I'm not understanding what the whole movement is? You want people to realise that a F2P games offers full leveling and functionality of the game even with a cash shop? Then what is the purpose of the cash shop?
I'm thinking you don't understand the business aspect of it. I guess it depends on the type of game. A browser based game such as Fallen Sword probably cost less than a million to make I'd imagine.
The problem lies in how to get money. Thus it becomes a P2Win game instead of a F2P with cash shop. Thats because you can't advertise something as F2P and expect people not to PAY to keep the game up. So instead of having each person by you your 15 a month(which I'll say 10 is average the company gets) you have to have one of 10 people spend $100 to make up the difference. These games already suffer a much lower player % in the west than P2P models, so you have to bank on people spending a crapload, and in order for them to spend a CRAPLOAD you have to make that investment worth it.
How do you make that investment worth it? Pay to win. Simple and easy. I highly doubt your going to do it another way to make the profits these companies are wanting to get. These people paying to win aren't middle or lower class citizens, they are upper class people who have a lot of disposable income that are either kids with parents CC, College Students with parents CC, or professionals with not a lot of time and a ton of disposable income. So dropping 500 on a game is a drop in the bucket for them, more than enough to make up for the 50 of us that are just playing for a couple hours to try out the garbage while all higher income people duke it out in they p2win scenario, everyone else leaves.
You don't need a movement. Just play cash shop games if you like them, play subscription games if you like those instead, or buy to play games.
I think the great appeal of cash shop games for many is they dont' have money or don't want to spend it on online games, so they can play the first part of a cash shop game, then the part where you need cash really kicks in, so most quit, and go play another cash shop game for the first part that doesn't require much cash to play, rinse repeat.
Meanwhile, those that really like the cash shop game buy stuff in the cash shop, and there is a never ending influx of newbs playing the game until they run into the part where you need cash, and all the cash shop buyers can feel really superior to these newbs.
Where's the P2P gamers movement to promote the cause of MMOs that don't use F2P or F2P options as an excuse to shove RMT down everyone's throats, and where paying a subscription for MMO access means getting access to everything, and not just admitting you into the "mall"?
Why should I pay for anything? I want the best and I want it for free. In a utopia all our wants would be catered for, our every whim the command of the AI robots that fed, clothed and wiped our bottoms. They would make us the games we wanted and we would want for nothing.
In the real world good stuff costs money and people have to sit down and develop our games taking hundreds to thousands of hours. That’s why I am happy to pay, I still live in the real world, do you?
I have a lot of respect for the OP who has done some great posts in the past but here he needs to think about how and why games are financed.
In the real world, as research has shown, MOST MMORPG players do not pay.
In fact, and i quote "Consumer data from Today's Gamers MMO Focus Report by Gamesindustry.com and TNS indicates that the number of MMO players in the U.S. has reached 46 million, 46 percent (21 million) of which paid to play online games; the rest, around 25 million gamers, play MMOs without spending any money."
Are you saying those 25M gamers are not living in the real world?
You just proved his point. With cash shops the companies aren't going to make enough money for their hard work.
And that is why Maple Story, DDO, ROM are successful with the F2P model? And that more games are turning into that model?
Read the article. The F2P space is $740M+$280M > 1B in 2009 and growing. I am sure $1B can support quite a few gamse. And even if that is the case, we will just play until those games close shop. With more than 1B a year funding, that will take a while.
I prefer the buy to play model ArenaNet has. They can pump out a great game plus expansions without bleeding you for a monthly subscription. I don't like free to play model because it is not free, you get a gimped game that tries to hook you in, then you pay later, for every niggling little thing for what could add up later to a lot more dough out of your pocket.
To be honest i am tired of the pay to play model. I payed for the damn game, why should i need to pay a monthly sub for it, then when expansion time comes, you get the cost of another full game on top of that.
At least Eve-Online with their pay to play subscription model, they don't charge you for expansions. ArenaNet is the most innovative as far as i'm concerned though.
