So far there are a lot of good arguments in so much I can not even comment on all. One of my issues isn't with payment at all. It's about how much I choose to pay and how I choose to pay it. Another issue is flexibility to try other games. I prefer p2p games over f2p games but p2p games are designed to occupy your time and money with their game and their game alone. I believe p2p games are failing this way.
At this point, I stopped hopping for the ultimate mmo that would do away with all others as I think I may have played all of the p2p mmos currently out. I would like to be able to play a number of games a month and alternate as I get bored. Currently at $15 a month, I'm not going to have more than one or two subscriptions at a time (currently I'm subscribed to 2 games). The idea of making a p2p mmo where you can pay for hourly slots would be great ($5 for 50 hours for example). With this idea, many players will be able to explore new games without feeling as if he/she has to totally abandon the others. The competition with p2p games is so fierce that one must become a fan boy of a game despising all others in order to enjoy their experience (your heart is where your wallet is).
As far as f2p games are concerned, I would personally prefer that they do not use item malls, its against every ethic honorable gamers hold to. "Cheats are not allowed." Many casual players may disagree but for the most part, every hard core gamer I've ever played with feels the same way. Buying items or resources is a cheat, unfair and destroys the very principle of honorable and fair game play.
F2P will always cater to casual gamers and in many ways "free loaders." This isn't to be insulting, it is to be truthful. Anyone who intends to get something free without having to contribute or assist in the progression of the game's development is a "free loader." Free loaders can care less how the company gives them what they want, they will take and take without discretion and hop to another f2p game if item mall shopping becomes the only way to progress in the game. Free loaders expect that the world owes them something for nothing at all. If you play a f2p game with no intention on paying anything at anytime, you are a free loader. It's no different than walking past the individual giving free chicken samples 8 times simply to get free food with no intent to buy anything from their restaurant. Just because more people are playing a game doesn't make the game successful. The quality of players make the game successful. Most f2p games attract the worst type of inconsiderate people and often times the worst type of communities. This is not to say that the casual gamers that intend to buy items sooner or later fall in this category but sadly most of them do. F2P is deceptive because it doesn't make the company's true intention known, that they want your business.
If "item mall" based games had another way of making money other than items that give an unfair advantage, perhaps they would attract a new element. For now, marketing your game as free to play attracts players that will assume no responsibility to the success of your game as most players could care less how you keep your games going. When you read p2p forum boards you can see the real concern for the future of the company and game they support. It's an entirely different world.
A F2P game wants your money now, a P2P game needs your money later.
Could you explain that line for me? The reason I ask is because subscription MMOs are the ones with the retail box, pre-order sales and other deals up to and including release, whereas a F2P game normally doesn't get money of any kind from a player until at least a month (or more) or so after they have started playing as they first need to figure out what anything is before they can decide what they feel is worth purchasing.
The excepetion to that rule would be Ikariam, Empire Craft and other 4X Browser-based MMOs as the leader of a server is usually decided by who sank the most cash into the game during the first two weeks of that server's release.
You're clearly biased agaisnt F2P, so I won't press any other points, but I really would like to know what you were referring to with the quote above.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
F2p seems to be growing and this is something i find alarming. Yes, you may access all of the game content without paying and some of the most dedicated players actually dont spend a dime on these games. It fits the time vs money argument of RMT suporters. However, rule changes seem to be unavoidable in this model. Imagine spending upwards of $200 on a game to set up your character just to find next month not only youre no longer competitive but all of your stuff is now worth $20 in game. This is where the model goes wrong and ive yet to hear of a f2p that doesnt subject its players to sudden changes like these. Yes, it can be argued p2ps regularly nerf their content too, but the playing field remains even. People spend thousands of dollars to remain competitive at f2p endgames, those are certainly not casual players.
I find myself very much oposed to f2p for this reason. Turning games into wallet races defeats the very purpose of advancing in a persistent world. Players who have not experienced this and who may think f2ps are not such a bad idea should try playing one of these games for half a year (some are actually worth it) just to see everything they worked for, and may have spend money on, trashed.
But maybe thats a part of the problem, people dont seem interested on spending that long in a game anymore. Long standing comunities disapearing may very well come hand in hand with f2ps. If indeed this is the future i just hope ill get a couple of chances to spend a few years in the same game before the curtain finally closes.
Just to make things clear... I speak for myself and no one else, unless i state otherwise mine is just an opinion. A fact is something that can be independently verified, you may challenge such but with proof. You have every right to disagree with me through sound argument, i believe in constructive debate, but baseless aggression will warrant an unkind response.
Who will win? well Both obviously. There are large numbers of people who prefer each style of play offered by both models. Neither model will dissapear and quite possibly more models might come up. Take Wizards 101. I see that as more of a hybrid model between p2p and f2p. They take the best of both worlds payment wise and make a model that works well for them. In fact I dont thnk it will be much longer before a game with some form of advertising that might pay the brunt of the cost to build/maintain/expand and run an MMO. There will be those who hate that and those who love it.
The only thing to really know in the gaming industry and specifically in the MMO industry is there is no one right way to do things. The only wrong way to do something is to spend more money than you can make back on a project. No matter how you do something a portion of the community will hate how you did it. A portion will love how you do it and the rest will be indifferent, some trying it out the rest passing for something more interesting.
A F2P game wants your money now, a P2P game needs your money later.
Could you explain that line for me? The reason I ask is because subscription MMOs are the ones with the retail box, pre-order sales and other deals up to and including release, whereas a F2P game normally doesn't get money of any kind from a player until at least a month (or more) or so after they have started playing as they first need to figure out what anything is before they can decide what they feel is worth purchasing.
The excepetion to that rule would be Ikariam, Empire Craft and other 4X Browser-based MMOs as the leader of a server is usually decided by who sank the most cash into the game during the first two weeks of that server's release.
You're clearly biased agaisnt F2P, so I won't press any other points, but I really would like to know what you were referring to with the quote above.
A p2p game needs your business long term. They need to keep you around to maintain their subscription base. They will do updates, patches, bug fixes and invest tons of money into customer support, developing new content and expansion packs simply to keep you around. They want your long term business. Free to play game developers are thinking short term per player not long term. Most of their players leave the game, they know this. They are fighting to get the attention of the few that will stay on their game long enough to get hooked, pay a lot of money for resources or items, regret it and leave. They don't care if you stay for a while, they only care that in the time that you do you dish out as much cash as you can before you regret it.
depends if the P2P is succesfull. i have seen both P2P and F2P fail. really it's hard to say but in the end both bring in money if they succeed in bringing in players. i both win and lose and the decision is based on success or fail of the mmo.
