I think the broadly defined MMO market as it exists here on MMORPG.COM can and will encompass many payment models.
I also think it is exceptionally foolish to continue to discuss this as though there is one single market with a single pattern of consumer behavior.
Some players like the "freedoms" and low initial cost of the F2P or download and C-store model; others prefer the ongoing subscription to a service. Given the trend towards content-lite, heavily instanced games I am sure that there will be an emergent market for a Box sales + online store (for perqs and digital only expansions) model. With the player retention times for MMOs slipping ever lower, there is a lot of incentive for that sort of thing.
What I'd like to see is the slightest sign of "pushback" on any front from the consumers, but I doubt I will see it. People seem desperate to leap on whatever fotm is pushed out next.
“I've felt for quite some time that the MMO space will see more variations on business models, and this has been happening, although not as a huge, highly visible trend.”
So…it is happening in a tiny, invisible, secret squirrel kind of way?
Istaria is a dead in the water old MMO, but it has an interesting revenue model, so it is worthy of a lengthy discussion…right.
Show me the game where these wonderful hybrid revenue systems are working. DDO needs at least a year before anyone can say ‘yes its worked’. Using clapped out old games as an example of hybrid revenue ‘success’ is a bit much.
My thinking of the impending success of a financial model like DDO's is similar to a restaurant analogy I just thought of. If you're looking for a quick meal, where would you rather spend your money on...$10-13 at a local buffet for a wider selection or $5-7 for a specific meal?
Generally people are split with this, but with this model, this allows people a more selective option, where they get to pick and choose when and where they spend their money. Yes the very importance behind something like this is money. DDO managed to spark more interest after moving into this hybrid model so basically, it is currently working for them right now. You don't need a year to prove something especially in something like F2P with micro-transactions because those transactions are one time deals. DDO got the money of those that bought the zones and there's no selling the same zone to them again or anything. Yet, they managed to bring more people in after the model was implemented as opposed to the amount of players that were there before. So, yes, I would consider it working and let's not forget it has been already a little over half a year since they have started this.
As greater quality of these games start entering the "F2P" market, the more competition and pressure that could be applied to subscription-based games and the greater the likeliness of the industry evolving into this sort of model. Companies should see how much more of the market they can open themselves up to by having another option to play their games outside the subscription model.
I think they have found their niche with their business model. Note, no dreaded item shop and the game does not have pvp to worry about balancing the play feeling between the f2p players and the paid ones.
The examples Istaria & DDO give show up more than just an alternative to sub business models, it shows how having a model has to fit the game you are peddling.
For some games DDO's model, good as it is, would simply not work, the instanced nature of DDO is a large part of why their system operates so effectively, in a game such as Vanguard, a huge seamless world with little instancing DDO's model simply couldn't be applied to the game as it stands.
I also concur with the distaste for PvP games to have the very common "pay to win" set up, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth, but then any Item-based progression model is going to prove problematic to a PvP game unless the gear a player wears is somehow calculated into rankings & leaderboard standards or some kind of handicapping/underdog system is in place to give a much more realistic sense of balance, or a totally seperated PvP environment or gear set, effectively creating every character as a dual-environment character with a gear set & ability set purely tailored for PvP & another for PvE. A game that had it's progression not being item based wouldn't have that problem, but then you have to still offer rewards of some kind for the gameplay it offers.
I personally will never support a game/gaming company who charges a set monthly fee and then charges additional for other things. I feel that there are many gaming options today. There is no need to support these greedy companies. If you are paying a subscription fee, you should have access to everything available in the game. This includes vanity pets, potions, and anything else you think of. When I pay a fee it is to have unlimited/unrestricted access to the game. I don't feel that greedy companies should be charging extra for character slots, etc. when my subscription should pay for it.
I will also not support this kind of option because I refuse to play a game where somebody can throw more money at the game and get more out of it. Players should be playing on an even playing field.
This is my opinion. It may differ from yours and that is ok. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I'm just hoping there are other gamers out there, like me, who are willing to stand up/boycot/not support these companies who are growing more greedy/continually trying to experiment with more ways to exploit/milk gamers.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke
I'm currently on the Istaria endless trail and play it for about an hour a day. Its a nice variation in the set of games that I play and I enjoy it. I played Horizons from beta for about 6 months until I switched to another new game. Its nice to be able to revisit it again.
I'm currently not playing any P2P game. I had thought that STO might be my next choice, but after a disappointing beta experience, I'm still looking for something worth paying for. I'm surprised that we haven't seen the pay-as-you-play model in the west considering how popular it is in the east. For a game like Istaria, I don't play it enough to pay for a monthly sub, but I'd consider an hourly rate if it was reasonable. When I was playing WoW, my effective hourly cost was under 8 cents/hour (yes, I played a lot) so an hourly price between 10-20 cents would be fair.
I bet a lot of casual players would be willing to pay $15 for 100 hours of playtime when they wouldn't be willing to commit to $15/month, because they don't have enough spare time to play a lot. Maybe offer three different time bundles: $5 for 25 hours, $15 for 100 hours, and $50 for 500 hours; sort of like how monthly subs cost less if you buy multiple months.
