The List: Why You Should Embrace the F2P Movement
Today's The List column is a provocative look at the free to play movement in games these days. MMORPG.com writer Bill Murphy has four reasons why you need to embrace the F2P movement. See if you agree or disagree.
Column By William Murphy on July 29, 2010
Let me first state that this isn’t a distinct attempt to ruffle feathers. It’s merely a list of several reasons that the current trend of taking underperforming games and turning them into F2P titles is not succinctly “a bad thing”. Sure, right now it seems like little more than a marketing trend or a grasping-at-straws tactic for games with falling subscription numbers. But I’m of the mind that it’s one part of the greater evolution of the genre in the West. The space is getting crowded, and in order for variety to survive certain steps need to be taken to differentiate one product from another. The cost is only one piece of the puzzle, but it may be the most important one for some games. Let’s take a look at just why you shouldn’t be afraid of the current F2P Movement.
4.) Less Stress on the Wallet
This is the clear cut reason, is you ask me, as to why we shouldn’t get too worried prematurely at the F2P-ification of some of our current AAA MMOs. As I wrote in my blog last night, I have a self-imposed rule that I’ll only carry one active subscription at a time. I do a lot of testing products out for my work here, and thankfully I’m given beta keys and the like for those purposes. But generally, I don’t have oodles of free time these days to play all the games I wish I could. So it only makes sense for me to limit myself to how many $15 subscriptions I carry. The beauty of games like DDO, LotRO, and now EQ2 going F2P is that I don’t have to make quite as many sacrifices any more in terms of what game I have to play from month to month. Sure there are still fees involved for the above-mentioned games to reach their full playability, but I won’t begrudge the developers that. They need to make money. As a somewhat casual player of many MMOs, I find it extremely relieving to know that I won’t always have to drop $15 to start up my adventures in Middle-earth or Norrath again.
3.) Some Real Quality for Cheap
Let’s not beat around the bush. Before this all started, the F2P moniker usually meant that a game was going to be crap. The old adage of “you get what you pay for” comes to mind, but then games like Runes of Magic started sprouting up. It’s as though (GASP!) developers are taking notice that just making a game free isn’t enough to get our attention and certainly it’s not enough to get us to actually use the cash-shops. In order to get any money from gamers, a sect of people who are notoriously wishy-washy, your game had better work hard for our dollars. There’s a new term circulating around the blogosphere for DDO, LotRO, and EQ2: “No Cover Charge”. I like that. In most cases, you can play a great deal of the above three games without ever spending a cent. But like any club that’s without a cover charge, eventually you’re going to find yourself thirsty. And that’s exactly what developers are hoping happens. They’re hoping you come in for free, see how much time and effort they’ve put into their product, and then you’ll throw them a few bucks for some nifty items, bag-space, or whatever.
And if you don’t? Well at least you didn’t fork out a ton of money for a coaster or paperweight.
2.) Change
This is a bit of a vague reason, but let me try to explain. There’s a certain level of stagnation that happens when something in entertainment becomes popular. Suddenly ever other company is out there trying to duplicate the success of the person who first started the party. The reasoning, from a business standpoint is solid. If there’s only one person dominating a market, it makes sense to try and create your own similar service to grab a share of their customers. Only that’s not always been true in gaming. In fact, it often proves to be an unwise choice. Look at the startling number of bad GTA-clones for example.
What the F2P movement can offer, if the trend continues to prove successful for more people than Turbine, is change. What I’m hoping for, and perhaps vainly, is that the other potential revenue models offered by the F2P movement will show publishers that you need not replicate Game A to succeed. I’m hoping that LotRO and EQ2, and even Global Agenda, have a good measure of success in their “free” ventures, because then I believe we’ll see the suits start to realize that variety is the spice of life.
Of course the cynic in me says that may never happen. But as long as every so often we get a game changer, and it does happen, I’ll have to be happy.
1.) The Games Can Survive Longer
This is the most obvious benefit. It’s become commonplace to watch a game launch in today’s post-WoW climate, watch it stumble, and then watch it have its plug pulled because too much import was placed on a (now becoming outdated) subscription model. I suppose it doesn’t always follow that just because a game goes F2P it’ll become a better success. But what I do hope is that instead of just pulling the plug on games that are underperforming in the future, we’ll see more developers/publishers at least extend the life of their creative works by trying a different revenue model. One need only to look at the success of the DDO Unlimited re-launch to see that sometimes all it takes is a fresh approach to an old problem.
More The List Features:
More Columns:
More Features:
Two of your items in the list are the same and they basically say that it will be cheaper. Most people that currently have no issue paying a sub will likely pay MORE a month with f2p because they can. There will be more people who try the game, never spend a cent but also don't stick around. There will be more people who play it every now and then when they're bored, don't make much progress but don't spend any more. There will be far more people spending over $15 a month. So I find those two points to be dead wrong. Games like DDO have shown they make more money with F2P, which in turn shows that the average money brought in when factored by number of players is higher. This in turn means that more people pay a lot less and more people pay a lot more but the average in the middle pays more then it used to. So not cheaper.
This isn't change in a good way in my opinion. It means they now will nickle and dime you for all kinds of things that previously you would of gotten as part of your subscription. I don't like DLC on consoles either because it encourages games to release less content when they initially sell the game and then make people pay for the "extra" content which brings it up to a full sized game. Also as far as your point goes, it's already turning into everyone copy the guys who went F2P, so if your argument is based on everyone copying the same thing so change is good, in a year everyone will be a copy of the same thing again so there was no win.
The #1 point you made goes along with the first two points you mentioned. It stays around longer not because it is cheaper for players (that by itself is a contradiction). It stays around longer because the average money brought in per player is HIGHER. So by making it more expensive for gamers, the game can indeed stay around longer since it is bringing in more money. But it isn't staying around longer for good reasons.
Overall I found those to be poorly thought out reasons.
Snarlingwolf pretty much hit it on those nose.
Embrace the F2P movement?
Excuse me while I get a generic hotdog instead of a ballpark.
Well, in this case of AAA tittles that are reaching their EOL. I cannot say F2P is a bad thing.
If the following moddel is used I agree with it.
If the game has a subscription account that has full access to the game, updates and content.
If the subscription account also includes unlimited game play.
If the F2P account can play the core game ( at least up to the first expansion of the game ) without any purchase.
The F2P Account can then purchase any of the areas in either piecemeal transactions or some package deal.
The F2P account can be upgraded to subscription without losing anything that has been purchased.
To a casual gamer this sounds way more appealing ( and something I noted you did not include in your article ). A casual player will maybe put in 5-10 hours a week. It would take this type of player an extended period of time to make it to any of the upper level content. Stuff the Subscription guys are already doing because they have been playing the game since its inception.
It would allow those who can casually play these games, play them. Dropping some money off on the game when they can afford it and when they can use it. Having to get into EQII ( which has what? 2 expansions out now? ) is expensive for someone who has a budget and limited play time. If it takes 6 months to make it to the level you need to get to the first expansions content, that is too long to pay for something you have not been able to use.
Now, 6 months into the game, if I decide i want to go that next step. Then I can purchqase what is needed to do so. At probably about 70-80% of the cost of the new content. Beats offereing all of the expansions at 10% of their original costs.
I was never a big fan of this until I started playing APB. I do not play it as much as others. I have had the game over a month and still have about half the original time that came with the game. I can pick it up and play it at any time while not having to pay a monthly fee for something i am not using. Now that I have less time to play, why SHOULD I have to pay as much as those who can put 50-60 hours a week into the game?
We all know that MMO's reward those who play longer. Not necessarily play better. Just because you have the time to play 50 hours a week to get an item does not mean my Paying for the item ( an equivalent of 100 hours of game time ) is a worse situation. Is it? You saying your time is more important than mine?
I do believe that items should not be put into a CASH SHOP until the subscription items or main populace has had access to the item over some period of time. Make it fair, make it worth the time.
I love F2P games, right now i play DDO, if i have much time to play i just pay for the vip mode, if i have to study or i won´t have much time i dont loose my character and can keep playing.
With EQII, LOTRO, DDO and DC Universe high quality will reach F2P gamers.
The article was a good laugh, if that was what you were intending. The first one got a real chortle from me. Hope you said that "less stress on your wallet" tongue in cheek. You do realize of course that it is very easy to spend a lot more than your standard subscription rate per month in these games.
Their is no such thing as free to play, that is a complete misnomer. More like free to test and pay through the nose to play.
If you like pvp, you had better have a fat wallet, because ALL of these games require significant spending in the item shop to be viable in pvp.
Not saying f2p is bad. For those with not a lot of time to play and the cash to spend on the game they are a good choice.
Any game that has pvp with an item shop that effects such is still a complete joke in my mind.
f2p also encourages any yahoo with the patience to download unity to spit out a game. This dilutes player bases on other games making the idea of community .. and idea that used to be at the heart of the word MMO .. a fantasy. There are other reasons this is occuring, but most of those reasons also have to do with f2p games. Devs grasp at subscriptions. In order to hold them they have to give the players everything they want. There used to be consequences to ninja lookting and just being a jerk. Now you just rename your toon .. transfer .. or play another game. These things were all nerfed to ensure that the aaa titles kept their subs away from the plethorah of crappy titles being spewed forth by anyone who even tries.
The only meaningful point in that whole thing I could see was the notion of "No Cover Charge", which is something I highly embrace for a genre that's supposed to make money from long-term subscribers, not a glut of initial box sales.
But aside from that, the main points come across as excuses, and ones that can already be found ad nauseum throughout these forums. To paraphrase your four points, 4) "You don't have to pay anything to play", 3) "They're getting pretty good lately", 2) "Change will be good for this stagnated industry", 1) "It keeps failing games alive". To expand:
4) To which I offer the same tired old rebuttal - somebody has to pay, and with lots of people not paying (statistically), you need to go out of your way to convince the remainder to pay more. And cosmetics and bags of holding alone just don't bring the money in. Eventually, you have to sell time, whether that comes in the form of power or gold, which begs the age-old (and payment model agnostic) question of why a player is paying to avoid the game.
3) Mediocrity is still mediocrity, whether the improvement slope is positive or negative. Yes, gamers are starting to demand some quality, but all they're doing is beginning to hold F2P's to similar standards as other games. In due time, this may become a reason to "tolerate" the F2P movement, but not "embrace" it.
2) Sure, the MMO industry needs change. But ultimately, F2P refers to the payment model, not the gameplay itself. Try saying "This industry needs the same stuff as always, except on a different payment plan", and see how much less convincing it sounds. F2P doesn't magically change or revolutionize the game itself - if anything, it may just strengthen the temptation to design for profit instead of playing.
1) If the game is failing, it's probably failing for a reason. I'm not aware of any game that was truly in the shitter, that was magically resurrected through a transition to F2P. The example of DDO isn't an accurate representation of F2P, in that it involves selling the Adventure Packs (i.e. content), with tends to make the initial game into a well-featured demo, which isn't the same thing as F2P. There's a reason Turbine is calling it "Hybrid", and why the "No Cover Charge" term is beginning to get used - it's not the same thing as the F2P that this article is suggesting we embrace. But if you'd like to bring out some examples from the other 99.9% of F2P's out there...
4. less stress on the wallet
This has been mentioned over and over, F2P is rarely cheeper than P2P often way way more expensive (alantica anyone).
If you play more than a week or so in these games it quickly become clear how much the acctual cost of them is. And the ones that are not that expensive are often just P2P subs with free play that becomes all but impolssible at xx level.
3. Real quality for cheap.
Once agian i challenge the premise that it is cheap. However, i agree about the quality. Lets look at the games you exampled.
DDO - not a F2P made game nor were lotro or EQ2 (So please stick to acctual F2p games when you are addressing quality, ie games that were dev. and released f2p otherwise you can't make the claim f2p games provided quality, in my honest and logical opinion).