I don't think a "who will win" question makes any sense.
F2P is preferred by people who either like to spend no money at all on a game and don't mind not seeing some of the content or having a harder time in the game. Or by people who like to spend loads and loads of money on a game, because that speeds up their gameplay a lot and gives the mounts and all the other stuff they can show off with.
P2P is preffered by people who have a bit money to spare and who prefer the gamers having about the same chances. And not that the one who pays most gets most.
I don't think a "who will win" question makes any sense. F2P is preferred by people who either like to spend no money at all on a game and don't mind not seeing some of the content or having a harder time in the game. Or by people who like to spend loads and loads of money on a game, because that speeds up their gameplay a lot and gives the mounts and all the other stuff they can show off with. P2P is preffered by people who have a bit money to spare and who prefer the gamers having about the same chances. And not that the one who pays most gets most.
I personally believe that there will be a "win" at the end of the day for 2 reasons.
1. P2P games are struggling for a pool of players to migrate and stay with their game and their game alone. They will do anything to keep your business. There is a big problem with this. I don't want to spend the rest of my life playing your game! There is no perfect mmo and there are lots of other mmos I wouldn't mind trying out in my lifetime. If p2p game companies don't give better payment options and more freedom to the players to play when ever they feel like it, they are going to keep losing subs. The option of giving paid time slots will allow players to pay only what they've played (Example: 50 hours for $5). Gamers will stop complaining about how much a game sucks and be more open to re-try games they played for a short while as the risk and demand for commitment is much lower. If something isn't done fast, more angry players will emerge with an expectation to find the one and only ULTIMATE MMO and by each disappointment, they lose hope in the genre.
2. F2P games have nothing to offer after giving the game away for free. Some F2P games give away more free items, some T-Shirts while others give away free money just to get you to stick around long enough to play the game. This is breeding a generation of selfish and ungrateful gamers. In a few years, if the F2P market doesn't change the way they do business, they will lose more "paying players" who ask that they give them more content and features for nothing. Yes, a lot of players assume that they are contributing to a game by occupying server space ignorant of the fact that the more players they get, the more money the company has to spend to maintain the traffic. F2P companies are running out of ideas to keep this new breed of selfish and ungrateful players around long enough to even consider buying anything. Because of this, it is only a matter of time before the attitude of F2P gamers expect you to pay them to play your game. After you give your game away for free, you lose all of your bargaining power and respect. You have nothing left to give us but everything we want for free, no strings attached and we know they can't do that.
At the end of the day one of these business models may fail. God forbid both simultaneously but one of them may fail and the other will rise as the ultimate standard. This risk is there regardless if we take notice of it or not. MMO gaming is reaching a boiling point. The culture of gaming will dictate the future. What type of gamer are you and what are your opinions? I believe everyone's opinions matter as our playing habits and spending habits will dictate how developers respond to our needs.
The notion of 'ethics' as it pertains to the MMO business models is somewhat baffling.
However ethics in terms of player interaction can apply to many things whether it is f2p (which is really packet buying) or monthly subscription.
When asking 'who will win?' I understand that you are essentially questioning which business model will become the standard practice but you are obviously biased and present absolutes on each side. I believe that a more fluid model will become the norm. A subscription based MMO with item/cosmetic/mission pack buyouts.
The items you can buy in DDO are mainly fluff. You cannot buy a vorpal weapon or extra spells. They basically sell the adventure packs, optional races/classes (accumulating in-game favor will get you much of that) and leveling sigils for advancing beyond certain character levels. Subscription gets you all of that.
There is no "paying your way to the top". Most of the item store purchases are ridiculous to most of the veterans. A lot of money for trinkets.
So the subscription gives you some free points to throw around the store and all of the game content and all of the future content without managing a point buy system. The non-subscribers can pick and choose what they want while not worrying about an ongoing fee. They can come and go as they please. There are some complaints but most see it as a win/win.
It is hard to find a major console release without an immediate DLC these days. Sign of things to come imo.
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.
I notice how you say the subscriptions for DDO have gone up with 40%. Does that mean it's profit gone up 40%?
It's hard to say if fallen earth or champion will be more profitable if they go f2p. I doubt it though.
Really, F2P models only work for asian games. Because asian games have lower budget, they have wider audience since they actually sell in asia, and asians don't pay for the initial game client, so company are more willing to use the f2p models.
Take a game like warhammer for example, if they sell 500k copies, and each copy cost 50$. That is 25 million$ right there. Why would they make their game f2p. It makes no sense.
But if warhammer is release in asia, where people don't pay the upfront 50$ fee, and pay only by the minutes, they only start making money after a few month.
A F2P game wants your money now, a P2P game needs your money later.
Could you explain that line for me? The reason I ask is because subscription MMOs are the ones with the retail box, pre-order sales and other deals up to and including release, whereas a F2P game normally doesn't get money of any kind from a player until at least a month (or more) or so after they have started playing as they first need to figure out what anything is before they can decide what they feel is worth purchasing.
The excepetion to that rule would be Ikariam, Empire Craft and other 4X Browser-based MMOs as the leader of a server is usually decided by who sank the most cash into the game during the first two weeks of that server's release.
You're clearly biased agaisnt F2P, so I won't press any other points, but I really would like to know what you were referring to with the quote above.
A p2p game needs your business long term. They need to keep you around to maintain their subscription base. They will do updates, patches, bug fixes and invest tons of money into customer support, developing new content and expansion packs simply to keep you around. They want your long term business. Free to play game developers are thinking short term per player not long term. Most of their players leave the game, they know this. They are fighting to get the attention of the few that will stay on their game long enough to get hooked, pay a lot of money for resources or items, regret it and leave. They don't care if you stay for a while, they only care that in the time that you do you dish out as much cash as you can before you regret it.
There was a lot of bias and false information there. If there were unlimited customers in the market and there was no such thing as word of mouth then I'd say there might be a possible inkling of truth to what you say, but F2P MMOs operate within our reality, just like every other MMO.
Joshua Hong, CEO of K2 Networks, runs things not as a game company but as a service company. He states in several interviews that Customer Support is a major focus for the company. He also explains in a GigaOM interview that since most people do not start payying (for K2 Network games) until about 3 or 6 months in, the service and customer support focus is of extreme importance to them.
You also infer that updates, patches and bug fixes are a higher priority for P2P than F2P. Rather than fill this post with links, I ask you to please look at the pages for major P2P MMOs and major F2P MMOs. You will see that both have rather frequent updates, patches and bug fixes. You will also notice that F2P games have more festivals and giveaways, more forum/community events and more ingame live events than P2P games.
