adds as an alternative to paying monthly fees but that might be easy to crack for pirates.

But regular monthly fees are not the only good way as a business model.

 

 GW is actually not much different from the newer Free to play models these days. They don't make money off any subs so they have to make it somewhere else, what would they do? Charge you for every single piece of content that is usually free in P2P games. Barber shop: pay 10$, extra storage: 10$, pet pack: 10$,  and bonus mission and PvP pack .

With GW2 I only expect this list to keep on growing. I don't see how else they could pull off an open world and a regular mmo with no subs.

I disagree. It's fundamentally different because everyone pays the same, at any given time, and gets the same opportunities. That's very different from the more you pay the bigger your advantages.

Originally posted by beauturkey

 The only thing I wish people would get straight is that you indeed do NOT need to spend money to be "competitive" or to "succeed" in almost any of the F2P MMO's.

 I have found that usually the people that say that have played but a few.

 I also find it funny that people seem some kind of difference between paying for access and paying for items like mounts or potions. There is no difference. It is simply a different way to hand the game company your money.

 I said on my blog/podcast, and I'll stick by it...within two years time the F2P model will be the norm, and I can't wait. 

 

 Beau

 

 

The bottom line is that these companies need money to maintain their games, servers, add new content, etc.  You said that players currently don't have to buy anything from the item malls to be competitive in F2_ games, but I think if F2P becomes the norm then the trend will be for  game producers to create F2P MMO's in such a manner that you will HAVE to buy items from the item mall to progress deep in the game, because they will NEED the money as more players will be flocking to them and if only a handful of fanatic players are shelling out money they won't be able to support the influx of players that don't want to buy item mall products.

I feel that a better model is what I'll call P2P+. This model would include a lower monthly fee, IE 4.99 a month and also include item malls. 

There is a huge difference between the consumer mindset that plays subscription based games and those based on item shops. It is very akin to the difference in mentality between players of collectable trading card games and players of module/book based games.

Barring some massive and unlikely shift in consumer attitudes, the "F2P" business model will not take over the MMORPG market because of that difference. It may grow in market share, heck maybe even a surge in "fad" popularity as was seen when say "Magic the Gathering" launched, but it will not kill off the subscription based model - ever.

 PS The "most successful" new game will not be the one that most allows you to buy your way past the "annoying grind" parts of the game...it will be the game that manages to successfully integrate/disguise those "grindy" parts in enjoyable gameplay.

This entire discussion is completely rediculous.  Like many I have played around 15 subscription MMO's over the years, but also roughly the same amount of F2P ones.  Obviously there is a graphical barrier between the two, but not a gameplay one.  Almost never do you have to buy items in order to be competitive.  What the business model does is offer a free game to play (which I cannot comprehend how that his a bad situation) and the oportunity for those who really would like extra customization to get that for small fees.  How does having variety in the genre equal a threat to P2P MMO's?  This mindset baffles me.  Before Meridan 59 all the MO games were pay by the HOUR, not sub based, and just beacuase something is the norm doesnot mean that it is right (flat earth theory anyone).  If you could play WOW for free and let people who want to pay for gender changes, hairstyles, tatoos, custimizable armor colors, how in the world could that possibly be a bad thing.  This is EXACTLY how the majority of F2P MMO's opperate.

I haven't played a lot of F2P games, but I have played a few. There are two things I examine closely when I investigate one of these games. The first is the item shop: what is available for players. The other is what the players tend to sell. Every F2P game I've looked at has a way to convert RL money to in-game 'coin'. 

The amount of RL money that gets fed into these games is staggering.

On Perfect World International, I've seen player shops selling hundreds of items that do nothing other than allow people to talk on the global chat channel.  Every time someone says something on the global channel, one of these items has been used. Now, you can buy these items from other players (usually through player stores) but someone had to buy these things from the cash shop at one time or another. The cash shop price (if bought in 10 packs) is 9 cents each.  Which doesn't seem like much until you see several shops with hundreds of them.  These shops get refilled every few days, the number of trumpets available to players generally doesn't go down.

Sure, on PW you can spend some time and grind out mobs to earn enough coins to buy a cash shop item (either by purchasing 'gold' or the item directly from another player). But someone put real money into the game at some point. The version of Perfect World 'published' in the US has a conversion rate of (about) $1 = 100,000 coins. (Other franchises of PW have different conversion rates, of course, due to being in different economic markets.)