Runes of magic is one of the few F2P that i have not played much of, so ill not say much about it
Look at wizards 101 good game fun, quality, its a good game. Its F2P until you hit level 10 (and even if you can get pst this first bumb youll not make it past 20 without subbing) when it then becomes a P2P game. Much like WAr currently is. AS anyoen can play the first tier but to get past that you must sub. WAR should announce that its going F2P and make it so past the first tier you only get teir one experience for killing mobs (soon enough they will be worth no exp) and you are stuck with tier 1 stats and items. Soon enough you'll realize you have to pay to play, that is the state of almost all F2P games currently. Becuase people want money and thats fine, but a few people do F2P right. LoL is a game witha REAL FREE TO PLAY system, where you can play and compete 100% along side other players paying money or not. But there are aesthetics that you have to pay for if you want (but 100% do not impact game play) and you can buy things that do impact game play but any free player can get the same (it may take them longer) but that hardly matters becuase they are like the differnce between specs. The free player still has a specs, but by usign money you may have more specs (that are not innately superior). So change maybe good or bad, F2P as it is used by mmos today is largely bad for the reasons i have listed and will list below, But it could be good like LoLs.
2. Change.
Which is not good or bad. To ever lable change as a pro is quite humorus. Change is just that, a difference, it cannot imply a positive or negitive quality (however it could be one or the other, or even both at the same time). As i have been saying most F2P is not much of a change open trials allowed with required subs. Others (cashshops) require quite more money to experience even less of a game than P2P (Always tout alantica as my example here). Why becuase its good buissness, if a person liek a game enough to keep playing it, they often like it enough to invest a small amoutn of money and if they still like it well, now at level 80 i need more stuff just to keep going, so ill spend a bit more until your spending a lot just to play the game (not even get great equipment, all of which you can get in p2p games like wow and daoc for just $15. In alantica it costs $100s and $100.)
I do have to say that turbine and its ddo system allows game play w/o paying a ton, but before for $15 i could max a toon and visit an easy $70 worth of instances. Even if i didn't have much time to play and it took me 3 months or $45 i would have far fewer limitations (as i now have to buy character spaces etc, i played b4 so i wouldn't, but for somethings i would) New feats pack etc. U don't have to buy them, will i be weaker sure, but hey its free and forget about skill or even effort, achivement now comes with the almighty power of the dollar. Overall, however i understand that this system does acctually allow gameplay without spending much and for that i support turbine, how long this will last... And if you want to play alot of this game for like a year or more its not a bad deal. As you still will own those adventure packs. But if the game is low on playability, which ddo is i question if you'll get your money out of them. As for cash shop games liek atlantic, etc. You get less play time out of cash shop items, buffs, etc than youd just nornmally have in a P2P games.
1. The games can suivive longer.
Why; did you ask yourself why?
More sever usage and requirements in F2P.
Why do these P2P shutdown?
Well if i was still making money .. why not keep the doors open.
But if p2p doesn't provide enough money, how does F2P.
And there you have it, F2p provides more money. Wow would love to be F2P , people would just buy eleet equip. Many would drop $100s, but atm with so many players $15 is not that bad. See not every one can afford F2P and many would leave, because, whats the point of works hard to earn somethign if you can just be rich and buy it ourside of game. Thats not a game, there is no "game" to that. In small low sub/dieing games if you switch to F2P what you will get is more people trying it (becuase its called f2p) hopefully time investment and then money investment that follows that times investment. Basicaly, its a P2P with higbh costs and a good trial that attracts people. This is fine. That is a buissness / payment model , but its not FREE and it does detract from the game. Hurry you have to help these people over here (quest) but only if you pay $7 first.. .
These are my feeling, experiences, and what i believe is the truth. If you disagree please do so and tell me why. What exactly do you disagree with and what are your experiences.
Edit- I must say from the comments so far itsrather obvious that most of the mmorpg community actually agrees that getting ripped off but F2P games is bad. And has Seen F2P for what it is a money theiving scheme designed around people's addictions to mmos, poor money skills, and desire for achivement.
I think SnarlingWolf already gave some excellent rebuttles to reasons 3 and 4.
My thoughts on 2. Change. There are already too many half assed MMOs watering down the market. More games going to the FTP plus cash shop method will just increase this downward slide. I agree that the $15 a month scheme is antiquated and needs to be replaced with something new, but I most empatically disagree that the FTP with cash shop scheme is the change we need.
1. The games can survive longer. On this I'm calling bullsh*t for two reasons. First badly desgined games just like any half baked product, deserve to fail. A company using the FTP method to bilk even more cash out of the customer before the game finally tanks is moraly reprehinsible. Second reason, Shadowbane went free to play with no cash shop. Its dead Jim. Exteel is Free To Play, it is soon to be put out of our misery. FTP with or without a cash shop is zero guarentee that a bad game will draw a marketable player base. And I seriously fail to see how a crap game could do anyone any good by languishing on long after it should have died.
Well my theory is that games should have a free trial from the start so you can see if you like the games: style, mechanics, etc., etc., then if you do you subscribe. Too me the F2P model is either for casuals or for people on a budget and who will stick with there budget and not spend more then they would for a subscription. The model that DDO uses seems to be okay from what I know about it (my brother-in-law plays but subs so....) but why really have what they call a free to play game but if you want to experience the full game you have to sub or spend money. It just doesn't make sense to me, its like going to a movie and you can see the first 45 minutes for free but if you want to see the rest you have to get a ticket, I mean maybe that could work to but just seems weird.
I just know I will probably never (cause I have learned to never say never, lol) play a free to play game again tried a couple and they were just not for me.
Does anyone have numbers on how much it costs these companies for bandwidth? I remember about 7 years ago a UO person said that it cost almost $6/month just for bandwidth and customer service.
One thing I think people are confusing is 'players' vs 'sales' vs 'profits'. A game can have a lot of players, and even garner a lot of sales, but meanwhile they aren't profitable. Also, as there is more and more dilution from the amount of free games available, it will drastically cut into each games possible revenue.
DDO was successful, but that is because they were the only modern MMO to go f2p. Now there is Lotro and Eq2. DDo also had a better template for doing it with adventure packs etc. Games like EQ2 and LOTRO both have very 'strange' interpretations of what is purchasable and what is free.
Me? i'm happy paying Blizzard $15 for a full dev team, and for a game I know will be around next year.
LOTRO and EQ2 will just see a lot of 'locusts'.
While I don't have a problem with free to play games, I did not agree with much of this article.
As others have said, these games tend to cost more over the same amount of time as a typical subscription game. On top of that they actually give less in return, because everything is fractured into little segments that can't be accessed without additional fees. This isn't something I hope most current subscription games do, becase there isn't much benefit in it.
What I do like is that they offer a no risk look at the greater portion of the game and a more flexible payment method for those who tend to play less. In time I think the hybrid model will right itself into something that attracts more users overall, but right now there is far more hype about the f2p change than there is evidence. So far there has only been 1 game to actually make this change and all we have seen is a short term increase from it. Lets check back in a year or two on these games and see how this really works for the company and the players. Then maybe it will be something we should encourage more of. It still might prove unsustainable for all we know.
Also you say subscription model is becoming outdated? Last I looked subscription games dominate the market and even several of the biggest F2P games have gone the way of subscription model. F2P has made some improvements, but there is still a long way to go.
All said and done, we are still talking about games that are in decline and could not compete in the open marketplace. That is why they are switching revenue models. Is the subscription model really dieing or is this just dieing games are fleeing the subscription model?
4)F2p games are not free neither are they cheap to play. F2p games are generally free to trial then costs skyrocket as the game company maximize their profits on what the market will bear.
Example 2009 f2p runner up Wizards101. 60 dollars to unlock the game on a 1 year lease. Drop a named boss get a piece of furniture or go to the named boss chest right behind the dropped mob and pay for your gear drop. The bosses will drop gear its just not in the company's interest to do it when they have a cash shop they want you to use. So plan on running that boss 20-30-40-100 times for your drop. So many great games out there for 60 bucks and wizard101 is not one of them. I'd suggest for half the cost and the ability to play with the same number of friends if not more go play Sins of a Solar Empire.
3)F2P quality? It's laugable. Drag up failed and/or worn out AA titles as the flag bearer for quality f2p. Didn't see a single game that launched pure as a free to play on your list . Why didn't you use the largest f2p game on the market as an quality example- Farmville. Probably because the game doesn't scream quality it screams time sink.
2)Change. How about instead of changing payment plans to improve your stale game you stop poaching devs from each other. Fire the lot and get new blood with fresh ideas. Get all your game devs over 28 years old line them up on a buffalo jump and shove them.
1)Your example here for games that launched and failed overlooks the obvious. Warhammer/Aion/DDO/Vanguard/AoC/lotro didnt fail because of their payment plans. They failed because after millions upon tens of millions of dollars spent developing them they launched them with crashing/buggy/grindy/broken mechanics and stale formats. They spent all that money and missed their market audience by launching with less than what was advertised or playablity/fun that can be easily found in other more complete AA titles.
In a back handed way though you are right here. Spend 100 million dollars on a supposed AA game it fails, so sell it as the flagbearer of a quality f2p in a last ditch effort to stay relevent There must be investors lined up around the block for that. All the true f2p games have one thing in common when it comes to spending less. And thats development. Using failed AA titles as the future for quality f2p or what is to be expected in the future as f2p is as disingenuous as it gets.
I think it is sad when those that pay can pay the most in microtransations have the most advantages over those that may be more skillful.
Nevertheless its a good way to play a game for free if the cash shop items are not alltogether essential.
The ideal is novel, however, when you add to the equation human greed, then as the British like to say, "It all goes tits up!" Frankly, the same can be said about Democracy, Socialism, Communism. On paper there are some noble ideals behind all those... and again add human greed to the equation and we got the same situation.
Basically f2p isn't a bad idea, it's just the human equation that seems to ruin the possiblities.
EDIT: I think f2p could be feasible if the MMORPG in question could have 2 servers, one f2p w/ item shop and one p2p. That way if I like the game, I'd switch over to p2p model.
In my opinion, I like a game that has high production values, sells a "box" for initial release, sells expansions that add sizeable and fun content, and gives regular updates funded with my monthly subscription fees. On top of that, I expect my loyalty (months paid) to be rewarded with other perks, much like City of Heroes has done. I would also like the option to pay (at a reduced rate) for the loyalty I might not have been able to afford due to time or money constraints at one point or another. This is the model that works for me, and while it might not indicate change, or less money spent over time, it's what I feel provides the VALUE I expect for what I pay. I don't expect much from F2P, so I'm normally not disappointed. However, I don't GET much if I just play for free, so pretty soon I'm weighing just how much certain store perks are worth to me to get more out of the game, and that's too much of a headache. I'd rather keep it to in-game currency alone, and if I need more of it, I'd like the option to buy THAT from the company at reasonable rates (rates that reflect the economy and the going price for what I might want to spend my money on). I doubt I'll ever be much of a F2P fan. Eventually, if there isn't a subscription model I can move to when I really get into the game, I'll feel cheated by the stores that are charging me each time I want to increase my enjoyment instead of making such things intrinsic to playing the game and plunking down my $15 bucks a month to adventure and find my own rewards.
Yeah i posted this idea in a few of the other love affair F2P posts.
Basically, A good new model with to be to pay for the hours you play , the only VALID AND LOGICAL arguement aginst the monthly fee (which is not antiquated, alot of people wanting to make MORE MONEY call it antiquated to . . . . MAKE MORE MONEY, does not make a payment plan used on most monthly services in most industrialized countries [barring social distribution of costs, collectivism] a "antiquated" method).