I'm not going to try to change your mind as your posts in this thread seem to indicate you are pretty set in your views. I just would like to suggest that you might make better headway in your discussion if you stuck to some semblance of fact instead of sweeping false generalizations and blatant misinformation
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
I don't mean it that way. I mean its non sense to say a huge budget western game with only western audience will be better adapting the f2p model. Since they'll most likely will make more money using the p2p model.
A p2p game needs your business long term. They need to keep you around to maintain their subscription base. They will do updates, patches, bug fixes and invest tons of money into customer support, developing new content and expansion packs simply to keep you around. They want your long term business. Free to play game developers are thinking short term per player not long term. Most of their players leave the game, they know this. They are fighting to get the attention of the few that will stay on their game long enough to get hooked, pay a lot of money for resources or items, regret it and leave. They don't care if you stay for a while, they only care that in the time that you do you dish out as much cash as you can before you regret it.
Oh god......have you ever tried a F2P game? The F2P companies needs your business long term too. Did you see how many F2P MMOs there are? THEY HAVE to bring enough content for players to stay in the game and enough incentive for players to actually pay otherwise they will go bankrupt. Unlike a P2P where you can buy a box or a subs, allowing them to get your money right away, F2P games are a long time investment where the companies tries to create a game that, while remaining F2P, will encourage players to buy from the Item Mall and most players won't pay until they have played for at least 1 month.
The F2P market are the ones fighting to get the attention. There's over 100 F2P titles out there. F2P developers thinking short term per player? Really? How false can this be. Just this year, Nexon USA has released 3 major expansions for Mabinogi (Generation 4-6 Elves vs. Giants in February, Generation 7 Chronicles Of Iria in July, Generation 8 Dragon just a few days ago). That does not include all the events and contest that happens once or twice a month (which usually last for 3 to 14 days). There's also weekly maintenance and patches.
Seriously, you might like P2P but if you don't know anything about F2P, I advise that you avoid talking about it. You clearly have no idea of what you are talking about and it makes you look like a troll.
I just wanted to comment on people saying that F2P games aren't free, item malls give unfair advantages, etc etc.
This isn't always true. In games that this isn't true, I don't play them. If there's an item that gives you +50% damage for a day, I don't play it. That's unfair to the players playing for free and and an instant 'I WIN' button, as people are saying. However, I've only seen one item mall offer anything along those lines, but at the same time the item was also available to find in game and you could buysell rade them amongst players as well, so it wasn't a big deal.
In most cases, free to play games are free. The 'unfair advantages' are, more often than not, cosmetics. 'He can look cooler than me, I don't wanna play anymore!'.. That's what I'm seeing everytime I see item malls being called an unfair advantage. The most common of things that would be an actual advantage are things like +50% experience for X hours. I wouldn't call that an unfair advantage. The main difference is that it gives players an option to choose what's more valuable to them: time or money. Do you want to level up 50% faster or play for free? Personally, I play for free, having all the time in the world at the moment and not lots of money to waste. Even though people level faster than me, as a fairly hardcore gamer (10+ hours a day, every day, easily) I still tend to advance through games faster than those people. FlyFF is one example of this. I didn't spend a single penny on that game, however a few years back when 'Glaphan' server was first started, I was one of the top 10 highest levels on the server during the race of who could level fastest, and on top of that? I didn't start until a week after the server launched. FlyFF was one example of a game where things purchased in the item mall were able to be boughtsold raded amongst players (when I played at least, if anything changed I'm unaware), as most are.
For me, Free to Play literally means that the game is free. Most games, I can purchase items from the item shop from other players via the game's currency. I've never played a F2P game where I was forced to buy anything to progress or compete with others. If i had, then the game wouldn't be F2P. I can think of one or two examples of this, where the game was free until you hit level 20, then had to pay a subscription afterwards.. Like I said, that would be a P2P game. If there's areas, skills, levels.. any crucial part of game progression that I can't access without paying for it? That game is P2P. I've never seen anything like that in any item malls, personally, though.
Anyways, basically.. I strongly disagree with anyone saying Item Malls give players an unfair advantage when all it's offering are cosmetic items or time-saving consumables. Also, to make another point with this.. If you think there isn't something similar in every single P2P game, you're sorely mistaken. Generally, it's illegal ule-breakingfrowned uponetc, but people still sell in-game currency, items, power leveling services, or even complete accounts for money. The only difference here is whether you're sending your money to an individual or the developers. My guess is this is the real reasoning behind why item malls and free to play business models came out. After seeing all of the gold, account, etc sellers making money off of their game, they realized they could just integrate those same services into their games at a cost to profit off of, then someone realized they'd earn enough in doing so that they could offer the game to players for free, which would in turn bring more players to the game, thus a wider range of people likely to pay.
So personally, I prefer free to play games, because they're free for me and with as much MMO experience and free time I have, I have no problem staying ahead of people even if they do use the item mall. In the event there is something in there I want, I can generally farm some gold and buy it from another player, as well. The only instances where I would say otherwise is if there was a non-tradeable item in the item mall giving +X% damage, which was completely unobtainable to anyone that didn't purcase it in the item mall themselves. Same with areas, levels, skills, or whatever other core gameplay elements. However, I've yet to see a dev team dumb enough to kill their own game with anything like that.
I didn't read every post in here, but before I was through with the first page, a lot of it seemed very biased and seemed like they didn't have a damn clue what sorts of things were generally available in an item mall. Rather than P2P vs F2P, it seemed more like a 'P2P RULEZ! WOOHOO!' thread. Anyways, there's my two-cents, and I hope you all enjoy paying for something that I do for free, I don't mind.
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.
All players must do quests and grind mobs in order to make progress in F2P games as well. You can't buy your way up.
Your views are rather strong and opinionated but you disregard the views of the opposing side. Many players can agree that the majority of F2P games are poor quality and poor customer support in comparison to p2p games, this is not just my opinion. I've stated before that some companies are making strides to improve this but as far as their "long term" intent to keep the players active, they have little power over this and they know it. They thus focus on the short term interest of their players, regardless how long it takes for them to get paid, they have no choice. Their player base are short term, casual players with no reason to be loyal to their game. They lose most of their player base and they know this. Why do you think they have so many give aways and festivals? They are doing what ever they can to get you in not just to keep you in. You may have your opinions and that is fine but this thread is also open for debate from all players. I'm not asking f2p games to make their games better, as I know what their goals are. I would rather they find a better way to make money as it would improve their communities and games, if not, the p2p market that rejects their principles will never cross over and I believe their player base will demand more for free and give less in the process.