Meanwhile, the owners of the game are making money by the boatload just by people talking.

The other most popular cash shop items seen in player stores are fashion clothing, dyes (to change the color of fashion clothing), and the special items that one specific class needs to acquire a special combat pet (there's two such pets, and these pets are what make that class effective in PvP). The latter requires an average of $200 to be spent. When a new PvP server was opened, the first global announcement that one of these pets was acquired was seen within hours.

How many P2P players would even conceive of paying $200 for what is essentially a weapon? Heck, for most games, $200 is more than a year's subscription.

So, just looking at two items from this game, we're looking at hundreds of dollars from opposite ends of the spectrum. An item for chatting (amazingly, lots of people are willing to pay just to have a conversation that everyone else can listen to) and an item that is essentially a class-specific weapon.

Hundreds of dollars.  Dollars on top of all the other gew-gaws and trinkets available in that cash shop.

The company that owns Perfect World is on the NYSE and according to their published financials for Q4 2009:

* Total revenues were RMB417.8 million (USD61.2 million), an increase of 9.4% from 3Q08 and 61.7% from 4Q07
* Gross profit was RMB368.5 million (USD54.0 million), an increase of 10.1% from 3Q08 and 67.7% from 4Q07

(source http://www.pwrd.com/html/en/ir_er_pr_list.html )

That's the kind of money that will entice game companies to move to a free2play model.

-w

Originally posted by zymurgeist

Originally posted by Cynthe

Originally posted by Loke666

Originally posted by Isturi

I DISAGREE. because the NORM always been paying a MONTHLY fee since the launch of Ultima Online when EA set that tone. It is HARD to ARGUE the fact that BLIZZ thrives on Monthly fee's BOTTOM line people will pay for QUALITY entertainment.

 

Depends on how you mean. Blizzards old .Battlenet was supposed to have used a P2P system to but Jeff Strain said he quited unless they made it free (Jeff programmed .Battlenet, Diablo, Warcraft 3 and Guildwars).

Guildwars 2 will use a third model, same as the first GW but it is not a instanced low budget game like the first but will instead have a big open world. If it becomes a hit it will really hurt both P2P and F2P.

The bet is open, I prefer Arenanets model (which BTW Turbine used to LOTROs life time membership also), I dont mind paying up a handsome sum at start and buy an expansion pack every year. GW have sold 6 millions so the model works.

I am careful about F2P games cash shops, particulary in PvP games. Any item that changes the balance is bad, customizing options like clothes, special apperences for the avatar, furniture for player housing like in EQ2 all works fine but actual items that makes you better sucks.

You can of course do like SOE Free realms that have adds as an alternative to paying monthly fees but that might be easy to crack for pirates.

But regular monthly fees are not the only good way as a business model.

 

 GW is actually not much different from the newer Free to play models these days. They don't make money off any subs so they have to make it somewhere else, what would they do? Charge you for every single piece of content that is usually free in P2P games. Barber shop: pay 10$, extra storage: 10$, pet pack: 10$,  and bonus mission and PvP pack .

With GW2 I only expect this list to keep on growing. I don't see how else they could pull off an open world and a regular mmo with no subs.

 

I disagree. It's fundamentally different because everyone pays the same, at any given time, and gets the same opportunities. That's very different from the more you pay the bigger your advantages.

You disagree with what? I never said anything about how the cash is used but that it is used period. O.o

I also hate any cash shop that give unfair advantage during normal play, it should never be that way. But with more quality F2P coming into the picture this will change over time, the real money isn't in XP pots and skill boosts but in fluff.

Or wait my favorite cash shop faux pas: take away bag space or the ability to chat in certain channels unless you pay real cash. ><;;; That's forcing people's hand not cool.

Someone mentioned a sub for 5$ a month + cash shop, I also expect this to be everywhere soon, heck we already Free Realms, Mabinogi and Wizard 101 doing just that.

they are bad but it is true, there are some that are improving out there. one that i like is SMT: imagine online. iv been playing casually since japanese beta and its a fun game. always been an SMT fan so this was good for me.

