a la carte or buffet, who will win? contract or per usage, who will win?
Or is it just different business models?
My thought exactly I'm sure it is half in gest but why do mmo players turn everything into a "war" as stated it's a business model both of which will probably be around as long as the genre is around. For my opinion I don't often play F2P games but really because none have been of particular interest to me more so than thinking there is anything unethical about what they do (which by the way there isn't) another problem mmo players have is a strange detachment from reality with debates like "is free to play really free to play" and is "<insert game here> really an mmo?" Everyone knows that the number two is the number two, no one tries to debate it but for some reason we seem to always take words and try to "spin" them into what they imply to us as opposed to just taking them for what they say,are and mean.
I disagree, I don't believe they will both be around. If you read my previous posts, I give in detail the reasons why.
Without a shadow of a doubt we are seeing more companies taking creative risks to survive in this big MMO experiment. Providing new and innovative ways for players to "p2p" is great and I fully encourage it. I want to make very clear that my issue remains with the business model of playing for free and tagging an item mall to your game in hopes that players spend money. If you read my previous posts I give very valid reasons why I believe this will eventually fail.
I'm all in support of "free trials" or "free initial game time" or one payment and play for the rest of your life business models. I'm against the "f2p forever in hopes that our players will buy something from us" business model. It reminds me of the ugly mortgage/bank crisis. Seemed like a good idea at the time... Win/win right, I think not.
No matter how a company dresses up it's marketing, at the end of the day, the player has to be obligated to pay something to play or eventually, the spending habits of the players decline to the point of expecting every game to offer free play, free support with no intention to buy anything. If the ratio of players are increasing, it doesn't mean the spending habits will unless, eventually the player is paying to play the game.
I think in the long run, the whole "Free to play the game and buy in game content" will be the next biggest thing. As it stands, it's what... about 50 bucks to buy the game before you've even played it (not counting beta because beta is not a representative for final release), then pay 15 bucks a month with hopes that they balance the game, update content, fix bugs, improve gameplay... whatever. Having played enough MMO's since the dawn of UO, I already have it in mind that any MMO is going to be fubar'd for at LEAST the first 3 months (due to said balance, content, bugs, gameplay problems that weren't taken care of during beta). So if I buy the game on release, I'll have payed 50 bucks to see if I like the game, endure the first month's bullshit of things that were left unchecked in beta, then pay another 15 bucks for the next month to see if they promise to make the game better, and another installment of 15 dollars to see if they really live up to their word. By this time you have over 80 dollars and 3 months into a game you're hoping will improve or has gotten better. In my minds eye, a P2P game is an investment of which I have to justify paying for in the first place, then justify the money a month with the potential amount of time I have to devote to the money justified. In F2P land, I make the account, dload the game and try it out at my leisure. If I like said game, I can keep it on my drive and play as much or as little as I want to, and don't feel forced into justifying time set aside to get my moneys worth. To date I've tried just about every F2P game they've advertised here in MMORPG.com, and test driven a few obscure ones. Many have item malls, and vary vastly in what they offer and how they effect gameplay. There are about 4 that I play around with back and forth... and the two I mess around with the most are DDO, and DFO. DFO reminded me of playing "Dungeons & Dragons: Shadow over Mystara" in the arcade, but if someone put it online. Has an item mall for avatar looks, and in game items. Haven't played this long enough to know if I want to put some money towards it or not. In DDO, they do have an item mall where you can buy content, in game items, race and classes, some can be unlocked or found, some have to be bought. So far I have not ran into a "you need to buy stuff in order to progress" kind of wall with DDO... but more than likely I will spend some money because so far I'm enjoying the game. Ironically I bought this game at release, tried to play it for a day... deleted the game, broke each disc, set it on fire and pissed on the box. The ONLY reason I gave it another chance is because it went F2P... and I think a lot of other people did as well. I'm not saying DDO is the best thing since sliced bread, but in hindsight I would never have given it a thought to pay money towards DDO had it not gone F2P to show me how it had changed since release. Seriously ask yourselves... if all the games you played in the past, or never tried that WERE P2P, went F2P, wouldn't you be more likely to give it a try, or a second chance? (minus the initial negativity towards item mall stuff, because there's so many different ways it can be implemented in different games)
Another gamer that makes some very good points about f2p. I read your post and I know how you feel about some issues as I agree with a lot of what you stated. F2P is good for us in many ways in the long run but NOT good for the gaming industry as a whole. I believe it is breeding a lack of appreciation for mmos and over time, players collectively aren't going to want to spend anything with any company, they are just going to want a better game for free. This is just ONE of the major issues I have with f2p. The US economy wouldn't have entered a dangerous period in history if we would have taken notice of warning signs that could have prevented the devastation of progress for our nation.