I'm also stating the issues I have with the p2p market you also disregard. I believe they both have very visible problems that need to be addressed else the pendulum may aggressively swing in one direction by means of desperation and not by positive progression. D&D and Spellborn becoming F2P is showing evidence of the desperate measures companies will take to survive. This isn't saying that F2P will win, it's simply exposing the problem that exists. Over time F2P may begin to fail and P2P may begin to dominate the market, who knows? What I see for sure is that the friction has already started. This debate is to expose it, not ignore it.
I'm not here to convince the masses that p2p is better than f2p, I'm not a tyrant *cough. Everyone has the right to their own opinion no matter how strong it is. What I am trying to arouse is discussion about what is happening and how we all collectively feel about it. If at the end of the day, your favorite p2p game becomes f2p against your will and power, it will alter your playing and spending habits like it or not. If your f2p game becomes p2p over night because of a drastic change in administration, it would also do the same. You can be opinionated as much as you want either side, but the issues still remains. It's also good to give suggestions and possible solutions. One may win, both may be destroyed or a new type of payment model will emerge that will replace both.
While this win vs lose talks is just plain silly .. and there places for both in the marketplace, I see f2p becoming more and more popular.
The MMO market is very different than the SP market where one player can play many many games in a year. The MMO market is pretty much winner's take all (or at least take-most) because most player only have time to "seriously" play ONE MMO. For an average consumer with a life, it is virtually impossible to spend enough time in more than one or may be two subscription MMO and keep up with the latest content. (Just look at WOW, most players are no where close to full T9 gear when that content was already out for months).
So most people are not wiling to pay sub to many MMOs .. they are just not getting their dollars worth if they are only going to play a little. It is not an issue of affordability. Anyone can afford one or two MMO subs ($15-$30 a month is nothing) but i think few will pay another $15 for a MMO that he/she will play only a few hrs a months.
F2P fixes all that. F2P is a great model for people who want to just play a little. Consumers are variety seeking. While i like WOW the best, sometimes i do get sick of it and want to play something else. F2P is a perfect model to suck those people in. Developers can attract an audience than previously won't even play their game, and potentially make money out of them. For the players, they can try a game for free (like an unlimited free trial) and they can decide their spending at different levels .. no need to pay $15 if you don't play that much. You can drop a few dollars here or there.
There are plenty of evidence that it works well for developers.
DDO's SUBSCRIPTION rate increased by 40% (!!!) after turning F2P. Its player base expanded a lot and that itself helps generate buzz and business. They also reported a high rate of people using the cash shop. This is a perfect example. DDO is not a must-play game like WOW but many would give it a trial, and a bit of money if they can.
Of course, there are the OTHER audience (kids & teens) where they cannot afford a sub game.
Maple Story, Free Realms, ROM are all examples of successful F2P games.
i paid 10 dollars in gunz and played for 2 years. thats why i prefer f2p. which game p2p allow that?
Also helps prove my point. Most players pay nothing to play and when they do it's a dime in the bucket.
What point? Most players cost the developer NOTHING to support. Electrons are pretty much free.
Look at DDO. Its SUBSCRIPTION rate goes up by 40% after turning F2P. It works for them. Sure, a game like WOW would like to get $15 off its 11M players .. because it can.
For games like ROM, DDO, Maple Story, F2P works .. they are all (except DDO .. the jury is still out because it just turned F2P) commercial success. It really does NOT matter if most player pays nothing, as long as they can attract ENOUGH players who do.
While this win vs lose talks is just plain silly .. and there places for both in the marketplace, I see f2p becoming more and more popular. The MMO market is very different than the SP market where one player can play many many games in a year. The MMO market is pretty much winner's take all (or at least take-most) because most player only have time to "seriously" play ONE MMO. For an average consumer with a life, it is virtually impossible to spend enough time in more than one or may be two subscription MMO and keep up with the latest content. (Just look at WOW, most players are no where close to full T9 gear when that content was already out for months). So most people are not wiling to pay sub to many MMOs .. they are just not getting their dollars worth if they are only going to play a little. It is not an issue of affordability. Anyone can afford one or two MMO subs ($15-$30 a month is nothing) but i think few will pay another $15 for a MMO that he/she will play only a few hrs a months. F2P fixes all that. F2P is a great model for people who want to just play a little. Consumers are variety seeking. While i like WOW the best, sometimes i do get sick of it and want to play something else. F2P is a perfect model to suck those people in. Developers can attract an audience than previously won't even play their game, and potentially make money out of them. For the players, they can try a game for free (like an unlimited free trial) and they can decide their spending at different levels .. no need to pay $15 if you don't play that much. You can drop a few dollars here or there. There are plenty of evidence that it works well for developers. DDO's SUBSCRIPTION rate increased by 40% (!!!) after turning F2P. Its player base expanded a lot and that itself helps generate buzz and business. They also reported a high rate of people using the cash shop. This is a perfect example. DDO is not a must-play game like WOW but many would give it a trial, and a bit of money if they can. Of course, there are the OTHER audience (kids & teens) where they cannot afford a sub game. Maple Story, Free Realms, ROM are all examples of successful F2P games.
See this is the issue I exposed about p2p games. I feel the same way partially. The only problem is I DON'T like f2p games or paying to progress in a game as it is considered cheating by many that support p2p games also feel the same way and despise the f2p, "item mall" option. What I do agree is that I believe a lot of p2p gamers want and even need more payment flexibility so they do not have to dedicate their lives and finances to one game.
i paid 10 dollars in gunz and played for 2 years. thats why i prefer f2p. which game p2p allow that?
Also helps prove my point. Most players pay nothing to play and when they do it's a dime in the bucket.
What point? Most players cost the developer NOTHING to support. Electrons are pretty much free.
Look at DDO. Its SUBSCRIPTION rate goes up by 40% after turning F2P. It works for them. Sure, a game like WOW would like to get $15 off its 11M players .. because it can.
For games like ROM, DDO, Maple Story, F2P works .. they are all (except DDO .. the jury is still out because it just turned F2P) commercial success. It really does NOT matter if most player pays nothing, as long as they can attract ENOUGH players who do.
This is a temporal solution not long term. Any solution gained in desperation is temporal. What is necessary is a permanent fix. D&D was suffering, they are only suffering a lot less... For now...