Originally posted by beauturkey

 The only thing I wish people would get straight is that you indeed do NOT need to spend money to be "competitive" or to "succeed" in almost any of the F2P MMO's.

 I have found that usually the people that say that have played but a few.

 I also find it funny that people seem some kind of difference between paying for access and paying for items like mounts or potions. There is no difference. It is simply a different way to hand the game company your money.

 I said on my blog/podcast, and I'll stick by it...within two years time the F2P model will be the norm, and I can't wait. 

 

 Beau

 

 

The moment free 2 play MMO's become the norm will be the moment I turn my back on MMO's for good.

Cheers

Originally posted by wyrde

I haven't played a lot of F2P games, but I have played a few. There are two things I examine closely when I investigate one of these games. The first is the item shop: what is available for players. The other is what the players tend to sell. Every F2P game I've looked at has a way to convert RL money to in-game 'coin'. 

The amount of RL money that gets fed into these games is staggering.

On Perfect World International, I've seen player shops selling hundreds of items that do nothing other than allow people to talk on the global chat channel.  Every time someone says something on the global channel, one of these items has been used. Now, you can buy these items from other players (usually through player stores) but someone had to buy these things from the cash shop at one time or another. The cash shop price (if bought in 10 packs) is 9 cents each.  Which doesn't seem like much until you see several shops with hundreds of them.  These shops get refilled every few days, the number of trumpets available to players generally doesn't go down.

Sure, on PW you can spend some time and grind out mobs to earn enough coins to buy a cash shop item (either by purchasing 'gold' or the item directly from another player). But someone put real money into the game at some point. The version of Perfect World 'published' in the US has a conversion rate of (about) $1 = 100,000 coins. (Other franchises of PW have different conversion rates, of course, due to being in different economic markets.)

Meanwhile, the owners of the game are making money by the boatload just by people talking.

The other most popular cash shop items seen in player stores are fashion clothing, dyes (to change the color of fashion clothing), and the special items that one specific class needs to acquire a special combat pet (there's two such pets, and these pets are what make that class effective in PvP). The latter requires an average of $200 to be spent. When a new PvP server was opened, the first global announcement that one of these pets was acquired was seen within hours.

How many P2P players would even conceive of paying $200 for what is essentially a weapon? Heck, for most games, $200 is more than a year's subscription.

So, just looking at two items from this game, we're looking at hundreds of dollars from opposite ends of the spectrum. An item for chatting (amazingly, lots of people are willing to pay just to have a conversation that everyone else can listen to) and an item that is essentially a class-specific weapon.

Hundreds of dollars.  Dollars on top of all the other gew-gaws and trinkets available in that cash shop.

The company that owns Perfect World is on the NYSE and according to their published financials for Q4 2009:

* Total revenues were RMB417.8 million (USD61.2 million), an increase of 9.4% from 3Q08 and 61.7% from 4Q07
* Gross profit was RMB368.5 million (USD54.0 million), an increase of 10.1% from 3Q08 and 67.7% from 4Q07

(source http://www.pwrd.com/html/en/ir_er_pr_list.html )

That's the kind of money that will entice game companies to move to a free2play model.

-w

so true.. We cannot control where people want to spend there money.. If they find a game that they find incredibly fresh to them and they choose to spend lots of money in it, that's there business and in turn creates tons of profit for the company that made the game..

The goal is to make money (alot of people still fail to understand that) and if they feel they can make alot of profit by charging people to chat globally they will charge people for it. Even if its only a few people spending lots of money, the profit is still being made.

Why do I get the feeling that FTP is being pushed on us with the hard sale technique of pretend like everyone wants it and if you keep telling them that they will get used to it.   

Originally posted by nefermor

Why do I get the feeling that FTP is being pushed on us with the hard sale technique of pretend like everyone wants it and if you keep telling them that they will get used to it.   

 

 

Nefermor you are describing what is called PROPAGANDA. You are SO right it dose sell.

Of course Richard Aihoshi thinks the future is in F2P because its a money grab for the company. There is nothing free in f2p.

Originally posted by stayontarget

Of course Richard Aihoshi thinks the future is in F2P because its a money grab for the company. There is nothing free in f2p.

 

What company?

