I keep seeing this statement come up. Is this the latest meme for the pro-F2P crowd? "The majority of F2P players don't pay anything"? Strange thing is, I've yet to see one single source cited that proves this out; just the "because I said so" of various forum warriors. I'd like to know how much this "minority" of people using the item shops are paying individually, then, if it's enough to fund the on-going support and development of some of these MMOs allowing for the "majority" who don't pay anything to continue playing for free. Because you are not paying attention and may be even ignoring all the evidence. I have already posted ONE article earlier showing evidence. Here are two articles. You can find more online. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4046/what_are_the_rewards_of_.php And I quote "but only about 10% of his player base has ever paid him anything" http://lsvp.wordpress.com/2008/06/09/successful-mmogs-can-see-1-2-in-monthly-arpu/ And I quote "When Club Penguin was bought by Disney in August 2007, it was reported to have 12m registered users and 700k pay" "Finally, Jagex’s Runescape claimed 1m players paying $5/mth in May 2007 and 6m players per month in October 2007."
Fair enough... and luckily those particular games have large enough populations paying to make it work, presumably. The exception to the rule, I would think.
I do wonder how many are non-paying in Runescape... or is that the 6 million they mention? The way it's phrased, it sounds like 1 million were paying in May, then 6 million in October. Damn nice numbers, given (or perhaps due to) its lower price-point.
Thanks for providing that . Most people, when challenged to produce evidence, would either not reply or attempt to change the topic. So kudos.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
NBC Universal (the owners of WoW) announced today they are releasing the Battlstar Galactica MMO, that will be f2p (and browser based, meh).
Point is, the greatest NA MMO company ever is going f2p, why? because it just makes economical sense.
Also I agree with the f2p : McDonald's analogy above,
some food for thought... (u c wut I did there)
McDonald's also owns and operates Chipotle, so while they know how to mass produce, they also know how to mass produce finer products successfully, and I would garner the same can be said of the f2p community using the analogy you provided.
economically:
p2p = physical creation of game and game boxes
physical distribution of game, in-store marketing materials
f2p = none of this
both = internet buzz/marketing, maintaining game/servers and game staff
Now if you were the accountant, which would you see as more profit?
imho DDO is way ahead of the market in what it decided to do, and it will probably be the basis of more p2p titles in the future. Unless an even better synergy is found.
Otherwise, like I said in the beginning,
p2p = dinosaurs, f2p = meteor
ever tried convincing a dinosaur about its impending doom? (small brain don't help much)
I love my p2p games, but as I watched 8 tracks, LPs, cassettes, CDs all morph into IPods...I see this as just a simple entertainment evolution as well.
The fact that most F2P players don't pay proves that you are wrong. If they play, they must have found it fun. So despite a small paying player base, F2P games are FUN for many fold more players. And you are arguing WHY it may not be fun .. but the bottomline is whether it is fun or not. The 1M players gained in DDO show that it is ... at least as much fun as the other free alternatives like watching TV. All you have are just arguments ... and no data all all. Look up the number of players playing Free Realms, RoMs, DDO and so on .. these millions of players obviously found it fun despite they are not the "target" audience. QED.
But how many of these players, if we accept the non specific claims of the devs, would disappear tomorrow if they had to pay one red cent for access? I think you are discounting, no pun intended, how much of a factor the 'it is free' part of the equation plays in things. Not to say F2P games wouldn't find an audience if they required all player to pay something but I have little to no doubt that they would attract far, far, far less than they do without fees and I am certain the way the game works would have to change as well. As for DDO specifically, I have acknowledged DDOs unique hybrid model as more legitimate than the traditional F2P model, and don't forget that it is still a subscription game too so many of the pitfalls of the typical F2P model do not apply because the devs are kept honest by those who are paying a sub for full access. That said, the 'success' of F2P is nearly entirely in the 'free' part and not the cash shop part - cheap people are just willing to overlook the flaws that result from the F2P model (lack of integrity, cheap overall game, etc) because it is free to access.
Nothing you said contradicts the fact that F2P games are fun enough to play. DDO is not the only F2P game with 1M players. Free Realms, maple story, RoM all have more than 1M players.
If you argument is that F2P game may not be as much fun as P2P ..then it boils down to a comparison of specific games. I would argue that many F2P games are better than say STO, which I think a lot of people may agree.
DDO is a unique case study because it is the only major P2P turn F2P games. (Alganon does not count since it wasn't truly out). Note that DDO increases both playership (by 1M no less) and revenue (by 500% no less) once it changes its model. This clearly shows that given the same game (DDO hasn't changed that much), a F2P model can be much more successful in both the number of players, as well as amount of revenue.
And yet again, the glaring, obvious, neon-lit detail is completely ignored by someone championing DDO as proof of F2P's "superiority" over subscription...
The word *FREE*.
DDO gained new players when it went *FREE* to play largely, no doubt, due to the fact that it was now *FREE* to play. Funny how that works, isn't it? People are much more willing to give something a shot when it's *FREE*.
Commonly Ignored Fact: DDO started out P2P and was not doing well with that model.
Why? Too many people did not find the game enjoyable enough to justify the subscription fee. Decisions were made that turned people away. People didn't like the heavily instanced nature of the game. People didn't like the Eberron setting... and so forth.
Turbine changes the payment model to 'Free To Play' and suddenly it picks up all these players... F2P fans seem to want to insist that it's somehow proof that F2P is the better model.
Uhh.. no.. People didn't start checking out DDO because they really like the F2P/Microtransaction model. It's because it's *free*. People like *free* things. People are far more willing to "take chances" on something when it's *free* than they are when it isn't. People have far less to lose when something is *free* than they do when it isn't.
Again.. the game was floundering as a P2P MMO. Suddenly it's "flourishing" as F2P. The only difference? The price.
Do the math people. Take off the blinders. Stop drinking the kool-aid. It's not some kind of esoteric concept. It's common sense. People like free things and typically have much lower standards when there's no price involved... be it games, food, movies, books, etc.
If you want to champion the F2P model, then great.. But seriously... choose a different game. Using DDO is really not helping your case.
In terms of F2P overall, I'd like to see a poll done - on a third-party, non-biased site that doesn't cater to any one game - where people are asked if they would pay a subscription, and do without the Item Mall, to play whatever F2P MMO they're playing. I have a hunch (and it's only that) that the results wouldn't shine as well on F2P as some might want to think.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
The fact that most F2P players don't pay proves that you are wrong. If they play, they must have found it fun. So despite a small paying player base, F2P games are FUN for many fold more players. And you are arguing WHY it may not be fun .. but the bottomline is whether it is fun or not. The 1M players gained in DDO show that it is ... at least as much fun as the other free alternatives like watching TV. All you have are just arguments ... and no data all all. Look up the number of players playing Free Realms, RoMs, DDO and so on .. these millions of players obviously found it fun despite they are not the "target" audience. QED.
But how many of these players, if we accept the non specific claims of the devs, would disappear tomorrow if they had to pay one red cent for access? I think you are discounting, no pun intended, how much of a factor the 'it is free' part of the equation plays in things. Not to say F2P games wouldn't find an audience if they required all player to pay something but I have little to no doubt that they would attract far, far, far less than they do without fees and I am certain the way the game works would have to change as well. As for DDO specifically, I have acknowledged DDOs unique hybrid model as more legitimate than the traditional F2P model, and don't forget that it is still a subscription game too so many of the pitfalls of the typical F2P model do not apply because the devs are kept honest by those who are paying a sub for full access. That said, the 'success' of F2P is nearly entirely in the 'free' part and not the cash shop part - cheap people are just willing to overlook the flaws that result from the F2P model (lack of integrity, cheap overall game, etc) because it is free to access.