@ LynxJSA Your views are rather strong and opinionated but you disregard the views of the opposing side. Many players can agree that the majority of F2P games are poor quality and poor customer support in comparison to p2p games, this is not just my opinion. I've stated before that some companies are making strides to improve this but as far as their "long term" intent to keep the players active, they have little power over this and they know it. They thus focus on the short term interest of their players, regardless how long it takes for them to get paid, they have no choice. Their player base are short term, casual players with no reason to be loyal to their game. They lose most of their player base and they know this. Why do you think they have so many give aways and festivals? They are doing what ever they can to get you in not just to keep you in. You may have your opinions and that is fine but this thread is also open for debate from all players. I'm not asking f2p games to make their games better, as I know what their goals are. I would rather they find a better way to make money as it would improve their communities and games, if not, the p2p market that rejects their principles will never cross over and I believe their player base will demand more for free and give less in the process. I'm also stating the issues I have with the p2p market you also disregard. I believe they both have very visible problems that need to be addressed else the pendulum may aggressively swing in one direction by means of desperation and not by positive progression. D&D and Spellborn becoming F2P is showing evidence of the desperate measures companies will take to survive. This isn't saying that F2P will win, it's simply exposing the problem that exists. Over time F2P may begin to fail and P2P may begin to dominate the market, who knows? What I see for sure is that the friction has already started. This debate is to expose it, not ignore it. I'm not here to convince the masses that p2p is better than f2p, I'm not a tyrant *cough. Everyone has the right to their own opinion no matter how strong it is. What I am trying to arouse is discussion about what is happening and how we all collectively feel about it. If at the end of the day, your favorite p2p game becomes f2p against your will and power, it will alter your playing and spending habits like it or not. If your f2p game becomes p2p over night because of a drastic change in administration, it would also do the same. You can be opinionated as much as you want either side, but the issues still remains. It's also good to give suggestions and possible solutions. One may win, both may be destroyed or a new type of payment model will emerge that will replace both.
The problem is that you don't understand how the business model works. Free to Play is not for short term investment and you're pretending as if your opinion about the quality of these games is fact. Well guess what: Lots of people, especially kids, disagree with you and they are playing these games like Maple Story, Rappelz and Silkroad Online for years.
The point isn't to make a quick buck on them because that's not going to work. The business model is to first get players hooked, then after they have invested a lot of time in their characters they are more likely to invest money into a game they are already playing with their friends then they would in a game they never played before and demands a 50$ entry fee plus 15$ a month before you even know what the game is going to be like.
Comments
So far there are a lot of good arguments in so much I can not even comment on all. One of my issues isn't with payment at all. It's about how much I choose to pay and how I choose to pay it. Another issue is flexibility to try other games. I prefer p2p games over f2p games but p2p games are designed to occupy your time and money with their game and their game alone. I believe p2p games are failing this way.
At this point, I stopped hopping for the ultimate mmo that would do away with all others as I think I may have played all of the p2p mmos currently out. I would like to be able to play a number of games a month and alternate as I get bored. Currently at $15 a month, I'm not going to have more than one or two subscriptions at a time (currently I'm subscribed to 2 games). The idea of making a p2p mmo where you can pay for hourly slots would be great ($5 for 50 hours for example). With this idea, many players will be able to explore new games without feeling as if he/she has to totally abandon the others. The competition with p2p games is so fierce that one must become a fan boy of a game despising all others in order to enjoy their experience (your heart is where your wallet is).
As far as f2p games are concerned, I would personally prefer that they do not use item malls, its against every ethic honorable gamers hold to. "Cheats are not allowed." Many casual players may disagree but for the most part, every hard core gamer I've ever played with feels the same way. Buying items or resources is a cheat, unfair and destroys the very principle of honorable and fair game play.
F2P will always cater to casual gamers and in many ways "free loaders." This isn't to be insulting, it is to be truthful. Anyone who intends to get something free without having to contribute or assist in the progression of the game's development is a "free loader." Free loaders can care less how the company gives them what they want, they will take and take without discretion and hop to another f2p game if item mall shopping becomes the only way to progress in the game. Free loaders expect that the world owes them something for nothing at all. If you play a f2p game with no intention on paying anything at anytime, you are a free loader. It's no different than walking past the individual giving free chicken samples 8 times simply to get free food with no intent to buy anything from their restaurant. Just because more people are playing a game doesn't make the game successful. The quality of players make the game successful. Most f2p games attract the worst type of inconsiderate people and often times the worst type of communities. This is not to say that the casual gamers that intend to buy items sooner or later fall in this category but sadly most of them do. F2P is deceptive because it doesn't make the company's true intention known, that they want your business.
If "item mall" based games had another way of making money other than items that give an unfair advantage, perhaps they would attract a new element. For now, marketing your game as free to play attracts players that will assume no responsibility to the success of your game as most players could care less how you keep your games going. When you read p2p forum boards you can see the real concern for the future of the company and game they support. It's an entirely different world.
I have the right to like what I want!
Could you explain that line for me? The reason I ask is because subscription MMOs are the ones with the retail box, pre-order sales and other deals up to and including release, whereas a F2P game normally doesn't get money of any kind from a player until at least a month (or more) or so after they have started playing as they first need to figure out what anything is before they can decide what they feel is worth purchasing.
The excepetion to that rule would be Ikariam, Empire Craft and other 4X Browser-based MMOs as the leader of a server is usually decided by who sank the most cash into the game during the first two weeks of that server's release.
You're clearly biased agaisnt F2P, so I won't press any other points, but I really would like to know what you were referring to with the quote above.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
F2p seems to be growing and this is something i find alarming. Yes, you may access all of the game content without paying and some of the most dedicated players actually dont spend a dime on these games. It fits the time vs money argument of RMT suporters. However, rule changes seem to be unavoidable in this model. Imagine spending upwards of $200 on a game to set up your character just to find next month not only youre no longer competitive but all of your stuff is now worth $20 in game. This is where the model goes wrong and ive yet to hear of a f2p that doesnt subject its players to sudden changes like these. Yes, it can be argued p2ps regularly nerf their content too, but the playing field remains even. People spend thousands of dollars to remain competitive at f2p endgames, those are certainly not casual players.
I find myself very much oposed to f2p for this reason. Turning games into wallet races defeats the very purpose of advancing in a persistent world. Players who have not experienced this and who may think f2ps are not such a bad idea should try playing one of these games for half a year (some are actually worth it) just to see everything they worked for, and may have spend money on, trashed.
But maybe thats a part of the problem, people dont seem interested on spending that long in a game anymore. Long standing comunities disapearing may very well come hand in hand with f2ps. If indeed this is the future i just hope ill get a couple of chances to spend a few years in the same game before the curtain finally closes.
Just to make things clear...
I speak for myself and no one else, unless i state otherwise mine is just an opinion. A fact is something that can be independently verified, you may challenge such but with proof. You have every right to disagree with me through sound argument, i believe in constructive debate, but baseless aggression will warrant an unkind response.