Most players here who have given their testimony about f2p admit that they don't spend money with the company and this is a big problem. After a game gives you free access, another f2p game comes out that attempts to compete with p2p games and makes even better improvements to their game (spending more money to get us to play the game), the earlier company then puts money into more advertising and even gives away free items and in some cases money just to keep their current players active. On the surface, we see great success for these companies in the beginning as more active players look like success to us, but over time, we ignore the struggle these companies go through in order to stay in business. Because we see more players, we assume this means more spending, or if a f2p game loses a lot of players because of competition but remains up, we assume that they are doing fine. I believe over time our spending habits for f2p (honorable or not) will come to a complete halt. We are expecting more from mmo companies but financially, we are assuming no responsibility for what they can or can't give us.
After reading a few posts through and thinking about it, the players take less responsibility for this issue. The companies who created this f2p market are so much more to blame. You are already seeing the desperate measures some f2p companies are doing to maintain their players during a time of intense competition. When money runs out, there is nothing left you can give the people. I believe f2p is a big disaster waiting to happen and it will effect the entire mmo market when they plummet into oblivion. Just like the banks, it only takes one big institution to fail before the domino effect ensues.
So you are still making alot of asumptions about F2P based on nothing.
Champions online (client+sub) released about the same time as DDO went "F2P" - look at the xfire trends on thoose 2 games. CO have lost about 3/4 of their xfire players and DDO have lost about 1/4 of theirs during the almost 2 months the games have benn out. How do you explain that DDO have had an 40% increase in people who play 15/month since the game went F2P and how does that add up with: "players collectively aren't going to want to spend anything with any company"? I think people are more willing to pay if they are in control over how they pay instead of only being stuck with the $15/month option. Lately we have seen most MMO release with as P2P and their numbers have dropped like stones. How is this good for the companies and the idnustry?
Can you explain why its good that someone who play 5 hours/month should pay the same as someone who play 150 hours/month?
Yes the F2P market is currently flooded with crappy korean grinders with awfull item shops but it doesnt mean that its the only way a F2P game can be.
I think the future will be that a MMO release with the Guild wars model, paying for the client perhaps even with a optional monthly sub, and then maybe 1 year later the client become free and the model becomes more similar to the one in DDO
You may have failed to read my previous posts. I agree with the Guild Wars business model and in fact encourage more companies to provide creative payment options for the players. What I do not agree with is giving the entire game away for free. *Also please note, Guild Wars is NOT a f2p game.
I didnt fail to read anything, and you answered none of my questions. What I have said all along is that its not about P2P vs F2P since there are alot of variations!
There are alot of differnt buisness models including the GW model (which I guess you can call B2P) and the DDO model which both are far superior to the traditional client+monthly sub imo and they provide qulity on par or better than most P2P MMOs. What Im saying is that the traditonal P2P model is going to pretty much die in the close future.
If WoW = The Beatles and WAR = Led Zeppelin Then LotrO = Pink Floyd
a la carte or buffet, who will win? contract or per usage, who will win?
Or is it just different business models?
My thought exactly I'm sure it is half in gest but why do mmo players turn everything into a "war" as stated it's a business model both of which will probably be around as long as the genre is around. For my opinion I don't often play F2P games but really because none have been of particular interest to me more so than thinking there is anything unethical about what they do (which by the way there isn't) another problem mmo players have is a strange detachment from reality with debates like "is free to play really free to play" and is "<insert game here> really an mmo?" Everyone knows that the number two is the number two, no one tries to debate it but for some reason we seem to always take words and try to "spin" them into what they imply to us as opposed to just taking them for what they say,are and mean.
I disagree, I don't believe they will both be around. If you read my previous posts, I give in detail the reasons why.
Without a shadow of a doubt we are seeing more companies taking creative risks to survive in this big MMO experiment. Providing new and innovative ways for players to "p2p" is great and I fully encourage it. I want to make very clear that my issue remains with the business model of playing for free and tagging an item mall to your game in hopes that players spend money. If you read my previous posts I give very valid reasons why I believe this will eventually fail.
I'm all in support of "free trials" or "free initial game time" or one payment and play for the rest of your life business models. I'm against the "f2p forever" in hopes that our players will buy something from us" business model. It reminds me of the ugly mortgage/bank crisis. Seemed like a good idea at the time... Win/win right, I think not.
No matter how a company dresses up it's marketing, at the end of the day, the player has to be obligated to pay something to play or eventually, the spending habits of the players decline to the point of expecting every game to offer free play, free support with no intention to buy anything. If the ratio of players are increasing, it doesn't mean the spending habits will unless, eventually the player is paying to play the game.
I think you've missed the mark here.
The P2P model works great because it creates a two tiered system, and many players fall into these two tiers.
The first tier is the player that pays and buys items. This player advances faster than the game allows otherwise, has the coolest gear, pets, etc., quicker than player that don't pay. This player can feel superior to the other players that don't pay. This player becomes like a lord of the game, and the free players have to grind away like peasants.
The second tier is the free player, the player that never buys anything. This player is indeed a peasant in the game, grinding away, BUT this player gets to play for free! Many players cannot pay to play a game, so this lets them participate when they otherwise could not.