In the final analysis, the more choices a player has, the better, both in payment models and in game styles. Variety is good!
Anarchy Online did this years ago so it's nothing new.
Play the original AO for free, but you had to sub to play the Notum Wars, Shadowlands, and Alien Invasion x-packs.
They used in game advertising, which fit really well within the theme IMO, to finance the freeps...or was it froobs?
Anyways, as others have already mentioned, this is more of an evolution of a free trial than it is an evolution of the F2P model IMO. Reason being the only thing that players can pay for is a subscription, a far cry and world of difference from the F2P games that promote items for sale for advancement.
Einherjar_LC says: WTB the true successor to UO or Asheron's Call pst!
For me the best Bizz model is on DDO Unlimited. I think they have find the perfect match for free/mall/subscription... wish more companies will follow that model..
I posted a blog article on this last week: Apples to MMOranges -- why F2P to subscription is the wrong comparison.
It begins:
I have been watching the MMORPG* community go nuts for the past few years as casual and Free-to-Play (F2P) games have made huge gains in popularity and profits.
Subscription MMO players spend a lot of time and heat complaining that it’s not fair that some people can get ahead by paying more money to a casual/F2P game company, in what should be the level playing field (excluding gold/leveling services) in the subscription games.
And I think it’s that comparison we make — to gold farmers and levelers — that gives us a lot of unnecessary angst.
There’s a simple solution to this that might at least make some number of players more comfortable with F2P/casual cash-achievement games — stop comparing them to subscription. We have a better precedents.
When Magic: the Gathering from Wizards of the Coast made a niche for collectible card games (CCGs), suddenly the local game store started looking like the model/hobby shop. Instead of baseball cards, Magic cards were lined up with little plastic envelopes and tiny white price stickers in a glass case at the counter. I remember thinking, “They started selling baseball cards? wtf?”
Soon, rare black-bordered cards began to sell for serious money (if you get here too late, that’s a link to a rare black-bordered card on ebay for about US$4K. One card.).
With a good head for strategy, and a lot of luck, you could probably match evenly with a Magic player with a lot of money, for the first few years. But as tournaments got more and more competitive, the charm of playing with a small budget went down.
...and on from there. I think a lot of the heat comes from comparing subscription to F2P, when in a lot of cases, it's not the right analogy.
Comments
I think the broadly defined MMO market as it exists here on MMORPG.COM can and will encompass many payment models.
I also think it is exceptionally foolish to continue to discuss this as though there is one single market with a single pattern of consumer behavior.
Some players like the "freedoms" and low initial cost of the F2P or download and C-store model; others prefer the ongoing subscription to a service. Given the trend towards content-lite, heavily instanced games I am sure that there will be an emergent market for a Box sales + online store (for perqs and digital only expansions) model. With the player retention times for MMOs slipping ever lower, there is a lot of incentive for that sort of thing.
What I'd like to see is the slightest sign of "pushback" on any front from the consumers, but I doubt I will see it. People seem desperate to leap on whatever fotm is pushed out next.
“I've felt for quite some time that the MMO space will see more variations on business models, and this has been happening, although not as a huge, highly visible trend.”
So…it is happening in a tiny, invisible, secret squirrel kind of way?
Istaria is a dead in the water old MMO, but it has an interesting revenue model, so it is worthy of a lengthy discussion…right.
Show me the game where these wonderful hybrid revenue systems are working. DDO needs at least a year before anyone can say ‘yes its worked’. Using clapped out old games as an example of hybrid revenue ‘success’ is a bit much.
My thinking of the impending success of a financial model like DDO's is similar to a restaurant analogy I just thought of. If you're looking for a quick meal, where would you rather spend your money on...$10-13 at a local buffet for a wider selection or $5-7 for a specific meal?
Generally people are split with this, but with this model, this allows people a more selective option, where they get to pick and choose when and where they spend their money. Yes the very importance behind something like this is money. DDO managed to spark more interest after moving into this hybrid model so basically, it is currently working for them right now. You don't need a year to prove something especially in something like F2P with micro-transactions because those transactions are one time deals. DDO got the money of those that bought the zones and there's no selling the same zone to them again or anything. Yet, they managed to bring more people in after the model was implemented as opposed to the amount of players that were there before. So, yes, I would consider it working and let's not forget it has been already a little over half a year since they have started this.
As greater quality of these games start entering the "F2P" market, the more competition and pressure that could be applied to subscription-based games and the greater the likeliness of the industry evolving into this sort of model. Companies should see how much more of the market they can open themselves up to by having another option to play their games outside the subscription model.
I think they have found their niche with their business model. Note, no dreaded item shop and the game does not have pvp to worry about balancing the play feeling between the f2p players and the paid ones.
The examples Istaria & DDO give show up more than just an alternative to sub business models, it shows how having a model has to fit the game you are peddling.
