Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
General: Richard Aihoshi's New F2P Column
Dana
Member Posts: 2,415
MMORPG.com today debuts columns, which are weekly articles from some of the most respected voices in MMOs.
The first columnist is Richard Aihoshi, the veteran MMO reporter and editor of RPG Vault, Aihoshi is one of the most respected authorities on the free to play MMO genre and each Monday he'll contribute his thoughts for the MMORPG.com community.
In his debut column, "Out of Sight, Out of Mind" he explains how he came to focus on this aspect that many mainstream outlets too often neglect.
The fact of the matter is that I spend a lot of time covering the free to play sector because it is important. Very important. However, it tends to be... out of sight, out of mind. The main reason is simple. The amount of exposure that the category receives in the game media isn't nearly on the same level as its significance, neither in terms of the huge numbers of players nor the major amounts of revenue they represent. As a consequence, if you lean on those publications for information, you get little or none about free to play titles.
Read it all here.
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
Comments
F2P's have been mostly ignored by me because when I gave them a go, they did not meet the quality standards of most P2P games.
I recently gave Runes of Magic a go and found that the gap has narrowed significantly. Its not perfect by any means, but its a really good WOW clone that I'm still enjoying playing after a month now. (many other MMO's failed to grab my attention).
So perhaps with higher quality F2P/s coming out, they'll be more excitement and interest in the games.
But one other factor that hurts coverage is that their very category, F2P seems deceitful to most people.
Let's face it, no one creates a game to really be played for free. They all are designed to somehow get you to spend your cash in their item shop (or pay a montly sub fee) and do so by enticing you with many offers.
From extra content, to better gear , to simple fluff items, they all try hard to separate the player from his money, and sometimes at much higher rates than a typical P2P.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
While I can understand the interest in the F2P market from an analytical viewpoint and intellectual exercise, as a gamer they are of zero interest to me. I (like most of the readers here I suspect) are from that portion of the market that does go out and buy that smoking hot video card and does upgrade/replace their gaming PC every 2 years or less. As such, I really have no interest in what to me are pieces of low tech garbage with all the gameplay restrictions imposed by their universalist nature.
Add to that the fact that the F2P business model relies entirely on direct sales of in-game items, abilities and perks to survive; many gamers find that very objectionable - I certainly do. It's a completely different consumer mindset from the subscription based MMO. (Almost akin to the difference between players of conventional PnP RPGs and players of collectible trading card games)
So, at least for me, while I am interested in the market and development aspects of F2P games; the fluff press, hype and product reviews that generally make up most of the discussion here is really of no interest whatsoever.
Are there really people over the age of 17 on this planet that actually thought otherwise?
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Granted I have not played all the f2p games out there, not even close, but there is one overriding factor that is evident in everyone I have tried. How much you spend in the Cash shop determines how advanced your character is.
Most of the pvp in these games is significantly effected by the cash shop too.
So, it is rather disconcerting for me, when the prevalent method to success in these MMO's is to buy your way.
Because of this one factor and the fact that none of the f2p games currently has even close to the content of any of the subscription models. It is quite evident to most of us, that the subscription game model is superior at this point in time.
It would be NAIVE to think that the companies who make F2P games are doing this for the SPORT of it. Well let me rephrase this that I'm sure that GAMING companies who PRODUCE the F2P games want to SHOWCASE there talents to the PUBLIC so F2P is a good option. LETS face it people LOVE the word free. Anywho, unfortunately MOST of these companies of course don't have the BACKING that lest say BLIZZ dose, So it seems in order to get ANY kind of playing action they need and ANY kind of reaction from GAMERS they need to DRAW us in.
So now what? Now once we decide to DOWNLOAD the game and give it a try we REALIZE that we are not going to have the best armor or gear or whatever the case maybe unless we buy from that games SHOP henceforth the game no longer becomes FREE to play.
On a side note GAMES like Free Realms have a happy MEADIUM were the game itself is LIMITED to play for free or very cheap to play But if you want lets say a pet you have to SPEND money for that vanity. SO go figure a Rock and a HARD place Lol
The F2P games remind me of the call in tv shows where they aim at the few very dumb persons willing to spend lots of money on a winning chance tending towards zero.
To me it is just a very questionable morality to base a business on the dumbness of a few spending vast amounts of money for a virtual uber-personality.
Sure, everyone decides with his own free will to partake in that but exploiting the simple minded just leaves a very bad taste.
The only thing I wish people would get straight is that you indeed do NOT need to spend money to be "competitive" or to "succeed" in almost any of the F2P MMO's.
I have found that usually the people that say that have played but a few.
I also find it funny that people seem some kind of difference between paying for access and paying for items like mounts or potions. There is no difference. It is simply a different way to hand the game company your money.
I said on my blog/podcast, and I'll stick by it...within two years time the F2P model will be the norm, and I can't wait.