It's great for BOTH types of players. One player gets to feel superior, and the other gets to play a free game even if they are inferior. That's the trade off, and I think there will always be both types.
F2P means Free to Play. This means you do not have to pay upfront, you can get the client, and play the game for free... and that is it. EVE is a good example of F2P... as you can download the game, and get a free account anytime you want, for $0.
P2P means Pay to Play. This means you have to pay upfront to get the client and acess to the game.. and that is it. GuildWars is a good example of P2P, as you have to pay upfront for the client/account.
The only difference between F2P and P2P is WHEN you pay (both are business models, where people pay). P2P has the charge up front, where F2P has it on the backend. The whole discussion of monthly fees, microtransactions, etc has nothing to do with P2P/F2P.
The big advantage of F2P is that it gets a lot of people in game, because of the low entry fee. This is good for games that are based on player content (PvP, RvR, etc). It is BAD for games that are based on static content (PvE, Questing, etc).
The big advantage of P2P is that it weeds out those not invested in the game, and as such removed much of the 'problem' accounts. This lower player count is good for static content (PveE, Questing, etc) but bad for player content (PvP, RvR, etc).
If each game were monitized based on its strengths, rather than because of some preplanned strategy, then both the customers, and the producers would be much happier.
@ Ihmotepp - No, I am very aware of the other tier of players that want to pay to advance. I've also stated my personal opinions on why I believe it is wrong and shouldn't be allowed in any valid mmo but that isn't the point I'm making right now. My point is that I believe the demand to pay to buy items in a game is changing and players will eventually buy nothing if that is the only option to support the mmo company. I believe that the "free to play forever" market is breeding more and more players who don't want to spend anything with those companies but just want to play something that is free and will begin avoiding the item malls all together. You've read so many posts about players here who like the fact that they've played f2p games for years and didn't pay anything or felt obligated to pay anything. Good for the player now, but bad for business in the long run.
If you read these posts, no one has testified spending more than $15 with a f2p game. If DDO is giving the player an option to eventually p2p then they can not be included in the "f2p" category. Any game that you have to pay something in order to play the game is NOT "f2p". I want our definitions of a p2p and f2p market to be clear. Guild Wars is not f2p it is p2p as you pay something in order to play the game. If you have a problem with the definition, perhaps we can find a new standard to describe it, but in my opinion, it's just avoiding the obvious.
@ Papadam - If you read my posts then I believe you fail to understand my points. It seems as if you are removing a definite definition for F2P and P2P and thus making this debate a little obscure. P2P in my definition is just that, you are paying something to play the game regardless if it is a one time fee or a subscribtion based payment model. If you are saying that a more creative way to pay for a game for instance, using a simular business model as Guild Wars, then you are agreeing with me, P2P will be the future. No need to agrue that. I stated my points several times and made them very clear.
There is a problem with defining these two markets and I believe understanding them will help us understand what we want from the gaming market. If you have to pay ANYTHING to play a game regardless if it is now or later, it is p2p. If a company gives you a 5 day trial with limitted access to the game and another company gives you unlimitted game play for 30 days, both games are still P2P. No matter how long you get to play the game for free, eventually that company expects you to pay something in order to continue playing, upfront or not.
If a car dealer offers you no money down to get a car, this doesn't mean the car is "free to ride". That company expects you to eventually pay them for using the car or else there will be penalties. If any car company gives away cars, free forever but charges you for extra items like car radio or dvd player usage, then we can consider that to be "free to ride". As we all know, car companies will never do this.
There seems to be some confusion in terms here. F2P means Free to Play. This means you do not have to pay upfront, you can get the client, and play the game for free... and that is it. EVE is a good example of F2P... as you can download the game, and get a free account anytime you want, for $0. P2P means Pay to Play. This means you have to pay upfront to get the client and acess to the game.. and that is it. GuildWars is a good example of P2P, as you have to pay upfront for the client/account. The only difference between F2P and P2P is WHEN you pay (both are business models, where people pay). P2P has the charge up front, where F2P has it on the backend. The whole discussion of monthly fees, microtransactions, etc has nothing to do with P2P/F2P. The big advantage of F2P is that it gets a lot of people in game, because of the low entry fee. This is good for games that are based on player content (PvP, RvR, etc). It is BAD for games that are based on static content (PvE, Questing, etc). The big advantage of P2P is that it weeds out those not invested in the game, and as such removed much of the 'problem' accounts. This lower player count is good for static content (PveE, Questing, etc) but bad for player content (PvP, RvR, etc). If each game were monitized based on its strengths, rather than because of some preplanned strategy, then both the customers, and the producers would be much happier.
Um... EVE is now a Free to Play game? As in... EVE Online... the space MMORPG? How does one do this?
"There is only one thing of which I am certain, and that's nothing is certain."