Why should I pay for anything? I want the best and I want it for free. In a utopia all our wants would be catered for, our every whim the command of the AI robots that fed, clothed and wiped our bottoms. They would make us the games we wanted and we would want for nothing.
In the real world good stuff costs money and people have to sit down and develop our games taking hundreds to thousands of hours. That’s why I am happy to pay, I still live in the real world, do you?
I have a lot of respect for the OP who has done some great posts in the past but here he needs to think about how and why games are financed.
MMOs are expensive. This means that money has to come from somewhere.
Generally there are 3 sources of income to a company with an MMO.
Why should I pay for anything? I want the best and I want it for free. In a utopia all our wants would be catered for, our every whim the command of the AI robots that fed, clothed and wiped our bottoms. They would make us the games we wanted and we would want for nothing.
In the real world good stuff costs money and people have to sit down and develop our games taking hundreds to thousands of hours. That’s why I am happy to pay, I still live in the real world, do you?
I have a lot of respect for the OP who has done some great posts in the past but here he needs to think about how and why games are financed.
In the real world, as research has shown, MOST MMORPG players do not pay.
In fact, and i quote "Consumer data from Today's Gamers MMO Focus Report by Gamesindustry.com and TNS indicates that the number of MMO players in the U.S. has reached 46 million, 46 percent (21 million) of which paid to play online games; the rest, around 25 million gamers, play MMOs without spending any money."
Are you saying those 25M gamers are not living in the real world?
No, he's saying that if those statistics are correct, and most people in fact do not pay, the model is not sustainable. And he's correct.
Why should I pay for anything? I want the best and I want it for free. In a utopia all our wants would be catered for, our every whim the command of the AI robots that fed, clothed and wiped our bottoms. They would make us the games we wanted and we would want for nothing.
In the real world good stuff costs money and people have to sit down and develop our games taking hundreds to thousands of hours. That’s why I am happy to pay, I still live in the real world, do you?
I have a lot of respect for the OP who has done some great posts in the past but here he needs to think about how and why games are financed.
In the real world, as research has shown, MOST MMORPG players do not pay.
In fact, and i quote "Consumer data from Today's Gamers MMO Focus Report by Gamesindustry.com and TNS indicates that the number of MMO players in the U.S. has reached 46 million, 46 percent (21 million) of which paid to play online games; the rest, around 25 million gamers, play MMOs without spending any money."
Are you saying those 25M gamers are not living in the real world?
No, he's saying that if those statistics are correct, and most people in fact do not pay, the model is not sustainable. And he's correct.
2009 Forbes list top money making MMO
1. “World Of Warcraft” by Blizzard Entertainment (U.S.): $1 billion
2. “Fantasy Westward Journey” by NetEase (China): $400 million
3. “Perfect World” by Perfect World (China): $300 million
4. “Lineage I” and “II” by NCsoft (South Korea): $270 million
5. “Tian Long Ba Bu” by Changyou (China): $250 million
6. “Aion” by NCsoft (South Korea): $230 million
7. “MapleStory” by Nexon Corporation (South Korea): $200 million
8. “ZT Online” by Giant Interactive (China): $190 million
9. “The World Of Legend” / “Legends Of Mir” by Shanda Interactive Entertainment (China): $150 million
10. “Final Fantasy XI” by Square Enix (Japan): $117 million
400 million,300 million,250 million,200 million,190 million,150 million the model is not sustianable??? For some reason gamers are against in their mmo but I-tunes,Apps,Ring tones,Farmville,Mafia wars it is know fact that microtransactions make money.
Amercian companies have focus on sub because they see all the money wow makes but as you are seeing with DDO,Lotor,Everquest,Alganon,etc more and more companies are seeing the value in F2P model.If you need anymore convincing , a company sold a 25 dollar item in P2P game and gamers ate it up.
If you need anymore convincing , a company sold a 25 dollar item in P2P game and gamers ate it up.