As gamers even calling this system antiquated is so sad, infact it makes me rage a little inside. Mainly becuase your young or forgetful, you don't remember the internet before cable and dls... and thena bit before that. See there were no monthly fees. That old antiquated method of payment did not exists for internet access, instead you had by the hour payment ... And it was expensive. Does that mean that system of payment wan antiquated .. NO. All this means is that neither of these two systems are, they have to no longer be relivent or useful for become antiquated, which, they are not.
So the real questions becomes, is $15 too much. As many of us had said, if you spend 5 hours in a month in that mmo its cheaper than a movie. The price seems VERY FREAKING GOOD TO ME IF YOU ASK (or if you don't i just told you anyway). If you spend only 10 hours a week playing its $0.00625 a minute that equalis $0.375 a hour (@20 a week, $0.003125 an minute and $0.1875 a hour). Which is far far cheaper than eatign out, watching movies, well heck anything but watchign tv (which is also a good price btw, buy a big tv if you watch a lot the cheapest form of entertianment in america).
The other issue is some people get more for the same price. True, but lots of things are this way. Your CPU is 100% this way so is your memory and video card. Some cpus last longer, others run better , OC better, are cooler, etc. (all within the same make, model, and price). Some people order the same meal at a seafood place (or where ever, steakhouse) and one persons meal/meat/whatever is better than the others, but the price was the same. I build computers for friends, family, etc. I order thermal paste and often i don't use all of it, often it comes with the hsf and after 4 of thos hsf i have way to much thermal paste, so am i being over charged for it? Id say no, but lets look some different payment models.
We could get xxx amount of hours for $15 , if this happens it will cost more for the average user (becuase a reason to change your model must have an incentive and these peoples jobs are to make money). Using this system no oen over pays, its good for the servers becuase people don't afk in game. But there is a darkside as well, the more people play and the longer it takes to accomplish various things in game the more money you make. This is a great reason to make leveling, crafting, questing, raids, etc etc. take longer. And don't say that can't happen that is the model most F2P use, buy this 200% exp potion just so you can level once a day. Now maybe the game dev.s wouldn't do this and here is the light side if you just play a few hours every week or so you could save a lot.
But if you really wanted change why not just use a hybrid, $15 unlimited play and a more expensive per hour, but cheaper for people who play less. good spots in my mind are $15 for 56-60 hours of play. I saw one person say 80. The funny thing about this why do it? That (80 hours) btw is 20 hours a week of play or 4 hours, 5 days a week, which is not casual play and then why would you want to pay hourly over a flat rate. Now this price may seem very high. The cost is much higher if you play 80 hours a week. But remember this deal is for those who don't play much (a two to three nights of 2-4 hours), but still want to play the game. Over all 16-48 hours of play time a week at 2-3nights at 2-4hours each So for $15 these people could play that game 3.625 months - 1.16 months (at 56 per $15) or 3.75m - 1.25m (at 60 per $15). So its a good deal for that payer and its a good deal for the company (they are getting more money for the same server load).
I would have posted this in my last post other than, its big and that post was already big. Let me know what ya think and why. Change can be good or bad make sure you know what change your getting before its too late to stop it.
payment by hour will promote casualism. The more casual a game is, the more empty the gameworld is, the more likely for the game to not retain players/payers. games with empty worlds are dead.
I'm looking at EVE's PLEX and realize...it keeps the world populated.
I am hoping that this FTP scheme will run it's course over the next couple of years and then go bust. It will take that long in my estimation before people realize that with subscription base monthly pay gone the prices will continue to rise.
Companies know how to bait you into buying stuff in the heat of the moment and constantly add items that are needed over time. They are marketing experts. Just like the research that goes into commercials on TV, they will do research after research to figure out how to get you to buy items in the game.
It is sad already for those that have supported these MMO's over the last five years to get an email stating that their contribution to keeping that MMO alive by being a loyal subscriber is not worth anything.
Look at the new EQ2 model for example, now even the subscribers will have to pay to unlock classes. So now you have to pay a monthly subscription and buy items in the store to have the same benefits you had before. LOTRO will give you coins in a monthly amount if you are a subscriber, that tells me that they want to condition subscribers to become comfortable with the store so that later on the can release items that you will have to purchase.
This is what happens when large companies go about buying up all the smaller ones and have to support large overhead costs. It all comes down to the mighty dollar. It is just another step for companies to try and soak you for more money for the same item.
As for quality, I am not sure how many FTP games you played, but in my experience if you ran into a bug and submitted it, in most cases they would say "Ohh sorry, here is 400 super coins, hope you feel better" and the bug would remain. It sure doesn't cost them anything to give me fake coins. Matter of fact, it is cheaper then fixing the bug. So no quality there.
Anyway, it is only a matter of time before gamers credit cards get maxed out or they wise up on how FTP is not good model for the gamer.
It sounds like too many of the above posters are missing the point. If you have compulsion issues that push you to play a game 60 hours a week, you'll have those same issues pushing you to spend ridiculous amounts of money to play a F2P game. After leveling to cap in two F2P games and halfway there in Battle of the Immortals atm I have spent a grand total of ten bucks. And that was last week to buy more backpack slots. You really do not have to spend money if you don't want to. If you end up dropping fifty a month to play a game, that's your fault and has nothing to do with anything but your own problems with control and patience in most of these games.
I thought I'd jump in and mention that, starting a couple days ago, I downloaded and began playing Allods Online. While the game itself isn't bad, though a rather uninspired clone of so many games that came before it, it is one of the most nickel and dime F2P's I've given the time of day. Twenty dollars for a backpack? Seriously? And I can't earn them any way, whatsoever, in the game itself? Yeah, sure, I'll just go ahead and shell out a hundred bucks for five full slot bags, which would be near the equivilent of almost seven months worth of payments for a fifteen dollar subscription MMO. Give me a god damn break.
Embracing F2P is embracing your desire to be ripped off, wholesale.
If by "embrace" you mean give it a bear hug of death and squeeze the life out of it until I put it out of my misery...then sure I will embrace it till it dies. Otherwise I will continue to avoid f2p like the plague that it is. Just change the wording to 'free to pay' already and lets stop pretending it is anything other hehe.
Wrong, F2P is never Cheaper for a person that wants to Compete and Win, I speak with 8 years of experience of leading a guild trough more than a few "Free" to play Games.
I suggest before making columms liek this you actually try some F2P games such as Rohan Online, Archlord Online, Rose Online, Allods Online, where PvP is part of the game and to win he who has the most money to buy best items is who wins.
In Rohan Online and Archlord Online I saw many Members unload over $1,000.00 in less than a year, jsut to get the "Exp pills" "drop rate pills" "extra stats pots" etc.. etc...
not to mention when the Rohan Staff started Selling God like Weapons in the Item Mall for $250 a piece which people gobbled up liek it was nothing, so much for the economic downturn huh?
if your a player that only logs into a game for 30 mins to an hour walk around do a quest and kill 10 monsters and log off then yes, F2P can be cheaper, but if your a hardcore gamer looking to win and be on th top you will spend WAYYY more than a monthly subcription game.
Dreamworls of a post , adding no value to any argument.
MMO subscriptions are one of the cheapest forms of entertainment.... F2P isn't because anything decent has more hidden costs, knowing what has to be paid on a monthly basis is no issue whatsoever. I guess unless you are a doley.
You forgot the main reason
It breaks the nationalistic behavior of marrying a game and letting a lot of games pass you by. The P2P games actually overall hurt the gaming industry. That kind of attitude is what lead practically every major developer thinking into making P2P MMORPGs to try to steal some population into those games and have a nice 5 - 10 year revenue source.
Why make a FPS, Singleplayer RPG or RTS game, if I can use those 3 - 5 years to make an MMORPG and then with 1 million subscribers, every 3 months I can get as much as I would get from developing any other game on monthly fees alone.
If ALL MMORPGs became F2P games and had a different business model, they would all have to COMPETE AGAINST EACH OTHER and developers would have to GIVE YOU GOOD CONTENT....
Today MMORPGs are CARTELs with an Alliance of "Everyone charge the same monthly fee and we won't bother your population if you stay away from hours." You end up with individuals who want to "make their moneys worth of a game" so they play it for 8 hours or more a day. They ignore other games so every few months a new release occurs, its ignored by many people....
If Corporations weren't stuck up on collecting fees from people monthly, people would see REAL PROGRESS....But there is a reason why in 10+ years of MMORPGs little has changed in the genre...and its due to this CARTEL mentality which exists, and its players even support...
Look at how every other genre has improved due to competition while MMORPGs have remained the way they are for the most part.....
Make the games F2P and it means EVERYONE IS FREED. I've ran private servers and calculated before that one only needs .0025 - .0033% of monthly profits to maintain the game monthly.
Wall after wall of anti-F2P rhetoric spewed by the ignorant masses. These same tired arguments resemble swiss cheese lately, more holes than substance. Oh! The F2P payment system just lifts up the wallet heavy player and exaults him over the poor, hard-working ole grinder of yore! Give it a rest, you lackwit yokels. The F2P movement of five years ago might have been susceptible to some of this drivel, but today's AAA titles bearing the free flag shrug them off like pebbles thrown at a Sherman tank. Take a look at the first wildly successful example of the genre, DDO Unlimited. I've clocked more completely free time in that game than I could stand in most of your precious sub-based flagship failures, and I never felt the pinch of necessity to throw away my hard earned cash for strictly convenience items. Recently I've started subscribing for VIP status at the same standard cost I would spend to sub to any other pay to play game, so I could experience some of the content the development team has come up with lately. I found the game to be worth every penny, and I was able to arrive at that decision because they allowed me the time to become comfortable with the world and it's mechanics before I had to commit. THAT is what the F2P movement embodies, a true look in to the soul of a game before marrying it. Stop wailing over the individuals who spend fortunes to stand out amongst their peers in a small portion of certain games. If you really feel the need to compare yourself tit for tat to every person around you, and find your enjoyment hampered by not being in the top fractional tier, you better prepare for some disappointment both in and out of the virtual space.
Take this F2P trend for the benefits it offers, the ease and relative freedom with which you can jump in to and out of the world, the flexibility of use of your currency, and the ability to influence developement not only by voicing your opinion in a forum setting, but also by virtue of what you DO spend your money on.
I think the difference is I have no problems paying money up front and a membership fee to have full access to all the facilities a game may offer. Whilst you prefer to grub around the trashcan out back. Newsflash rubbie- the only reason you have access to those trashcans is because there are gamers willing to put their money where their mouth is and cough up cash to keep the facilities open weather its a full pay or a f2p game.
I think my only real big problem with F2P games is the customer service , its nonexistent well it maybe there for the first month or so then it slowly gets worse , then it vanishes all together.. now with P2P its always there and thats what i like about P2P games.
If they put more effort into the customer service side i might just play more F2P games.
I think what you're saying is absolutely true, don't like the way you said it, the problem being is that the term F2P brings with it all those images of games designed to exploit the F2P model from the ground up, that create a frustrating experience unless you pay through the nose, it doesn't bring to mind games like DDO that started as a sub game that moved in to a hybrid model.
I liked the way DDO have handled the transition, it's good for the game, I wouldn't have tried it if it hadn't changed as would many of the people still enjoying it and paying for it. I'm excited by the news LotRO is to follow and EQII.
Don't think about this in the same way as you think about traditional F2P games and think about it differently. I wouldn't say embrace it, I think there are benefits as proved by DDO but I've seen too many pitfalls in the F2P market and the creeping of cash shops in to subscription games to be welcoming this change wholeheartedly, I'll reserve judgement and applaud or protest depending on each case.
News flash "rubbie"! We call people who pay up front with little to no idea of what they're buying "Dupes" in this country. A smart consumer, a saavy individual, knows that being able to extensively test drive a product before they shell out any money whatsoever is a GOOD idea. It's called informed consumption. These antiquated AAA pay to play titles are skyrocketing in cost at the developemental level. Guess what they're "developing" with those dollars? The insane level of hype that the rest of you freedom-haters require so you will fork out your money to buy a product sight-unseen. I hope you're the type to buy a lifetime subscription to a game before you've even played it.