Beau
Listen to the Spouse Aggro podcast at spouseaggro.com. Twitter: spouseaggro
"Free to lose"/item mall games don't get much coverage in a lot of places that cover the premium MMORPGs for the same reasons that single-player console games don't: they're a different market. A considerable fraction of the people who play MMORPGs won't consider a game where winning and losing depends primarily on how much you spend on the game, more so than what you actually do in the game. Another considerable fraction won't consider a game where you have to have a credit card and pay a subscription to play. Either one of those groups is likely larger than the one that frequently plays both basic business models. While there is some overlap, there's also overlap between people who play MMORPGs and those who play first-person shooters, real time strategy games, or whatever other genre you pick.
There are sites that are dedicated primarily to the "free to lose"/item mall games, and those can be a good reference for people who prefer that sort of game. To try to make a single site cover all types of games would mean that for most players, most of the games can be dismissed out of hand. Most people don't have a PC and a Wii and a Playstation 3 and an Xbox 360 all at once. Most gamers aren't simultaneously interested in MMORPGs, first person shooters, real time strategy games, console platform games, console sports games, turn based strategy games, casual card games (e.g., solitaire or freecell), and every other type of game out there. Someone who is looking for a particular type of game and goes to a site that tries to cover everything will have to wade through a lot more stuff he isn't looking for to find what he is.
"Win or Lose?"
There is no winning or losing. None of these MMO's, even the PvP ones, are a competition. You are not booted from the game if you die. In fact, you do not die, you just respawn with different results, depending on the game.
GIve me some examples of a game that has such specific goals that you are forced to either "win or lose." Notice that most MMO's have quite a few goals, and provide enough flexibility to allow a player to play however they want.
You can name me the most competitive area of a typical MMO (raiding) as an example of someone "winning" or "losing." But how would you define who won or not? You could say that the first to get a certain piece of gear could win, but the other player could get that same piece of gear. Not a single MMO has a system that only allows for one copy of any piece of gear. There are as many copies as players that want it.
Beau
Listen to the Spouse Aggro podcast at spouseaggro.com. Twitter: spouseaggro
So baseball, soccer or football are not competitive because noone dies in the act of playing?
Without the competition there would simply be no PvP because the goal is to defeat the opponent and to achieve a higher rank/better gear/etc. as someone else, simple as that.
You might not be interested in compairing to someone else in an MMO but F2P games highly base their business model on the human fault of wishing to be superior. Without enough people thinking that way, these games simply wouldn't exist.
And it is not restricted to the PvP aspect. Especially the younger customers feel forced to have more pets, shinier armor etc. leading to pervertism of spending hundreds or even thousands of dollars a year for an MMO.
I only read a couple paragraphs in and lost interest.
Frankly, F2P games just aren't very good. As long as that fact holds true, I have very little interest in reading about them.
Free2Play games will gain respect when they change their name to reflect the type of game they really are. It's that simple really. Developers behind these games know that the word free2play is just another business scheme to get people into your game to spend money. There is nothing wrong with this, but at least call it what it is. This column won't help their community and is a waste of space until they except what they really are. Plus, let's be real. There is really only maybe a handful of these games that semi try to be unique. So what is there really to talk about? More ideas to incorperate cash shops?
I DISAGREE. because the NORM always been paying a MONTHLY fee since the launch of Ultima Online when EA set that tone. It is HARD to ARGUE the fact that BLIZZ thrives on Monthly fee's BOTTOM line people will pay for QUALITY entertainment.
I cannot (maybe will not) get over my dislike of a mode of play that allows people to get better gear/fluff because they spend more $$. If there was a cap of say $15 dollars a month that you could spend in a cash shop f2p game or something then maybe the idea wouldnt be as unpleasant but currently it seems to me like having a "i win" button for $20 dollars a shot in a game.
I like the fact in subscription games if you see someone in cool armour/weapons/random gear you know you have a chance yourself if you want to work at it to get that same gear, and thats half the fun of most mmo's progressing your character from rags to riches - insert the ability to skipp that character development by purchasing gear with $ then I think you loose at least half the fun and all the sense of achievement that comes wtih questing/raiding/crafting/etc for your gear.
If you have a good time you win, otherwise you lose. That is how MMOs work.
Depends on how you mean. Blizzards old .Battlenet was supposed to have used a P2P system to but Jeff Strain said he quited unless they made it free (Jeff programmed .Battlenet, Diablo, Warcraft 3 and Guildwars).
Guildwars 2 will use a third model, same as the first GW but it is not a instanced low budget game like the first but will instead have a big open world. If it becomes a hit it will really hurt both P2P and F2P.
The bet is open, I prefer Arenanets model (which BTW Turbine used to LOTROs life time membership also), I dont mind paying up a handsome sum at start and buy an expansion pack every year. GW have sold 6 millions so the model works.
I am careful about F2P games cash shops, particulary in PvP games. Any item that changes the balance is bad, customizing options like clothes, special apperences for the avatar, furniture for player housing like in EQ2 all works fine but actual items that makes you better sucks.
You can of course do like SOE Free realms that have adds as an alternative to paying monthly fees but that might be easy to crack for pirates.
But regular monthly fees are not the only good way as a business model.