~and tons of people bitching and moaned about it, even as they were typing in their CC numbers to buy it.
The American way, apparently, is to place the value on something based on it's cost, and when confronted by a free sample, they complain that they aren't getting as much as they can out of it for absolutely nothing.
I half expect to see people at the grorcery store cussing out the lady giving free samples of hillshire farms sausage links for trying to scam them.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
“We believe and support that the free to play games model, instead of the paid subscription model, is the most viable form of gaming with future, especially in Massively Multyplayer online games (MMORPGs such as World of Warcraft), bringing more benefits for both the developers/publishers and the players.”
I think posters have addressed that here, maybe not all but most have.
It’s not that I don’t think F2P cannot sustain itself, clearly it can. But only of the backs of those who pay. So it is either F2P for a sub par MMO or P2W for the few who do. Think about it, what sounds more of a stable revenue model, one where all pay a small fee or one where some pay nothing and a few pay a lot?
DDO and Lotro are using a hybrid model, I think RoM has something similar? Their models are neither F2P or P2P, they may be the future that’s hard to say. P2P works, recent P2P MMO failures are not down to a revenue system, they are due to launching too early in an oversaturated market. And F2P folds as well, 16 down the tube from Acclaim just recently.
As to the moral issue for P2P I do not see their being one, I support my local spots club with a subscription. I don’t expect them to win every time or spend their money exactly how I want it to be spent. They give me some good games and I enjoy taking part. I know that money is going to support the team or MMO. On the other hand what about the F2P moral issue of pay to win? Where is the high ethics in that?
"Buy to play", not "Free to play". "F2P" games are typically the on-line ones you can enter for free, but you can't complete with other players that are spending money in the ingame stores for advantages. So, F2P is a myth... it's only free as long as you're ok with being non-competitive with everyone else.
Buy to Play is like Guild Wars (and GW2). Pay for the box, but no subscription fees.
Huge difference imo, and the B2P model to me is far superior.
LOL The Item Mall Cometh! Subscriptions are on the way out. Why charge 14.99 a month when you can persuade people to drop 50-100 a week on digital items?
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
Okay I never post on this site, mainly because its the scourge of the mmo community.
There is no such thing as f2p. It's all. ALL pay to win. Someone can pay cash to circumvent arbitrary game design.
The only thing I see on this site is a bunch of kids complaining about paying just 15 bucks a month for a decent game with fleshed out content. Every f2p game i've ever tried has been totally broken, or a complete pay to win Wow clone.
People didnt checked the link, didnt read what the movement stands for.
People repplying without a clue whatsoever...
That amuses me.
Please continue bumping my topic...
I've read it, and it's the same old pro F2P hype that's been around for awhile.
F2P is a pipedream. You can't have a quality game without a reliable revenue source. If you're not going to have subscriptions, then you better have a very intrusive item mall to support your expenses, otherwise you're going to go out of business.
That's the reality of it, and expecting anything else is just a delusion.
Subscription or intrusive item mall... personally I pick subscription and avoid "F2P" bait and switches.
People didnt checked the link, didnt read what the movement stands for.
People repplying without a clue whatsoever...
That amuses me.
Please continue bumping my topic...
I've read it, and it's the same old pro F2P hype that's been around for awhile.
F2P is a pipedream. You can't have a quality game without a reliable revenue source. If you're not going to have subscriptions, then you better have a very intrusive item mall to support your expenses, otherwise you're going to go out of business.
That's the reality of it, and expecting anything else is just a delusion.
Subscription or intrusive item mall... personally I pick subscription and avoid "F2P" bait and switches.
Delusion is the person who is ignoring EVIDENCE and keep on harping his OPINION.
Fact, most MMO F2P players don't pay -> Thus, F2P is real.
Fact, F2P MMO market > $1B in 2009.
Fact, 6 of the best money making MMOs in 2009 (by Forbe list) is F2P.
A $1B market with many success is not going to go away. Anyone denying that is sticking their head into the sand.