Well im not sure where this f2p s**t storm orginiated at, nm i remember now. But it has gotten some larger media attention. The Wall Street Journal was one of those. Im not going to commont on their article but, what was clear is that F2P make the company more money. You wanna know why there is a push for F2P .. its easy game companies want more than $15 a month from you and in F2P games they get it. Now i have clearly stated that there are some real f2p games out there, very few but a few SB was one, Lol (not an mmo) was one etc.
A few people do not want to admit that F2P is a simple rip off. thats fine but i just want to stress to most of the people out there are are no positives to this system, as most often its FAKE and not F2P at all. Even those pro F2P in this forum addmit that they had to switch to sub to actually play the game (well that not their take but its the truth, once they did that they are now playing a P2P game, ill say that agian. They are not playing a F2P game they are playing a P2P game with a open trial w/ strong limits. This is fine but don't pretend its F2P cause its not, even tho DDO is one of the most free to play). Cash shops w/o subs (P2P options) are the worst type of payment models. In most cases requires $50-$100+ a month just to play.
I do agree with the advantage of testing the game before paying for it. P2P game have these they are called trials. By many standards and statement of what F2P is by a few pro F2P people WAr is more of a F2P game than wizards 101. This is rather odd a F2P game is less F2P and a P2P game. Why? Well easy F2P is rarely F2P. if you want to play Wizards 101 or WAR past a defined earily point (WAR is later ability and game wise than Wizards) then you have to P2P; until then you can play all you like.
There is definatly an effort in parts of the industry to encourgae adaptation to F2P models to make more money. Thats what this is all about. Don't believe me look up the articles.
I think that is an intelligent and well thought out strategy, Evil. Of course I'm not saying that every F2P title will be of the same calibre that DDO is at. In fact, it will probably be in the minority of those to be released for quite a while. But being smart about the way you spend your money, for example using the free to play model to really get a feel for whether or not YOU are having fun in a game, is the point here.
Less stres on my walet?? Thats so much bs, I find you pay more for f2p than sub.
I don't think we have to embrace it, but we're going to have to learn to live with it. There is a nice part to it, that you can try before you buy, and in many cases you can try a considerable portion of the game before deciding to spend cash. The negative side is that these companies are purposefully adjusting mechanics of their F2P games in order to give players "incentive" to make purchases, such as XP boost potions and what not.
Turbine has a wonderful F2P system in DDO, but they seem to be more limiting in LotRO, especially since you're going to have to purchase quests per region, or trait slots.
I would be more inclined to embrace the F2P model if so many companies attempt to nickle and dime players into purchasing more content. Actually, it surprises me to an extent that more companies haven't attempted the ArenaNet method of making games that are Buy 2 Play, and produce expansions annually or even bi-annually.
What this article is showing are the benefits of having the choice in how you pay/play. IF you plan on being number one, plan on paying the sub fee, problem solved.
There are bad examples of F2P and there are good examples of F2P, you're only pointing out the bad apples. In older F2P games you really didn't have a whole lot of option in how you were going to pay for your time. You either A played for free and often at a disadvantage or you paid for the advantages that came with your purchases.
With DDO, LOTRO and EQ2 they're offering an alternative to that. If you are going to want it all, they offer you it all with a standard sub. In EQ2's case they even separate those who are not playing the game as intended. I see nothing wrong with this.
The games you're referring to especially Archlord are designed around the pay to win model, most of us loathe. Making them bad counter arguments against the OP, at least IMO.
I understand everyones opinion varies, however, far too often people use weak trumped up counter points only for the purpose of being argumentative, which I'm seeing to much of in this thread.
I have to answer this with a question:
You think gaming companies are going f2p because they just feel it in their hearts to give us more free content; or is it the games in this format bring in more revenue? Companies exist to make profits. Not give out free things to make people happy.
[Mod Edit]
Shennanigans, plain and simple. DDO can be entirely F2P, hence why it is classified under that title. Obviously the company is hoping you spend something on their product eventually, else why in the world would they put out the cost of further developement and upkeep. If I chose to cancel my VIP status tomorrow, I could continue to play DDO completely free of cost for as long as the service existed. THAT quality makes it F2P. We aren't talking about getting everything for nothing here, that would be completely ludicrous. We're talking about being smarter about the way we spend our money. I will make you a promise right now. The way people choose to spend their money in a RMT shop will speak louder than any amount of forum posts a community could ever make. Don't want to see unbalancing gameplay items included in a shop? Don't buy them, and stigmatize anyone who does. Beyond that, you're just spinning your wheels, end of story.
Its a popular misconception that free to play models cost more and really stems from ignorance of the fact their are many different models now available . Games such as DDO offer a hybrid model which allows players to experiance a lot of free content before deciding whether they wish venture further into the game . If they do they have one of three choices
1) grind to gain enough points to spend on advance ment (no expence there at all)
2) micropayment to purchase adventure packs should they only wish to proceed as a casual gamer (cheaper than a monthly fee for someone who only wants to play a little now and then)
3) opt into paying a subscription unlocking the adventure packs( exactly the same as a monthly sub)
not one of these three options come to more than the old monthly fee .
Games like Runes of Magic do only offer the cash shop but they are possible to play for free if you dont wish to use it . Most people do though although most people I know that play it have only spent money on a mount wish comes to roughly about a month and half of a regular subscription fee . So for them if they play for say 6 months the game is much cheaper than a normal subscription mmo .
Of course there are other mmos (mostly of eastern origin) that do milk the cash shop and they can be a lot more costly .
Then you have games such as World of Warcraft that now have a vanity cash shop . While you don't have to use it the same applys to the likes of Runes of Magic and DDO and you also have to remember plenty of people use black market microtransactions to advance themselves in WoW via leveling services and gold sellers .
My view is the Hybrid model is the way to go for nearly all mmos . Allow limited free to play with the option of upgrading to the standard subscription fee . Some will argue that you have to top that up with extra microtransactions all I can say is that these people are talking off the top of thier head without ever experiancing it first hand because that certainly is not my experiance of it .
Also the Guild Wars model of buy to play is extremly attractive .
Things are changing in the mmo market and I can foresee a time when very few mmos simply offer only a subscription model without some sort of free to play content .
I suppose at the end of the day is if you don't like free to play don't play free to play and if you are worried you might overspend simply take the option to subscribe in the same way as you do now .
Perhaps nobody noticed but MMOs that are worth playing don't do F2P... So we have divided up MMO's now into categories: Fast-Food (Hey it's cheap! Not really!) and homemade cooking by a real chef... I'll just call it 'Homemade'.
Sure organic food taste better and is more expensive but at least it doesn't give you diarrhea afterwards.
Who said otherwise? They may gain more revenue by catering to more people as well as their indvidual budgets. There's no big secret in what you're attempting to preach.
I'm going to point a finger fairly and squarely at the authors choice of language here as being the prime reason for so many ill thought out posts in this thread, it's about time we started to use our heads and our use of language and start to differentiate. As I stated before F2P to many gamers = nothing more than money grabbing games that are built from the ground up to get as much cash out of you as possible, DDO, LotRO and EQII DO NOT fall in to that bracket. Can we start thinking about using different terms?
I'm no expert with language nor do I expect anyone to come up with a universal easy way to describe all these different payment models but surely we can narrow it down some? Hybrid seems ok to use as a term for games that offer free content, a la carte content and a subscription option. It shouldn't be too difficult for us to learn to use a different term and eventually and objectively acknowledge the difference.
It's painfully obvious that a lot of what this article has to say has been clouded because of the language.
F2P
B2P
Sub
Hybrid
Is that too hard?
Your definition of informed consumption with extensively test driven product is what everyone else in the world considers at best a cheapskate at worst a bottom feeder. Games are developed for people with cash to spend or are willing to spend to see if they bring anything that just might interest them. No dev is going to spent hard fought for dev money for elbows deep trash can divers. Ooops my bad, elbows deep 'informed consumers'.
As for freedom haters? Well hell ya. Since all this f2p stuff has been breaking on us I have gone out and tried a few f2p's. Guess what so far they suck balls. DDO/wizards thrown in the trash can for you to devour inside of a week. Bon apetitt.
So in your country you must not, Order anyting on the internet, buy anything from an unopened box, bought any fast food, Bought anything froma STORE. Oddly, enough resturants are ok with your theory. I can research games before buying them, most P2P games have trials are often as good as the F2P "trials" time before you need to pay. So your claims are based on a fallacious agrument that you here make.
All this being said i agree that mmorpgs should not have box sales above $20 (help offset, the spike digital download costs, and dev of larger games) and trials and open betas should be avalbile.
But the thing is they are. most modern online games give beta keys to anyone who preorders $5. Ok Its not free off the bat but thats a few weeks if not a month or two of beta, which is more play than most F2P give in their FREE period. Additionally, trials and buddy keys come with most games now. So its not like there is no opritunity to test. Still this is a rationalization, a logical one, which is rare on these forums, but i will restated that i fully believe in trials, buddy keys, low/no cost for the game itself when subscription is involved.
No such thing as Free! If you're not paying a sub fee, it means I am paying 3 times to cover you.
How is that fair, or good? Redistribution seems good for the casual player but eventually you run out of other players money to steal.
I don't know...
I found more fun in playing most of the Aeria free-to-play mmos over the years than I had in most of the pay-to-pay ones I've played.
I think free-to-play+cash shop+subscription hybrid is the best way to go. There's a bunch of good quality mmos out there that are free. I'm talking about good graphics/gameplay/music/ pve/pvp/ animations. There's a bunch with way different ideas and styles than pay-to-play mmos have right now as well. There's just way more to offer me in terms of variation in the current free-to-play market. On top of all of that, you get to PAY FOR WHAT YOU WANT. I don't always feel like every aspect of a pay-to-play game is up to my standards of quality. With free-to-play, I get to buy an experience boost if the grind is too much, a buff if I'm too weak, and the like.
The problem with free-to-play is that sometimes they become pay-to-win. You don't have to win to have fun, though. The best way to remedy this is to allow the free player the ability to acquire the cash shop currency. I think I saw this first with Rohan. LOTRO and DDO are doing as well. I threw down 20 bucks or something after I got high enough to realize I really liked what there was to offer. Then I bought the exchanges system that let you sell in-game items for cash shop currency. I made over 100 bucks worth of cash-shop currency. I never payed real money again. I hear they screwed the game up now, but most developers tend to screw the games up somehow or another.
I also haven't had any customer service problems... content is added a lot of the time. It feels like most of the people that loath the very souls of the free-to-play market are actually sucking up what a few other people might have felt. I get very very very far in an f2p mmo before I spend any money. I'm talking like passed lvl 50 or 60. A few weeks at the least from when I started playing. So yeah... it's both cheaper and you get to pay for what you want.
DC Universe has a sub fee and an item shop, it isn't free to play.
Thats totally true . Lord of the Rings Online has a healthy player base . While its proberbly not to your taste it is worth playing for several hundred thousand people and has been for several years . Your really only just speaking for yourself there and not for the mmo community in general . Its not a game that needed to go to the free to play model but after the resounding success of DDO it made sence for Turbine to expand it to LOTRO . For me very few mmos justify a monthly subscription . I can actually only think of three I have felt are worth it . Thats not to say those that don't are bad games but what they offer is worth the standard monthly subscription fee to me .
4.) Less Stress on the Wallet
Calling BS on this. Less than 50 cents a day? How can that stress anyone's wallet?
3.) Some Real Quality for Cheap
Again, wrong. Just because they are makng tons of money doesn't mean they are putting in some QA time. Just look at DDO. It still has the same old bugs it had 4 years ago. New ones are introduced every patch.
