The Free Zone: EA and Free to Play?
The biggest game company on the planet has been flirting with the free to play model. Aihoshi explores.
Column By Richard Aihoshi on October 05, 2009
For a few years now, I've wondered why the major western publishers haven't moved a lot more rapidly to embrace the free to play model. From a business perspective, it has always seemed to me like they've been missing some pretty significant opportunities. A key one is the chance to enter and better penetrate market non-traditional market segments; i.e. to get people playing who aren't gamers, at least not in the parlance used by those who are.
In this respect, EA jumps to mind as a possibility, having spent a lot of money trying to do just that when it purchased Pogo. I don't know if that investment has become profitable, but it did put the company squarely into a leadership position within the casual sector, which has immense and still largely untapped potential.
Maybe it's a case of "once burned, twice shy," but I don't understand why EA hasn't taken a similar step into the advanced casual online area where F2P dominates. It was blatantly obvious to me a long time ago that this area would be a significant driver of growth for the industry, and the opportunity was definitely there to grab first mover advantage. This would also have raised the barrier to entry for other entrants, especially start-up importers, by making it more difficult and expensive to acquire desirable titles.
Other large publishers wouldn't have been deterred financially, but since they stayed on the sidelines anyway, I tend to doubt they've have jumped in en masse. It can be argued that some of them might have followed if EA had taken the lead, but that doesn't seem the most probable scenario. It's not like they rushed to buy or create competitors to Pogo.
It's also clear that EA would very much like to have a larger piece of the MMOG pie. It spent a lot of money (I don't know how much, but have seen figures approaching $100 million bandied about) to purchase Mythic, and then more to fund both the extended development and the marketing of WAR, which has to have disappointed the corporate bigwigs in terms of the player numbers and dollars it has generated.
After that came a much larger expenditure to acquire BioWare Pandemic, including the Austin studio where The Old Republic is in development. I expect this title to do better, but does anyone truly believe it can climb above the than number two rung? And is that a ranking the corporate mandarins will deem satisfactory? Maybe if it's a close second, but how realistic is such a scenario? Plus Blizzard isn't just sitting around waiting to be knocked off its top perch. It has another project in the works that, although it won't be launching any time soon, can only be projected as another major hit.
Right now, it's quite difficult for me to envision EA seriously contending to be the leader in the MMOG space. To attain this distinction, the company would have to do something rather dramatic. While the possibility of further acquisitions immediately comes to mind, there are big questions with this strategy. First and foremost is simply whether it would even be realistically possible to buy enough companies to become number one overall. And if that approach doesn't look especially viable, then what choice is there but to think outside the box?
I also find it interesting that EA has made a couple of investments in the Far East to take minority equity positions in other publishers. It strikes me that gaining access to F2P knowledge and experience must have been a consideration. Will some find its way westward? One of the two, Neowiz, opened a US office a while back, but currently appears to be concentrating its resources on the Chinese market.
When I massage all these things together, I can't help but speculate that EA's best shot at leadership in the MMOG market might involve seizing a dominant position in the F2P sector. That wouldn't be easy, but going head to head with Blizzard and continuing to ignore the rapid growth and the substantial revenue potential outside of subscription games seems even less likely to succeed.
I readily admit that my thinking is based on some sizable assumptions in areas where my knowledge is skimpy. For instance, EA's top brass hasn't invited me to any corporate strategic planning sessions lately. So, it's certainly possible that I'm completely out to lunch. It certainly wouldn't be the first time. But on the other hand, what if I'm not? Wouldn't that be interesting, not just for the MMOG market, but also the game industry as a whole?
More The Free Zone Features:
More Columns:
More Features:
He is the former Editor of RPG Vault and his column, focusing on free to play MMOs, appears on MMORPG.com every Monday.
I played Ultima Online for 10 years but abandoned it due to bad development decisions and very shady production team that worked more like a Clique with the popular players. However, I'd go back in a heart beat to visit old friends if UO went F2P. They already embrace Player to Player RMT so why not microtransactions as well?
I duno BF hero's is a free game they are pushing, it is fun for 5 min. then becomes very boring... the thing with free games, is for the most part they offer limited play style and after doing the same crap over and over, the game just becomes boring...
Well EA, despite their lack of success in the MMOG genre, is no dummy. If you can read statistics, it is obvious that F2P games attract the short term crowd, a majority of which never spend a dime on the game. I have seen numbers indicating that less than 5% of the playerbase actually spend a significant amount in a F2P game. Significant amount indicating at least subscription amounts every month.