The F2P movement is really picking up, Turbine has shown with DDO and is going to show again with LOTRO that with their current model, they really bring in the players, while keeping subs of the hardcores. LOTRO is getting packed out to shit, with queues on most servers to even log in.
That may die out soon, but there will still be plenty of players gained and always gaining more subs, whether any of them spend a penny isn't going to be a 100% deal, but people will spend money.
People didnt checked the link, didnt read what the movement stands for.
People repplying without a clue whatsoever...
That amuses me.
Please continue bumping my topic...
I've read it, and it's the same old pro F2P hype that's been around for awhile.
F2P is a pipedream. You can't have a quality game without a reliable revenue source. If you're not going to have subscriptions, then you better have a very intrusive item mall to support your expenses, otherwise you're going to go out of business.
That's the reality of it, and expecting anything else is just a delusion.
Subscription or intrusive item mall... personally I pick subscription and avoid "F2P" bait and switches.
Delusion is the person who is ignoring EVIDENCE and keep on harping his OPINION.
Fact, most MMO F2P players don't pay -> Thus, F2P is real.
Fact, F2P MMO market > $1B in 2009.
Fact, 6 of the best money making MMOs in 2009 (by Forbe list) is F2P.
A $1B market with many success is not going to go away. Anyone denying that is sticking their head into the sand.
Not paying equates to a sub-par play experience and limited accessability. I guess we better call every single game with a demo "Free to Play" too, because they equate to the same thing.
WoW's revenue alone was greater than a billion dollars in 2009, so what's your point? The vast majority of the F2P industry is in asia as well, which has different cultural expectations when it comes to payment models.
Again, asian MMOs, and the single biggest P2P MMO still trumps them all.
Lastly, who said it was going to go away? I surely didn't. In fact, all I said was that there is no possible way that you can have a "F2P" game, of high quality, without an intrusive item mall, without going bankrupt that is. In continuing on that point, the existence of an intrusive item mall by definition negates a true sense of "F2P".
The only ones sticking their head in the sand are the F2P players who act like their preferred payment model is oh so superior.
P2P is superior for me, that's my preference. Now stop trying to act like F2P is god's gift to mankind and that you're being opressed.
LotrO has a hybrid F2P model now. GW2 will be subscription-free. I guess we'll see how things will develop, personally I'm all for a gaming a la carte model where you can adjust your payment to the amount you play, like less when you're playing casual or incidental and the usual when you play intensively. The payment model I've enjoyed most so far is of GW, where I only paid for the game and its expansions.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Just tell me how much the game is up front so I can budget and play. If they claim F2P and nickle and dime you with unconventional billing/charges then I'd rather just pay the up front fee so I know what I'm paying and getting. I am not a fan of the free to play movement that you are talking about.
If a game is F2P, I would like to see exactly what they sell in the item shop and for how much (in real $). It irks me that some companies require you to register before even showing you that portion of the site or they make it tricky to determine how much in real $ a particular item costs.