There seems to be some confusion in terms here. F2P means Free to Play. This means you do not have to pay upfront, you can get the client, and play the game for free... and that is it. EVE is a good example of F2P... as you can download the game, and get a free account anytime you want, for $0. P2P means Pay to Play. This means you have to pay upfront to get the client and acess to the game.. and that is it. GuildWars is a good example of P2P, as you have to pay upfront for the client/account. The only difference between F2P and P2P is WHEN you pay (both are business models, where people pay). P2P has the charge up front, where F2P has it on the backend. The whole discussion of monthly fees, microtransactions, etc has nothing to do with P2P/F2P. The big advantage of F2P is that it gets a lot of people in game, because of the low entry fee. This is good for games that are based on player content (PvP, RvR, etc). It is BAD for games that are based on static content (PvE, Questing, etc). The big advantage of P2P is that it weeds out those not invested in the game, and as such removed much of the 'problem' accounts. This lower player count is good for static content (PveE, Questing, etc) but bad for player content (PvP, RvR, etc). If each game were monitized based on its strengths, rather than because of some preplanned strategy, then both the customers, and the producers would be much happier.
Um... EVE is now a Free to Play game? As in... EVE Online... the space MMORPG? How does one do this?
Last I checked, Eve online was a p2p with a trial offer. Correct me if I'm wrong.
There seems to be some confusion in terms here. F2P means Free to Play. This means you do not have to pay upfront, you can get the client, and play the game for free... and that is it. EVE is a good example of F2P... as you can download the game, and get a free account anytime you want, for $0. P2P means Pay to Play. This means you have to pay upfront to get the client and acess to the game.. and that is it. GuildWars is a good example of P2P, as you have to pay upfront for the client/account.
That would be incorrect. The difference is in whether it has a monthly subscription price or not. Method or price in obtaining the client is not a factor.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
There seems to be some confusion in terms here. F2P means Free to Play. This means you do not have to pay upfront, you can get the client, and play the game for free... and that is it. EVE is a good example of F2P... as you can download the game, and get a free account anytime you want, for $0. P2P means Pay to Play. This means you have to pay upfront to get the client and acess to the game.. and that is it. GuildWars is a good example of P2P, as you have to pay upfront for the client/account.
That would be incorrect. The difference is in whether it has a monthly subscription price or not. Method or price in obtaining the client is not a factor.
That definition is misleading and one of the reasons why players don't know the difference between buying a product and getting a product for free. SB or subscription based would be the best way to describe a subscription based business model. If you pay for a product you pay to play it, regardless what word on the street is.
Something that you pay for to play is a PAID game. If you walk into a store and buy a toy, you paid to play that toy (or someone did). They do not have to charge you a monthly fee in order for you to say that you had to pay to play that toy, it doesn't change the fact you paid for it no matter how you try and switch it up.
If a game does not charge you ANYTHING EVER to play that game, it is a FREE game. It's free for you to play even if they tag in optional shops. You aren't obligated to buy anything from that company in order to continue playing.
I'll use another term from now on that isn't part of today's pop culture as I believe we have to make certain what it is we want and expect from mmo companies.
I actually think we'll see a blending of the two. We are already starting to see that. Or perhaps there wasn't even that big a difference?
I mean, in both types, you have to pay for content, essentially. In P2P games, you generally have to buy the game, then buy every extra expansion pack for its content.
In F2P games, you don't have to buy the game or any extra patches, but generally speaking, higher level content requires use of the cash shop to actually do (Atlantica is a good example. Around level 97, you need to use a blessing license, and where I am, 115+, you need to buy atlas ore to uber up your gear to survive the super powered mobs). As does any cosmetic goodies (clothes/mounts/hair).
Turbine seems to be at the forefront of combining the two types. D&D is one model. But in LOTRO, they've started sneaking in MTs (selling more character slots, shared storage and a mount as part of a Adventurer's pack) as well as moving away from the buy one xp every year or two model, in favor of buy a mini-xp a couple times a year. (Want to finish Moria? Forget a free update, you can finish it in our new mini-xp, Shadows Over Mirkwood)
Anyway, you can make a case that all MMORPGs are potentially pay to win. Or can be. Pay to play ones simply have it done through 3rd parties (gold farmers), whereas most f2p ones will let you sell item mall items in game for gold. And I believe some, like Eve, will allow selling of game time for in game currency, so that's sort of a compromise.
Anyway, you can make a case that all MMORPGs are potentially pay to win. Or can be. Pay to play ones simply have it done through 3rd parties (gold farmers), whereas most f2p ones will let you sell item mall items in game for gold. And I believe some, like Eve, will allow selling of game time for in game currency, so that's sort of a compromise.
IMO, this is incorrect. You are comparing cheating, breaking the terms of service agreement, and risking getting banned from the game (which Blizzard does), to playing by all the rules of the game.
Third party gold sellers are not part of any MMORPG, and it's not fair to compare a hack, cheat, or third party gold purchase to features that are a legitimate part of the game.