Meh, why did I come here before work? Haven't read much past page 2 so I dont know if I'm repeating other ppl but: Falcon2K you use some seriously spurious logic in your arguments and some catchy jingoisms (fair play in UK-style debate but a serious no-no in US-style -- although the Far Right Conservative Media have definitely changed the US rules massively :) ) Free to lose? That's quite the effective FoxNewsworthy brush-off lol! Also, let me get this straight, my PC Neo-Con Great American friend, it is NOT an MMO if it appears on PS2/3 (so Great American publications should not discuss oh, say, FF11?)  Xbox 360 is a Radical Left-Wing Tree-Hugging (notice it's GREEN?!) CONSOLE, so any MMO that appears on it is in fact not a True MMO and should therefore not be considered by True MMO publications. If a MMO fails to embrace the appropriate genre, as defined by the New Conservative Warriors of Wisdom, then I presume it is not a True MMO and should not be discussed in True MMO publications. So, um, EVE Online, a space genre doesn't belong in True MMO publications because, though it is appropriately NCWoW in it's Revenue Model, it is Leftist in it's genre: not a MMO!

Archlord: not a MMO coz it is Free To Lose!

Pirates of the Burning Sea is not a MMO: though it is a Sanctioned By God (and the God-Fearing NCWoWs) Subscription game, it's basically a Naval Sim... GADS! That can't possibly be allowed in a True MMO publication. Wrong genre! Just say 'NO!' to Navels!

Shall I continue the ad-nauseum debate, Mr. Falcon Limbaugh?

You obviously have NOT spent much time in the F2P sector if you are capable of coming up with some of the inane statements you made.

A couple more random points:

Subscription games are well known for their Time-Sink Levelling methods designed to bilk you of as many months of payments as possible.

Subscription games have LOADS of tchotchkes and equipments and gears that feed the rabid hunger of their subscribers to 'have the best of anyone else playing'... contrary to what Mr. Falcon Ingram may claim.

So do you go and buy the gear in an item mall? Absolutely not! Good Heavens, man, first comes the Item Mall, then comes Bail-Outs, Stimulus Packages, and Socialism!!

Or do you HOPE IT DROPS after TWO YEARS of subscription? (FF11 anyone?) Do you grind for it, saving up special currency over the course of months on end, paying that monthly sub over said months on end?? (L2....WoW...)

                                                                -or-

DO YOU GO TO (INSERT ANY-OF-A-GAJILLION-WEBSITE-NAMES HERE) AND BUUUUUUYYYYYY WITH REEEEAAAALLLLLL MONEYYYYYYY A FULLY LOADED LEVEL 80 RESTO SHAMAN WITH MAXED JEWELCRAFTING/MINING AND EXALTED FAME ALL ACROSS AZEROTH FOR ONLY $499.99 THAT'S RIGHT $499.99 ONCE AGAIN JUST $499.99 ACT NOW AS IT WILL GO FAST ONCE AGAIN THAT'S ONLY $499.99 ORDER NOW! (????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Falcon Limbaugh, and the rest of you Neo Conservative Warriors of Wisdom,  you are Epic Failures. You wage your War of Righteousness against the F2P sector whilst you bury your heads in the sand and ignore the BURGEONING Market Sector that is known as RMT, which is rabidly fed by SUBSCRIPTION GAMERHOLICS; money that is completely LOST and does not even go towards a PRETENCE of being used for future game development, as opposed to item mall sales which ARE. (But, you are indeed, my friends, Great Americans!)

PS: Remember, that's only $499.99! Act now!

It's funny how many people who hate F2P actually hate it for not being 100% free, and complain because they dont want to have to pay anything. Seriously, do you really think you would download and play a game for absolutely no cost at all?

In P2P you need to pay to have access to the game, and in F2P you can access the game but you need to pay to play it fully. Not to mention that most game companies are kind enough to let you acquire the cash shops items through player shops or rare drops in game too.

Stalinfalcon... wtf are you jabbering about? That big wall of text reads like a conspiracy theory.

That aside, you seem to think that playing a game over a longer term is a bad thing. I don't quite get the reasoning behind that.

My absolute reason for prefering a P2P game over an F2P game is one thing alone.

Quality of Entertainment.

That beind said, it's the same reason I would use for prefering a P2P game over a P2P game. Or an F2P game over an F2P game.

Hell, it's the same reason I would use to prefer ANY game to any other game, period.