Not a good revenue model and it will not impress investors much either. Granted there are some F2P games that are doing very well, but that is not the norm.
With a subscription MMOG you can show investors projected numbers that are meaningful. A F2P MMOG does not have that option, hard to rely on spending patterns of such a small percentage of your audience.
That is why F2P games will not push the subscription games out of the marketplace.
I know it sounds crass, but I will NEVER play a F2P MMORPG as long as there are still fun subscription-based games. The F2P games simply let in too many socially retarded children,and adults who should be out working instead of wasting time playing a game. I'm not rich, but I'm a family man working stiff who can afford $15/mo for quality entertainment w/o blinking an eye. And that fee keeps not ALL the warts on the ass of society out of my games, but at least a lot.
Actually, it has more to do with our mode of play in the western market.
The eastern gamer doesn't just play at home. The cafe/arcade model over there is very viable compared to any major metropolitan area here in the states. Time and again, some naive geek who loves videogames and coffee will get the bright idea to open an arcade/gamer haven. And time and again, that owner will find the business to be mediocre at best.
What that means for us is that we have a LOT more time to spend on these short term F2P games, and so our distaste for them comes far more readily than someone just out for a night with friends trying out Neosteam or some other F2P game.
So the eastern market is geared to take strong advantage of the F2P model because (in my opinion) the short term playstyle is catered to far more over there.
For people in the western market, sitting at home for 4+ hours isn't unheard of. And if they aren't able to, it's not because they are out having fun in an arcade.
If EA were to dominate the F2P market, in my opinion they would have to dominate the eastern side of things. The western market just... doesn't want it.
a lot of f2p game have deal with gold selling company and make more the the item or diamond they sell each month
I have to agree 100% with what has been said. I'll toss in my 2 bits.
I have played several f2p games. Acclaim has several, like 9 dragons, that you can play for free.
I have spent hours and hours playing Planetside, DDO, WoW, etc
I also play plenty of non MMO games.
I couldn't make myself keep playing ANY of the F2P games. Aside from the already mentioned reasons, I'll post my reasons why.
#1 Quality. Just cause you call it a Game, doesn't mean its fun. They don't just lack polish, these games are riddled with bugs and counter-intuitive controls. Add in old/poor physics, old/outdated graphics and poor translation to English and you get a bundle of NOT FUN.
#2 Community. - no one I know plays them...probably for the same reason as above.
Having said that, here is a game that I think is fun and well made, as well as f2p.
Combat Arms by Nexon. Somewhat like counterstrike. You can earn most things in game by playing well. But this isn't an MMO. It does, however, use micro-transactions.
America's Army. - Lots of fun, based on the unreal engine, free to play and no microtransactions. This game is paid for by your taxes (funded by the US Army as a recruiting tool). The boot camp/qualifying is fun too, and is a shameless recruiting tool...but theres nothing that forces you to divulge info.
Anyway, neither of my examples of Fun f2p are MMO games.
Well PC Gamer recently publicised two Free2Play games from EA, I was a Beta-Tester for both are which now free to the general public
Battleforge link:
http://www.battleforge.com/portal/site/BattleForge/landingpage
Battlefield Heroes link:
http://www.battlefieldheroes.com/
So even if these titles aren't the standard to be set, they are however a step in that direction. Might've googled EA before writing all that m8 lol
yep ea in asia can literally own the market THERE
but for here mm good luck withy that none have made it yet
After the free to play games that Ive played till end game Id honestly rather never even see the word F2p again.
check this
ask 2 question from f2p market
is it dx10 :ddo
bbattleforge
is it dx11 :only battleforge
so all the rest that didnt even bother scare a lot of gamer out of their game
I have been playing DDO from Turbine since it went free2play. And I have to say that kind of game free to play appeals greatly to me, and obviously many others.
The way they did it may add to the great amount of people logged into the game daily too, because they have a subscription base, and a free2play base that has quite a few limits, but you can but just the parts of the game you want to play.
Following the release of the F2P version someone on the DDO forums posted his method for getting to max level for less the $20. And this just made it easier, you can still get to level 20 without paying.
I look at it like this, in some parts of the US having a band play in your night club is not the norm so the club owner charges a door fee. In other parts of the US the club owner charges a door fee for a DJ, because you don't see bands playing there. In most of the countrys that F2P is the norm thats because so many people/ companys are making games so fast you can't charge for them, or the people have so little time to play. In the US some people can play for 8+ hours a day. Also in the US almost everyone, no let me say everyone has there own internet connections that play online. Not so in other countrys.