Compare DDO hirelings to EQ's mercenaries, and EQ blows them out of the water. DDO is raking in the cash while EQ is 10 years old, and has been pretty dead for awhile. Look at DDO's recently released content. Its boring, and everyone can tell it was rushed. They are makng the mobs higher level(epic difficulty), then calling it new content. Their newest pirate zombie expansion is very short, and is balanced towards more established players. Almost a year out from their payment model change, and their is still an extreme lack of variety from level 12-20. Judging from their newer adventure packs I'm not optimistic. Their carnival release was an absolute disgrace.
Is DDO better than all the Last Chaos type games? Of course.
2.) Change
I dont't even get this. Obama said they same thing, and it meant nothing. That would apply here.
1.) The Games Can Survive Longer
Can't argue this. Crappy games can sustain itself longer by having a cash shop. I'd rather see a game get better than just get by.
F2P brings in a crowd I'd rather, and do, avoid.
You could keep "playing it" could you do any instances, could you do any instances that give you ok equipment? Could you do any instances that groups do? Pretty much no right? I played ddo a lot i have a good grasp on the game. Theres not much to do when you can't enter any "dungeons" (calling it this so others can understand) when there is no real open world. There are some solo dungeons that are easy and not something rewarding. This is why you subed, to participate in the game and progress your character. You didn't have to do this, but you wouldn't progress your character and equip much would you.
As i DID SAY BUT YOU IGNORED, DDO is one of the most free to play. It was not developed or patched for 2-3 years that way. But still even if this Wonderful example of one of the most truely F2P you need to subscribe to continue your character, to go into "dungeons" for group quests, etc. With WAR's trial you can forever play for free thats what makes it F2P then .... at least by your account.
"Don't want to see unbalancing gameplay items included in a shop? Don't buy them, and stigmatize anyone who does." Yeah good luck i mean maybe i missed somethign but i feel you may not be in touch with reality with this one. I mean come on if there is an op cash shop item its WILL be Bought and no one is gonna stigmatize them becuase they are going to own the same item or hope they carry there lootless butt through the instance.
I don't think they screw it up i think it wasn't makign them enough money .... or they thought they could make more. Basiclly if you can make cash shop money from ingame items or spend less thats $15 a month but have accesses to most of the content then the companies not makign money, however, if there are more reasons and requirements to spend money this makes the company more money and incentivises making more requirements to spend money and more options to become eleet w/o effort.
MMO's are never F2P. You have to pay for something to reach the end of the game less you want to spend hours upon hours grinding. Korean MMO's are a great example of that. Should be called T2P aka Transaction To Play. Because you are paying in the end for something, regardless.
You speak the truth, brother. We are on the same page.
I wanted to expand on the quote above. Its just funny how the success of DDO's transition has made these f2p shills come screaming out of their little cubby holes. Let's not forget DDO is a pretty damn good game. It was released in a poor, very controversial state(Eberron setting, all instanced, no exploring).
I would say this was a fluke. DDO is unlike most games out there. It took the F2P to get people to come back, and first timers to try it. Its a very engaging game unlike most that are out there. A huge amount of customization(melee clerics, melee spellcasters the options are endless), and one of the few games left that allow you to create very powerful alts(True Reincarnation is totally revolutionary for this genre).
Its my belief that LOTRO will not see the resurrgence DDO did.
I don't like the f2p model, but it has less to do with the model and more to do with the crap games that are usually f2p, and the money grab that some of hte better ones throw out there. But they are "free to play", that title doesn't describe it being free to enjoy to the fullest.
I really don't care if the game is F2P or P2P as long as it's a good game, only people who care if it's P2P or F2P are the people who can't afford to P2P or don't think the game is worth P2P so not much point in playing the game if it's not worth paying for
The article, unfortunately, left out the most important reason we should all tightly embrace 'F2P' - all those Godawful flash ads for 'F2P' games (that anybody who doesn't regularly snack on paint chips blocks in their browser or proxy) on the site the article is posted on...
I think P2P and F2P have its place and have benefits. However, every game I have looked at so far would cost me far MORE than the subscriptions i normally pay under these new models.
I'm sorry, but this is a poorly written article that is nothing but un-substantiated personal opinion.
If I had paid to read it, I'd be asking for my money back. :(
I have played F2P, and to seriously be involved in it (as you are with a sub MMO), is NEVER as cheap as a $15 a month subscription. So easy on the wallet? Uhm, no.
Some real quality for cheap? I would argue about the quality over the long term, and as for "cheap" I refer back to my last point.
Change? Improving on something someone else has done is not a bad thing. Games have been doing it for 20 years now, and we've all benefitted from it. When its subscription, you either truly improve or you die.
And as far as survivability of a game ... it should either survive because people want to play it or it should die because it can't get subscriptions. F2P just allows gaming companies to leave crap out there forever, do nothing with it, except throw stuff in the transaction store to try to milk more money out of the die-hard players.
I notice, there is no discussion here of the crap community most these F2P games have, or the hackers that keep hacking the game (and if they get caught they just roll up another account, rinse and repeat) or the restrictions they put on the game so they can milk money out of you through pay-pal.
This trend towards taking a sub-game to F2P is nothing more than desparation into an arena that most these companies have no experience with. They are just trying to "ride the wave" into the unknown, based off the hype and success of Korea. We'll see in time how well that works.
The U.S. is not Korea. We don't think like Koreans, we don't play like Koreans and we are not Korean consumers.
In truth separate PvP should be completely separate from PvE completely, regardless of shops. Most MMOs (sub or f2p) don't do this. In the largest, WoW, you have to pay an extra 20 dollars to play on the tournament server where everyone has immediate access to all of the gear. In Guild Wars PvP-only characters have immediate access to the best gear in the game.
Any other method (subscription or f2p) means that the person with the most time (subscription) or most money (f2p/item shop) is going to have the advantage. The old days of limiting the number of turns/time online in a single day to even the playfield are long gone.
Subscription based games without daily limits give the advantage to those with the most time whereas item shop games give the advantage to those with the most money. Both can be exploitive (Aion is an example that requires substantial time expenditures wheras item shop games in the East are notorious for requiring massive monetary expenditures).
Item Shop Game
- Good to the highly paid professional with limited time to play but doesn't want to be left behind.
- Bad for the kid or student that has limited funds to keep up with those that have more
Subscription Game
- Good for the kid or part time worker with loads of time to play but limited funds
- Bad for the professional or family person that has limited time to play
So, pick which resource you have the most of: Time or Money. If you have neither, well you're pretty much screwed. If you have both, then neither has a disadvantage to you - in fact, you may want to play a Cryptic game.
Most of us fit into one of the two categories, though. Forutunately there are plenty of games in both categories that 'do it right' and don't heavily abuse their customers.
I have lost count of the number of games that I have stopped playing, simply becausee they make you pay real money over and over for things like extra inventory space!
F2P (free to play) is an out and out lie ..... really means free to pay .. unless u just want an endless demo with a cieling on how far you can go (ie no progress you arent playing anymore) before you have to pay. Stoopid people with lotsa money to spend will buy potions and lotions and spells and "time saving" gear so they can progress .... where does it end? ... I read a horror story about a woman in china who wanted to be king .. she spent the equivalent of 1,000's of dollars to get there ... only to find that it would cost more thousands to stay on top.
At least with a subscription game you know how much it really
I think if a player didn't care about being competitive they could play some of these games and not spend a dime. I played Archlord and spent nothing.
With the DDO system I think I spent ten dollars total.
Eventually you will level up and will be able to play on some level. might not be at the top but so what?
I hate P2W.
I hate cash shops.
I hate gated content and so called "velvet ropes".
I hate the same boring grinder, over and over.
I hate games being designed with mechincs in place to force people to use the cash shop.
So... I hate F2P and probably always will.
I will not embrace (not) F2P.
If a game is not worth my time, it certainly is not worth my money.
Well this editor is kinda hard to use ... like how do you turn off italics after a word
Crap there is no way so u may as well take it out of the editor
after "really" abovre I was gonna say ;
costs to actuially play the game.
I have yet to see a f2p game that you can actually play for free. I know you will all say oh noes game xyz I play totaly free. I don't think so. All I have tried (and la few ptp games as well) have been a big disappointment.
What about the hybrids that have been coming to light recently?
In which you can just go the age old sub route and avoid all of this?
No offense but I could picture Grumpy Smurf writing the above, lol. Yeah, I'm a child of the 80's.
Playin a f2p game is like walkin down the street where everybody has their hand out trying to convince you to part with money ... the guy with the first comment has it right in my opinion ,,,, f2p on average costs more than p2p .... the most expensive p2p gam I know of is about 50 cents a day .... that is not money ... thet is chump change.
Again it must be said there are examples of F2P that are bad, there are examples that are not so bad. Yes some games are very much built around a pay to win model. There's no argument against that, some are also very expensive and again no real argument from me otherwise.
However your argument is some-what flawed in relation to the hybrid model. In which all gates are lifted with a flat normal monthly subscription rate. The only question becomes is this individual game worth a monthly fee, just like any other mmo.
If not you can still play a -lite version of it. You can even purchase (some-what cheap) upgrades from time to time if you so wish. In the end it's up to you to limit what you spend as well as decide what is worth the asking price. If you're going to be playing a lot you can just sub as per normal.
Edit- Or you can just not play, eat apple cobbler and smile.
Ya know "in the end' it is always up to me to spend my money on what I want. Or not spend it on what I dont want ... what I don't want are hidden costs or bulls%$& promises of a free gaming experience.
If I start paying a fee in a hybrid (as u call it) system .. then where is the f2p???
These f2p peeps are just using "sharp trading" tactics to get more money out of the players than they would get with a sub. Or to suck in people that normally wouldn't play their game. It is a whole band of con men in the bean counter dept of the game company who have come up with a new moneymaking gimmick. I would prefer someone to say "You can try it for free in a limited way, then if you like it it will cost X. Up front and honest. No con job.
I play DDO in f2p my conclusion are:
people that never play this game have the oportunity for check it, if this game is good or bad, in my case i say DD0 is good game.
in f2p model of turbine you can got same experience ovf vip member with 15 dollars months is excelent
wow in the future could have same way for f2p, the reason the company need money for survive and we need games for play long time, please no more QQ for f2p model
The true F2P marketed games I've tried, I didn't care for and have never continued.
I'm going to see how LoTRO and EQ2 work this out in the coming months as the two models are fairly dissimilar. LoTRO is a game I enjoy and would likely play casually, but it would never be my 'main' MMO. EQ2 I've always maintained a sub even when I don't play for months.
I can see F2P pricing, as a model for people that are truly casual or testing a game to get a feel for it, but F2P is never F2P, with all the micro-transactions. IF the AAA games go to the extent many of us are concerned about, in you cannot be competitive without dumping a bunch of cash each month, I won't play. I'd rather have a quality game at one price than be nickel and dimed to death.
Bottom-line this is our entertainment and the developers/producers/companies business. I'd rather they offer a variety of pricing structures from a F2P to monthly/annual sub so the game will have a good income stream, (with development time spent on game content - not more things for the micro-shop), a continual flow of new players with a solid player base at the higher levels. I see that as a win.
That's it? The sum total of reasons you could come up with is four pathetic maybes. Not even definite reasons but "it might be that way."
I am unmoved.
With MMO's moving closer and closer to mainstream, there will be more and more "cons" introduced. That's what business has been and will always be about. The casual market has always been a code word for the masses, whom they've been trying to reach. F2P is becoming just another evolution to that ever growing reality.
It's a marketing ploy first and foremost, that much is certain.
I will never ever play a F2P mmo... F2P mmo's are generic and also promotes cash shops which i'm totally against... Embrace F2P mmo's???? I say embrace this hand where the sun don't shine! Thank you very much!