Because IT IS A GAME. I think most people pick up a game with one reason in mind. To have fun. Not to be the best.

That comes later IF you enjoy the game and feel it's worth sinking time into achieving whatever goal you have in mind BECAUSE it's fun.

I played a certain P2P game (yes THAT one) for over 4 years, and have recently quit. True, I got bored of it and may even have decided it was heading in a direction that took out some of the fun for me personally. But it was, indeed, after 4 years. In terms of money put in and entertainment got out I don't consider it a money sink. In reality, it was, compared to other forms of entertainment, inexpensive and f**king awesome value. I don't regret having spent a penny of it.

TBH your criticism of P2P games trying to "leech out as many months of subs as possible" sound like the game you would be most happy with is one you pay an arm and a leg for up front and then pops up a screen saying "Congratulations! You are the most awesomest player and have won the game!" so you can move along swiftly to the next pile of dog turd without wasting any of that precious time er... having fun.

I've tried many F2P MMO games and my main criticism is that they don't hold up to the gameplay standard I demand of an MMO.

My general experience has been that they suffer from stability or latency issues to varying degrees as the norm rather than the exception and that they tend to be repetetive and generic well beyond anything I've seen in any good P2P game. At the end of the day, I've not tried an F2P game that held my attention or drew me in enough for me to stick it out beyond a week or two.

The only exception I'd really note for F2P games in general is Quake Online. But again, I think this proves my point, gameplay will outweigh how you "pay" or it's technical brilliance.

If an F2P MMO can EVER rival it's counterparts in the P2P leagues in terms of gameplay, then by all means, bring it on, but I've yet to find anything even close.

Originally posted by mgrave

This entire discussion is completely rediculous.  Like many I have played around 15 subscription MMO's over the years, but also roughly the same amount of F2P ones.  Obviously there is a graphical barrier between the two, but not a gameplay one.  Almost never do you have to buy items in order to be competitive.  What the business model does is offer a free game to play (which I cannot comprehend how that his a bad situation) and the oportunity for those who really would like extra customization to get that for small fees.  How does having variety in the genre equal a threat to P2P MMO's?  This mindset baffles me.  Before Meridan 59 all the MO games were pay by the HOUR, not sub based, and just beacuase something is the norm doesnot mean that it is right (flat earth theory anyone).  If you could play WOW for free and let people who want to pay for gender changes, hairstyles, tatoos, custimizable armor colors, how in the world could that possibly be a bad thing.  This is EXACTLY how the majority of F2P MMO's opperate.

In my experience with F2P, I find what you said to be incorrect! F2P item malls are not  about the customizable armors, characters, etc, although they may include those options.. No sir, the the F2P item malls are mainly about items that give enhanced experience, HP, Mana, attack, magic, and other skills.  Which is why the ruin the experience for many that do not wish to pay for those advantages.

Originally posted by mgrave

This entire discussion is completely rediculous.  Like many I have played around 15 subscription MMO's over the years, but also roughly the same amount of F2P ones.  Obviously there is a graphical barrier between the two, but not a gameplay one.  Almost never do you have to buy items in order to be competitive.  What the business model does is offer a free game to play (which I cannot comprehend how that his a bad situation) and the oportunity for those who really would like extra customization to get that for small fees. 

 

If you could play WOW for free and let people who want to pay for gender changes, hairstyles, tatoos, custimizable armor colors, how in the world could that possibly be a bad thing.  This is EXACTLY how the majority of F2P MMO's opperate.

This is exactly how I feel. Yes their are fees to get more armor or weapons or mounts or whatever. BUT is it that big of a deal to pay for it in small fees while letting casual players play for free compared to just forcing everyone to pay for your game? That's why I just play trials of P2P games because that's as close to them as I'm ever going to get to them. While F2P I can leave whenever I want join whenever I want do whatever I want and not pay a dime if I don't want to.

Originally posted by Kyleran

But one other factor that hurts coverage is that their very category, F2P seems deceitful to most people.

Let's face it, no one creates a game to really be played for free. 

From extra content, to better gear , to simple fluff items, they all try hard to separate the player from his money, and sometimes at much higher rates than a typical P2P.

Basically F2P is based on Deception and Lying to players.