Out of the four articails of yours I have read, I have noticed that you have not told us about the diffrent life stilles of the countrys and why they use F2P types. I know that, you know that in the US the game devs. sell the game to the subs. and also ask for a monthy fee. So can we as US players receive the F2P games for free, play for free, and give nothing to no one for playing the game for free. ie internet services? I think not, you see someone is going to charge you something! But the part that you do not talk about is how the game devs make there money in these other countrys, do you.
The one thing that most of us, ie US players know is that nothing is for free.
If the market keeps making games that are moving to F2P, or are on EZ mode, the devs will have no chose but to give it away for free.
F2P MMO's don't really generate much value, as one of my fellow posters said above. Why would EA put more money into a game that they know won't generate more value than a subscription game, which they already have?
From a marketing point of view, yes, the F2P model works. Why? Because it automatically draws in players and only requires a little bit of maintenance. However, try putting that into play, and nothing ends up working out. F2P companies end up running out of money quickly and they sit there, scratching their heads, thinking, "What just happened? Where'd all the money go?"
F2P games just don't generate enough money. Yes, you can have in-game advertising, but that turns off 50% of the population you're reaching out to. Yes, you can have micro-transactions, but #1, players can aquire those items through high-level trading and #2, very, very, very few of the players that actually get on a F2P games actually monetarily buy items, especially if those items don't matter (something more and more F2P games are transitioning to).
Now, let's think about this from the other side of the market: subscription gaming. Currently, there are 11.5 million gamers playing on WoW. Magnify that by 15 bucks a month, and you get a whopping 172.5 million dollars. Yes, yes, I know, nobody's going to ever beat WoW, unless they beat themselves. However, the only successful F2P game to ever come out would be Guild Wars. They earned their money off of the CD's people had to buy, with total sales of the games reaching 5 million ($250 million if going @ market price).
Now put that into perspective with a micro-transaction game. Let's be a little generous and say that 15% of players make micro-transactions of, on average (the reality is much, much lower), $15 a month, and that there are currently 300,000 players playing said game (close to the most for F2P). That makes 675,000 dollars a month for that company. I've got no idea how much a server costs, but I do know that Blizzard pays some company a pretty penny for their servers. So, to keep customers happy and playing the game, lets knock off $100,000 for server costs (somebody tell me if I'm way over; I'm just spitballing here). Let's knock off another $210,000 for paying employees (50 employees @ 50,000 a year, averaging for all positions). Add another $100,000 a month for advertising. That leaves the company with a whopping $265k per month.
Now exchange that with a subscription game. Take the same amount of players, 300,000, and have them pay $15 a month. That makes 4.5 million dollars per month. Subtract server costs, doubling them so that players can have a better playing experience, and you get $200,000 of cost per month. Add in double the employees and double their average pay (100 @ $100,000, averaging for all positions), making both a happier workplace and more enthusiastic workers for 1 million per month. Let's say that the company ran heavy advertising each week for the cost of $750,000 (quite a bit for online advertising). That still leaves the company with 2.55 million a month of revenue, 2.29 million more than the F2P. Over the course of a year, this makes the company 27.4 million dollars richer. And you wonder why most F2P MMO's aren't that great.
Yes, I know that these are ideals for MMO's, and that these scenarios most likely would not happen. However, it does put into perspective how much of a difference that subscription MMO's make for a company. No matter if the numbers are for 50,000 players, the difference will still be the same. Nevertheless, with that price comes a possible downfall.
#1, subscription players expect much more from their MMO than F2P players. #2, if the company really messes up (i.e., Star Wars Galaxies) they pay for it. That game will never have the same reputation or appeal to it that it had before, and the company, unless it is their only source of income, would do best to simply let it go. #3, messing up a F2P is almost expected, simply because it is F2P. So, no backlash when something like NGE comes out (but for a F2P).
So, to sum it all up, either EA can run with the F2P genre and try to improve it to increase its revenue, or they can run the risk/reward program for subscription games, running the risk of increased revenue for the sacrifice of having to keep extremely well done updating, maitenance, and expansions.
yep everybody wish they made it big like war but a lot of game in asia only work because they go by volume
say they get 100 million player in asia they say ok if we get 1 % of those to pay we ll make 1 million
yes not much but better then not being in at all.very few will make it big like even gw lol
I was in the original DDO beta and decided in wasn't worth paying for. This summer I was in the F2P DDO beta and enjoyed it (they had made several significant improvements since release). Because it is now F2P, I'm continueing to play it after release and having fun. I haven't spend any real money on it yet, but I'm seriously considering it.