Looking at all this from the outside, all I can say is F2P haters really don't come up with any good arguments or even analogies, it's all just personal opinion or worse, it may be a bunch of non F2P developers screaming murder. The beauty of F2P is you can try it and if you don't like it you leave, nothing's lost. You can't do that with any other model. If you're not sure you can stay until you are, if you like it a bit you can go for limited play completely free, if you like it a lot you'll probably start paying for some things and if you fall in love you spend way too much, but then there are those who do the same in every other model. The problem with F2P haters, is they want everyone to play their way (almost sounding worried their games cannot evolve or continue if others don't think alike). Since when do people have to conform to your desires or ways of seeing things? There is no truth in any cost/quality argument, in real life (I'm not sure hardcore gamers can be counted on for providing unbiased analysis there) there are things you pay for that are crap and great, things for free that are great and crap. E-mail is free (or does anyone here still pay for theirs), yes it may be subsidized by others, so is searching with Google, free for the basics, pay for premium, no-one complains about quality. You can get quality information for free all over the internet but you can also go out and buy a good paper, no-one complains about free news but it is subsidized by those who pay for more content. You get good music for free on the radio but only what's on offer, you want to hear it again or more, you have to go buy the support. Why all the fuss about games then? F2P is a marketing strategy, like plugging music on radio programmes or offering news content to attract those who like what they see and want more. Those who don't like what they see are free to leave and have little to complain about, no-one's ripped them off. The complaining bonafide player who tries F2P and is upset he has to pay to continue or buy items is a hypocrite, he actually likes the game enough to want to go on but is against paying, too bad, keep looking until you find something you like that's free as you define it. Funny thing is, this is close to the hypocrisy F2P haters show, they expect games to cost but don't want to explore the premium in F2P. It seems some people still have a problem with freedom of choice. As for things that cost so much to develop, Skype costs were not exactly peanuts and still pretty much everything is free, TV is pretty much free to watch and subsidised by those who go out to buy the placed products (whether in commercials or in the shows). Game revenue models are in their infancy and already we have bunch of conservative whiners probably 20-30 years old on average but already sounding like their grandparents when looking at a world they can no longer adapt to or works differently to what they grew used to or liked. Gaming revenue models are in their infancy, they will develop far further than just the F2P alternative and incorporate revenue creation (direct, indirect or even hidden) from advertising, product and corporate placement, coupons and vouchers, sponsorship, alliances, selling of customer base, IPOs, social chores, adoption, work hours, consumer goods including entertainment, maybe even political party or healthcare funding. Yes, maybe for some things were better before but that's not going to change anything for the future. 90% of the world's biggest gaming market is F2P with over 100 companies and 1000 games active where players like 2 or 3 enough to pay just as with P2P you pick just 2 or 3 your prepared to pay for but F2P haters discuss as if 99% of P2P they're not prepared to pay for must be better than 99% of F2P they've never tried. In summary it all boils down to a cheap pointless battle between a bunch of fans from 2 or 3 P2P games and another bunch of fans from 2 or 3 F2P games who'll never convince each other, just like a basher and pumper discussing a stock. And not understanding why it is politicians and leaders can never agree or make progress, they're still convinced they are part of the "civilised" world and are making progress. Real progress is making the effort to understand others in order to make allowances.
Comments
F2P Gamers Movement, really? Is that what the current degradation of games is? A movement?
WOW isnt great because it has 12 million players. WOW has 12 million players because its great.
I'm not understanding what the whole movement is? You want people to realise that a F2P games offers full leveling and functionality of the game even with a cash shop? Then what is the purpose of the cash shop?
I'm thinking you don't understand the business aspect of it. I guess it depends on the type of game. A browser based game such as Fallen Sword probably cost less than a million to make I'd imagine.
The problem lies in how to get money. Thus it becomes a P2Win game instead of a F2P with cash shop. Thats because you can't advertise something as F2P and expect people not to PAY to keep the game up. So instead of having each person by you your 15 a month(which I'll say 10 is average the company gets) you have to have one of 10 people spend $100 to make up the difference. These games already suffer a much lower player % in the west than P2P models, so you have to bank on people spending a crapload, and in order for them to spend a CRAPLOAD you have to make that investment worth it.
How do you make that investment worth it? Pay to win. Simple and easy. I highly doubt your going to do it another way to make the profits these companies are wanting to get. These people paying to win aren't middle or lower class citizens, they are upper class people who have a lot of disposable income that are either kids with parents CC, College Students with parents CC, or professionals with not a lot of time and a ton of disposable income. So dropping 500 on a game is a drop in the bucket for them, more than enough to make up for the 50 of us that are just playing for a couple hours to try out the garbage while all higher income people duke it out in they p2win scenario, everyone else leaves.
You don't need a movement. Just play cash shop games if you like them, play subscription games if you like those instead, or buy to play games.