F2P = item shop part of the game. Pay to skip content, move forward faster in the game.
P2P= buying gold is cheating, not part of the game. All players that do not cheat must do the same content to advance.
I think its worrysome that so many people are cheating in MMOs a small number of them have become increasingly vocal in trying to justify it. The worst of it is, that just as vocal minorities manage to spoil games by demanding nerfs, some suits seem all to willing to listen at their arguments about how RMT should be allowed in subscription based games. I fear p2p might one day become a niche if dumb and lazy people continue to demand being able to compete on equal terms with talented or dedicated gamers...
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.
MMO’s want to make the most money, currently that would be a hybrid subscription/mirco transaction model. If you are stupid enough to pay a monthly fee and then pay for items they will certainly let you do that. Content, such as a new set of zones, really shows they put some work in, and deserves a one of payment.
Should the topic read : Monthly Fee vs Pay for Features.
Since the OP has trouble with the definition of the terms he's using then, yes, it really shoud read something like what you wrote or even 'Subscription or Microtransaction'
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Currently I am back in Vanguard and EVE with Last Chaos on the side. I play P2P and F2P and really could care less which side wins. I do see the transition to F2P becoming alot bigger in the future.
It's really difficult to say but if I would believe that it would depend on which target market gets bigger. I mean, as stated several times already, "F2P" and "P2P" games target different people since not everyone is willing to shell out monthly for a game in addition to buying it. Nor is everyone going to agree with playing a game where the size of your wallet is proportional to the size of your sword/guitar/drum/car/etc.
As I see it, both games have pretty healthy markets. There is always a good amount of dedicated gamers out there who're earning well and paying without so much as a second thought for the next expansion of (insert game here). Although the turnover rate of F2P MMO is high, their target market tends to be a lot larger than that of most P2Ps.
The OP described both types very well.I might add one point however,that is F2P models are not just about advancement,they also grab your money just to get some of the fun parts out of a game.
A perfect example is ROM.The game is VERY linear,pretty much a WOW copy,quest for xp and do dailies.For myself the fun part is messing with your gear.Well you have to pay them an incredible amount of money to be able to mess with your gear in an ongoing fashion.You want a mount? you pay,again this is not advancement,this is just the basics you expect from a game that should be free.I agree with things like coloring your mounts or gear,that should be an extra,again this has nothing to do with advancement.You want useful furniture you pay,you want useless furniture it's game currency.
Other things like XP boosts and TP boosts are bought with money,that is the advancement part.I would say in the end the P2P makes more money,but maybe not more profit.F2P games tend to be VERY cheaply developed,smaller staff,less over head,very cheap game engines,low poly bandwidth so low server cost.I find games that make money are pretty much based on luck,example WOW.I have seen massive ,great efforts not make anything ,example Vg so it really is about luck,finding what sells more so than what is the best quality.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Comments
My thought exactly I'm sure it is half in gest but why do mmo players turn everything into a "war" as stated it's a business model both of which will probably be around as long as the genre is around. For my opinion I don't often play F2P games but really because none have been of particular interest to me more so than thinking there is anything unethical about what they do (which by the way there isn't) another problem mmo players have is a strange detachment from reality with debates like "is free to play really free to play" and is "<insert game here> really an mmo?" Everyone knows that the number two is the number two, no one tries to debate it but for some reason we seem to always take words and try to "spin" them into what they imply to us as opposed to just taking them for what they say,are and mean.
I disagree, I don't believe they will both be around. If you read my previous posts, I give in detail the reasons why.
Without a shadow of a doubt we are seeing more companies taking creative risks to survive in this big MMO experiment. Providing new and innovative ways for players to "p2p" is great and I fully encourage it. I want to make very clear that my issue remains with the business model of playing for free and tagging an item mall to your game in hopes that players spend money. If you read my previous posts I give very valid reasons why I believe this will eventually fail.
I'm all in support of "free trials" or "free initial game time" or one payment and play for the rest of your life business models. I'm against the "f2p forever in hopes that our players will buy something from us" business model. It reminds me of the ugly mortgage/bank crisis. Seemed like a good idea at the time... Win/win right, I think not.
No matter how a company dresses up it's marketing, at the end of the day, the player has to be obligated to pay something to play or eventually, the spending habits of the players decline to the point of expecting every game to offer free play, free support with no intention to buy anything. If the ratio of players are increasing, it doesn't mean the spending habits will unless, eventually the player is paying to play the game.
I have the right to like what I want!
Another gamer that makes some very good points about f2p. I read your post and I know how you feel about some issues as I agree with a lot of what you stated. F2P is good for us in many ways in the long run but NOT good for the gaming industry as a whole. I believe it is breeding a lack of appreciation for mmos and over time, players collectively aren't going to want to spend anything with any company, they are just going to want a better game for free. This is just ONE of the major issues I have with f2p. The US economy wouldn't have entered a dangerous period in history if we would have taken notice of warning signs that could have prevented the devastation of progress for our nation.