Who will win? well Both obviously. There are large numbers of people who prefer each style of play offered by both models. Neither model will dissapear and quite possibly more models might come up. Take Wizards 101. I see that as more of a hybrid model between p2p and f2p. They take the best of both worlds payment wise and make a model that works well for them. In fact I dont thnk it will be much longer before a game with some form of advertising that might pay the brunt of the cost to build/maintain/expand and run an MMO. There will be those who hate that and those who love it.
The only thing to really know in the gaming industry and specifically in the MMO industry is there is no one right way to do things. The only wrong way to do something is to spend more money than you can make back on a project. No matter how you do something a portion of the community will hate how you did it. A portion will love how you do it and the rest will be indifferent, some trying it out the rest passing for something more interesting.
Could you explain that line for me? The reason I ask is because subscription MMOs are the ones with the retail box, pre-order sales and other deals up to and including release, whereas a F2P game normally doesn't get money of any kind from a player until at least a month (or more) or so after they have started playing as they first need to figure out what anything is before they can decide what they feel is worth purchasing.
The excepetion to that rule would be Ikariam, Empire Craft and other 4X Browser-based MMOs as the leader of a server is usually decided by who sank the most cash into the game during the first two weeks of that server's release.
You're clearly biased agaisnt F2P, so I won't press any other points, but I really would like to know what you were referring to with the quote above.
A p2p game needs your business long term. They need to keep you around to maintain their subscription base. They will do updates, patches, bug fixes and invest tons of money into customer support, developing new content and expansion packs simply to keep you around. They want your long term business. Free to play game developers are thinking short term per player not long term. Most of their players leave the game, they know this. They are fighting to get the attention of the few that will stay on their game long enough to get hooked, pay a lot of money for resources or items, regret it and leave. They don't care if you stay for a while, they only care that in the time that you do you dish out as much cash as you can before you regret it.
I have the right to like what I want!
depends if the P2P is succesfull. i have seen both P2P and F2P fail. really it's hard to say but in the end both bring in money if they succeed in bringing in players. i both win and lose and the decision is based on success or fail of the mmo.
I don't think a "who will win" question makes any sense.
F2P is preferred by people who either like to spend no money at all on a game and don't mind not seeing some of the content or having a harder time in the game. Or by people who like to spend loads and loads of money on a game, because that speeds up their gameplay a lot and gives the mounts and all the other stuff they can show off with.
P2P is preffered by people who have a bit money to spare and who prefer the gamers having about the same chances. And not that the one who pays most gets most.
Let's play Fallen Earth (blind, 300 episodes)
Let's play Guild Wars 2 (blind, 45 episodes)
I personally believe that there will be a "win" at the end of the day for 2 reasons.
1. P2P games are struggling for a pool of players to migrate and stay with their game and their game alone. They will do anything to keep your business. There is a big problem with this. I don't want to spend the rest of my life playing your game! There is no perfect mmo and there are lots of other mmos I wouldn't mind trying out in my lifetime. If p2p game companies don't give better payment options and more freedom to the players to play when ever they feel like it, they are going to keep losing subs. The option of giving paid time slots will allow players to pay only what they've played (Example: 50 hours for $5). Gamers will stop complaining about how much a game sucks and be more open to re-try games they played for a short while as the risk and demand for commitment is much lower. If something isn't done fast, more angry players will emerge with an expectation to find the one and only ULTIMATE MMO and by each disappointment, they lose hope in the genre.
2. F2P games have nothing to offer after giving the game away for free. Some F2P games give away more free items, some T-Shirts while others give away free money just to get you to stick around long enough to play the game. This is breeding a generation of selfish and ungrateful gamers. In a few years, if the F2P market doesn't change the way they do business, they will lose more "paying players" who ask that they give them more content and features for nothing. Yes, a lot of players assume that they are contributing to a game by occupying server space ignorant of the fact that the more players they get, the more money the company has to spend to maintain the traffic. F2P companies are running out of ideas to keep this new breed of selfish and ungrateful players around long enough to even consider buying anything. Because of this, it is only a matter of time before the attitude of F2P gamers expect you to pay them to play your game. After you give your game away for free, you lose all of your bargaining power and respect. You have nothing left to give us but everything we want for free, no strings attached and we know they can't do that.
At the end of the day one of these business models may fail. God forbid both simultaneously but one of them may fail and the other will rise as the ultimate standard. This risk is there regardless if we take notice of it or not. MMO gaming is reaching a boiling point. The culture of gaming will dictate the future. What type of gamer are you and what are your opinions? I believe everyone's opinions matter as our playing habits and spending habits will dictate how developers respond to our needs.
I have the right to like what I want!
The notion of 'ethics' as it pertains to the MMO business models is somewhat baffling.
However ethics in terms of player interaction can apply to many things whether it is f2p (which is really packet buying) or monthly subscription.
When asking 'who will win?' I understand that you are essentially questioning which business model will become the standard practice but you are obviously biased and present absolutes on each side. I believe that a more fluid model will become the norm. A subscription based MMO with item/cosmetic/mission pack buyouts.
The items you can buy in DDO are mainly fluff. You cannot buy a vorpal weapon or extra spells. They basically sell the adventure packs, optional races/classes (accumulating in-game favor will get you much of that) and leveling sigils for advancing beyond certain character levels. Subscription gets you all of that.
There is no "paying your way to the top". Most of the item store purchases are ridiculous to most of the veterans. A lot of money for trinkets.
So the subscription gives you some free points to throw around the store and all of the game content and all of the future content without managing a point buy system. The non-subscribers can pick and choose what they want while not worrying about an ongoing fee. They can come and go as they please. There are some complaints but most see it as a win/win.
It is hard to find a major console release without an immediate DLC these days. Sign of things to come imo.
I notice how you say the subscriptions for DDO have gone up with 40%. Does that mean it's profit gone up 40%?
It's hard to say if fallen earth or champion will be more profitable if they go f2p. I doubt it though.
Really, F2P models only work for asian games. Because asian games have lower budget, they have wider audience since they actually sell in asia, and asians don't pay for the initial game client, so company are more willing to use the f2p models.
Take a game like warhammer for example, if they sell 500k copies, and each copy cost 50$. That is 25 million$ right there. Why would they make their game f2p. It makes no sense.
But if warhammer is release in asia, where people don't pay the upfront 50$ fee, and pay only by the minutes, they only start making money after a few month.
Could you explain that line for me? The reason I ask is because subscription MMOs are the ones with the retail box, pre-order sales and other deals up to and including release, whereas a F2P game normally doesn't get money of any kind from a player until at least a month (or more) or so after they have started playing as they first need to figure out what anything is before they can decide what they feel is worth purchasing.
