Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
P2P vs F2P. Who will win?
KarmaCry7
Member Posts: 144
P2P vs F2P. Who will win?
The main difference between a F2P business model and a P2P game business model is the ethics, not the price. Casual gamers do not mind paying to advance in a game while more dedicated gamers tend to feel as if paying to advance in a game is a form of cheating and robs the entire game and community of fair play.
We all should know by now that there is no true free to play mmo. Every company has to have a way to make money from their games, we all know this by now. How a company chooses to get paid is a growing debate among gamers. Every player wouldn't mind paying to play a game provided it gives them what they want regardless if they have to pay up front or by micro transactions. The main difference between a F2P and a P2P mmo is how you pay, not if you pay.
Free to play gaming was designed to encourage you to spend to advance your progress while Pay to Play games are designed for you to spend to extend your game time. Most P2P games are subscription based. If the content, quality of design and fun factor isn't fully there, players leave the game and the company loses money. For this reason alone, P2P companies spend more money and time relentlessly trying to keep you interested in their product. F2P games aren't bent on your loyalty. These companies understand that the game is free, there are other free game options out there for you to jump from game to game from. F2P games usually limits your ability to enjoy the entire experience at one point so when you can not level the same as platinum members, you realize that you can either leave the game or buy some helpful items. If you decide to stay, they make a crazy amount of money off of the players that must have to buy the best gear to advance. If you leave after spending $200 with them, it's cool, they have your money already.
A F2P game wants your money now, a P2P game needs your money later. For this reason, companies that make P2P games will always fight to keep their customers happy this is why you see better quality P2P mmos. They have a lot more to lose and because they believe in making a great mmo, they will always continue to make sacrifices even when things aren't going well for them just to make a better experience for the players. There is a LOT of honor in this but unfortunately it doesn't always pay off for the company.
Some players do not care about paying to advance in a game but do not understand that they are also feeding the greed and not the innovation of F2P companies. Some gamers hate the idea of paying to advance in a game and wouldn't touch a F2P game even if it were of the highest quality. To them, the community wouldn't seem authentic as paying to advance is considered a form of "cheating."
Over the years, we've seen some real strides to improve F2P games but the same system will never change the opinions of dedicated gamers who believe that paying to advance is a rip off to the entire gaming industry. Because no game is ever really F2P, companies will always struggle with trying to find new ways to entice players to play their game while getting you to spend money with their company. When you see a PLAY FOR FREE advertisement, replace it with, Item Mall, Cash Shop or Micro Transactions instead as that's exactly what it really means. Players should get used to the idea that nothing good in entertainment is free and NEVER will be. You have to give something back to the developers that worked so hard to produce the games you love or you will not be able to play these games as they cost lots of money to produce and even more to maintain. How you give back will continue to shape and mold the gaming industry and the quality of games you want to see.
At the end of the day, what kind of gamer are you really? This will determine the future of mmos as every company is at the mercy of the majority. State your opinions and input.
I have the right to like what I want!
Comments
a la carte or buffet, who will win?
contract or per usage, who will win?
Or is it just different business models?
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Read the post, it's more about will ethics win thus determining the business model that molds the direction of the genre.
I have the right to like what I want!
Well-done F2P will win (f.e. with optional subscription)
And It's a good thing, too. It allows everyone to play and pay the way they prefer.
Hype train -> Reality
F2P is already winning if you count the number of games versus P2P. The wave of the future is to allow gamers the lower levels or beginning game to be F2P, then charge a sub for later content, much like AO does.
I personally get bored real fast with F2P's like many do. I have played a dozen or so F2P's, join a Guild only to see them fall apart due to participation. That is not the goal of course of the publishers of those games. It is to suck as many in as possible, get some money from them and hope the cycle continues.
I can tell you straight up that F2P will never, EVER "win" me. If this genre is moving towards pay to win free to play, it will be a genre I am not a part of.
Then again, I haven't seen a pay to play game that was actually worth paying for come out in quite a few years, so I suppose that unless the quality of MMOs being released goes up, it won't effect me either way.