I will continue to wait for an inspiring, epic, quality, mmo worth my money,, such as Rifts, Planes of Telara, Tera, and or TOR.... And you also have 38 studios, project Copernicus... I'm sure at least one of those will be worth my money... And they won't be F2P, lol..
I'm not sure if I agree with number 3 and number 4. I've heard about people paying very large amounts of money on the free to play games. It's true at the very least you could pay nothing, but if you want certain perks you will probably end up spending the traditional sub fee a month or more.
I love how people think 'change' is a good thing. If something works stick to it. 'Change' can be a very bad thing.
Every single last F2P game I have played have been rubbish in comparison to the vast majority of sub model games. Whats worse they expect you to pay more than the usual 15 buck sub for stuff that your gimp without.
Please fire the idiot who wrote this he is obviously taking a chop out from a company thats trying to push f2p.
Having to pay to do more quests in one day, or unlock a zone, or, whatever other crude ways devs of F2P games come up with to syphon every last penny out of you have zero appeal to me. I'll always be glad to pay a monthly fee and knowing I can play the WHOLE game, without stopping every hour to get my wallet out.
F2P is only cheaper if you don't want to either A: do everything the game has to offer, or B: not win. F2P is, by design, supposed to be more expensive than a sub model in order to counter-balance those that don't pay a dime and just mindlessly dink along.
F2P is a fad, and I've been saying it since it started. What we will be left with is movement back to the sub model with a cash shop for cosmetic/pointless items. the OP must of known full well he was gonna get torched, even while typing this post up. lol...
F2P = NoF'ingWay
And if you try again and like it you can max your char to the limit of ''f2p'' and then if you aren't bored yet you pay to continue
I'd be a lot more impressed with the hybrid models (by which I assume you mean DDO and LOTRO with EQ2 coming) if they were not "failures" as straight up sub games, or running out of gas to the point that a radical readjustment of pricing model was an almost no risk proposition. (Smed especially has been trying to wring every dollar out of his stable, befoe it all goes to the glue factory)
That having been said, I can't say that would always be the case, but, cash shops also went in at the same time. So, that alone is basically enough for me to not play, in almost all cases. I have heard all the blah blah blah from companies saying "There are no critical items in the cash shop, or none that effect game play" and inevitably some of those go in, the temptation is too great and the companies end up seeing $$$. P2W is what gets people to spend in the cash shop.
In the end, for me, if a game is good enough for me to want to spend my time playing, I have no problem paying the sub.
The F2P gimmicks are all there to: get more people initially into the game to try it and potentially use the cash shop/velvet rope (which I generally don't care about) or to soak people for more than a typical monthly sub fee (which I really don't care for).
Either way, people that like F2Ps can play them. I won't.
And furthermore, if it is a choice between F2P and nothing, if that is the way the industry is going, I'll take nothing. I am not playing an MMO right now while I wait for something good to come along, and I am fine with that.
The only Free 2 Play game I have ever played was Knight Online. If all Free 2 Play models fell into that category then I would love it. You access to full game content and gear even if you do not pay a single dime. Paying to play this game only speeds up your amount of in game currency and leveling. It also provides nifty things in the shop that allow you to get a tiny little edge on the competition, but not enough to make the Free 2 Play players that worried or overmatched. Free 2 Play would be great if you can have access to FULL game content. Just make it a grind for the people who don't pay. That way they can still in enjoy the FULL game it just will take longer. In turn people usually spend money to move things along faster like they do in KO.
F2P games allow gamers to get advantage over other players, not by mastering the game, but rather by opening their wallets.
This goes against any notion of competetive gaming. Imagine if Starcraft 2 or any competetive, non-MMOG allowed you to build better units and faster if you paid more money than your opponents. People would take to the streets.
Yet for MMORPGs we are to accept this nonsense? Yeah, I dont think so.
F2P is inherently a bad thing and no argument can change that fact.
Well, if the benchmark/reason for playing a MMO is not about some kind of "FUN" but about an obsession to "EXCEL" over any other player in the game an item shop may force some people to spend huge amounts of money which is good at all bcs so many more can play free for fun.
That way F2P is inherently a good thing.
4.) Less Stress on the Wallet: The only thing you are doing is making your playerbase game-hoppers. You play for a few levels, you run into the inevitable limitations which all F2P's have. And there you are, are you gonna buy that 25$ mount or hop along to the next game ? Personally I play alot of MMO's and being forced to buy consumables disgusts me. So yeah, I hop to the next F2P, CB or OB.
'Freeloader' players are cannonfodder for ppl who actually go through the itemmall, that is the essence of a F2P MMO.
3.) Some Real Quality for Cheap: 90% of the F2P's are 'cute' MMO's which is an excuse for having little content and even less details or graphics ingame.
2.) Change: Trying to take a piece of the market with the least possible effort or cost isn't called change, it's called a disease or a plague.
1.) The Games Can Survive Longer: Maybe, but your playerbase is raw sewage. Same as point 4. Ppl hop games way more often, are less drawn into the community and don't need to think about their reputation like in P2P subscription games. Stealing drops, scamming ppl, all that kind of grief will skyrocket.
Don't really need to read it. I respect Bill Murphy the man but I don't agree with the topic of this article. But I guess older players who are just fine with the subscription model fall prey to the same thing you see in society regarding older people. Their preferences just get tossed out the window with a "who gives a crap" flair in lieu of "the new thing". Then they get berated and called "nostalgic" and accused of wearing "rose colored glasses" for their preference.
But hey, one less subscription fee puts me that much closer to buying that bass boat and that piece of land I've been wanting to put a hunting cabin on. Both activities that'd allow for being not nostalgic about MMO gaming, but rather apathetic and flat out amnesic. And I'm certainly not the only one.
Sorry MMORPG.com, but you're F2P agenda won't get me to click on the thousands of F2P ads you have here to put money in your pockets.
Honestly, everytime I see these F2P ads up here I'm always expecting to see at any moment a " Play our game now and enter for your chance to win a FREE Xbox 360!!! " in large flashy red. *puke*
I am not concerned with how I pay for a game, so long as it is not too much and, in F2P games, you cannot buy things that make you more powerful than other players.
For me, it is all about the game. If the game is well-made, fun to play, and has a revenue method that works, I will give it a shot.
What I despise if the F2P "movement." A plethora of games are being made that are absolutely atrocious, have no real value in terms of enjoyment, and are basically massive grindfests with no lore or point. It makes me sick.
"I played a korean grinder and it costs hundreds of dollars to be competitive so F2P sucks!!!"
People complain about cash shops in F2P games but seem ok with it in P2P games, I just cant understand the reasoning..
[Mod Edit]
Most of the F2P games sells all kind of boosts. Which actually let you fast forward the whole process. There's a simple calculation,
Time = Money
So, for F2P, it's Time = Game OR Money = Game. And for P2P it's Time + Money = Game.
Now, P2P only proves to be cheaper if you think your Time = 0. But in other case it's almost neck-to-neck. I haven't played any F2P title yet, but don't hate 'em for any reason.
Ohh... something with the title, "MOVEMENT"? Exaggeration should have a limit.
Part of the reason for all of this falls on the gamer community itself. In my opinion, some people play MMORPGs for the wrong reasons - that being the misperception that their online exploits somehow prove something about their true selves, as in "If I can't be uber in real life I will do it in a fantasy world!"
This leads to the F2P paradigm which is in reality "pay to win" where the word "win" can be any status or goal in the game where one can mistakenly claim he has "beaten" or "surpassed" other players. This can be everything from PvP kills to having the "rareset" armor/weapon, etc. Unfortunately, when work ethic is replaced by the ability to buy "greatness" then that perception becomes cheap and illegitimate.
My remedy for this problem is for game developers to get back to the core of what an online game is supposed to be - a form of entertainment coupled with the ability to socialize in the process. As entertainment consumers, we gamers shouldn't be playing to "beat" other players or somehow derive real-life self-esteem from it all, we should merely seek a pleasurable means to piddle away free time - you know, like when one pops in and views a DvD. It's entertainment people, and nothing more.
Here's what I'm getting at:
In most "competitive" games built upon the grinding model, the only people who will be "leading" everyone else are going to be those players who were hardcore about the game on launch day who, moving forward, stick to their progress and don't let up. In other words, if you showed up to play a couple months after release by virtue of temporal positioning you will never overtake the "leaders" in the game so if you are after "greatness" you will never get it. Once people have played for a while and realize they are never going to be the "greatest" player, they tend to drop their subscription - after all who wants to pay good money to be some mere vassal where someone else is the great hero? No one. People pay money so that THEY get to be the great hero, not some milquetoast freak from XYZ who doesn't have a job and can play all day.
However, if a game does not rely on grinding or "getting ahead" but is instead designed around merely entertaining the individual then it is more likely to maintain a subscription base because each player feels he is getting his money's worth - that being the entertainment value of HIS avatar being the hero.
So, what I think needs to happen is game developers need to come up with a system where each player can feel he is the hero of the realm, yet online socialability survives. It has to be less about fake, contrived "competition" and more about entertainment for the individual in a social setting.
I can only agree with majority here, that at the end F2P draws out more money then any P2P tittle will ever will.
If i remind that you have to spend at least 200 dollars a month in ROM PvP server to keep up (be viable) then compared to a P2P its a joke if you say "dont stress your wallet". Almost hypocratic.
Too many of the "pay to win" menatility on deffenders site :P
The article has some valid points, but I think F2P as a term has become too broad to generalize. Yes, I get that all F2P games allow you to download, log in and play (to some extent) without spending money, but there are vast differences in how the games are funded.
From a player's perspective, I'd say that...
nailed. Free to look at - significantly higher to play - DDO is unplayable solo unless you use the store. You WILL buy pots for SP/HP. LotRO going F2P is the highest level of cynicism... the term greedy bastards comes to mind. So - I'll stick with GW and wait until GW2 comes out.... at least I can play the game without having to spend spend spend....
Congratulations, this article made me look up alternative sites for news on MMOs... I am fed up with this site not looking out for the interests of the PLAYERS. Rather, the sympathies of the site lie too skewed with the interests of the developers and companies. Whatever they want to push on us is just fine and dandy.
I am currently subscribed to DDO and dabbling in Wizard 101. I am singularly unimpressed with the F2P model which at its core is player manipulation taken to a new level. We are simply being manipulated to spend more and more.
And yes, player manipulation has always been a part of MMOs, I accept that. But why embrace a movement in the industry that makes the player manipulation worse???
I think the industry lacks a good watch dog that acts in the interests of players and rates the parts of the game that gamers need reliable and easy to understand information on, such as a rating of the financial model being used and how your private data is respected.
And yet i have to find a single F2P game without an item shop :/
Never then less a very true and valid post.
*gasp* A voice of reason in the f2p witchhunt this site is known for, I can't believe it. I really don't know if I am rather amused or saddened by all those yelling "f2p isn't free but will cost you much more". I'm neither especially fond of f2p nor opposed and oddly enough I have yet to pay a single buck after playing half a dozen or so for quite some hours. Seems I must be doing something wrong.
Ballparks are gross. Get Kayems
Maybe because the most of people have a competative spirit and dont want to be at the end of the food chain?
And btw see my sig. If you got plenty of time you can afford to grind in F2P but as casual you cant and will be forced to use a shop. Seen it, done it and got disqusted by it.
When I first saw this article I figured I would read it out of curiousity, since I've tried a few F2P games, even though the main games I'm playing lately are WoW and Aion. I was stunned at this first sentence I quoted above, because the F2P games that immediately come to mind to me (Runes of Magic, Allods Online) were created as F2P games. They weren't subscribtion games that added F2P at a later date because of declining numbers.