It will be interesting to see how DDO fairs as a F2P game. Maybe it will set a new trend. I definately like having the choice between subscription and F2P. I guess we'll see how well this model works by next year.
One of the interesting things about this, is when you are a subscriber it is almost as though you are leasing the content that is normally stuff you would buy.
If you buy the extra content via the store, you more or less have it for as long as the game is running. Someone added it up and I think they said a little over 1 year of subscriptions spent on the DDO store instead would end up buying all of the content, or close to.
I also tested the original beta, and thought it was fun, but wouldn't last. After testing the F2P beta it was much improved. So I kept playing. I have actually spent $30 or so dollars on the DDO store, some for fun, and some for new things to do, or wanted to join some guild members on a quest that is a pay to play line. I haven't regreted any of it. I would have spent that same $30 on the monthly subscription and probablly not gotten anything more out of it, and if I ever cancelled the sub to go free to play, I would have lost all of the content I was already enjoying.
You ask that of EA? Because the reality is they are COMPLETELY clueless when it comes to MMO's. One need look no further than their bumbling with Earth and Beyond to see that. I place EA's closing of Earth and Beyond, right up there with SOE's destruction of SWG's by the introduction of the NGE. Anyone who loved E&B knows what I'm speaking of. EA should stick to console clones of Madden 2109 and other such dribble. Its what they seem best suited for, I shudder in HORROR knowing that EA has purchased Bioware, and no doubt will fumble TOR in their usual ham handed fashion. But the jury is still out on that one.
Most companies in the west are leary of F2P games because of three major elements I suspect. One, as has been stated, F2P doesn't play well with western investors/shareholders. They are MUCH more about making the quarterly report look sweet, than anything long term(as usual Blizzard is the exception that proves the rule). Second, fair or not, F2P games have gained a poor reputation in the west for being low quality shovel ware. Not to mention attracting a demographic that isn't interested and/or able to invest in the game.
Third, there is the cultural differences between the east and the west. F2P works well in the east because they tend to favor PVP grinders that can be popped out like they are on an assembly line. Most of the popular ones are based on the same handful of re skinned/re purposed engines. That difference in culture is what is also causing so many problems for the Asian companies attempting to expand in to the west. They can't seem to comprehend that the western demographics for gankfest/griefer games is much lower in the west, than it is in the east. Not only that, but has anyone noticed that all three of the games NCsoft has closed have been western? Until those and other aspects of the problem are addressed, the movement of F2P into the west will remain slow.
I'm of the opinion that F2P is a gateway to spending more money than if you were to pay a regular monthly sub fee. A F2P game offers a limited experience to the gamer, whether casual, average or hardcore, then charges you up the wahzoo to get items, levels or other perks that dedicated players work hard for, and I for one think that companies get rich enough off of us without offering them additional opportunities to take more of our money from us. Paying for a huge expansion pack is one thing, but paying to get from level 5 to level 10, then having to do it again is not my idea of money well spent.
I am NO fan of F2P. When this economic model began to creep into NA, I was appalled and irate. And I still prefer P2P.
That being said, I think the only way the western market will accept a microtransaction model is the example set by DDO Unlimited and Wizard 101; paying to open up new areas and content. I don't think we accept anyone paying for items that others have to work for. But paying to open a new dungeon, or region, or storyline, might just be acceptable to us. I have speculated for a long time that SW:TOR may go this route. Just a hunch.
Anyone agree? Disagree?
I sure hope SWTOR does NOT go that route. I have no intention on playing a F2P game or pay a subscription so that someone else can do the same a la DDO. It is a said state of the gaming world when we the gamer are being duped into thinking that this so-called F2P model will be "good" for us. There is just not anything about that benefits the gamer. It does, if we are so duped, fully benefit the game companies. Now, I am not about being against game companies. I am about expecting the most quality and entertainment for the gaming dollars that I spend. Hence, F2P can in no way be a good thing.
No , nearly half of the 11 million wow players come from china and there is no 15$ montly fee . They use time based payment and dont forget blizz not operating servers at china.