I think the great appeal of cash shop games for many is they dont' have money or don't want to spend it on online games, so they can play the first part of a cash shop game, then the part where you need cash really kicks in, so most quit, and go play another cash shop game for the first part that doesn't require much cash to play, rinse repeat.
Meanwhile, those that really like the cash shop game buy stuff in the cash shop, and there is a never ending influx of newbs playing the game until they run into the part where you need cash, and all the cash shop buyers can feel really superior to these newbs.
Where's the P2P gamers movement to promote the cause of MMOs that don't use F2P or F2P options as an excuse to shove RMT down everyone's throats, and where paying a subscription for MMO access means getting access to everything, and not just admitting you into the "mall"?
And that is why Maple Story, DDO, ROM are successful with the F2P model? And that more games are turning into that model?
Read the article. The F2P space is $740M+$280M > 1B in 2009 and growing. I am sure $1B can support quite a few gamse. And even if that is the case, we will just play until those games close shop. With more than 1B a year funding, that will take a while.
This is like a socialist movement, everyone wants the best, but doesnt want to pay for it. What could possibly go wrong?
I prefer the buy to play model ArenaNet has. They can pump out a great game plus expansions without bleeding you for a monthly subscription. I don't like free to play model because it is not free, you get a gimped game that tries to hook you in, then you pay later, for every niggling little thing for what could add up later to a lot more dough out of your pocket.
To be honest i am tired of the pay to play model. I payed for the damn game, why should i need to pay a monthly sub for it, then when expansion time comes, you get the cost of another full game on top of that.
At least Eve-Online with their pay to play subscription model, they don't charge you for expansions. ArenaNet is the most innovative as far as i'm concerned though.
Archlinux ftw
MMOs are expensive. This means that money has to come from somewhere.
Generally there are 3 sources of income to a company with an MMO.
1. Subscription
2. MicroTransaction
3. Advertisement
Choose any combination of the 3.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
No, he's saying that if those statistics are correct, and most people in fact do not pay, the model is not sustainable. And he's correct.
2009 Forbes list top money making MMO
1. “World Of Warcraft” by Blizzard Entertainment (U.S.): $1 billion
2. “Fantasy Westward Journey” by NetEase (China): $400 million
3. “Perfect World” by Perfect World (China): $300 million
4. “Lineage I” and “II” by NCsoft (South Korea): $270 million
5. “Tian Long Ba Bu” by Changyou (China): $250 million
6. “Aion” by NCsoft (South Korea): $230 million
7. “MapleStory” by Nexon Corporation (South Korea): $200 million
8. “ZT Online” by Giant Interactive (China): $190 million
9. “The World Of Legend” / “Legends Of Mir” by Shanda Interactive Entertainment (China): $150 million
10. “Final Fantasy XI” by Square Enix (Japan): $117 million
400 million,300 million,250 million,200 million,190 million,150 million the model is not sustianable??? For some reason gamers are against in their mmo but I-tunes,Apps,Ring tones,Farmville,Mafia wars it is know fact that microtransactions make money.
Amercian companies have focus on sub because they see all the money wow makes but as you are seeing with DDO,Lotor,Everquest,Alganon,etc more and more companies are seeing the value in F2P model.If you need anymore convincing , a company sold a 25 dollar item in P2P game and gamers ate it up.
~and tons of people bitching and moaned about it, even as they were typing in their CC numbers to buy it.
The American way, apparently, is to place the value on something based on it's cost, and when confronted by a free sample, they complain that they aren't getting as much as they can out of it for absolutely nothing.
I half expect to see people at the grorcery store cussing out the lady giving free samples of hillshire farms sausage links for trying to scam them.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Hahaha.
People didnt checked the link, didnt read what the movement stands for.
People repplying without a clue whatsoever...
That amuses me.
Please continue bumping my topic...