Nothing you said contradicts the fact that F2P games are fun enough to play. DDO is not the only F2P game with 1M players. Free Realms, maple story, RoM all have more than 1M players.
If you argument is that F2P game may not be as much fun as P2P ..then it boils down to a comparison of specific games. I would argue that many F2P games are better than say STO, which I think a lot of people may agree.
DDO is a unique case study because it is the only major P2P turn F2P games. (Alganon does not count since it wasn't truly out). Note that DDO increases both playership (by 1M no less) and revenue (by 500% no less) once it changes its model. This clearly shows that given the same game (DDO hasn't changed that much), a F2P model can be much more successful in both the number of players, as well as amount of revenue.
And yet again, the glaring, obvious, neon-lit detail is completely ignored by someone championing DDO as proof of F2P's "superiority" over subscription...
The word *FREE*.
DDO gained new players when it went *FREE* to play largely, no doubt, due to the fact that it was now *FREE* to play. Funny how that works, isn't it? People are much more willing to give something a shot when it's *FREE*.
Commonly Ignored Fact: DDO started out P2P and was not doing well with that model.
Why? Too many people did not find the game enjoyable enough to justify the subscription fee. Decisions were made that turned people away. People didn't like the heavily instanced nature of the game. People didn't like the Eberron setting... and so forth.
Turbine changes the payment model to 'Free To Play' and suddenly it picks up all these players... F2P fans seem to want to insist that it's somehow proof that F2P is the better model.
Uhh.. no.. People didn't start checking out DDO because they really like the F2P/Microtransaction model. It's because it's *free*. People like *free* things. People are far more willing to "take chances" on something when it's *free* than they are when it isn't. People have far less to lose when something is *free* than they do when it isn't.
Again.. the game was floundering as a P2P MMO. Suddenly it's "flourishing" as F2P. The only difference? The price.
Do the math people. Take off the blinders. Stop drinking the kool-aid. It's not some kind of esoteric concept. It's common sense. People like free things and typically have much lower standards when there's no price involved... be it games, food, movies, books, etc.
If you want to champion the F2P model, then great.. But seriously... choose a different game. Using DDO is really not helping your case.
In terms of F2P overall, I'd like to see a poll done - on a third-party, non-biased site that doesn't cater to any one game - where people are asked if they would pay a subscription, and do without the Item Mall, to play whatever F2P MMO they're playing. I have a hunch (and it's only that) that the results wouldn't shine as well on F2P as some might want to think.
Interesting points, but as you would like to see this poll done, I wonder how many p2p games are going to be left that do not in fact have cash shops within them. Not sure if you have noticed but it is an increasing trend happening within the p2p market.
And what about the unlimited trials the p2p markets are now offering, are those not in fact f2p?
The fact that most F2P players don't pay proves that you are wrong. If they play, they must have found it fun. So despite a small paying player base, F2P games are FUN for many fold more players. And you are arguing WHY it may not be fun .. but the bottomline is whether it is fun or not. The 1M players gained in DDO show that it is ... at least as much fun as the other free alternatives like watching TV. All you have are just arguments ... and no data all all. Look up the number of players playing Free Realms, RoMs, DDO and so on .. these millions of players obviously found it fun despite they are not the "target" audience. QED.
But how many of these players, if we accept the non specific claims of the devs, would disappear tomorrow if they had to pay one red cent for access? I think you are discounting, no pun intended, how much of a factor the 'it is free' part of the equation plays in things. Not to say F2P games wouldn't find an audience if they required all player to pay something but I have little to no doubt that they would attract far, far, far less than they do without fees and I am certain the way the game works would have to change as well. As for DDO specifically, I have acknowledged DDOs unique hybrid model as more legitimate than the traditional F2P model, and don't forget that it is still a subscription game too so many of the pitfalls of the typical F2P model do not apply because the devs are kept honest by those who are paying a sub for full access. That said, the 'success' of F2P is nearly entirely in the 'free' part and not the cash shop part - cheap people are just willing to overlook the flaws that result from the F2P model (lack of integrity, cheap overall game, etc) because it is free to access.
Nothing you said contradicts the fact that F2P games are fun enough to play. DDO is not the only F2P game with 1M players. Free Realms, maple story, RoM all have more than 1M players.
If you argument is that F2P game may not be as much fun as P2P ..then it boils down to a comparison of specific games. I would argue that many F2P games are better than say STO, which I think a lot of people may agree.
DDO is a unique case study because it is the only major P2P turn F2P games. (Alganon does not count since it wasn't truly out). Note that DDO increases both playership (by 1M no less) and revenue (by 500% no less) once it changes its model. This clearly shows that given the same game (DDO hasn't changed that much), a F2P model can be much more successful in both the number of players, as well as amount of revenue.
And yet again, the glaring, obvious, neon-lit detail is completely ignored by someone championing DDO as proof of F2P's "superiority" over subscription...
The word *FREE*.
DDO gained new players when it went *FREE* to play largely, no doubt, due to the fact that it was now *FREE* to play. Funny how that works, isn't it? People are much more willing to give something a shot when it's *FREE*.
Commonly Ignored Fact: DDO started out P2P and was not doing well with that model.
Why? Too many people did not find the game enjoyable enough to justify the subscription fee. Decisions were made that turned people away. People didn't like the heavily instanced nature of the game. People didn't like the Eberron setting... and so forth.
Turbine changes the payment model to 'Free To Play' and suddenly it picks up all these players... F2P fans seem to want to insist that it's somehow proof that F2P is the better model.
Uhh.. no.. People didn't start checking out DDO because they really like the F2P/Microtransaction model. It's because it's *free*. People like *free* things. People are far more willing to "take chances" on something when it's *free* than they are when it isn't. People have far less to lose when something is *free* than they do when it isn't.
Again.. the game was floundering as a P2P MMO. Suddenly it's "flourishing" as F2P. The only difference? The price.
Do the math people. Take off the blinders. Stop drinking the kool-aid. It's not some kind of esoteric concept. It's common sense. People like free things and typically have much lower standards when there's no price involved... be it games, food, movies, books, etc.
If you want to champion the F2P model, then great.. But seriously... choose a different game. Using DDO is really not helping your case.
In terms of F2P overall, I'd like to see a poll done - on a third-party, non-biased site that doesn't cater to any one game - where people are asked if they would pay a subscription, and do without the Item Mall, to play whatever F2P MMO they're playing. I have a hunch (and it's only that) that the results wouldn't shine as well on F2P as some might want to think.
A poll like that would pretty much prove the point that a lot of the pro F2P people have been saying. If you asked them to switch to a subscription you would lose 2 of the major groups in the game... those that play it because its free and they cant/wont pay for a sub, and those that like being able to play the game for free and spend money as they choose for upgrades & stuff. You might have a small group left that would prefer a sub to the games current F2P model, but then that would really depend on the specific game and the pricing &advantages of their item mall. After all some games are basically a scam to try and make a quick back for these companies, but there really are some pretty great & fun games out there that are set up to bring in a bit of profit for them, but no outrageous prices or game breaking advantages.