The excepetion to that rule would be Ikariam, Empire Craft and other 4X Browser-based MMOs as the leader of a server is usually decided by who sank the most cash into the game during the first two weeks of that server's release.
You're clearly biased agaisnt F2P, so I won't press any other points, but I really would like to know what you were referring to with the quote above.
A p2p game needs your business long term. They need to keep you around to maintain their subscription base. They will do updates, patches, bug fixes and invest tons of money into customer support, developing new content and expansion packs simply to keep you around. They want your long term business. Free to play game developers are thinking short term per player not long term. Most of their players leave the game, they know this. They are fighting to get the attention of the few that will stay on their game long enough to get hooked, pay a lot of money for resources or items, regret it and leave. They don't care if you stay for a while, they only care that in the time that you do you dish out as much cash as you can before you regret it.
There was a lot of bias and false information there. If there were unlimited customers in the market and there was no such thing as word of mouth then I'd say there might be a possible inkling of truth to what you say, but F2P MMOs operate within our reality, just like every other MMO.
Joshua Hong, CEO of K2 Networks, runs things not as a game company but as a service company. He states in several interviews that Customer Support is a major focus for the company. He also explains in a GigaOM interview that since most people do not start payying (for K2 Network games) until about 3 or 6 months in, the service and customer support focus is of extreme importance to them.
You also infer that updates, patches and bug fixes are a higher priority for P2P than F2P. Rather than fill this post with links, I ask you to please look at the pages for major P2P MMOs and major F2P MMOs. You will see that both have rather frequent updates, patches and bug fixes. You will also notice that F2P games have more festivals and giveaways, more forum/community events and more ingame live events than P2P games.
I'm not going to try to change your mind as your posts in this thread seem to indicate you are pretty set in your views. I just would like to suggest that you might make better headway in your discussion if you stuck to some semblance of fact instead of sweeping false generalizations and blatant misinformation
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Ikariam
Puzzle Pirates
Project Entropia
Maple Story
Club Penguin
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
I seriously doubt there will be a winner or a looser.
Both models and many games using a hybrid approach will co-exist, with the customers moving towards the model that best serves their personal needs.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
Ikariam
Puzzle Pirates
Project Entropia
Maple Story
Club Penguin
I don't mean it that way. I mean its non sense to say a huge budget western game with only western audience will be better adapting the f2p model. Since they'll most likely will make more money using the p2p model.
Maple story is actually made by korean btw.
i paid 10 dollars in gunz and played for 2 years. thats why i prefer f2p. which game p2p allow that?
Oh god......have you ever tried a F2P game? The F2P companies needs your business long term too. Did you see how many F2P MMOs there are? THEY HAVE to bring enough content for players to stay in the game and enough incentive for players to actually pay otherwise they will go bankrupt. Unlike a P2P where you can buy a box or a subs, allowing them to get your money right away, F2P games are a long time investment where the companies tries to create a game that, while remaining F2P, will encourage players to buy from the Item Mall and most players won't pay until they have played for at least 1 month.
The F2P market are the ones fighting to get the attention. There's over 100 F2P titles out there. F2P developers thinking short term per player? Really? How false can this be. Just this year, Nexon USA has released 3 major expansions for Mabinogi (Generation 4-6 Elves vs. Giants in February, Generation 7 Chronicles Of Iria in July, Generation 8 Dragon just a few days ago). That does not include all the events and contest that happens once or twice a month (which usually last for 3 to 14 days). There's also weekly maintenance and patches.
Seriously, you might like P2P but if you don't know anything about F2P, I advise that you avoid talking about it. You clearly have no idea of what you are talking about and it makes you look like a troll.
I just wanted to comment on people saying that F2P games aren't free, item malls give unfair advantages, etc etc.
This isn't always true. In games that this isn't true, I don't play them. If there's an item that gives you +50% damage for a day, I don't play it. That's unfair to the players playing for free and and an instant 'I WIN' button, as people are saying. However, I've only seen one item mall offer anything along those lines, but at the same time the item was also available to find in game and you could buysell rade them amongst players as well, so it wasn't a big deal.
In most cases, free to play games are free. The 'unfair advantages' are, more often than not, cosmetics. 'He can look cooler than me, I don't wanna play anymore!'.. That's what I'm seeing everytime I see item malls being called an unfair advantage. The most common of things that would be an actual advantage are things like +50% experience for X hours. I wouldn't call that an unfair advantage. The main difference is that it gives players an option to choose what's more valuable to them: time or money. Do you want to level up 50% faster or play for free? Personally, I play for free, having all the time in the world at the moment and not lots of money to waste. Even though people level faster than me, as a fairly hardcore gamer (10+ hours a day, every day, easily) I still tend to advance through games faster than those people. FlyFF is one example of this. I didn't spend a single penny on that game, however a few years back when 'Glaphan' server was first started, I was one of the top 10 highest levels on the server during the race of who could level fastest, and on top of that? I didn't start until a week after the server launched. FlyFF was one example of a game where things purchased in the item mall were able to be boughtsold raded amongst players (when I played at least, if anything changed I'm unaware), as most are.
For me, Free to Play literally means that the game is free. Most games, I can purchase items from the item shop from other players via the game's currency. I've never played a F2P game where I was forced to buy anything to progress or compete with others. If i had, then the game wouldn't be F2P. I can think of one or two examples of this, where the game was free until you hit level 20, then had to pay a subscription afterwards.. Like I said, that would be a P2P game. If there's areas, skills, levels.. any crucial part of game progression that I can't access without paying for it? That game is P2P. I've never seen anything like that in any item malls, personally, though.
Anyways, basically.. I strongly disagree with anyone saying Item Malls give players an unfair advantage when all it's offering are cosmetic items or time-saving consumables. Also, to make another point with this.. If you think there isn't something similar in every single P2P game, you're sorely mistaken. Generally, it's illegal
ule-breakingfrowned uponetc, but people still sell in-game currency, items, power leveling services, or even complete accounts for money. The only difference here is whether you're sending your money to an individual or the developers. My guess is this is the real reasoning behind why item malls and free to play business models came out. After seeing all of the gold, account, etc sellers making money off of their game, they realized they could just integrate those same services into their games at a cost to profit off of, then someone realized they'd earn enough in doing so that they could offer the game to players for free, which would in turn bring more players to the game, thus a wider range of people likely to pay.
So personally, I prefer free to play games, because they're free for me and with as much MMO experience and free time I have, I have no problem staying ahead of people even if they do use the item mall. In the event there is something in there I want, I can generally farm some gold and buy it from another player, as well. The only instances where I would say otherwise is if there was a non-tradeable item in the item mall giving +X% damage, which was completely unobtainable to anyone that didn't purcase it in the item mall themselves. Same with areas, levels, skills, or whatever other core gameplay elements. However, I've yet to see a dev team dumb enough to kill their own game with anything like that.