I sure hope SWTOR does NOT go that route. I have no intention on playing a F2P game or pay a subscription so that someone else can do the same a la DDO. It is a said state of the gaming world when we the gamer are being duped into thinking that this so-called F2P model will be "good" for us. There is just not anything about that benefits the gamer. It does, if we are so duped, fully benefit the game companies. Now, I am not about being against game companies. I am about expecting the most quality and entertainment for the gaming dollars that I spend. Hence, F2P can in no way be a good thing.
The F2P model ALREADY benefits me. I wouldn't be playing DDO if it is a subbed game because i just don't have time to really play a second MMO (and while $15 a month is no biggie, i am also against paying if i am not really playing).
Now it is a nice second MMO that i can play a little and if i want more adventure, i can buy a pack. The nicest thing is that i don't have to play "seriously" to get my money worth. I don't know if Turbine can make enough off this model, but it certainly benefits ME.
And i surely hope that SWTOR is going that route. More f2p MMOs means that i can sample, and play multiple MMOs at the same time.
Gruug,
you are mistaken. F2P has benefitted a LOT of people, including me. I've gotten 100s of hours of entertainment from them. While I also enjoy P2P, I welcome any game that I can play without having to commit $50 to play it. Sure, some of the F2P games are junk, but so are some of the P2P. At least with the F2P ones, all you've wasted is some of your time.
F2P are ideal for casual players that only play occasionally and can't justify the cost of a subscription.
No matter how you try to spin it, nothing is free forever. So, let's talk the truth about how much you have spent in MT's or cash shops? I know plenty of people who have played the so called F2P plan with many a game and will not touch them now. I refuse to play them and nothing is free. So go ahead, humor me and be honest if you dare and tell us how much you spent so far. I guarantee a monthly sub fee is a whole lot cheaper. Not to mention if you cannot afford a mere 50 cents a day for gaming in the MMO world then go find a new hobby.
Many of us seasoned gamers used to pay $10-$12.00 an hour to play MUDS on BBS systems 25 fucking years ago. It makes me laugh at people that complain about 5o cents a day.
No matter how you try to spin it, nothing is free forever. So, let's talk the truth about how much you have spent in MT's or cash shops? I know plenty of people who have played the so called F2P plan with many a game and will not touch them now. I refuse to play them and nothing is free. So go ahead, humor me and be honest if you dare and tell us how much you spent so far. I guarantee a monthly sub fee is a whole lot cheaper. Not to mention if you cannot afford a mere 50 cents a day for gaming in the MMO world then go find a new hobby.
Many of us seasoned gamers used to pay $10-$12.00 an hour to play MUDS on BBS systems 25 fucking years ago. It makes me laugh at people that complain about 5o cents a day.
Who cares about "forever"? I have played a bit of DDO and so far i have paid NOTHING. I am not opposed to pay somethign but I am NOT playing fast enough to spend $15 a month. In fact, that is the primary reason why I do NOT sub to DDO because it is NOT my main game.
Plus, i expect to play something new soon if there is more F2P MMOs. I have tried a few and so far all of them are FREE to me (except my main game, which is WOW). Now $15 a month is not a lot of money, but i won't pay it for a game that i only play may be a couple of hours a month.
Plus, it is not about whether i can afford it, but why pay more if it is free?
Sure, i may be free-riding on someone else but it is certainly free (or at least low cost) to me.
The F2P model ALREADY benefits me. I wouldn't be playing DDO if it is a subbed game because i just don't have time to really play a second MMO (and while $15 a month is no biggie, i am also against paying if i am not really playing).
Now it is a nice second MMO that i can play a little and if i want more adventure, i can buy a pack. The nicest thing is that i don't have to play "seriously" to get my money worth. I don't know if Turbine can make enough off this model, but it certainly benefits ME.
And i surely hope that SWTOR is going that route. More f2p MMOs means that i can sample, and play multiple MMOs at the same time.
Apparently you missed it or do not understand my point. I, me, do not wish to PAY for YOUR playtime. If I, me, am paying the subscription for YOU to play for free it only benefits YOU and not ME. I already support too many other people to have to now be expected to support free loaders like YOU. Good day. ;)
No matter how you try to spin it, nothing is free forever. So, let's talk the truth about how much you have spent in MT's or cash shops? I know plenty of people who have played the so called F2P plan with many a game and will not touch them now. I refuse to play them and nothing is free. So go ahead, humor me and be honest if you dare and tell us how much you spent so far. I guarantee a monthly sub fee is a whole lot cheaper. Not to mention if you cannot afford a mere 50 cents a day for gaming in the MMO world then go find a new hobby.