It seems that everyone is talking about the "disadvantage" between the paying player and the free player. Don't play the game competitively until you are sure you actually WANT to compete. That's the thing, in F2P's they get you to bite the carrot by wanting to be the very best and strongest in the game.. That IS the carrot, and they are just trying to see how far you'd go to be the best.. If you'd just play the game to enjoy the world and play casually then you really have no problem enjoying the free side. On the casual side it seems the carrot always involves fluff items that change your appearance to be more "unique" and stand out.
Ultimately I feel that F2P's (especially the older generation of Diablo II clones) catered the potential "greatest warrior ever", someone who wanted to be the best, but now you say "Doesn't everyone want to be the best?", well how about if I told you that I am selling "Best Pills" in my shop for 5 bucks.. If everyone wants to be the best, wouldn't everyone be buying these best pills? Especially if one of the potential greatest warriors kills another potential greatest warrior by using the "Best Pill", obviously one of them is going to be upset and want to buy the "Best Pill" also or quit from frustration..
I never play F2P's competitively UNLESS they include factional warefare, that way your goal is to be the potential best faction which doesn't exactly single out anyone who doesn't use the cash shop and at least gives everyone including free players a shot at becomming and being beneficial..
If that would prove to be true then I would give up on online games in a heartbeat.
I guess it depends on what you consider the norm, I think there will be more f2p games out there but they won't have more players the the pay to play games. I hate f2p and micro transactions, I hate having to buy items in game, character slots etc. it makes me sick. I also find f2p games lack a lot of the quality of pay to play games. There is a reason the industry has always been pay to play and why you have to buy FPS and RTS games, so they can fund making them and make them good.
If the F2P model becomes the norm, this genre deserves to be strung out and put to rest. I'd love to say that the genre would die; but WoW has proved far too successful for money grubbing business cretins to ignore.
The idea that most F2P games are pay for gear are funny.
Some allow you to buy crafting materials to have a chance of crafting an already in game item. You just by pass the need to farm and buy the mats in game that is it.
Good F2P's do nothing more than speed the game up for the player that plays.
Example Increasing item drop rates and increase exp gain from mobs.
Bad F2P's allow players to buy their way to uberness, those are the ones to stay away from and that seems to be what everyone thinks F2P games are.
And when someone said that F2P will be the way games are done later on is 100% true. If you guys think blizzard makes a lot of money off of WoW now, imagine for 5 bucks a player could reset a raid dungeon for a raid group after it has already been completed for the week.
This does nothing more than allow the player to get what he disires faster, it does not hand out good items. As said before games that hand out the best gear for cash are what I consider to be broken and just complete money scams.
But the usual model of F2P is just a way to speed the game up for the player that pays. As well as add items that make your character unique like someone else said.
Depends on how you mean. Blizzards old .Battlenet was supposed to have used a P2P system to but Jeff Strain said he quited unless they made it free (Jeff programmed .Battlenet, Diablo, Warcraft 3 and Guildwars).
Guildwars 2 will use a third model, same as the first GW but it is not a instanced low budget game like the first but will instead have a big open world. If it becomes a hit it will really hurt both P2P and F2P.
The bet is open, I prefer Arenanets model (which BTW Turbine used to LOTROs life time membership also), I dont mind paying up a handsome sum at start and buy an expansion pack every year. GW have sold 6 millions so the model works.
I am careful about F2P games cash shops, particulary in PvP games. Any item that changes the balance is bad, customizing options like clothes, special apperences for the avatar, furniture for player housing like in EQ2 all works fine but actual items that makes you better sucks.
You can of course do like SOE Free realms that have adds as an alternative to paying monthly fees but that might be easy to crack for pirates.
But regular monthly fees are not the only good way as a business model.
GW is actually not much different from the newer Free to play models these days. They don't make money off any subs so they have to make it somewhere else, what would they do? Charge you for every single piece of content that is usually free in P2P games. Barber shop: pay 10$, extra storage: 10$, pet pack: 10$, and bonus mission and PvP pack .
With GW2 I only expect this list to keep on growing. I don't see how else they could pull off an open world and a regular mmo with no subs.
(,,,)=^__^=(,,,)
The bottom line is that these companies need money to maintain their games, servers, add new content, etc. You said that players currently don't have to buy anything from the item malls to be competitive in F2_ games, but I think if F2P becomes the norm then the trend will be for game producers to create F2P MMO's in such a manner that you will HAVE to buy items from the item mall to progress deep in the game, because they will NEED the money as more players will be flocking to them and if only a handful of fanatic players are shelling out money they won't be able to support the influx of players that don't want to buy item mall products.
I feel that a better model is what I'll call P2P+. This model would include a lower monthly fee, IE 4.99 a month and also include item malls.
There is a huge difference between the consumer mindset that plays subscription based games and those based on item shops. It is very akin to the difference in mentality between players of collectable trading card games and players of module/book based games.
Barring some massive and unlikely shift in consumer attitudes, the "F2P" business model will not take over the MMORPG market because of that difference. It may grow in market share, heck maybe even a surge in "fad" popularity as was seen when say "Magic the Gathering" launched, but it will not kill off the subscription based model - ever.
PS The "most successful" new game will not be the one that most allows you to buy your way past the "annoying grind" parts of the game...it will be the game that manages to successfully integrate/disguise those "grindy" parts in enjoyable gameplay.