As far as the quality of games, that can be debated for a long long time, especially considering the horrible quality of supposed AAA MMO titles of late. Ive gotten into playing many many F2P mmos the past couple years, as well as P2P, and while a good enough P2P may hold my attention a bit longer, in the end it still results in the same thing as an F2P, i get bored and move on usually within a month or 2. Doing that with an F2P is much easier than having to pay $50-60 + the sub, and when i find an F2P i plan to stick with for at least a few months, im willing to spend more on it. I guess considering that, due to the state of the MMO genre as a whole right now, F2P is really the better way to go until something really great as a P2P comes along, but instead we're stuck with a choice of WoW clones and a few unique games that for the most part have major issues. Yes, there are a few exceptions to that, such as EVE, but like 95% of the market out there is just regurgitated reskins of WoW or severely broken indie & sandbox garbage. Im hoping a couple of them scheduled to be realeased this and next year might finally change that though.
In terms of F2P overall, I'd like to see a poll done - on a third-party, non-biased site that doesn't cater to any one game - where people are asked if they would pay a subscription, and do without the Item Mall, to play whatever F2P MMO they're playing. I have a hunch (and it's only that) that the results wouldn't shine as well on F2P as some might want to think.
For the SAME game? i bet a lot of people would like F2P just because they can play for free. Free is always the better price.
Plus, the answer is not black and white. What about if i want my main game to be P2P (say WOW) and everything else F2P?
In terms of F2P overall, I'd like to see a poll done - on a third-party, non-biased site that doesn't cater to any one game - where people are asked if they would pay a subscription, and do without the Item Mall, to play whatever F2P MMO they're playing. I have a hunch (and it's only that) that the results wouldn't shine as well on F2P as some might want to think. For the SAME game? i bet a lot of people would like F2P just because they can play for free. Free is always the better price. Plus, the answer is not black and white. What about if i want my main game to be P2P (say WOW) and everything else F2P?
But that is the whole point - there is no 'same game' option. For a game to work F2P it has to sell gameplay advantages/necessities and for a P2P game to work it needs the integrity of players earning achievements. The two are mutually exclusive. DDO only 'works' because it was dead and they had nothing to lose, plus they did a more hybrid model selling content not so much selling the advancement and achievement, plus they maintain a subscription option so the devs have no incentive to nickel and dime folks as people can just drop the $15 and get everything.
In terms of F2P overall, I'd like to see a poll done - on a third-party, non-biased site that doesn't cater to any one game - where people are asked if they would pay a subscription, and do without the Item Mall, to play whatever F2P MMO they're playing. I have a hunch (and it's only that) that the results wouldn't shine as well on F2P as some might want to think. For the SAME game? i bet a lot of people would like F2P just because they can play for free. Free is always the better price. Plus, the answer is not black and white. What about if i want my main game to be P2P (say WOW) and everything else F2P?
But that is the whole point - there is no 'same game' option. For a game to work F2P it has to sell gameplay advantages/necessities and for a P2P game to work it needs the integrity of players earning achievements. The two are mutually exclusive. DDO only 'works' because it was dead and they had nothing to lose, plus they did a more hybrid model selling content not so much selling the advancement and achievement, plus they maintain a subscription option so the devs have no incentive to nickel and dime folks as people can just drop the $15 and get everything.
F2P games can be made without compromising gameplay integrity. A well-designed item shop will sell lateral advantages -- balanced gameplay styles -- rather than verticle advantages (outright performance advantages.) Battleforge and LOL are great non-MMO examples, and it's not difficult to imagine a F2P MMORPG doing the same.
Something like a Pokemon MMORPG where players can earn pokemon the normal way or buy them in an item shop, with all pokemon designed to be relatively balanced in power (yet offer distinct playstyles.) Such a game would be insanely popular (because it's free to play) and would also move a ton of microtransactions.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Something like a Pokemon MMORPG where players can earn pokemon the normal way or buy them in an item shop, with all pokemon designed to be relatively balanced in power (yet offer distinct playstyles.) Such a game would be insanely popular (because it's free to play) and would also move a ton of microtransactions.
Yeah, but some people will always bitch that they spent 9 hours hunting for Charizard when some shlub bought it for 6 bucks in the shop on day one. I think further disguising the tradeoff in these situations is better; where the farmed pokemon gains loyalty faster, and the store-bought one comes with most of the best skills already on it, and has a higher trade-value (an integer of worth shown during trades). Then again, I would probably never buy one at that rate, since the caught-version would be better over time. Prolly just shoot the CS in the foot that way, but it's the best way to muffle complaints (some, not all).
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
We should call them F2PG (G for Gimped) or F2P/P2W.
Also, I think some people here seem to confuse two completely different things:
1) Can F2PG be profitable and will we see financially successful F2PG games in the future? Most of us, including myself, would answer "Yes".
2) Is F2PG a good thing for us players/customers? Here, opinions differ. I would answer "No".
Just because a shoddy business model can be profitable it doesn't mean people have to like it. The customers will decide the future of this industry. It is a big, international market and my prediction is that we will see different payment models for different types of games with different types of potential customers. If there is a demand for high quality and fun games without cash shops, I'm pretty sure we will see games like that in the future. Will they be considered niche games 10 years from now? I don't think so since that would be a pretty huge niche, but who cares as long as we can play them?
We should call them F2PG (G for Gimped) or F2P/P2W. Also, I think some people here seem to confuse two completely different things: 1) Can F2PG be profitable and will we see financially successful F2PG games in the future? Most of us, including myself, would answer "Yes". 2) Is F2PG a good thing for us players/customers? Here, opinions differ. I would answer "No". Just because a shoddy business model can be profitable it doesn't mean people have to like it. The customers will decide the future of this industry. It is a big, international market and my prediction is that we will see different payment models for different types of games with different types of potential customers. If there is a demand for high quality and fun games without cash shops, I'm pretty sure we will see games like that in the future. Will they be considered niche games 10 years from now? I don't think so since that would be a pretty huge niche, but who cares as long as we can play them?
Well, the trend is pretty clear. There are millions playing F2P games and so millions must like it enough (more than other free entertainment options).
You know, I have to revise my opinion. While I still think F2P games must have significant flaws from a gameplay standpoint to be viable, I don't think they're bad for the industry as a whole. Mass appeal rarely kills the demand for quality products from a fraction of the population. In truth, there will still be producers and developers making games for the traditional market because they prefer to make those games. Yes, as a business, they'll want to maximise their return, but not all producers will necessarily be under the thumb of a soulless corporation whose only goal is the bottom line. Good art and music did not die when pop art and music came onto the scene. It's just less noticeable because there's a far greater amount of choice.
Something like a Pokemon MMORPG where players can earn pokemon the normal way or buy them in an item shop, with all pokemon designed to be relatively balanced in power (yet offer distinct playstyles.) Such a game would be insanely popular (because it's free to play) and would also move a ton of microtransactions.
Yeah, but some people will always bitch that they spent 9 hours hunting for Charizard when some shlub bought it for 6 bucks in the shop on day one. I think further disguising the tradeoff in these situations is better; where the farmed pokemon gains loyalty faster, and the store-bought one comes with most of the best skills already on it, and has a higher trade-value (an integer of worth shown during trades). Then again, I would probably never buy one at that rate, since the caught-version would be better over time. Prolly just shoot the CS in the foot that way, but it's the best way to muffle complaints (some, not all).
"People always bitch" is hardly sufficient reason not to do something.
WOW is bitched about more than nearly every game on the planet, but I think Blizzard employees are more concerned with wasting 15 minutes each day just digging through the money piles to reach their office. WOW being bitched about (in the extreme) has by no means changed the fact that they have a solid formula at work which is fun to many and earns them plenty of money.