Many of us seasoned gamers used to pay $10-$12.00 an hour to play MUDS on BBS systems 25 fucking years ago. It makes me laugh at people that complain about 5o cents a day.
You want the truth about how much I've spent on F2P games to date? The truth is about $5 in the last 3 years. This compares to $100s spent on P2P games. I also remember playing MUDs for years, Mainly NannyMUD, which is one of the few old ones still around (I also developed several quests and a guild there in LPC). My early gaming experience goes back to playing adventure games (written in Fortran and PL/1) on a DG minicomputer in the 1970s.
It's interesting to me that we keep bringing up DDO as an example of a "good" MMO that uses (now) F2P.
I played that game through Beta, and long enough afterwards to reach max level (ten at that time) with my fighter and my rogue.
My then guild and I were the first ones on any server (to our knowledge) to perfect the Thranaal speed runs (we did it in under 2 minutes for hours at a time. Fun stuff till they nerfed it).
Later, I came back to the game, and attempted to level again, but the game had lost me. It wasn't that I was simply burned out on the quests because I farmed the living hell out of them. It was that there was NOTHING else to do in that game but the instances, and the rewards for the work were utter crap.
The armor was awful looking. The character models were atrocious and impossible to customize. The music was just the worst stuff ever PERIOD. The textures were dissapointingly bland... and worst of all, all the D&D lore you would have expected to find in ANY D&D setting was simply absent. Sure, you got to roam around and see stuff in Stormreach, but you didn't get to really experience ANYTHING that made Eberron what it was in the books.
It wasn't that people were paying for the game that drove them away. It was that they were paying for THAT game. The only thing I honestly look back on fondly in that game is the traps system and how that made each dungeon truly seem like a unique experience AT FIRST. Even that they fell flat on though, as the traps became very predictable, and the things that could kill you most easily were still death ray and petrification. Two very specific spells that can only be countered by two very specific spells...
So they yanked the ability to be innovative right out of the players' hands. Hell, in the beggining, skills were easily swappable, and rogues could be spellcasters practically. But, bad dicision after bad dicision pigeonholed every single character into a specific class. D&D was never about min/maxing (unless you are a player who plays by him/herself) so much as it was about having fun with your character, and using the cards in your deck to the best of your ability. (By way of example, one of my most "powerful" sorcerer characters ever was a human named Goblin who made liberal use of "Open-Close" on armor straps, shoelaces, weapon belts, and coin purses. Where is even 1/2 that kind of innovation in DDO?)
Add on top of that a slip-shod magic system (innovative in that no one else had tried it, but boring in that you are still spamming a button until you are out of spell power/casts for that spell), horrible movement mechanics, and almost no interaction with the world around you(and certainly not on any scale that equates to it being a D&D universe), and BOOM! You have THE REASON why DDO FAILED MISERABLY to attract enough players to the game to make a P2P model worthwhile.
It didn't fail because it was pay to play. It failed because, quite frankly, the game sucked. We MMO fans dance around that conclusion too much because the game(whatever game we are talking about) offers us a few small moments of enjoyment, so we gloss over the HOURS of BOREDOM and FRUSTRATION they also cause.
DDO isn't really a good example of anything except of how a company can be very much unwilling to let a failed product just drop. The game far from breaks the mold of "F2P = Subpar gaming experience." In fact, it just drags it out more.
The F2P model ALREADY benefits me. I wouldn't be playing DDO if it is a subbed game because i just don't have time to really play a second MMO (and while $15 a month is no biggie, i am also against paying if i am not really playing).
Now it is a nice second MMO that i can play a little and if i want more adventure, i can buy a pack. The nicest thing is that i don't have to play "seriously" to get my money worth. I don't know if Turbine can make enough off this model, but it certainly benefits ME.
And i surely hope that SWTOR is going that route. More f2p MMOs means that i can sample, and play multiple MMOs at the same time.
Apparently you missed it or do not understand my point. I, me, do not wish to PAY for YOUR playtime. If I, me, am paying the subscription for YOU to play for free it only benefits YOU and not ME. I already support too many other people to have to now be expected to support free loaders like YOU. Good day. ;)
Sure. Then just do NOT spend money on the f2p games. There are plenty of others I can free ride on although i am curious why you don't just play the game for free, or spend just small amount of money.
It is a free world. The companies can charge (or not charge) their customers as they see fit. And you have the choice of whether to play or not.