Most players here who have given their testimony about f2p admit that they don't spend money with the company and this is a big problem. After a game gives you free access, another f2p game comes out that attempts to compete with p2p games and makes even better improvements to their game (spending more money to get us to play the game), the earlier company then puts money into more advertising and even gives away free items and in some cases money just to keep their current players active. On the surface, we see great success for these companies in the beginning as more active players look like success to us, but over time, we ignore the struggle these companies go through in order to stay in business. Because we see more players, we assume this means more spending, or if a f2p game loses a lot of players because of competition but remains up, we assume that they are doing fine. I believe over time our spending habits for f2p (honorable or not) will come to a complete halt. We are expecting more from mmo companies but financially, we are assuming no responsibility for what they can or can't give us.
After reading a few posts through and thinking about it, the players take less responsibility for this issue. The companies who created this f2p market are so much more to blame. You are already seeing the desperate measures some f2p companies are doing to maintain their players during a time of intense competition. When money runs out, there is nothing left you can give the people. I believe f2p is a big disaster waiting to happen and it will effect the entire mmo market when they plummet into oblivion. Just like the banks, it only takes one big institution to fail before the domino effect ensues.
So you are still making alot of asumptions about F2P based on nothing.
Champions online (client+sub) released about the same time as DDO went "F2P" - look at the xfire trends on thoose 2 games. CO have lost about 3/4 of their xfire players and DDO have lost about 1/4 of theirs during the almost 2 months the games have benn out. How do you explain that DDO have had an 40% increase in people who play 15/month since the game went F2P and how does that add up with: "players collectively aren't going to want to spend anything with any company"? I think people are more willing to pay if they are in control over how they pay instead of only being stuck with the $15/month option. Lately we have seen most MMO release with as P2P and their numbers have dropped like stones. How is this good for the companies and the idnustry?
Can you explain why its good that someone who play 5 hours/month should pay the same as someone who play 150 hours/month?
Yes the F2P market is currently flooded with crappy korean grinders with awfull item shops but it doesnt mean that its the only way a F2P game can be.
I think the future will be that a MMO release with the Guild wars model, paying for the client perhaps even with a optional monthly sub, and then maybe 1 year later the client become free and the model becomes more similar to the one in DDO
You may have failed to read my previous posts. I agree with the Guild Wars business model and in fact encourage more companies to provide creative payment options for the players. What I do not agree with is giving the entire game away for free. *Also please note, Guild Wars is NOT a f2p game.
I didnt fail to read anything, and you answered none of my questions. What I have said all along is that its not about P2P vs F2P since there are alot of variations!
There are alot of differnt buisness models including the GW model (which I guess you can call B2P) and the DDO model which both are far superior to the traditional client+monthly sub imo and they provide qulity on par or better than most P2P MMOs. What Im saying is that the traditonal P2P model is going to pretty much die in the close future.
If WoW = The Beatles
and WAR = Led Zeppelin
Then LotrO = Pink Floyd
My thought exactly I'm sure it is half in gest but why do mmo players turn everything into a "war" as stated it's a business model both of which will probably be around as long as the genre is around. For my opinion I don't often play F2P games but really because none have been of particular interest to me more so than thinking there is anything unethical about what they do (which by the way there isn't) another problem mmo players have is a strange detachment from reality with debates like "is free to play really free to play" and is "<insert game here> really an mmo?" Everyone knows that the number two is the number two, no one tries to debate it but for some reason we seem to always take words and try to "spin" them into what they imply to us as opposed to just taking them for what they say,are and mean.
I disagree, I don't believe they will both be around. If you read my previous posts, I give in detail the reasons why.
Without a shadow of a doubt we are seeing more companies taking creative risks to survive in this big MMO experiment. Providing new and innovative ways for players to "p2p" is great and I fully encourage it. I want to make very clear that my issue remains with the business model of playing for free and tagging an item mall to your game in hopes that players spend money. If you read my previous posts I give very valid reasons why I believe this will eventually fail.
I'm all in support of "free trials" or "free initial game time" or one payment and play for the rest of your life business models. I'm against the "f2p forever" in hopes that our players will buy something from us" business model. It reminds me of the ugly mortgage/bank crisis. Seemed like a good idea at the time... Win/win right, I think not.
No matter how a company dresses up it's marketing, at the end of the day, the player has to be obligated to pay something to play or eventually, the spending habits of the players decline to the point of expecting every game to offer free play, free support with no intention to buy anything. If the ratio of players are increasing, it doesn't mean the spending habits will unless, eventually the player is paying to play the game.
I think you've missed the mark here.
The P2P model works great because it creates a two tiered system, and many players fall into these two tiers.
The first tier is the player that pays and buys items. This player advances faster than the game allows otherwise, has the coolest gear, pets, etc., quicker than player that don't pay. This player can feel superior to the other players that don't pay. This player becomes like a lord of the game, and the free players have to grind away like peasants.