Originally posted by Flummoxed

Originally posted by Kyleran

But one other factor that hurts coverage is that their very category, F2P seems deceitful to most people.

Let's face it, no one creates a game to really be played for free. 

From extra content, to better gear , to simple fluff items, they all try hard to separate the player from his money, and sometimes at much higher rates than a typical P2P.

 

Basically F2P is based on Deception and Lying to players.

 @ Flummoxed; Prove it, otherwise it's you who is using deception and lies to inform other players.

I played them both: p2p and f2p (UO, DAOC, EQ2, WAR, AOC, rappelz, AO etc etc).

My current game is Atlantica online and i must say it offers a lot of gameplay for "free": apart from the usual grind to 120, you can play in pvp competitions, or watch others play, bet on matches, gamble for equipment enchantments, make quiz rooms, pvp against other servers, do dungeon runs with guilds or nations, etc. The game has a mail system, a nice help guide..should i go on? Basically it comes close to the last p2p game i played in terms of content, WAR.

It is true that i will never be the number 1 pvp guy on the server, simply because i dont pay for the best gear (it can be done without paying real money but that involves too much time that i simply have not spare).

But i have a great time playing the game. And thats what counts for me.

One major drawback that i especially see in f2p games: the community seems to alter every day. Tough for guilds to build up something. One day you have 50 members, next day 30 of them moved on to the next "free" game. As such f2p games for me personally feel like single player games where you can chat.

Originally posted by Manarix

One major drawback that i especially see in f2p games: the community seems to alter every day. Tough for guilds to build up something. One day you have 50 members, next day 30 of them moved on to the next "free" game. As such f2p games for me personally feel like single player games where you can chat.

They come out at such a high rate that this happens very often. And the funny thing is, is that the next big "free" mmo, is always JUST like the one they just left with perhaps maybe a new art style and skills (Shaiya and Tantra for example..)

And this is probably one of the main reasons F2P's are never taken seriously (besides gold farming and easy to hack clients), the population is so spread out and disconnected with the actual world that people are not usually around for long and if they are you get the feeling that it will not be for long. How do you spread the MMORPG population (people who play them) among 500 F2P games that all offer the same things?

Originally posted by Vyeth

How do you spread the MMORPG population (people who play them) among 500 F2P games that all offer the same things?

Very carefully?

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Originally posted by Kyleran

But one other factor that hurts coverage is that their very category, F2P seems deceitful to most people.

Let's face it, no one creates a game to really be played for free.  They all are designed to somehow get you to spend your cash in their item shop (or pay a montly sub fee) and do so by enticing you with many offers.

From extra content, to better gear , to simple fluff items, they all try hard to separate the player from his money, and sometimes at much higher rates than a typical P2P.

 

Are there really people over the age of 17 on this planet that actually thought otherwise?

I think there are indeed some companies who launch a F2P just on the purpose to offer the chance for a certain amount of players to play for free without having the final goal to take the advantages of them.
Because if you keep staying in a F2P game, you always have a choice to decide if you want to pay or not, even when you have already consumed its service in a gratis way (so I think the mocks after being in a F2P is kind of malicious, I don’t know if you dare to admit that)
Although some said subscription is always a more successful model, but it’s rarely to hear that people could get reimbursement after having paid.
The positive function of  F2P users should not be keeping mocking that they are getting exploited, on the contrary, they should know how important they are to keep staying and supporting that F2P game, so a good F2P game could keep vital.
 

F2P can't be escaped. There's already some F2P titles that have just as big of a player base as WoW and other P2P communities. It's out with the old and in with the new. People like the idea that they don't have to pay money if they don't want. Most people get the wrong idea and think it's pay to win because in reality a lot of F2P games make it able for you to get all the godly items with in-game money i.e. Grand Fantasia, Runes Of Magic, Perfect World. People are just lazy and don't feel like doing the work for the items. Yes, While I agree that a lot of F2P's are fail there are also some hard hitters. P2P offers the same exact problems that F2P offers and actually P2P offers problems that are even more annoying. Not every game is good because it has a montly sub. The community can get demanding and it could ruin awesome aspects of the game(like WoW). You need to realize that things change, it's part of life, get over it. F2P is here to say and people better start realizing this. Now with the hybrid games it's gonna come intot he P2P world as well.