People bitching is a constant. If all playstyles were completely free, they're still gonna bitch about whatever they lose to.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
In terms of F2P overall, I'd like to see a poll done - on a third-party, non-biased site that doesn't cater to any one game - where people are asked if they would pay a subscription, and do without the Item Mall, to play whatever F2P MMO they're playing. I have a hunch (and it's only that) that the results wouldn't shine as well on F2P as some might want to think. For the SAME game? i bet a lot of people would like F2P just because they can play for free. Free is always the better price. Plus, the answer is not black and white. What about if i want my main game to be P2P (say WOW) and everything else F2P?
But that is the whole point - there is no 'same game' option. For a game to work F2P it has to sell gameplay advantages/necessities and for a P2P game to work it needs the integrity of players earning achievements. The two are mutually exclusive. DDO only 'works' because it was dead and they had nothing to lose, plus they did a more hybrid model selling content not so much selling the advancement and achievement, plus they maintain a subscription option so the devs have no incentive to nickel and dime folks as people can just drop the $15 and get everything.
F2P games can be made without compromising gameplay integrity. A well-designed item shop will sell lateral advantages -- balanced gameplay styles -- rather than verticle advantages (outright performance advantages.) Battleforge and LOL are great non-MMO examples, and it's not difficult to imagine a F2P MMORPG doing the same.
Something like a Pokemon MMORPG where players can earn pokemon the normal way or buy them in an item shop, with all pokemon designed to be relatively balanced in power (yet offer distinct playstyles.) Such a game would be insanely popular (because it's free to play) and would also move a ton of microtransactions.
I won't argue that F2P models cannot be implemented that don't corrupt a game's integrity (i.e. fluff items only, selling content rather than progress or advantages, etc). The problem is that the temptation to item shop the +5 sword of ownage is too strong to resist, especially in the world of F2P where 80%+ of players never spend a penny. Thus the reason I simply avoid the games entirely, because the model is too corrupting, the gameplay too forsaken for item shop success, and the general problem I have with not being the player a developer is directly targeting since I do not spend money in RMTs.
You know, I have to revise my opinion. While I still think F2P games must have significant flaws from a gameplay standpoint to be viable, I don't think they're bad for the industry as a whole. Mass appeal rarely kills the demand for quality products from a fraction of the population. In truth, there will still be producers and developers making games for the traditional market because they prefer to make those games. Yes, as a business, they'll want to maximise their return, but not all producers will necessarily be under the thumb of a soulless corporation whose only goal is the bottom line. Good art and music did not die when pop art and music came onto the scene. It's just less noticeable because there's a far greater amount of choice.
I don't disagree with what you say. Look to movies and TV - movies being the P2P with TV the F2P. Sure, quality in both suffers as the producers of content strive to have mass appeal or are driven to sell tickets or ads rather than tell a great story. But in each medium there are always some up and comers that break out with something really good. I think the problem I have with F2P can be seen in the way TV shows of late have become serialized with seemingly no more goal to the stories than to make you watch the following week rather than to create a singularly entertaining episode that stands alone (likens to the F2P MMO that is designed to get you to need something in the cash shop rather than just to entertain you enough to keep you playing so you buy another month).
I won't argue that F2P models cannot be implemented that don't corrupt a game's integrity (i.e. fluff items only, selling content rather than progress or advantages, etc). The problem is that the temptation to item shop the +5 sword of ownage is too strong to resist, especially in the world of F2P where 80%+ of players never spend a penny. Thus the reason I simply avoid the games entirely, because the model is too corrupting, the gameplay too forsaken for item shop success, and the general problem I have with not being the player a developer is directly targeting since I do not spend money in RMTs.
That is an illogical position. So what if there is a sword +5 in the item shop? Do you really care if you are in a PvE game? Is the game still fun for you?
There is no reason to avoid the game completely. The whole point about being free is that you can TRY it before deciding and there is little reason (except a lack of time may be) not to do so. If indeed all the fun stuff is in the item shop, you can always quit and move onto the next game.
You are imaging problems which may or may not exist. You can simply play the game and find out.
And this "targeting" part is really irrelevant. As long as there is fun content for the free part, do I care if the develoeprs spend more effort in the paid part of the game? Not really? I will play till i consumer all the free content then leave.
I won't argue that F2P models cannot be implemented that don't corrupt a game's integrity (i.e. fluff items only, selling content rather than progress or advantages, etc). The problem is that the temptation to item shop the +5 sword of ownage is too strong to resist, especially in the world of F2P where 80%+ of players never spend a penny. Thus the reason I simply avoid the games entirely, because the model is too corrupting, the gameplay too forsaken for item shop success, and the general problem I have with not being the player a developer is directly targeting since I do not spend money in RMTs.
That is an illogical position. So what if there is a sword +5 in the item shop? Do you really care if you are in a PvE game? Is the game still fun for you?
There is no reason to avoid the game completely. The whole point about being free is that you can TRY it before deciding and there is little reason (except a lack of time may be) not to do so. If indeed all the fun stuff is in the item shop, you can always quit and move onto the next game.
You are imaging problems which may or may not exist. You can simply play the game and find out.
And this "targeting" part is really irrelevant. As long as there is fun content for the free part, do I care if the develoeprs spend more effort in the paid part of the game? Not really? I will play till i consumer all the free content then leave.
It isn't illogical at all, an aversion to items, particularly quality or necessary items, being sold and not earned goes to the heart of any game. Why not have the NFL sell first downs or field goals? How about if you can buy a 4th out in baseball? Or if you must consider a game that doesn't have two people in direct competition what if at the Masters you could buy birdies or mulligans? Those things would ruin those games because the games would lose their integrity just as most all F2P games have lost theirs. Again, sure it is possible to structure things such that the game's integrity is not compromised but the temptation of profit is such that it is hard to resits and even if it is resisted the appearance of compromising integrity is often enough to sour the game.
We should call them F2PG (G for Gimped) or F2P/P2W. Also, I think some people here seem to confuse two completely different things: 1) Can F2PG be profitable and will we see financially successful F2PG games in the future? Most of us, including myself, would answer "Yes". 2) Is F2PG a good thing for us players/customers? Here, opinions differ. I would answer "No". Just because a shoddy business model can be profitable it doesn't mean people have to like it. The customers will decide the future of this industry. It is a big, international market and my prediction is that we will see different payment models for different types of games with different types of potential customers. If there is a demand for high quality and fun games without cash shops, I'm pretty sure we will see games like that in the future. Will they be considered niche games 10 years from now? I don't think so since that would be a pretty huge niche, but who cares as long as we can play them?
Well, the trend is pretty clear. There are millions playing F2P games and so millions must like it enough (more than other free entertainment options).
Yes, most of us agree on 1). Has very little to do with 2). Compare with the Social games such as Farmville (being discussed here and in other places). They can be very, very popular indeed. Hard to dispute that right? Doesn't mean we have to like them.
They may be offering two alternatives but they advertise as "free" don't they? Then they play on "most" people's competetive nature to get them to pay. The "free" is to suck you into playing. It is a deliberate attempt to manipulate people and I prefer not to play them because of that. Therefore, IMO, that makes it wrong and makes me suspect of these F2P companies and games.
So if I am handed a "free demo" of say, FF13, do I look at it like they are trying to manipulate me into buying the full game?