Tried: LotR, CoH, AoC, WAR, Jumpgate Classic
Played: SWG, Guild Wars, WoW
Playing: Eve Online, Counter-strike
Loved: Star Wars Galaxies
Waiting for: Earthrise, Guild Wars 2, anything sandbox.
To say that no game can be played for free is simply not true. There are lots of people playing games like Maple Story, Silkroad and Rappelz without paying anything for it.
There is a lot of misconceptions about Free to play, for instance that you can pay to advance or that you can buy all sorts of powerful equipment in many of those games.
The goal of those games isn't to force people to pay for it. They know that's not going to work because people play these games because they don't feel forced to pay for items. People pay for these items to make the experience more enjoyable. Free to play companies realise that a person who is spending a lot of time on the game is much more likely to pay for it than to pay for a game they haven't experienced yet.
The target audience for these games are kids. While p2p games went after adults with high entry barriers such as a 50$ game box, 15$ a monthly fee and another 30$ per expansion, games like Maple Story went after the younger kids. I think Maple Story became big thanks to word of mouth among kids. If the game is a game where you just have to pay to continue to advance, kids will lose interest because the reason they play it is because they don't feel forced to pay for it.
Kids play these games for different reasons. They find to be able to play with friends and do stuff together much more important then making a character as strong as possible, so to say these games are pay to win, that's kinda missing the whole point of these type of games.
Kids also aren't as interested in buying items that give you a small dps increase. They are much more interested in cosmetic items. Cute or cool outfits,pets and mounts.
This is true for some F2P games but not all. Some F2P games are targeting casual gamers in general, not kids alone. We see games like D&D going F2P. The industry is trying to evolve based upon failed attempts at the old business model.
F2P is deceptive and the term should not be used. A new and more creative way for companies to make money from their games such as buying time slots at micro prices should be introduced. $5 for 50 hours for example. This way, I can play 3 games a month and not just one. When my time is used up for any game I like, I pay again. If I am playing one game more than another that month, I just buy more time.
I have the right to like what I want!
I don't even look at F2P MMOs. I don't even see them as being part of the same genre as P2P MMOs... F2P to me is just a half-MMO that a lot of people like to pretend are going to be the next best thing that's super-amazing. There is a reason why I give 15 dollars a month to these P2P MMOs, and that's because I like playing them that much. They've done enough and given me enough incentive in which I'm feeling a net reward by giving them 15 dollars a month.
P2P !
"Listen, you fuckers, you screwheads. Here is a man who would not take it anymore. A man who stood up against the scum, the cunts, the dogs, the filth, the shit. Here is a man who stood up." - Robert DeNiro
Well written OP.
This is why neither side wins, unless you want to consider which side has more players as a "win".
There will always be casual players, as you describe them, nad more dedicated players.
The casuals will not mind paying for items, the dedicated players will find it robs their game of all fun.
I think the cost to develop MMORPGs will continue to fall in the near future with the release of good engines like Hero Engine falling in price, with hopefully the arrival of competition.
If there's a gamer segment out there willing to pay a monthy fee because they think this game design is more fun than buying items or xp boosts, then there will be developers that will make games for them so they can get their money.
I won't ever enjoy a game where some people buy things, and some don't as much as a game where everyone must earn everything the same way. And I'm not alone. So developers will want my money, and other players like me, and they'll make games to get it.
Same goes for F2P. Plenty of people like to pay for items, devs will make games for them.
Great read:
F2P Vs P2P=
You get what you pay for: I for one would never play a F2P game because it's not free if you want to play the game with all it's content intact you have to pay for something along the line.
As far as i am concerned F2P means free to try and if you want to see more you have to pay;
P2P you get it all everything included. Need i say more.