The second tier is the free player, the player that never buys anything. This player is indeed a peasant in the game, grinding away, BUT this player gets to play for free! Many players cannot pay to play a game, so this lets them participate when they otherwise could not.
It's great for BOTH types of players. One player gets to feel superior, and the other gets to play a free game even if they are inferior. That's the trade off, and I think there will always be both types.
There seems to be some confusion in terms here.
F2P means Free to Play. This means you do not have to pay upfront, you can get the client, and play the game for free... and that is it. EVE is a good example of F2P... as you can download the game, and get a free account anytime you want, for $0.
P2P means Pay to Play. This means you have to pay upfront to get the client and acess to the game.. and that is it. GuildWars is a good example of P2P, as you have to pay upfront for the client/account.
The only difference between F2P and P2P is WHEN you pay (both are business models, where people pay). P2P has the charge up front, where F2P has it on the backend. The whole discussion of monthly fees, microtransactions, etc has nothing to do with P2P/F2P.
The big advantage of F2P is that it gets a lot of people in game, because of the low entry fee. This is good for games that are based on player content (PvP, RvR, etc). It is BAD for games that are based on static content (PvE, Questing, etc).
The big advantage of P2P is that it weeds out those not invested in the game, and as such removed much of the 'problem' accounts. This lower player count is good for static content (PveE, Questing, etc) but bad for player content (PvP, RvR, etc).
If each game were monitized based on its strengths, rather than because of some preplanned strategy, then both the customers, and the producers would be much happier.
@ Ihmotepp - No, I am very aware of the other tier of players that want to pay to advance. I've also stated my personal opinions on why I believe it is wrong and shouldn't be allowed in any valid mmo but that isn't the point I'm making right now. My point is that I believe the demand to pay to buy items in a game is changing and players will eventually buy nothing if that is the only option to support the mmo company. I believe that the "free to play forever" market is breeding more and more players who don't want to spend anything with those companies but just want to play something that is free and will begin avoiding the item malls all together. You've read so many posts about players here who like the fact that they've played f2p games for years and didn't pay anything or felt obligated to pay anything. Good for the player now, but bad for business in the long run.
If you read these posts, no one has testified spending more than $15 with a f2p game. If DDO is giving the player an option to eventually p2p then they can not be included in the "f2p" category. Any game that you have to pay something in order to play the game is NOT "f2p". I want our definitions of a p2p and f2p market to be clear. Guild Wars is not f2p it is p2p as you pay something in order to play the game. If you have a problem with the definition, perhaps we can find a new standard to describe it, but in my opinion, it's just avoiding the obvious.
@ Papadam - If you read my posts then I believe you fail to understand my points. It seems as if you are removing a definite definition for F2P and P2P and thus making this debate a little obscure. P2P in my definition is just that, you are paying something to play the game regardless if it is a one time fee or a subscribtion based payment model. If you are saying that a more creative way to pay for a game for instance, using a simular business model as Guild Wars, then you are agreeing with me, P2P will be the future. No need to agrue that. I stated my points several times and made them very clear.
There is a problem with defining these two markets and I believe understanding them will help us understand what we want from the gaming market. If you have to pay ANYTHING to play a game regardless if it is now or later, it is p2p. If a company gives you a 5 day trial with limitted access to the game and another company gives you unlimitted game play for 30 days, both games are still P2P. No matter how long you get to play the game for free, eventually that company expects you to pay something in order to continue playing, upfront or not.
If a car dealer offers you no money down to get a car, this doesn't mean the car is "free to ride". That company expects you to eventually pay them for using the car or else there will be penalties. If any car company gives away cars, free forever but charges you for extra items like car radio or dvd player usage, then we can consider that to be "free to ride". As we all know, car companies will never do this.
I have the right to like what I want!
Um... EVE is now a Free to Play game? As in... EVE Online... the space MMORPG? How does one do this?
"There is only one thing of which I am certain, and that's nothing is certain."
Um... EVE is now a Free to Play game? As in... EVE Online... the space MMORPG? How does one do this?
Last I checked, Eve online was a p2p with a trial offer. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I have the right to like what I want!
That would be incorrect. The difference is in whether it has a monthly subscription price or not. Method or price in obtaining the client is not a factor.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
That would be incorrect. The difference is in whether it has a monthly subscription price or not. Method or price in obtaining the client is not a factor.
That definition is misleading and one of the reasons why players don't know the difference between buying a product and getting a product for free. SB or subscription based would be the best way to describe a subscription based business model. If you pay for a product you pay to play it, regardless what word on the street is.
Something that you pay for to play is a PAID game. If you walk into a store and buy a toy, you paid to play that toy (or someone did). They do not have to charge you a monthly fee in order for you to say that you had to pay to play that toy, it doesn't change the fact you paid for it no matter how you try and switch it up.
If a game does not charge you ANYTHING EVER to play that game, it is a FREE game. It's free for you to play even if they tag in optional shops. You aren't obligated to buy anything from that company in order to continue playing.