The flaw in your argument is that failure is 0 or 1. If DDO can make *some* money going f2p, there is no point not to do it.
And sure DDO may be subpar, but there is always a value-price trade-off. People DO buy/play cheaper budget games. For people who cannot afford (or do not want to pay for) premium more expenisve games, this may be a good option.
For example, I don't think DDO is as good as WOW, so i won't switch my wow sub to DDO. Even I can afford two subscriptions, i am NOT going to since i am going to play DDO a little bit. This free model allows me to have SOME variation in my MMO experiences and it is a good thing. Even you play DDO to some extent. Now I can do it because the price is right. There is value in that.
I see dozens of f2p games--they aren't really free to play, if you want any of the things a subscription game allows you to acquire by just playing. If the U.S. market ever tries to switch to this type of game fees--I'll just not play them anymore. I am amazed that anyone would fall for this kind of setup!! I can just imagine the kind of money players actually WASTE each month buying items in the game for REAL money, lol.
nariusseldon, to reply to your first post,
"Sure. Then just do NOT spend money on the f2p games. There are plenty of others I can free ride on although i am curious why you don't just play the game for free, or spend just small amount of money.
It is a free world. The companies can charge (or not charge) their customers as they see fit. And you have the choice of whether to play or not."
I agree. Though I don't think it's a free world, and everyone has to answer to their actions. So while they may have the choice to do one or the other, they have consequences for those choices.
"The flaw in your argument is that failure is 0 or 1. If DDO can make *some* money going f2p, there is no point not to do it.
And sure DDO may be subpar, but there is always a value-price trade-off. People DO buy/play cheaper budget games. For people who cannot afford (or do not want to pay for) premium more expenisve games, this may be a good option.
For example, I don't think DDO is as good as WOW, so i won't switch my wow sub to DDO. Even I can afford two subscriptions, i am NOT going to since i am going to play DDO a little bit. This free model allows me to have SOME variation in my MMO experiences and it is a good thing. Even you play DDO to some extent. Now I can do it because the price is right. There is value in that."
I agree, from a developer point of view, that "failure" is a very VERY vague term. But from a purely objective point of view, as someone who's only bias in this matter is that they like to play videogames (and therefore doesn't have to be conviced to try videogames as a whole) how would you compel them to play DDO?
The only real appeal is that the game is free. But so is NOT playing the game. So we must base the merits of whether the game is worth playing on the gameplay itself, and the features found therein.
Voice chat built into the game. Trap systems and instanced content. The ability to group with friends.... story-driven (to a point) content...
And really it ends there. Still, the game falls short. With the exception of the voice chat built into the game, the other "features" simply do not add up to an experience that is marketable. Making the game free didn't change the value of the gameplay, it simply lowered the cost of it to the consumer.
The most un-biased player will ultimately look at DDO and think about trying it out. But what about it would truly convince them to stick with it? What makes the game worth their time, which is not refundable?
It is friends who play the game (any game really) that will attract other friends to play that game. That and "shiney features" which include, but are not limited to, addictive and fulfilling gameplay.
DDO does not boast enough players to be able to claim enough of a community to really draw in a substatial new crowd. It has enough to keep the current players playing. While this is not the fault directly of the game itself, it is a byproduct of the gameplay, not the pricing model.
The shiney features that the game has are what are what really attract players to the game. This game simply lacks them. Almost entirely, which is a true shame. I USED to play this game, and I remember my high hopes as I rode the longboat into the bay at Stormreach on my first character. I remember trying to temper them with my experience with other MMOs, but this was, of course, D&D. The grandfather of all things nerdy (tolkien being the great grandfather). So I was addicted enough to get to the end game and realize that the game was unfinished. It was incomplete.
I am all for this model of F2P and pay for the modules/expansions. This is why I play guildwars still from time to time. But based solely on the merits of the gameplay itself, this game is simply awful. In my opinion.
It does the F2P argument more harm than good to tout this game as a mascot of "success" for the model. Long winded as it is, that's my point.
Kusanoha, you may consider DDO to be "awful", but I've seen a lot of games that I consider worse. I agree that there are lots of deficiencies in it, but I haven't found any game yet that has everything I look for in a game. So rather than focus on what I don't like about DDO, I enjoy the things I do like and have fun.
When any game like DDO stops being fun, I move on to play something different, but I see no reason to stop playing while I'm still enjoying it just because I might get tired of it in another 2 months instead of the 4 months it might take if it was a better game.