I think Runes of Magic is actually one of the best free games I've played to date. I played LOTRO beta and subscribed for one month and got tired of all the players in gen chat dissing the other games I was currently playing so I quit, and I'll never return free or not. DDO and now Everquest II going F2P are a real joke because their graphics are so outdated they can't even compare with the newer F2P games like Runes of Magic.
I know how much players love to dis World of Warcraft, but at least they will be giving the game a total graphics overhaul and remake in the next expansion. That's probably why its still the most played MMORPG in the world after all this time. There are plenty of players like me who don't exclusively play WoW, but when we try something new we are actually driven away by the players base because of constant comments in gen chat like, "This game is so much better than WoW" and "WoW is for care bears and babies", etc., etc.. I've never understood why these players can't just try out a game on its own merits instead of constantly talking about the game they aren't playing.... Just my 2 cents!
You really think F2P is what makes games last longer? Have you never heard of World of Warcraft? Everquest? Everquest 2? All P2P that have lasted for years as such, longer than any F2P games that I can think of. It's un-researched, poorly though out articles like this one that prompted SOE's self-destructive choice to go F2P.
"F2P movement" lol
I have yet to see a game that has actually benefitted from going free to play. F2P is for me a sign of resignation, their telling the world that the game is not good enough to make people subscribe to it.
If they start talking about F2P in the games im playing, well I'll start looking around for options.
Your reasons are totally fabricated; first, there is no stress on the wallet for trying most new MMOGs, because you can try them for free anyway, Every major MMOG has a free trial period. Second, $14.95 a month is ALREADY cheap; that amount of money covers a meal for you and a friend at McDonald's, or 2 movie tickets sans popcorn and drink and candy. Third, the pricing model has nothing to do with whether or not companies try to make another WoW clone or not. 4th, there is absolutely no evidence that games last longer because they are F2P. None, Zip.
The only good thing I can see about the F2P model is that it will woo away some of the kinds of players I don't want in the games I like to play. They can play their way, and that's fine, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with them buying their swords and armor with real cash, except it doesn't work in the kind of game I want to play. I say let them have their game, played by their rules, and let me have mine, my way, and we'll both be happier.
;)
I agree that mmorpg.com is helping to spread the F2P infection, maybe it should be thrown in the furnace ? I just come here to get keys to hop from game to game anyway. F2P games never have and will never have a fixed playerbase. Maybe the few nutters that spend 200-1000$ on a dumb F2P world.
If i'm bored I try a F2P but never longer than a few days, and then I have to format my PC cuz it's full of F2P crap that I've tried and never was any good in the first place.
Lets hope games like SW:TOR and FinalFantasy will sponge-up alot of the drifting players and kills some / most of these F2P nonsense games.
Good, well thought out article! The only thing that I think Turbine and SOE [EQ?] should ALSO do is to make 2-3 servers that are p2p only. That would show whether players really are committed to paying for the game as opposed to playing for free/microtransactions. Turbine could do this fairly easily [I think] by just turning off the store and only allowing subscribers to transfer characters to some new server. Unfortunately, I bet within 6 months, those [that] server[s] would be closed/merged because of low population - they would be on the same downward trajectory that DDO was on before f2p.
I happy you posted this here. THERE ARE F2P GAMES OUT THERE. Like i said before sb was at one point was f2p. There are F2P games out there DDO , lotro , eq2 are not among them (DDo borders on it) but if these F2P game have sub.s then they are just P2P games no argument needed, P2P with limited ability unlimited time open trials. That is why it is funny to see people propt those games up as F2P, when clearly they are not. Even calling many of them hybrid is wrong (DDO is a hybrid however.)
I'm glad someone agrees. The F2P will be just fine as long as they are modeled the way K2 Network makes them. As long as you can access the ENTIRE game without paying then they are F2P. If they are like LoTRO or DDO and make you PAY to get the FULL game content, then they are not technically Free 2 Play at all. Knight Online is actually FREE and you can play the whole game with all contents and events included. If they are going to move to F2P then this is how they need to do it. That game still rakes in the money and its 7 years old.
Well Said SnarlingWolf. Thank you.
Me embrace F2P with CashShop/MT? What you are really asking me to do is this...
MMO design by Cash Shop.
No thanks.
Great points PaRoXiTiC.
If all F2P worked as how you and Jetrpg described then even I would accept them.
The truth is most "F2P" MMOs are really just Cash Shop/MT MMOs with a dash of free to play tossed in as garnish. The purpose of these Cash Shop MMOs is to bleed as many Players dry as they can. It's not about providing a quality product or making a great MMO that is also financially successful (because it is in fact good).
im happy to read some good reply here , gamer are not that blind sorry mmorpg.com .
f2p = not free , and cost more money , that just bad for any players .
mmorpg.com realy work for game/dev company , that realy clear to me now after all the post they do curently .
I only do F2P now. And it's a lot nicer to my wallet then subs were. :)
I'd put money on the people who are whinging about f2p are those who are still playing usbs and watching their populations dwindling. :D
f2p is awesome. $100 got me everything I want to access in DDO. If they release another top end raid dungeon I may consider picking it up. Most MMO's I've played under a sub model cost me more then that. Hello, box price..in Oz I'd be spending about $100 just to pick up a game let alone subs on top of that.
f2p best model ever. Even better because Blizzard/Activision's annual report has major copncerns about it and what it'll do to their revenue stream. Doesn't sound like a bad thing for players/consumers if sub games believe their revenue will drop...
If I play a game I want to play the full expercience and not play a better demo version. So I doubt that F2P would for me be "Less stress on the wallet." And when I hear that you can buy "faster leveling" (Allods online) or buffs, skills etc. (Lotro) I personaly completly loose the interesst in these games. Maybe others like it that they can play it "free" but I would not enjoy to play it "free". I would want to buy most things (why should you do something in 4h if the game also offer the possibility to do it in 2h?) and constantly feel ripped of, because the designers don't balance the game anymore, the implement artificial hurdles, which can be overcome buy just paying a few $ here and there.
I dont want to embrace the F2P
In my own personal experience I have ended up paying more than $25 each month and therefore I stay away from F2P.
Its a gimmick and is more expensive than sub model
I am more than happy to embrace the B2P model like GW and GA
Ah so it's your need to be acknowledged as one of the "1337"-players that gets in your way of playing f2p without being compelled to buy stuff. While that is surely something the f2p companies count on, ultimately that is the player's fault. The fun thing about f2p is that you can simply walk away and try another one when it gets too much grind for one's taste (like I do, since I am a casual player). The only thing ever "forcing" you to use a cash shop is your own wish for quicker progress and reward. And oddly enough quite some p2p titles include worse grind at high level than f2p at mid level.
Item Shop Game
- Good to the highly paid professional with limited time to play but doesn't want to be left behind.
- Bad for the kid or student that has limited funds to keep up with those that have more
Subscription Game
- Good for the kid or part time worker with loads of time to play but limited funds
- Bad for the professional or family person that has limited time to play
-agreed
DDO changed to F2P, because the market told turbine the game wan't worth $180 a year. Spending $100 and getting everything that the game has to offer reinforces that.
These changes are all about repricing games to their true market value.
I enjoy F2P games. It allows me to try them out and see what they are like before I actually invest money into them. However, for serious hardcore raider/gamers, F2P would send a few of them into bankruptcy. For example, instead of raiding 10 man icecrown over and over again to gear up for 25 man, you could just buy your gear. Hardcore raiders would start buying LEET gear to be OP, or they would leave.
Firstly, I don't think that we should call them F2P anymore. They should be called F2A (free to access) because they tend to be just that.
Secondly, this has been talked about already until everyone was blue in the face. Why on earth are we having this discussion AGAIN?
Thirdly, the best games I've played that didn't require constant subscriptions for access were not F2A or were hybrids, such as DDO and GW (P2A, free to play otherwise). That's not to say that I thought they were as good as most of the subscription games I've tried out. GW was by far the best one of these non P2P models, but even so, I didn't put in as many hours into playing it as I have DAoC, EVE, WoW, etc.
So no, I should not embrace the F2A model, because so far I haven't found anything I really really enjoy enough to stick with for a long period of time. I'm glad if other players have, but I haven't.
I second the F2A (Free to access) I will be calling them that from now on :)
This is one of the dumbest rationales for F2P that I have seen. I do not know of one single mmorpg player that has played more simply to get their value out of the subscription. They play either because they like the game or to socialize with people in game. If there are actually people who log in to play SOLELY to get their moneys worth of a cheap subscription, they really need to reexamine their lifes.
I can pay to socialize with people!?!!?
Where can I sign up!!!! That's the only real draw, yup! Screw forums, they're stupid!
Seriously, if you have to pay to play a game (which is stupid when you really think about it) you do expect something out of it, and you do feel the need to justify doing something like that..
Sure that aspect is probably lost on kids/people that don't actually pay the fee themselves though..
I noticed something funny. whatever WOW does is considered antiquated, and what other MMORPGs do is considered 'modern'.
How many people remember AOL in the early 90's. You used to have to pay by the hour, and then it took half an hour to download your email. Those were the days.
Face facts, developers WANT to have a subscription model ($15/month), it is only after failing to keep subscribers that they resort to gimmicks. There is so much stability in counting on that $15/month that allows the company to plan ahead and have continuity. Going F2P is a huge risk because of bandwidth and the uncertainity of how your microtransactions will go.
This F2P craze that is happening isn't the revolutionary future for MMORPGs.. it is companies trying to grasp for any income they can get from games that were about to close up.
You aren't going to see companies like Bioware or Blizzard launch their next MMORPGs as F2P.. ti's just to volitile and risky. it is much better for a company to operate under a $15/month system where they can plan well in advance.
The author here somehow sees and understands why a game MIGHT go F2P yet contradicts those reasons by looking at it from the users standpoint ONLY,there is a two way street when comes to gaming,the seller and the buyer.
How or why the game goes F2P is strictly for financial reasons.If a dev decides it can maintain it's cash flow by going F2P it might do it,but there is no way a developer is going to cut money from their wallet by allowing people to play their game for free,they are not in the business of handouts.
F2P ONLY survivs if paying customers make up the difference for the free loaders,if it costs more under this pay scale,then they would keep it P2P instead.This is what a developer must determine ,it has to decide if it can cut some cormers to make up for freelaoders chewing up all the bandwidth and can the paying customers offset the cost.An example for cutting corners would be to lower bandwidth useage.All games that start out in F2P mode are predominantly low end graphic games,so they are already in cheap operation mode,it is a MUCH trickier operation to turn a P2P game into a F2P game unless it was already a cheaply designed game,example that game the Horizones guy was involved in recently[forget title name].
The bottom line is still dollars,the game will not last any longer no matter what pay scale it uses ,it depends solely on weather or not the developer is satisfied with the profit it turns over,no profit the game will fold 100% guaranteed.
If you see F2P it is a guarantee that you are not going to get a AAA quality game,less support[if any],lower end graphics,low bandwidth needed,little content with stagnant or cheap updates.
I can use one game that has been F2p from day 1...Runes of Magic.online support??forget it ,it does not exist,instead you may wait several days for an email,and there is good chance the response will not satisfy you.It was quite obvious that there was no concern for a quality release,tons of bugs/non working quests.Several months after the same bugs were there,then came the first and second updates.It was again obvious that things were rushed,areas looked half finished and some were just plain barren,looked like they thought about putting something there but didn't want to spend the time or effort to do it.Then you see things like new classes being released with no elite skill,again rushed and unfinished,this will ALWAYS be the trend in F2p games.
Simply put a monthly/sub based MMO's that turns into a FTP/RMT/Micro transactions etc. game means only one thing.
1. A financialy dieing game that they are trying to squeeze the last drop from before its dead.
ALL the MMO companies gotta be sitting up and taking notice of what happened with DDO when it went hybrid and increased their profits 500%. This model will spread like crazy in the next few years and we will be seeing a ton more MMO's take this route. They should. More cash coming in means better and more frequent updates. It means they will have to work harder to retain their players and lure in new ones. Monthly fees can = complacency by the MMO devs:(
Why did WoW sell a $25 horsey a few months ago? You think they're dying?