No. If you playing it, and like it, pay for it. If it ends up being mediocre, be happy you're getting a free taste, and quit your bitchin.
Apples and oranges. You know what a "demo" is. There is no effort to make you think it is something it isn't. There is no effort to deceive. F2P MMOs are not F2P the way I play the game and the way "most" people" play the game. The companies know this, you know this. Are you trying to tell me they are offering the F2P games from the goodness of their hearts and don't expect anyone to use the cash shops? Come on now.
No worrying about the new uber item you're going to have to pay $5 to advance with..no worrying about some kid with rich parents..with a tonnnn of xp pots.
Listen, if you have any rational sense..you just don't like F2P games.
I know theres probably people who enjoy this model, and let me say this. Enjoy having more money taken from you in the long.
If you play a F2P MMO, heres my advice: learn how to get $15 a month.
/rant off.
There are two kinds of people in this world. People who pick their nose.. and liars.
Because most of the F2P games that I have tried were pretty bad, don't get me wrong; they entertained me for a few weeks maybe even a month, but it didn't last much longer than that. I think they are great if you happen to be MMO-less; but if you want an MMO that'll keep you occupied and entertained for long periods, it hasn't worked out for me at all. I mean there is a reason why they are free....
O.. and those "Item Malls" and Mircro-transactions as a source of revenue ruins the game, unless if they are only vanity and luxury items.
I won't argue that F2P models cannot be implemented that don't corrupt a game's integrity (i.e. fluff items only, selling content rather than progress or advantages, etc). The problem is that the temptation to item shop the +5 sword of ownage is too strong to resist, especially in the world of F2P where 80%+ of players never spend a penny. Thus the reason I simply avoid the games entirely, because the model is too corrupting, the gameplay too forsaken for item shop success, and the general problem I have with not being the player a developer is directly targeting since I do not spend money in RMTs.
That is an illogical position. So what if there is a sword +5 in the item shop? Do you really care if you are in a PvE game? Is the game still fun for you?
There is no reason to avoid the game completely. The whole point about being free is that you can TRY it before deciding and there is little reason (except a lack of time may be) not to do so. If indeed all the fun stuff is in the item shop, you can always quit and move onto the next game.
You are imaging problems which may or may not exist. You can simply play the game and find out.
And this "targeting" part is really irrelevant. As long as there is fun content for the free part, do I care if the develoeprs spend more effort in the paid part of the game? Not really? I will play till i consumer all the free content then leave.
It isn't illogical at all, an aversion to items, particularly quality or necessary items, being sold and not earned goes to the heart of any game. Why not have the NFL sell first downs or field goals? How about if you can buy a 4th out in baseball? Or if you must consider a game that doesn't have two people in direct competition what if at the Masters you could buy birdies or mulligans? Those things would ruin those games because the games would lose their integrity just as most all F2P games have lost theirs. Again, sure it is possible to structure things such that the game's integrity is not compromised but the temptation of profit is such that it is hard to resits and even if it is resisted the appearance of compromising integrity is often enough to sour the game.
And you notice you only use SPORTS games as analogies, which have winners and losers (even in golf). There is no winner and losers in PvE games. This integrity thing has no meaning for a PvE game. You may envy the guy with the better sword but you will envy him anyway even if he got it from a dungeon run instead of buying it.
I mean, if this integrity thing is important, why are millions of players playing F2P games? OBVIOUSLY it is not as important as a free price.
Let me sum this up. EVERYONE WOULD RATHER JUST PAY $15 UP FRONT. No worrying about the new uber item you're going to have to pay $5 to advance with..no worrying about some kid with rich parents..with a tonnnn of xp pots. Listen, if you have any rational sense..you just don't like F2P games. I know theres probably people who enjoy this model, and let me say this. Enjoy having more money taken from you in the long. If you play a F2P MMO, heres my advice: learn how to get $15 a month. /rant off.
Says you? Millions of players playing F2P obviously do not only want to pay $15 up front. I don't.
And it is illogical to argue more money will be taken in the long run. As demonstrated by many articles (go search the thread urself, i am not posting them again), MOST f2p players never pay a cent.
I have been trying out and playing some F2P games for a while now (more than a year) .. i have yet to pay a cent. How long do i have to wait to pay? Another 10 years? LOL.
Comments
Fair enough... and luckily those particular games have large enough populations paying to make it work, presumably. The exception to the rule, I would think.
I do wonder how many are non-paying in Runescape... or is that the 6 million they mention? The way it's phrased, it sounds like 1 million were paying in May, then 6 million in October. Damn nice numbers, given (or perhaps due to) its lower price-point.
Thanks for providing that
. Most people, when challenged to produce evidence, would either not reply or attempt to change the topic. So kudos.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
NBC Universal (the owners of WoW) announced today they are releasing the Battlstar Galactica MMO, that will be f2p (and browser based, meh).
Point is, the greatest NA MMO company ever is going f2p, why? because it just makes economical sense.
Also I agree with the f2p : McDonald's analogy above,
some food for thought... (u c wut I did there)
McDonald's also owns and operates Chipotle, so while they know how to mass produce, they also know how to mass produce finer products successfully, and I would garner the same can be said of the f2p community using the analogy you provided.
economically:
p2p = physical creation of game and game boxes
physical distribution of game, in-store marketing materials
f2p = none of this
both = internet buzz/marketing, maintaining game/servers and game staff
Now if you were the accountant, which would you see as more profit?
imho DDO is way ahead of the market in what it decided to do, and it will probably be the basis of more p2p titles in the future. Unless an even better synergy is found.
Otherwise, like I said in the beginning,
p2p = dinosaurs, f2p = meteor
ever tried convincing a dinosaur about its impending doom? (small brain don't help much)
I love my p2p games, but as I watched 8 tracks, LPs, cassettes, CDs all morph into IPods...I see this as just a simple entertainment evolution as well.
But how many of these players, if we accept the non specific claims of the devs, would disappear tomorrow if they had to pay one red cent for access? I think you are discounting, no pun intended, how much of a factor the 'it is free' part of the equation plays in things. Not to say F2P games wouldn't find an audience if they required all player to pay something but I have little to no doubt that they would attract far, far, far less than they do without fees and I am certain the way the game works would have to change as well. As for DDO specifically, I have acknowledged DDOs unique hybrid model as more legitimate than the traditional F2P model, and don't forget that it is still a subscription game too so many of the pitfalls of the typical F2P model do not apply because the devs are kept honest by those who are paying a sub for full access. That said, the 'success' of F2P is nearly entirely in the 'free' part and not the cash shop part - cheap people are just willing to overlook the flaws that result from the F2P model (lack of integrity, cheap overall game, etc) because it is free to access.
Nothing you said contradicts the fact that F2P games are fun enough to play. DDO is not the only F2P game with 1M players. Free Realms, maple story, RoM all have more than 1M players.
If you argument is that F2P game may not be as much fun as P2P ..then it boils down to a comparison of specific games. I would argue that many F2P games are better than say STO, which I think a lot of people may agree.
DDO is a unique case study because it is the only major P2P turn F2P games. (Alganon does not count since it wasn't truly out). Note that DDO increases both playership (by 1M no less) and revenue (by 500% no less) once it changes its model. This clearly shows that given the same game (DDO hasn't changed that much), a F2P model can be much more successful in both the number of players, as well as amount of revenue.
And yet again, the glaring, obvious, neon-lit detail is completely ignored by someone championing DDO as proof of F2P's "superiority" over subscription...
The word *FREE*.