From the f2pmovement.com website:
“We believe and support that the free to play games model, instead of the paid subscription model, is the most viable form of gaming with future, especially in Massively Multyplayer online games (MMORPGs such as World of Warcraft), bringing more benefits for both the developers/publishers and the players.”
I think posters have addressed that here, maybe not all but most have.
It’s not that I don’t think F2P cannot sustain itself, clearly it can. But only of the backs of those who pay. So it is either F2P for a sub par MMO or P2W for the few who do. Think about it, what sounds more of a stable revenue model, one where all pay a small fee or one where some pay nothing and a few pay a lot?
DDO and Lotro are using a hybrid model, I think RoM has something similar? Their models are neither F2P or P2P, they may be the future that’s hard to say. P2P works, recent P2P MMO failures are not down to a revenue system, they are due to launching too early in an oversaturated market. And F2P folds as well, 16 down the tube from Acclaim just recently.
As to the moral issue for P2P I do not see their being one, I support my local spots club with a subscription. I don’t expect them to win every time or spend their money exactly how I want it to be spent. They give me some good games and I enjoy taking part. I know that money is going to support the team or MMO. On the other hand what about the F2P moral issue of pay to win? Where is the high ethics in that?
"Buy to play", not "Free to play". "F2P" games are typically the on-line ones you can enter for free, but you can't complete with other players that are spending money in the ingame stores for advantages. So, F2P is a myth... it's only free as long as you're ok with being non-competitive with everyone else.
Buy to Play is like Guild Wars (and GW2). Pay for the box, but no subscription fees.
Huge difference imo, and the B2P model to me is far superior.
Oderint, dum metuant.
LOL The Item Mall Cometh! Subscriptions are on the way out. Why charge 14.99 a month when you can persuade people to drop 50-100 a week on digital items?
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
Okay I never post on this site, mainly because its the scourge of the mmo community.
There is no such thing as f2p. It's all. ALL pay to win. Someone can pay cash to circumvent arbitrary game design.
The only thing I see on this site is a bunch of kids complaining about paying just 15 bucks a month for a decent game with fleshed out content. Every f2p game i've ever tried has been totally broken, or a complete pay to win Wow clone.
These forums are disgusting.
I've read it, and it's the same old pro F2P hype that's been around for awhile.
F2P is a pipedream. You can't have a quality game without a reliable revenue source. If you're not going to have subscriptions, then you better have a very intrusive item mall to support your expenses, otherwise you're going to go out of business.
That's the reality of it, and expecting anything else is just a delusion.
Subscription or intrusive item mall... personally I pick subscription and avoid "F2P" bait and switches.
Delusion is the person who is ignoring EVIDENCE and keep on harping his OPINION.
Fact, most MMO F2P players don't pay -> Thus, F2P is real.
Fact, F2P MMO market > $1B in 2009.
Fact, 6 of the best money making MMOs in 2009 (by Forbe list) is F2P.
A $1B market with many success is not going to go away. Anyone denying that is sticking their head into the sand.
The F2P movement is really picking up, Turbine has shown with DDO and is going to show again with LOTRO that with their current model, they really bring in the players, while keeping subs of the hardcores. LOTRO is getting packed out to shit, with queues on most servers to even log in.
That may die out soon, but there will still be plenty of players gained and always gaining more subs, whether any of them spend a penny isn't going to be a 100% deal, but people will spend money.
Not paying equates to a sub-par play experience and limited accessability. I guess we better call every single game with a demo "Free to Play" too, because they equate to the same thing.
WoW's revenue alone was greater than a billion dollars in 2009, so what's your point? The vast majority of the F2P industry is in asia as well, which has different cultural expectations when it comes to payment models.
Again, asian MMOs, and the single biggest P2P MMO still trumps them all.
Lastly, who said it was going to go away? I surely didn't. In fact, all I said was that there is no possible way that you can have a "F2P" game, of high quality, without an intrusive item mall, without going bankrupt that is. In continuing on that point, the existence of an intrusive item mall by definition negates a true sense of "F2P".