Which would i chose p2p hands down, why? because i know what i am getting.
i want to see as many pay options as possible. there are very relevant pros and cons to f2p and p2p models. ive enjoyedgames that use both revenue models for different reasons. i also like the guild wars "buy the box once" setup very much b/c it fits my gaming budget best right now.
i want to see a company/companies offer all 3 of these pay models for all of the properties they market. why not? say i become interested in "gaming co. 'a'' and their products. i would go beta test and/or use their f2p option for a couple months, then depending on my familiy's budget, i would want a mo. sub or a " buy the box" setup.
since our budget is variable, i can usually only get new high end game properties once or twice a year. so researching a game and waiting a few months works best, so i really want to see more "buy the game/expansion once" material, and i want to see it in a modern urban fantasy/sci fi game.
by all means develop multiple properties w/ multiple payment options. I want to see more companies creat games that offer three or four different payment options, andcome up with new ones. there have to be mroer ways to skin the cat than are available now.
I want a list products that fit my budget. do that and ill play and pay for years, once a year, twice a year or once a month as ofthen as im able.
mm if you forget the top 3 spot mmorpg,its pretty much f2p country that are popular
and thats where there are the most player to get ,the top 3 for a small company arent accessible even if they have a p2p model
but make it f2p and almost any f2p game can be number 4 to 20
some player would say bha it isnt worth it,believe me forget top 3 spot and you can make ton of money in the top 10
lot of f2p mmorpg have aimed their game directly there .most gamer can tell you that f2p dont aim top 3 spot but ask
those same gamer where they thing f2p aim to be and most will agree lot of f2p mmorpg just aim to be in the top 10 or top 20
wich in my book is a pretty nice spot to be ,espacially when you thing there were 200 +game released since wow
being in the top 20 isnt so bad looking after all
OP is clearly biased in his view.
The F2P industry is not just for kids (unlike popular belief) even though many games do cater to a younger audience (like MapleStory). Many games actually target a wider range of players (Mabinogi, Dungeon Fighter, F2P FPS) and it is completly false to say that all F2P games "force" you to pay to win. It is also becoming more common lately to see cash shop offering a variety of items that may give decent bonus BUT these items can be sold to other players using in-game currency, allowing all players to have access to the game.
F2P wants your money now and P2P wants your money later? Really? P2P also wants your money NOW! (unlimited subs, monthly subs, pay to beta, etc) saying "they want your money later" means that you have fallen under the illusion of "hey it's cheaper this way". You know when you go to IKEA buy some furnitures and they tell you "You won't pay until 2010"? Basically, it's the same thing, it's an investment to attract buyers.
Also, one of the major difference between F2P and P2P is that in a F2P, you can play when you want without worrying about the need to re-sub/cancel your sub. It's a much more casual-friendly model and no one said that you had to pay $200+ to pay. You can put $15 a month if you want or you just can play for free. The P2P is better for "hardcore" as they can spend 10+ hours a week on a game (20+ hours for many). Then again, doesn't mean that a casual can't play a P2P title either and casuals are not the only ones who play F2P games.
Now who wins between F2P and P2P? None. They both attract a different audience and it is only a matter of preference/opinion.
The line is getting fuzzier. P2P games are not clearly better then FTP. I think Guild Wars and RoM and Atlantica are good examples, oh...and now D&D. The other fuzzy line is that FTP really is not free. They need to make money and some very important items must be bought. A while back, I refused to try FTP assuming they would be junk, but the above listed games has swayed me.
Define "Win". There are more players worldwide playing F2P than P2P. From that perspective, they are already winning.
However, which companies are making the most money? That would be another way to look at it.
This is true for some F2P games but not all. Some F2P games are targeting casual gamers in general, not kids alone. We see games like D&D going F2P. The industry is trying to evolve based upon failed attempts at the old business model.
F2P is deceptive and the term should not be used. A new and more creative way for companies to make money from their games such as buying time slots at micro prices should be introduced. $5 for 50 hours for example. This way, I can play 3 games a month and not just one. When my time is used up for any game I like, I pay again. If I am playing one game more than another that month, I just buy more time.
The amount of free to play games that don't target kids are quite small and has become more of a recent trend.
To say F2p is deceptive is just not true. The game is free to play, in most cases you can enjoy all of the content without paying.