I have no problem what so ever supporting a game I enjoy. I make it a point of purchasing some cash shop items, if I enjoy the game. That is after all, the way that the Dev's make money from their efforts. One does have to be careful, because its all too easy to spend more than one is expecting, but thats a matter of awareness and self discipline.
EA is all about numbers. Battlefield: Heroes is nothing more than a social test about how profitable of a venture it can be, as they have had their item mall up, running and fully functional during their beta stages. With their last massive patch that alienated a big part of the testers, they failed to care about informing anyone any notice about the changes made, but on the other hand their first priority was to INFORM IN DETAIL on everyones character screens with STEP BY STEP instructions to purchase their currency to buy specialty items.
End all... the potential is there. People do buy the ingame stuff, even though it's now in an "open beta" status and could be yanked at a moments notice. Overall I forsee EA going full blown with the idea and pioneering it in the West. If people are willing to buy items for games that are considered still in a "beta state", then to me that gives the thumbs-up for EA to further exploit the idea.
Possibly just possibly EA looked at the F2P numbers and did not like what they see. Considering this article is pure F2P favouritism and wishful thinking on Mr Aihoshi’s part, it is hardly surprising he wonders why EA has not taken up the joys of F2P.
I don’t.
I think you are looking at things from the wrong angle. If Ea makes a really good game they will get money for it no matter what model they use to charge it's customers.
WARs problem is not really that it have monthly fees, the problem is that the game is fun for 3 weeks but gets boring fast after that. Do you really think they would earn more money if they changed subsciption model on it? I don't think so.
EA needs to make better MMOs to earn more money, the model they uses for people to pay might give them a little more or less money but if the game suck they will still lose money.
No, what EA really needs are a few great game designers. Jeff Strain has just quited his job, hire in him to make a new game and the players will come, or someone similar. Buying Bioware was great for them because they did get a few really good game designers, a few more people like that and they could actually come to the top.
To earn money you need to make fun games. To make fun games you need good devs and let them make the games as they want them to be, not by having corporate people doing what they think will bring most money.
That is the key to success.
Exactly right. Since thats rather obvious why doesn't it happen? One MAJOR reason sticks out. Doing that is a *risk*. Damn few suits are going to make the decision to authorize investing that type of money, over the time required to achieve it. Shareholders/investors are VERY short sighted. What have you done to "improve shareholder value" this *quarter* is ALL they care about.
Suits know this reality, and they aren't going to take the personal career risks required. So they stick to what has worked in the past. Without real understanding of why it worked, and how the target audience may have changed over time. Which explains the base line reception many of these new games have received. But since the suits can pass the blame on to the Dev's or the players, they don't have to take personal responsibility for it, and bottom line thats all they care about. But this is creating a feed back loop that is damaging players perceptions of the industry itself. Unless something is done to break that cycle, Bad Things(tm) could be on the horizon for the MMO industry.
Exactly right. Since thats rather obvious why doesn't it happen? One MAJOR reason sticks out. Doing that is a *risk*.
Risk is an integral part of the business world. MMO companies have been trying to avoid it, and they fail. Only the ones to actually step up to the plate and take that risk will even have a shot at succeeding. And ALL F2P games are by definition risk-adverse. Therefore, they are bound to fail, or at the very best create nothing better than mediocrity. And being an adult who recognizes the precious nature of time, I refuse to waste it on mediocrity.
If EA goes free to play, I want Earth & Beyond back.
Risk is an integral part of the business world. MMO companies have been trying to avoid it, and they fail. Only the ones to actually step up to the plate and take that risk will even have a shot at succeeding. And ALL F2P games are by definition risk-adverse. Therefore, they are bound to fail, or at the very best create nothing better than mediocrity. And being an adult who recognizes the precious nature of time, I refuse to waste it on mediocrity.
Hell, if you are concerned about wasting time, you should find another hobby other than MMO games.
I quite agree that risk is not only part of business, but just about any human activity. The cult of the risk adverse isn't limited to strictly America. It has followers in just about all fields and countries. Far too many people do not understand risk management, and can not make a cost/benefit analysis for doing that management. Its all too directly personal to them. That is how we end up with so many failures and the luke warm "successes" that we've seen. Timid investors/shareholders who focus only on this *quarters* activity, are only one of the factors that drive that nasty feed back spiral. Unless or until people start taking some risks, we will continue to see the same warmed over pap that is all too common these days.