The only ones sticking their head in the sand are the F2P players who act like their preferred payment model is oh so superior.
P2P is superior for me, that's my preference. Now stop trying to act like F2P is god's gift to mankind and that you're being opressed.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Free to Play Games for the win!
Just tell me how much the game is up front so I can budget and play. If they claim F2P and nickle and dime you with unconventional billing/charges then I'd rather just pay the up front fee so I know what I'm paying and getting. I am not a fan of the free to play movement that you are talking about.
If a game is F2P, I would like to see exactly what they sell in the item shop and for how much (in real $). It irks me that some companies require you to register before even showing you that portion of the site or they make it tricky to determine how much in real $ a particular item costs.
Looking at all this from the outside, all I can say is F2P haters really don't come up with any good arguments or even analogies, it's all just personal opinion or worse, it may be a bunch of non F2P developers screaming murder. The beauty of F2P is you can try it and if you don't like it you leave, nothing's lost. You can't do that with any other model. If you're not sure you can stay until you are, if you like it a bit you can go for limited play completely free, if you like it a lot you'll probably start paying for some things and if you fall in love you spend way too much, but then there are those who do the same in every other model. The problem with F2P haters, is they want everyone to play their way (almost sounding worried their games cannot evolve or continue if others don't think alike). Since when do people have to conform to your desires or ways of seeing things? There is no truth in any cost/quality argument, in real life (I'm not sure hardcore gamers can be counted on for providing unbiased analysis there) there are things you pay for that are crap and great, things for free that are great and crap. E-mail is free (or does anyone here still pay for theirs), yes it may be subsidized by others, so is searching with Google, free for the basics, pay for premium, no-one complains about quality. You can get quality information for free all over the internet but you can also go out and buy a good paper, no-one complains about free news but it is subsidized by those who pay for more content. You get good music for free on the radio but only what's on offer, you want to hear it again or more, you have to go buy the support. Why all the fuss about games then? F2P is a marketing strategy, like plugging music on radio programmes or offering news content to attract those who like what they see and want more. Those who don't like what they see are free to leave and have little to complain about, no-one's ripped them off. The complaining bonafide player who tries F2P and is upset he has to pay to continue or buy items is a hypocrite, he actually likes the game enough to want to go on but is against paying, too bad, keep looking until you find something you like that's free as you define it. Funny thing is, this is close to the hypocrisy F2P haters show, they expect games to cost but don't want to explore the premium in F2P. It seems some people still have a problem with freedom of choice. As for things that cost so much to develop, Skype costs were not exactly peanuts and still pretty much everything is free, TV is pretty much free to watch and subsidised by those who go out to buy the placed products (whether in commercials or in the shows). Game revenue models are in their infancy and already we have bunch of conservative whiners probably 20-30 years old on average but already sounding like their grandparents when looking at a world they can no longer adapt to or works differently to what they grew used to or liked. Gaming revenue models are in their infancy, they will develop far further than just the F2P alternative and incorporate revenue creation (direct, indirect or even hidden) from advertising, product and corporate placement, coupons and vouchers, sponsorship, alliances, selling of customer base, IPOs, social chores, adoption, work hours, consumer goods including entertainment, maybe even political party or healthcare funding. Yes, maybe for some things were better before but that's not going to change anything for the future. 90% of the world's biggest gaming market is F2P with over 100 companies and 1000 games active where players like 2 or 3 enough to pay just as with P2P you pick just 2 or 3 your prepared to pay for but F2P haters discuss as if 99% of P2P they're not prepared to pay for must be better than 99% of F2P they've never tried. In summary it all boils down to a cheap pointless battle between a bunch of fans from 2 or 3 P2P games and another bunch of fans from 2 or 3 F2P games who'll never convince each other, just like a basher and pumper discussing a stock. And not understanding why it is politicians and leaders can never agree or make progress, they're still convinced they are part of the "civilised" world and are making progress. Real progress is making the effort to understand others in order to make allowances.