I'll use another term from now on that isn't part of today's pop culture as I believe we have to make certain what it is we want and expect from mmo companies.
I have the right to like what I want!
I actually think we'll see a blending of the two. We are already starting to see that. Or perhaps there wasn't even that big a difference?
I mean, in both types, you have to pay for content, essentially. In P2P games, you generally have to buy the game, then buy every extra expansion pack for its content.
In F2P games, you don't have to buy the game or any extra patches, but generally speaking, higher level content requires use of the cash shop to actually do (Atlantica is a good example. Around level 97, you need to use a blessing license, and where I am, 115+, you need to buy atlas ore to uber up your gear to survive the super powered mobs). As does any cosmetic goodies (clothes/mounts/hair).
Turbine seems to be at the forefront of combining the two types. D&D is one model. But in LOTRO, they've started sneaking in MTs (selling more character slots, shared storage and a mount as part of a Adventurer's pack) as well as moving away from the buy one xp every year or two model, in favor of buy a mini-xp a couple times a year. (Want to finish Moria? Forget a free update, you can finish it in our new mini-xp, Shadows Over Mirkwood)
Anyway, you can make a case that all MMORPGs are potentially pay to win. Or can be. Pay to play ones simply have it done through 3rd parties (gold farmers), whereas most f2p ones will let you sell item mall items in game for gold. And I believe some, like Eve, will allow selling of game time for in game currency, so that's sort of a compromise.
R.I.P. City of Heroes and my 17 characters there
IMO, this is incorrect. You are comparing cheating, breaking the terms of service agreement, and risking getting banned from the game (which Blizzard does), to playing by all the rules of the game.
Third party gold sellers are not part of any MMORPG, and it's not fair to compare a hack, cheat, or third party gold purchase to features that are a legitimate part of the game.
F2P = item shop part of the game. Pay to skip content, move forward faster in the game.
P2P= buying gold is cheating, not part of the game. All players that do not cheat must do the same content to advance.
Should the topic read : Monthly Fee vs Pay for Features.
You need to distinguish between paying for items and paying for content which are very different.
Some games do not have a monthly fee. But instead of selling items, they sell access to different zones in the game.
I think its worrysome that so many people are cheating in MMOs a small number of them have become increasingly vocal in trying to justify it. The worst of it is, that just as vocal minorities manage to spoil games by demanding nerfs, some suits seem all to willing to listen at their arguments about how RMT should be allowed in subscription based games. I fear p2p might one day become a niche if dumb and lazy people continue to demand being able to compete on equal terms with talented or dedicated gamers...
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.
MMO’s want to make the most money, currently that would be a hybrid subscription/mirco transaction model. If you are stupid enough to pay a monthly fee and then pay for items they will certainly let you do that. Content, such as a new set of zones, really shows they put some work in, and deserves a one of payment.
Since the OP has trouble with the definition of the terms he's using then, yes, it really shoud read something like what you wrote or even 'Subscription or Microtransaction'
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Currently I am back in Vanguard and EVE with Last Chaos on the side. I play P2P and F2P and really could care less which side wins. I do see the transition to F2P becoming alot bigger in the future.
Someone seems to like all styles of carnage.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
It's really difficult to say but if I would believe that it would depend on which target market gets bigger. I mean, as stated several times already, "F2P" and "P2P" games target different people since not everyone is willing to shell out monthly for a game in addition to buying it. Nor is everyone going to agree with playing a game where the size of your wallet is proportional to the size of your sword/guitar/drum/car/etc.
As I see it, both games have pretty healthy markets. There is always a good amount of dedicated gamers out there who're earning well and paying without so much as a second thought for the next expansion of (insert game here). Although the turnover rate of F2P MMO is high, their target market tends to be a lot larger than that of most P2Ps.
P2P. It's all P2P in the end anyway.
The OP described both types very well.I might add one point however,that is F2P models are not just about advancement,they also grab your money just to get some of the fun parts out of a game.
A perfect example is ROM.The game is VERY linear,pretty much a WOW copy,quest for xp and do dailies.For myself the fun part is messing with your gear.Well you have to pay them an incredible amount of money to be able to mess with your gear in an ongoing fashion.You want a mount? you pay,again this is not advancement,this is just the basics you expect from a game that should be free.I agree with things like coloring your mounts or gear,that should be an extra,again this has nothing to do with advancement.You want useful furniture you pay,you want useless furniture it's game currency.
Other things like XP boosts and TP boosts are bought with money,that is the advancement part.I would say in the end the P2P makes more money,but maybe not more profit.F2P games tend to be VERY cheaply developed,smaller staff,less over head,very cheap game engines,low poly bandwidth so low server cost.I find games that make money are pretty much based on luck,example WOW.I have seen massive ,great efforts not make anything ,example Vg so it really is about luck,finding what sells more so than what is the best quality.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.