Buying time slots is not going to work because the reason these people play the game is foremost to play for free as much as they want. Paying for additional benefits usually comes after they have invested a decent amount of time in the game.
What you suggested might work well in a p2p game though.
Meeting or exceeding your customers demands and expectations is the only business model.
See you in the dream..
The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
I think it depends on what kind of MMO it is. A game like Fallen earth wouldnt work as a F2P game imo and works better with only a monthly sub, but Champions on the other hand is a perfect example of a MMO that should have been "Free" and then make people pay for more character slots and cosmetic stuff, it was a huge misstake to launch it with the buisness model they did.
Considering that the subscriptions for DDO have gone up with 40% since going "Free to play" I think that releasing a new AAA MMO with a simillar buisness model will become a great sucess and the only way to even come close to WoW numbers.
Imagine SWTOR being free where you pay for convinence, cosmetics and extra content. It would be HUGE.
If WoW = The Beatles
and WAR = Led Zeppelin
Then LotrO = Pink Floyd
F2P means you can substitute money for time in the game. Some people think this is fair. Others think this is not fair.
P2P means there is no substitute for time in the game. ALL players must do quests and grind mobs in order to make character progress, and this cannot be avoided with money. Some players think this is fair. Others think this is not fair.
There will always be both types of players, and therefore developers will cater to both so they can get their money.
I don't play F2P games. A developer will not get any of my money in an item shop. However, I will pay 14.95 a month to play a good game. Some developers will want my 14.95 a month, that they could not get in an item shop.
Some players will not pay 14.95 a month. But they will buy items in an item shop. Some developers will want the item shop money they could not get with a monthly sub.
To be clear, I would not mind paying for content, assuming there is a level cap with each piece of content.
This is not much different than a monthly sub, in that the only progress made in the game is made by time, not money, unlike an item shop where you spend money to substitute for playing the game.
For example, zones 1-5 cost 20 dollars. Zones 6-11 cost 20 dollars. And so on. Then you can't go past level 7 in zones 1-5. You can't go past level 20 in zones 6-11, and so on.
Not a problem, that's fine. But buy items? Nope, won't play it.
Subscriptions have gone up. But subscriptions are free right? So how is this a great success? Shouldn't you be saying revenue has gone up 40% and that's a great success?
Subscriptions have gone up. But subscriptions are free right? So how is this a great success? Shouldn't you be saying revenue has gone up 40% and that's a great success?
No subscriptions is stil $15 a month
Its +40% people paying sub then add all the Free players who are paying with microtransactions.
If WoW = The Beatles
and WAR = Led Zeppelin
Then LotrO = Pink Floyd
Subscriptions have gone up. But subscriptions are free right? So how is this a great success? Shouldn't you be saying revenue has gone up 40% and that's a great success?
No subscriptions is stil $15 a month
Its +40% people paying sub then add all the Free players who are paying with microtransactions.
So you pay 15 dollars a month to play DDO, AND they added micro transactions, so 40% more people are paying 15 dollars a month, now that they can also spend money on microtransactions?
Subscriptions have gone up. But subscriptions are free right? So how is this a great success? Shouldn't you be saying revenue has gone up 40% and that's a great success?
No subscriptions is stil $15 a month
Its +40% people paying sub then add all the Free players who are paying with microtransactions.
So you pay 15 dollars a month to play DDO, AND they added micro transactions, so 40% more people are paying 15 dollars a month, now that they can also spend money on microtransactions?
Eh yes, the monthly sub give you access to everything in the game + 500 points to spend in the store each month. Only about 1/3 of the game is available for Free (but you can grind favor to gain points for the store for free)
If WoW = The Beatles
and WAR = Led Zeppelin
Then LotrO = Pink Floyd
Subscriptions have gone up. But subscriptions are free right? So how is this a great success? Shouldn't you be saying revenue has gone up 40% and that's a great success?
It seems like he is implying the more player playing the game is the win criteria. Wonder what the investors consider a win?