I didn't read every post in here, but before I was through with the first page, a lot of it seemed very biased and seemed like they didn't have a damn clue what sorts of things were generally available in an item mall. Rather than P2P vs F2P, it seemed more like a 'P2P RULEZ! WOOHOO!' thread. Anyways, there's my two-cents, and I hope you all enjoy paying for something that I do for free, I don't mind.
All players must do quests and grind mobs in order to make progress in F2P games as well. You can't buy your way up.
@ LynxJSA
Your views are rather strong and opinionated but you disregard the views of the opposing side. Many players can agree that the majority of F2P games are poor quality and poor customer support in comparison to p2p games, this is not just my opinion. I've stated before that some companies are making strides to improve this but as far as their "long term" intent to keep the players active, they have little power over this and they know it. They thus focus on the short term interest of their players, regardless how long it takes for them to get paid, they have no choice. Their player base are short term, casual players with no reason to be loyal to their game. They lose most of their player base and they know this. Why do you think they have so many give aways and festivals? They are doing what ever they can to get you in not just to keep you in. You may have your opinions and that is fine but this thread is also open for debate from all players. I'm not asking f2p games to make their games better, as I know what their goals are. I would rather they find a better way to make money as it would improve their communities and games, if not, the p2p market that rejects their principles will never cross over and I believe their player base will demand more for free and give less in the process.
I'm also stating the issues I have with the p2p market you also disregard. I believe they both have very visible problems that need to be addressed else the pendulum may aggressively swing in one direction by means of desperation and not by positive progression. D&D and Spellborn becoming F2P is showing evidence of the desperate measures companies will take to survive. This isn't saying that F2P will win, it's simply exposing the problem that exists. Over time F2P may begin to fail and P2P may begin to dominate the market, who knows? What I see for sure is that the friction has already started. This debate is to expose it, not ignore it.
I'm not here to convince the masses that p2p is better than f2p, I'm not a tyrant *cough. Everyone has the right to their own opinion no matter how strong it is. What I am trying to arouse is discussion about what is happening and how we all collectively feel about it. If at the end of the day, your favorite p2p game becomes f2p against your will and power, it will alter your playing and spending habits like it or not. If your f2p game becomes p2p over night because of a drastic change in administration, it would also do the same. You can be opinionated as much as you want either side, but the issues still remains. It's also good to give suggestions and possible solutions. One may win, both may be destroyed or a new type of payment model will emerge that will replace both.
I have the right to like what I want!
Also helps prove my point. Most players pay nothing to play and when they do it's a dime in the bucket.
I have the right to like what I want!
While this win vs lose talks is just plain silly .. and there places for both in the marketplace, I see f2p becoming more and more popular.
The MMO market is very different than the SP market where one player can play many many games in a year. The MMO market is pretty much winner's take all (or at least take-most) because most player only have time to "seriously" play ONE MMO. For an average consumer with a life, it is virtually impossible to spend enough time in more than one or may be two subscription MMO and keep up with the latest content. (Just look at WOW, most players are no where close to full T9 gear when that content was already out for months).
So most people are not wiling to pay sub to many MMOs .. they are just not getting their dollars worth if they are only going to play a little. It is not an issue of affordability. Anyone can afford one or two MMO subs ($15-$30 a month is nothing) but i think few will pay another $15 for a MMO that he/she will play only a few hrs a months.
F2P fixes all that. F2P is a great model for people who want to just play a little. Consumers are variety seeking. While i like WOW the best, sometimes i do get sick of it and want to play something else. F2P is a perfect model to suck those people in. Developers can attract an audience than previously won't even play their game, and potentially make money out of them. For the players, they can try a game for free (like an unlimited free trial) and they can decide their spending at different levels .. no need to pay $15 if you don't play that much. You can drop a few dollars here or there.
There are plenty of evidence that it works well for developers.
DDO's SUBSCRIPTION rate increased by 40% (!!!) after turning F2P. Its player base expanded a lot and that itself helps generate buzz and business. They also reported a high rate of people using the cash shop. This is a perfect example. DDO is not a must-play game like WOW but many would give it a trial, and a bit of money if they can.
Of course, there are the OTHER audience (kids & teens) where they cannot afford a sub game.
Maple Story, Free Realms, ROM are all examples of successful F2P games.
Also helps prove my point. Most players pay nothing to play and when they do it's a dime in the bucket.
What point? Most players cost the developer NOTHING to support. Electrons are pretty much free.
Look at DDO. Its SUBSCRIPTION rate goes up by 40% after turning F2P. It works for them. Sure, a game like WOW would like to get $15 off its 11M players .. because it can.
For games like ROM, DDO, Maple Story, F2P works .. they are all (except DDO .. the jury is still out because it just turned F2P) commercial success. It really does NOT matter if most player pays nothing, as long as they can attract ENOUGH players who do.
See this is the issue I exposed about p2p games. I feel the same way partially. The only problem is I DON'T like f2p games or paying to progress in a game as it is considered cheating by many that support p2p games also feel the same way and despise the f2p, "item mall" option. What I do agree is that I believe a lot of p2p gamers want and even need more payment flexibility so they do not have to dedicate their lives and finances to one game.
I have the right to like what I want!
Also helps prove my point. Most players pay nothing to play and when they do it's a dime in the bucket.
What point? Most players cost the developer NOTHING to support. Electrons are pretty much free.
Look at DDO. Its SUBSCRIPTION rate goes up by 40% after turning F2P. It works for them. Sure, a game like WOW would like to get $15 off its 11M players .. because it can.
For games like ROM, DDO, Maple Story, F2P works .. they are all (except DDO .. the jury is still out because it just turned F2P) commercial success. It really does NOT matter if most player pays nothing, as long as they can attract ENOUGH players who do.
This is a temporal solution not long term. Any solution gained in desperation is temporal. What is necessary is a permanent fix. D&D was suffering, they are only suffering a lot less... For now...
I have the right to like what I want!
The problem is that you don't understand how the business model works. Free to Play is not for short term investment and you're pretending as if your opinion about the quality of these games is fact. Well guess what: Lots of people, especially kids, disagree with you and they are playing these games like Maple Story, Rappelz and Silkroad Online for years.
The point isn't to make a quick buck on them because that's not going to work. The business model is to first get players hooked, then after they have invested a lot of time in their characters they are more likely to invest money into a game they are already playing with their friends then they would in a game they never played before and demands a 50$ entry fee plus 15$ a month before you even know what the game is going to be like.