DDO gained new players when it went *FREE* to play largely, no doubt, due to the fact that it was now *FREE* to play. Funny how that works, isn't it? People are much more willing to give something a shot when it's *FREE*.
Commonly Ignored Fact: DDO started out P2P and was not doing well with that model.
Why? Too many people did not find the game enjoyable enough to justify the subscription fee. Decisions were made that turned people away. People didn't like the heavily instanced nature of the game. People didn't like the Eberron setting... and so forth.
Turbine changes the payment model to 'Free To Play' and suddenly it picks up all these players... F2P fans seem to want to insist that it's somehow proof that F2P is the better model.
Uhh.. no.. People didn't start checking out DDO because they really like the F2P/Microtransaction model. It's because it's *free*. People like *free* things. People are far more willing to "take chances" on something when it's *free* than they are when it isn't. People have far less to lose when something is *free* than they do when it isn't.
Again.. the game was floundering as a P2P MMO. Suddenly it's "flourishing" as F2P. The only difference? The price.
Do the math people. Take off the blinders. Stop drinking the kool-aid. It's not some kind of esoteric concept. It's common sense. People like free things and typically have much lower standards when there's no price involved... be it games, food, movies, books, etc.
If you want to champion the F2P model, then great.. But seriously... choose a different game. Using DDO is really not helping your case.
In terms of F2P overall, I'd like to see a poll done - on a third-party, non-biased site that doesn't cater to any one game - where people are asked if they would pay a subscription, and do without the Item Mall, to play whatever F2P MMO they're playing. I have a hunch (and it's only that) that the results wouldn't shine as well on F2P as some might want to think.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
But how many of these players, if we accept the non specific claims of the devs, would disappear tomorrow if they had to pay one red cent for access? I think you are discounting, no pun intended, how much of a factor the 'it is free' part of the equation plays in things. Not to say F2P games wouldn't find an audience if they required all player to pay something but I have little to no doubt that they would attract far, far, far less than they do without fees and I am certain the way the game works would have to change as well. As for DDO specifically, I have acknowledged DDOs unique hybrid model as more legitimate than the traditional F2P model, and don't forget that it is still a subscription game too so many of the pitfalls of the typical F2P model do not apply because the devs are kept honest by those who are paying a sub for full access. That said, the 'success' of F2P is nearly entirely in the 'free' part and not the cash shop part - cheap people are just willing to overlook the flaws that result from the F2P model (lack of integrity, cheap overall game, etc) because it is free to access.
Nothing you said contradicts the fact that F2P games are fun enough to play. DDO is not the only F2P game with 1M players. Free Realms, maple story, RoM all have more than 1M players.
If you argument is that F2P game may not be as much fun as P2P ..then it boils down to a comparison of specific games. I would argue that many F2P games are better than say STO, which I think a lot of people may agree.
DDO is a unique case study because it is the only major P2P turn F2P games. (Alganon does not count since it wasn't truly out). Note that DDO increases both playership (by 1M no less) and revenue (by 500% no less) once it changes its model. This clearly shows that given the same game (DDO hasn't changed that much), a F2P model can be much more successful in both the number of players, as well as amount of revenue.
And yet again, the glaring, obvious, neon-lit detail is completely ignored by someone championing DDO as proof of F2P's "superiority" over subscription...
The word *FREE*.
DDO gained new players when it went *FREE* to play largely, no doubt, due to the fact that it was now *FREE* to play. Funny how that works, isn't it? People are much more willing to give something a shot when it's *FREE*.
Commonly Ignored Fact: DDO started out P2P and was not doing well with that model.
Why? Too many people did not find the game enjoyable enough to justify the subscription fee. Decisions were made that turned people away. People didn't like the heavily instanced nature of the game. People didn't like the Eberron setting... and so forth.
Turbine changes the payment model to 'Free To Play' and suddenly it picks up all these players... F2P fans seem to want to insist that it's somehow proof that F2P is the better model.
Uhh.. no.. People didn't start checking out DDO because they really like the F2P/Microtransaction model. It's because it's *free*. People like *free* things. People are far more willing to "take chances" on something when it's *free* than they are when it isn't. People have far less to lose when something is *free* than they do when it isn't.
Again.. the game was floundering as a P2P MMO. Suddenly it's "flourishing" as F2P. The only difference? The price.
Do the math people. Take off the blinders. Stop drinking the kool-aid. It's not some kind of esoteric concept. It's common sense. People like free things and typically have much lower standards when there's no price involved... be it games, food, movies, books, etc.
If you want to champion the F2P model, then great.. But seriously... choose a different game. Using DDO is really not helping your case.
In terms of F2P overall, I'd like to see a poll done - on a third-party, non-biased site that doesn't cater to any one game - where people are asked if they would pay a subscription, and do without the Item Mall, to play whatever F2P MMO they're playing. I have a hunch (and it's only that) that the results wouldn't shine as well on F2P as some might want to think.
Interesting points, but as you would like to see this poll done, I wonder how many p2p games are going to be left that do not in fact have cash shops within them. Not sure if you have noticed but it is an increasing trend happening within the p2p market.
And what about the unlimited trials the p2p markets are now offering, are those not in fact f2p?
But how many of these players, if we accept the non specific claims of the devs, would disappear tomorrow if they had to pay one red cent for access? I think you are discounting, no pun intended, how much of a factor the 'it is free' part of the equation plays in things. Not to say F2P games wouldn't find an audience if they required all player to pay something but I have little to no doubt that they would attract far, far, far less than they do without fees and I am certain the way the game works would have to change as well. As for DDO specifically, I have acknowledged DDOs unique hybrid model as more legitimate than the traditional F2P model, and don't forget that it is still a subscription game too so many of the pitfalls of the typical F2P model do not apply because the devs are kept honest by those who are paying a sub for full access. That said, the 'success' of F2P is nearly entirely in the 'free' part and not the cash shop part - cheap people are just willing to overlook the flaws that result from the F2P model (lack of integrity, cheap overall game, etc) because it is free to access.
Nothing you said contradicts the fact that F2P games are fun enough to play. DDO is not the only F2P game with 1M players. Free Realms, maple story, RoM all have more than 1M players.
If you argument is that F2P game may not be as much fun as P2P ..then it boils down to a comparison of specific games. I would argue that many F2P games are better than say STO, which I think a lot of people may agree.
DDO is a unique case study because it is the only major P2P turn F2P games. (Alganon does not count since it wasn't truly out). Note that DDO increases both playership (by 1M no less) and revenue (by 500% no less) once it changes its model. This clearly shows that given the same game (DDO hasn't changed that much), a F2P model can be much more successful in both the number of players, as well as amount of revenue.
And yet again, the glaring, obvious, neon-lit detail is completely ignored by someone championing DDO as proof of F2P's "superiority" over subscription...
The word *FREE*.
DDO gained new players when it went *FREE* to play largely, no doubt, due to the fact that it was now *FREE* to play. Funny how that works, isn't it? People are much more willing to give something a shot when it's *FREE*.
Commonly Ignored Fact: DDO started out P2P and was not doing well with that model.
Why? Too many people did not find the game enjoyable enough to justify the subscription fee. Decisions were made that turned people away. People didn't like the heavily instanced nature of the game. People didn't like the Eberron setting... and so forth.
Turbine changes the payment model to 'Free To Play' and suddenly it picks up all these players... F2P fans seem to want to insist that it's somehow proof that F2P is the better model.