It's all about the cash. They want higher profits. Simple as that:)
Wow sold horses, because they have a user base of millions upon millions of users willing to pay money to play their game.
DDO went free to play, because it had so few people willing to pay for the game that it was facing a very dark future.
Everyone is still looking at this massive 500% increase in revenue as some miracle cure all to mmo subscriptions, but what is it 500% of? 500% increase of failure doesn't mean massive success. It also doesn't say how much expenses increases in comparison to those revenues.
This free to play change for subscription games is still an unproven model. We won't know the long term viability of these changes for some time to come.
Speakinf of F2P , after playing almost 2 months of Aika , I finally quit the game. Open beta game with a cash shop , and where players pick the better equiped players for their dungeon runs. So again , those who put a load of money on a F2P are the ones who get dungeon invites and actually finish them. While the rest struggles to end a dungeon with basic gear without cash shop.
Your 5th point : Less stress on wallet is completly false , 15$ a month is about the maximum you'd pay on a MMO. I've been playing EVE for 4 years and I'm pretty freaking happy to have played it and still being a strong supportive customer to CCP. F2P games most players put money on the game without even realising it. Also most F2P are easy and fun at the beginning , but when your approaching end game,whoops,you need to buy stuff on item mall to be stronger so people feel more comfortable hunting with you.
Your other point : Change , I completly disagree with this . Ok so a game goes F2P or a new MMO just released is F2P and after 4 months of released there's barely no updates and stuff going on to improve the game BUT for some odd twisted reason the item mall is still selling strong.
What is even more funny,and I'm pretty sure I ain't the only one thinking about this,are F2P MMO's that are still in OPEN BETA after a year and have a item shop since day 1? ROFL,seriously start by making a final release of the MMO and then put up a item mall. OR put up a item mall with everything for free , and at release wipe everything so people can start anew. The word BETA changed over the years. Closed/Open ... it's still Beta and don't try to change my mind about this because you won't.
My conclusion : F2P are a death trap to those who are weak minded. It's maybe F2P but in the long run you would have wasted more money in a 3 month period then if you'd pay a monthly fee on a game for 5 years. Once you start putting money on a item,trust me you won't even imagine how the hundreds will be flying through the window,20$ a shot a week or 15$ a month for everything? Easy awnser , but for some it can be quite a mind bender.
PS.: If your seriously looking for a nice F2P that doesn't require hundreds on the item mall my pick would be Runes of Magic. I haven't played for over a year but for a F2P MMO it was pretty legit in the term : "F2P"
Lol - And the op manages to leave out the main reason why alot of ppl turn to F2P MMOs.
They can play the game without paying for the CONNECTION to their characters. In other words... You can spend money for 2 months ... then dont play for next 4 - and come back without taking out the wallet again.
I especially like being told why "I should play F2P games" for reasons that directly contradict my own experieces. Many other posters have mentioned all the reasons, F2Ps often looks good on paper, but in practice they pretty much lose any redeeming qualities they had, as compared to P2P games, in almost all cases.
The article totally misses the "reality" boat.
most of these games that are going f2p are like taking the generic hotdog anyhow.
SWG should go f2p... they don't get any quality updates, the servers are shit, and the devs really couldn't care less or there are not enough devs to care. These kind of games need to go f2p just to survive. f2p , that games population would explode and there would be tons of people playing it. Hell they already have MT's anyhow via the TCG system.
Right now people are sick of the crap and just unsubbing most of these games. Now there are some games that I would NOT like to see go f2p, only the games that are not worth my 15 dollars , but I wouldn't mind playing them as a time sink until my dream MMO comes out.
Personally I do not understand where this idea that F2P is cheaper then P2P comes from.
Compagnies want to increase profit. Not decrease it.
When you talk in terms of embracing something...sorry thats borderline religious drivel.
The way I see it with free2play is that publisher and developer now think they can have cake and pie at the same time. And most people have no problem with free2play.
The problem comes with talking heads like you, telling us that we must accept free2play.
Thats too fanatic for my tastes and feels extremely dictatorial. Signs of the time?
Or just the regular old lets fool the customer into thinking they are the ones who will benefit.
Go peddle your snake oil somewhere else.
I like the choice.
More options are what I really want. Be that in game or as payment/subscription offers.
I started playing DDO again and they have a fantastic model where you can get everything for free if you're really patient or get it faster if you want to pay. That's choice, it's not forced on me which of the two I select but up to me.
The whole notion that "you have to pay to compete" is also just a choice being offered. You (the customer) can just say no. If the game doesn't deliver the game experience you want for the money you think it is worth, then you just stop playing. That's no reason why the choice shouldn't be there for other people with other tastes and/or priorities.
The difference is very simple:
P2P - The only motivation of the Development House is to design an experience that the user will enjoy. Why? Because that's how they make thier revenue. You enjoy the service you'll continue to subscribe in future. They pretty much don't care how much or how little you use the service or what you do when using the service...with the obvious exception of disrupting other users.... as long as you are enjoying yourself, you'll stay subscribed and they'll continue to get revenue from you. The only question the Dev needs ask himself when designing the game is "How can I make this fun for the users?"
F2P - The motivation of the Development House is to design an experience that will get the user to make a RMT purchase in the cash shop, and to make as many purchases as they are willing to tolerate. Yes, they want to get people in the door... but only because that leads to the opportunity for a cash shop purchase. Yes, they want people to ultimately enjoy thier experience...but only if they have done so by making cash shop purchases. Ultimately that's what it's all about, because that's how the business makes it's revenue. If people aren't making cash shop purchases, the game isn't making any revenue. The prime question the Dev asks himself is "How do I get people to make cash shop purchases?"
It really is that simple. Fundementaly a F2P's business model is really no different then a gambling Casino. What they want is not just to entice you in the door, but to manipulate your behavior toward spending activities (gambling/making purchases) once you are in the door. Thier entire design is based around that principle...it has to be in order for them to maximize revenue.
Now some people really do enjoy gambling Casino's... and as long as you know that's what you are walking into, aren't bothered by the level of manipulation and have the self-discipline to maintain a budget...fine. However for alot of people, it's a tawdry, hollow and soulless experience.
F2P lIKS
I like the choice.
More options are what I really want. Be that in game or as payment/subscription offers.
I started playing DDO again and they have a fantastic model where you can get everything for free if you're really patient or get it faster if you want to pay. That's choice, it's not forced on me which of the two I select but up to me.
The whole notion that "you have to pay to compete" is also just a choice being offered. You (the customer) can just say no. If the game doesn't deliver the game experience you want for the money you think it is worth, then you just stop playing. That's no reason why the choice shouldn't be there for other people with other tastes and/or priorities.
4) It's only less stress on the wallet for the disciplined. For those that are disciplined, F2P is a great thing and I agree with the author that the player won't always to have drop $15 to continue the adventure. It will be easy for the player to devote one month to a F2P, drop it for a few months, and then pick it up again without needing to pay for those dropped months in order to keep their character.
Unfortunately for the undisciplined, F2P will cost them much more than P2P as it is so easy to pop in a few more dollars to buy that item to increase the change of upgrading a piece of equipment.
3) There will always get people who are adament that all F2P quality is bad. However, nothing is absolete in the world and there are some real F2P gems out there. However, there are indeed many bad F2P out there so it's like finding a needle in a haystack.
For those who use the old adage of "you get what you pay for" against the F2P model, it directly conflicts with the argument that they use about F2P costing more than P2P. After all, if you're paying more for a F2P than a P2P and "you get what you pay for"...
2) I agree with this one. There's too many games out there trying to copy WoW. If a F2P game is hoping to survive by being a clone of another popular game, then it's not going to survive. Therefore, in order to survive F2P games need to offer something revolutionary. If the change happens to be bad, then that F2P game is lost and forgotten. If the change is good, then it will survive and live on.
The F2P model is like taking a shotgun approach. From the player's perspective, there will be a large number of F2P games released in a given year and a large percentage will be "bad" to that particular player. However, there is a slim chance that the player may find a F2P that they will enjoy. From the F2P publisher's point of view, there will be a massive number of players trying out their game since it's free and a small percentage of players may start paying for it long term. It doesn't matter if the playing population is small and no one in the general public has heard of it. Match the right player to the right game such that the game survives and you have a successful business.
The P2P model is more like taking a targeted approach. They have to design a game that appeals to the largest audience possible as that is how they can get the users to subscribe. They may result in a higher quality production but also lead to clones.
1) I agree with this too. Perhaps Tabula Rasa may have survived longer if it tried F2P instead of going down with the ship that is P2P. The MMO that I've been playing for the past 2.5 years started its life as a P2P. It was obviously not doing well with the P2P model so after a few months, it switched to F2P. Fast forward 2.5 years to the present day, the game is still thriving with new expansions coming out every couple of months. Personally, I've spent less in that game in a given year than if I had stayed with the traditional $15/month P2P route.
F2P, P2P, P4T
All valid forms of payment models for a game. I will not dispute the pros/cons of each because I feel it is definately up to the person purchasing the product as to what makes sense to them.
I also like the idea that their are options. For someone who does not play often a Pay for Time ( P4T ) played may make more sense than a P2P or F2P.
Do not tell me I should like something tho, just because you do or do not. And do not force one or the other down my throat and call it pie!
You want to take on the mantle of the F2P movement that is fine. Just understand that you will become the talking head at that point and not necessarily one who is looking at the different options objectively.
If your topic had been named "Discussions on Pros and Cons of F2P it would be a different story.
4. The point of F2P having RMT/MT is to get out of your wallet more than $15. After all recently converted F2P games were incapable of sustaining themselves on $15 per month.
3. No such thing as real quality for cheap.
2. Change can be for the worse and following the Murphy's Law, it usually is. at least for customers.
1. And that is a good thing? Third rate garbage keeps clinging to life thereby encouraging developers to peddle out more third rate garbage.
totally agree, if you take a bad and failing game and change the payment method from a subscription type model to a f2p one the game instantly becomes a success and a breath of fresh air.
/sarcasm off
F2p does not mean f2p and if you play the game to any decent level then u will be paying the same as a subscription fee anyhow, if you want to be competitive then u will be paying alot more generally. To say that it is less stress on the wallet is only corrent if you play the game very casually otherwise you are just plain wrong.
But as has been said elsewhere by alot of other people, changing a game from p2p to f2p doesn't make it a good game, it may make it last longer, but if a game is dying already then chances are it is failing for a reason.
And just wanted to say I lol'd at the fact you think a failing game changing its payment method from p2p to f2p to try to survive a bit longer will have any effect on the gaming industry as a whole or the payment models in particular. Thats the equivalent of a "suit" (as you put it) walking past a homeless begger on the street and thinking "Hmm, why the hell am I a CEO of a major company with a massive bank balance? That guy there is doing fine begging for scraps. Perhaps I should sell my house, burn my money and start living like him!"
You beat me to it, as I was just about to post this exact point. If anyone really believes that all the F2P propaganda is from noble freedom-loving game publishers who just want to bring free gaming to the oppressed masses, then they should PM me. I have some Nevada seafront property for sale.
Sorry guys, but the fact is the publishers are tired of only getting $15/month from their customers, "F2P" means that you're be "free to pay" much more than that.
Read this article to basically refute some of your reasoning.
http://www.edery.org/2010/08/debating-f2p-monetization/
Basically the aggressive f2p games, those that sell items that enhance or speed up game play, usually figure on $50 a month for their paying customers. It is expensive to be uber. So much for your cheap theories.
Nice to see some actual numbers instead of endless speculation provided in these articles about f2p.
Stopped reading at 'less stress on the wallet.'