For some games DDO's model, good as it is, would simply not work, the instanced nature of DDO is a large part of why their system operates so effectively, in a game such as Vanguard, a huge seamless world with little instancing DDO's model simply couldn't be applied to the game as it stands.
I also concur with the distaste for PvP games to have the very common "pay to win" set up, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth, but then any Item-based progression model is going to prove problematic to a PvP game unless the gear a player wears is somehow calculated into rankings & leaderboard standards or some kind of handicapping/underdog system is in place to give a much more realistic sense of balance, or a totally seperated PvP environment or gear set, effectively creating every character as a dual-environment character with a gear set & ability set purely tailored for PvP & another for PvE. A game that had it's progression not being item based wouldn't have that problem, but then you have to still offer rewards of some kind for the gameplay it offers.
I personally will never support a game/gaming company who charges a set monthly fee and then charges additional for other things. I feel that there are many gaming options today. There is no need to support these greedy companies. If you are paying a subscription fee, you should have access to everything available in the game. This includes vanity pets, potions, and anything else you think of. When I pay a fee it is to have unlimited/unrestricted access to the game. I don't feel that greedy companies should be charging extra for character slots, etc. when my subscription should pay for it.
I will also not support this kind of option because I refuse to play a game where somebody can throw more money at the game and get more out of it. Players should be playing on an even playing field.
This is my opinion. It may differ from yours and that is ok. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I'm just hoping there are other gamers out there, like me, who are willing to stand up/boycot/not support these companies who are growing more greedy/continually trying to experiment with more ways to exploit/milk gamers.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke
I'm currently on the Istaria endless trail and play it for about an hour a day. Its a nice variation in the set of games that I play and I enjoy it. I played Horizons from beta for about 6 months until I switched to another new game. Its nice to be able to revisit it again.
I'm currently not playing any P2P game. I had thought that STO might be my next choice, but after a disappointing beta experience, I'm still looking for something worth paying for. I'm surprised that we haven't seen the pay-as-you-play model in the west considering how popular it is in the east. For a game like Istaria, I don't play it enough to pay for a monthly sub, but I'd consider an hourly rate if it was reasonable. When I was playing WoW, my effective hourly cost was under 8 cents/hour (yes, I played a lot) so an hourly price between 10-20 cents would be fair.
I bet a lot of casual players would be willing to pay $15 for 100 hours of playtime when they wouldn't be willing to commit to $15/month, because they don't have enough spare time to play a lot. Maybe offer three different time bundles: $5 for 25 hours, $15 for 100 hours, and $50 for 500 hours; sort of like how monthly subs cost less if you buy multiple months.
In the final analysis, the more choices a player has, the better, both in payment models and in game styles. Variety is good!
Anarchy Online did this years ago so it's nothing new.
Play the original AO for free, but you had to sub to play the Notum Wars, Shadowlands, and Alien Invasion x-packs.
They used in game advertising, which fit really well within the theme IMO, to finance the freeps...or was it froobs?
Anyways, as others have already mentioned, this is more of an evolution of a free trial than it is an evolution of the F2P model IMO. Reason being the only thing that players can pay for is a subscription, a far cry and world of difference from the F2P games that promote items for sale for advancement.
Einherjar_LC says: WTB the true successor to UO or Asheron's Call pst!
Dont you really mean to say how to bone the customer from two directions, another failed F2P post...........
For me the best Bizz model is on DDO Unlimited. I think they have find the perfect match for free/mall/subscription... wish more companies will follow that model..
I posted a blog article on this last week: Apples to MMOranges -- why F2P to subscription is the wrong comparison.
It begins:
I have been watching the MMORPG* community go nuts for the past few years as casual and Free-to-Play (F2P) games have made huge gains in popularity and profits.
Subscription MMO players spend a lot of time and heat complaining that it’s not fair that some people can get ahead by paying more money to a casual/F2P game company, in what should be the level playing field (excluding gold/leveling services) in the subscription games.
And I think it’s that comparison we make — to gold farmers and levelers — that gives us a lot of unnecessary angst.
There’s a simple solution to this that might at least make some number of players more comfortable with F2P/casual cash-achievement games — stop comparing them to subscription. We have a better precedents.
When Magic: the Gathering from Wizards of the Coast made a niche for collectible card games (CCGs), suddenly the local game store started looking like the model/hobby shop. Instead of baseball cards, Magic cards were lined up with little plastic envelopes and tiny white price stickers in a glass case at the counter. I remember thinking, “They started selling baseball cards? wtf?”
Soon, rare black-bordered cards began to sell for serious money (if you get here too late, that’s a link to a rare black-bordered card on ebay for about US$4K. One card.).
With a good head for strategy, and a lot of luck, you could probably match evenly with a Magic player with a lot of money, for the first few years. But as tournaments got more and more competitive, the charm of playing with a small budget went down.
...and on from there. I think a lot of the heat comes from comparing subscription to F2P, when in a lot of cases, it's not the right analogy.
Yrs,
Shava