Uhh.. no.. People didn't start checking out DDO because they really like the F2P/Microtransaction model. It's because it's *free*. People like *free* things. People are far more willing to "take chances" on something when it's *free* than they are when it isn't. People have far less to lose when something is *free* than they do when it isn't.
Again.. the game was floundering as a P2P MMO. Suddenly it's "flourishing" as F2P. The only difference? The price.
Do the math people. Take off the blinders. Stop drinking the kool-aid. It's not some kind of esoteric concept. It's common sense. People like free things and typically have much lower standards when there's no price involved... be it games, food, movies, books, etc.
If you want to champion the F2P model, then great.. But seriously... choose a different game. Using DDO is really not helping your case.
In terms of F2P overall, I'd like to see a poll done - on a third-party, non-biased site that doesn't cater to any one game - where people are asked if they would pay a subscription, and do without the Item Mall, to play whatever F2P MMO they're playing. I have a hunch (and it's only that) that the results wouldn't shine as well on F2P as some might want to think.
A poll like that would pretty much prove the point that a lot of the pro F2P people have been saying. If you asked them to switch to a subscription you would lose 2 of the major groups in the game... those that play it because its free and they cant/wont pay for a sub, and those that like being able to play the game for free and spend money as they choose for upgrades & stuff. You might have a small group left that would prefer a sub to the games current F2P model, but then that would really depend on the specific game and the pricing &advantages of their item mall. After all some games are basically a scam to try and make a quick back for these companies, but there really are some pretty great & fun games out there that are set up to bring in a bit of profit for them, but no outrageous prices or game breaking advantages.
As far as the quality of games, that can be debated for a long long time, especially considering the horrible quality of supposed AAA MMO titles of late. Ive gotten into playing many many F2P mmos the past couple years, as well as P2P, and while a good enough P2P may hold my attention a bit longer, in the end it still results in the same thing as an F2P, i get bored and move on usually within a month or 2. Doing that with an F2P is much easier than having to pay $50-60 + the sub, and when i find an F2P i plan to stick with for at least a few months, im willing to spend more on it. I guess considering that, due to the state of the MMO genre as a whole right now, F2P is really the better way to go until something really great as a P2P comes along, but instead we're stuck with a choice of WoW clones and a few unique games that for the most part have major issues. Yes, there are a few exceptions to that, such as EVE, but like 95% of the market out there is just regurgitated reskins of WoW or severely broken indie & sandbox garbage. Im hoping a couple of them scheduled to be realeased this and next year might finally change that though.
In terms of F2P overall, I'd like to see a poll done - on a third-party, non-biased site that doesn't cater to any one game - where people are asked if they would pay a subscription, and do without the Item Mall, to play whatever F2P MMO they're playing. I have a hunch (and it's only that) that the results wouldn't shine as well on F2P as some might want to think.
For the SAME game? i bet a lot of people would like F2P just because they can play for free. Free is always the better price.
Plus, the answer is not black and white. What about if i want my main game to be P2P (say WOW) and everything else F2P?
But that is the whole point - there is no 'same game' option. For a game to work F2P it has to sell gameplay advantages/necessities and for a P2P game to work it needs the integrity of players earning achievements. The two are mutually exclusive. DDO only 'works' because it was dead and they had nothing to lose, plus they did a more hybrid model selling content not so much selling the advancement and achievement, plus they maintain a subscription option so the devs have no incentive to nickel and dime folks as people can just drop the $15 and get everything.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
But that is the whole point - there is no 'same game' option. For a game to work F2P it has to sell gameplay advantages/necessities and for a P2P game to work it needs the integrity of players earning achievements. The two are mutually exclusive. DDO only 'works' because it was dead and they had nothing to lose, plus they did a more hybrid model selling content not so much selling the advancement and achievement, plus they maintain a subscription option so the devs have no incentive to nickel and dime folks as people can just drop the $15 and get everything.
F2P games can be made without compromising gameplay integrity. A well-designed item shop will sell lateral advantages -- balanced gameplay styles -- rather than verticle advantages (outright performance advantages.) Battleforge and LOL are great non-MMO examples, and it's not difficult to imagine a F2P MMORPG doing the same.
Something like a Pokemon MMORPG where players can earn pokemon the normal way or buy them in an item shop, with all pokemon designed to be relatively balanced in power (yet offer distinct playstyles.) Such a game would be insanely popular (because it's free to play) and would also move a ton of microtransactions.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Yeah, but some people will always bitch that they spent 9 hours hunting for Charizard when some shlub bought it for 6 bucks in the shop on day one. I think further disguising the tradeoff in these situations is better; where the farmed pokemon gains loyalty faster, and the store-bought one comes with most of the best skills already on it, and has a higher trade-value (an integer of worth shown during trades). Then again, I would probably never buy one at that rate, since the caught-version would be better over time. Prolly just shoot the CS in the foot that way, but it's the best way to muffle complaints (some, not all).
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
We should call them F2PG (G for Gimped) or F2P/P2W.
Also, I think some people here seem to confuse two completely different things:
1) Can F2PG be profitable and will we see financially successful F2PG games in the future? Most of us, including myself, would answer "Yes".
2) Is F2PG a good thing for us players/customers? Here, opinions differ. I would answer "No".
Just because a shoddy business model can be profitable it doesn't mean people have to like it. The customers will decide the future of this industry. It is a big, international market and my prediction is that we will see different payment models for different types of games with different types of potential customers. If there is a demand for high quality and fun games without cash shops, I'm pretty sure we will see games like that in the future. Will they be considered niche games 10 years from now? I don't think so since that would be a pretty huge niche, but who cares as long as we can play them?
Well, the trend is pretty clear. There are millions playing F2P games and so millions must like it enough (more than other free entertainment options).
You know, I have to revise my opinion. While I still think F2P games must have significant flaws from a gameplay standpoint to be viable, I don't think they're bad for the industry as a whole. Mass appeal rarely kills the demand for quality products from a fraction of the population. In truth, there will still be producers and developers making games for the traditional market because they prefer to make those games. Yes, as a business, they'll want to maximise their return, but not all producers will necessarily be under the thumb of a soulless corporation whose only goal is the bottom line. Good art and music did not die when pop art and music came onto the scene. It's just less noticeable because there's a far greater amount of choice.
Yeah, but some people will always bitch that they spent 9 hours hunting for Charizard when some shlub bought it for 6 bucks in the shop on day one. I think further disguising the tradeoff in these situations is better; where the farmed pokemon gains loyalty faster, and the store-bought one comes with most of the best skills already on it, and has a higher trade-value (an integer of worth shown during trades). Then again, I would probably never buy one at that rate, since the caught-version would be better over time. Prolly just shoot the CS in the foot that way, but it's the best way to muffle complaints (some, not all).
"People always bitch" is hardly sufficient reason not to do something.
WOW is bitched about more than nearly every game on the planet, but I think Blizzard employees are more concerned with wasting 15 minutes each day just digging through the money piles to reach their office. WOW being bitched about (in the extreme) has by no means changed the fact that they have a solid formula at work which is fun to many and earns them plenty of money.
People bitching is a constant. If all playstyles were completely free, they're still gonna bitch about whatever they lose to.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
But that is the whole point - there is no 'same game' option. For a game to work F2P it has to sell gameplay advantages/necessities and for a P2P game to work it needs the integrity of players earning achievements. The two are mutually exclusive. DDO only 'works' because it was dead and they had nothing to lose, plus they did a more hybrid model selling content not so much selling the advancement and achievement, plus they maintain a subscription option so the devs have no incentive to nickel and dime folks as people can just drop the $15 and get everything.
F2P games can be made without compromising gameplay integrity. A well-designed item shop will sell lateral advantages -- balanced gameplay styles -- rather than verticle advantages (outright performance advantages.) Battleforge and LOL are great non-MMO examples, and it's not difficult to imagine a F2P MMORPG doing the same.
Something like a Pokemon MMORPG where players can earn pokemon the normal way or buy them in an item shop, with all pokemon designed to be relatively balanced in power (yet offer distinct playstyles.) Such a game would be insanely popular (because it's free to play) and would also move a ton of microtransactions.
I won't argue that F2P models cannot be implemented that don't corrupt a game's integrity (i.e. fluff items only, selling content rather than progress or advantages, etc). The problem is that the temptation to item shop the +5 sword of ownage is too strong to resist, especially in the world of F2P where 80%+ of players never spend a penny. Thus the reason I simply avoid the games entirely, because the model is too corrupting, the gameplay too forsaken for item shop success, and the general problem I have with not being the player a developer is directly targeting since I do not spend money in RMTs.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
I don't disagree with what you say. Look to movies and TV - movies being the P2P with TV the F2P. Sure, quality in both suffers as the producers of content strive to have mass appeal or are driven to sell tickets or ads rather than tell a great story. But in each medium there are always some up and comers that break out with something really good. I think the problem I have with F2P can be seen in the way TV shows of late have become serialized with seemingly no more goal to the stories than to make you watch the following week rather than to create a singularly entertaining episode that stands alone (likens to the F2P MMO that is designed to get you to need something in the cash shop rather than just to entertain you enough to keep you playing so you buy another month).
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
Because they cost more to play when you're trying to enjoy endgame, and attract a younger audience, of which I am not a part of.
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
That is an illogical position. So what if there is a sword +5 in the item shop? Do you really care if you are in a PvE game? Is the game still fun for you?
There is no reason to avoid the game completely. The whole point about being free is that you can TRY it before deciding and there is little reason (except a lack of time may be) not to do so. If indeed all the fun stuff is in the item shop, you can always quit and move onto the next game.
You are imaging problems which may or may not exist. You can simply play the game and find out.
And this "targeting" part is really irrelevant. As long as there is fun content for the free part, do I care if the develoeprs spend more effort in the paid part of the game? Not really? I will play till i consumer all the free content then leave.
Then don't play the end game and jump ship before that unless you don't enjoy the game before the end game at all.
That is an illogical position. So what if there is a sword +5 in the item shop? Do you really care if you are in a PvE game? Is the game still fun for you?
There is no reason to avoid the game completely. The whole point about being free is that you can TRY it before deciding and there is little reason (except a lack of time may be) not to do so. If indeed all the fun stuff is in the item shop, you can always quit and move onto the next game.
You are imaging problems which may or may not exist. You can simply play the game and find out.
And this "targeting" part is really irrelevant. As long as there is fun content for the free part, do I care if the develoeprs spend more effort in the paid part of the game? Not really? I will play till i consumer all the free content then leave.
It isn't illogical at all, an aversion to items, particularly quality or necessary items, being sold and not earned goes to the heart of any game. Why not have the NFL sell first downs or field goals? How about if you can buy a 4th out in baseball? Or if you must consider a game that doesn't have two people in direct competition what if at the Masters you could buy birdies or mulligans? Those things would ruin those games because the games would lose their integrity just as most all F2P games have lost theirs. Again, sure it is possible to structure things such that the game's integrity is not compromised but the temptation of profit is such that it is hard to resits and even if it is resisted the appearance of compromising integrity is often enough to sour the game.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
Well, the trend is pretty clear. There are millions playing F2P games and so millions must like it enough (more than other free entertainment options).
Yes, most of us agree on 1). Has very little to do with 2). Compare with the Social games such as Farmville (being discussed here and in other places). They can be very, very popular indeed. Hard to dispute that right? Doesn't mean we have to like them.
So if I am handed a "free demo" of say, FF13, do I look at it like they are trying to manipulate me into buying the full game?
No. If you playing it, and like it, pay for it. If it ends up being mediocre, be happy you're getting a free taste, and quit your bitchin.
Apples and oranges. You know what a "demo" is. There is no effort to make you think it is something it isn't. There is no effort to deceive. F2P MMOs are not F2P the way I play the game and the way "most" people" play the game. The companies know this, you know this. Are you trying to tell me they are offering the F2P games from the goodness of their hearts and don't expect anyone to use the cash shops? Come on now.
Let me sum this up.
EVERYONE WOULD RATHER JUST PAY $15 UP FRONT.
No worrying about the new uber item you're going to have to pay $5 to advance with..no worrying about some kid with rich parents..with a tonnnn of xp pots.
Listen, if you have any rational sense..you just don't like F2P games.
I know theres probably people who enjoy this model, and let me say this. Enjoy having more money taken from you in the long.
If you play a F2P MMO, heres my advice: learn how to get $15 a month.
/rant off.
There are two kinds of people in this world. People who pick their nose.. and liars.
Because most of the F2P games that I have tried were pretty bad, don't get me wrong; they entertained me for a few weeks maybe even a month, but it didn't last much longer than that. I think they are great if you happen to be MMO-less; but if you want an MMO that'll keep you occupied and entertained for long periods, it hasn't worked out for me at all. I mean there is a reason why they are free....
O.. and those "Item Malls" and Mircro-transactions as a source of revenue ruins the game, unless if they are only vanity and luxury items.
That is an illogical position. So what if there is a sword +5 in the item shop? Do you really care if you are in a PvE game? Is the game still fun for you?
There is no reason to avoid the game completely. The whole point about being free is that you can TRY it before deciding and there is little reason (except a lack of time may be) not to do so. If indeed all the fun stuff is in the item shop, you can always quit and move onto the next game.
You are imaging problems which may or may not exist. You can simply play the game and find out.
And this "targeting" part is really irrelevant. As long as there is fun content for the free part, do I care if the develoeprs spend more effort in the paid part of the game? Not really? I will play till i consumer all the free content then leave.
It isn't illogical at all, an aversion to items, particularly quality or necessary items, being sold and not earned goes to the heart of any game. Why not have the NFL sell first downs or field goals? How about if you can buy a 4th out in baseball? Or if you must consider a game that doesn't have two people in direct competition what if at the Masters you could buy birdies or mulligans? Those things would ruin those games because the games would lose their integrity just as most all F2P games have lost theirs. Again, sure it is possible to structure things such that the game's integrity is not compromised but the temptation of profit is such that it is hard to resits and even if it is resisted the appearance of compromising integrity is often enough to sour the game.
And you notice you only use SPORTS games as analogies, which have winners and losers (even in golf). There is no winner and losers in PvE games. This integrity thing has no meaning for a PvE game. You may envy the guy with the better sword but you will envy him anyway even if he got it from a dungeon run instead of buying it.
I mean, if this integrity thing is important, why are millions of players playing F2P games? OBVIOUSLY it is not as important as a free price.
Says you? Millions of players playing F2P obviously do not only want to pay $15 up front. I don't.
And it is illogical to argue more money will be taken in the long run. As demonstrated by many articles (go search the thread urself, i am not posting them again), MOST f2p players never pay a cent.
I have been trying out and playing some F2P games for a while now (more than a year) .. i have yet to pay a cent. How long do i have to wait to pay? Another 10 years? LOL.