-game companys are being disingenous by choice in their free to play descriptions.They don't want you to know what FTP hybrid they are, until they have you as a tryer of their game
-AOC still is what it is.Still has some of the warts that Funcome doesn't seem to know how to remove
"At the other, when a title with a required monthly fee adds optional content for sale, it's still called subscription. Wouldn't it be more accurate to call it a hybrid too?"
if anything, WAR should be "buy to play", same as Guild Wars is. there really isn't enough to be proper MMO. i doubt there will ever be proper crafting and free roam in there.
same here. have it on my drive and not played for almost 2 years now. if it goes f2p i might give it a try. i miss my guild, it was one of the best i experienced in mmos, but it fell apart when the whole game community fell apart (6 months after release), not that i think they are still there
AoC is not such a bad game, it couldnt hold up with the hype they created and left a lot of unfulfilled promises. but i love the setting, the music etc. Allthough i was on a rp-pvp server. i guess today it would be filled with non-rp gank-idiots all over the place.
but if i could play a month or 2 without throwing more money after fc i would consider t again.
But F2P usually end up costign alot more per player than a standard monthly fee does (though it doesnt look like it from the start) you tally you game points you buy in a month and you will see it would cost 3 or 4 times more, yet people do it and complain about them being P2P, i have to admit, i just don't get it
There are those of us who don't mind spending money, and don't begrudge a company for making money, we just don't like being held hostage to any one game via a subscription based system. There are benefits to the P2P system, no doubt, but it's just not every consumer's preference.
"Held hostage"? Holy hyperbole, Batman. That's a more hysterical spin on it than "subscriptions make you feel obligated to play".
How can you possibly be "held hostage" by something you can cancel and walk away from at any time, and can choose not to start playing in the first place?
Is that along the same lines as the people who say "subscriptions make you feel obligated to keep playing?". If so, all I can say is, that's a crock as well... If someone is playing a game out of a "sense of obligation because they paid a sub", instead of paying the subscription because they enjoy the game in the first place.... then the problem is most certainly not with the game, nor the payment method. The individual perhaps needs to re-evaluate their choice of entertainment and find something they don't have to feel "obligated" to partake in.
FFS... "Yeah, I play this game because I feel obligated to. Like I'm being held hostage, because I'm paying a sub". You realize how frigging ridiculous that sounds?
That being said, I think your argument that F2P usually ends-up costing more isn't entirely accurate, at least in my experience.
Key words... In your experience.
In my personal experience, I've done the math and found that if I wanted to play a typical F2P/Cash Shop MMO in the same way I play a typical P2P MMO, I would end up spending far more than I would on a subscription... just to keep pace. And I'm far from being a power-gamer, mind you. If I wanted to not pay more per month on a cash shop than I do on a sub, I would have to actually reduce the pace at which I play, as well as adjust the activities I partake in. That's not a "good deal" to me.
I've been competitive in a number of F2P games over the years, and have never once paid more than $100 per game in a single year, which is far less than the cost of a boxed game, the $15/month subscription, and any expansion along the way. I've spent exactly $65 in LotRO so far, and I have every possible thing I could want unlocked, including all classes, 5 character slots, every quest pack, and all the expansions. I will never have to even think about paying another dime until the Rise of Isengard expansion is released next year (and by then I should have earned enough free TP to cover it, anyway).
LoTRO is unique among typical F2P games and is, in fact, commonly referred to as a "hybrid" setup more than a pure "free-to-play/cash shop" system. It's one of the very few that I don't take issue with, because they truly offer options to players. You can do the pay-as-you-go thing, or you can subscribe, or you can earn the points-in-game. Most Cash Shop MMOs - the ones I do take issue with - don't offer that option.
If you wouldn't mind, though, I'd like to know how much you had to do in the game to earn the points to unlock all the content you didn't buy? You mention how much money you've spent, but you didn't mention how much time you spent grinding the points in-game. I know in DDO there's quite a lot of grinding (such as leveling of alts) involved if you want to get enough points to by-pass spending actual cash. I'm inclined to think it's not too different in LoTRO.
It's known fact that developers can - and do - make far more money overall from cash shops than they do from subscriptions - while being able to provide less content than a typical P2P MMO would. I suspect that is the only reason they adopt that approach. If you go back through some of MMORPG.com's features, you'll find a 3-part video series of a developer panel. Paul Barnett (Mythic/Warhammer Online) is one of the panelists. Anyway, in the videos, one of the panelists - someone involved in the F2P industry themself - states, flat out in plain English, that Cash Shops allow developers to monetize their players for much more than they would get from a $15 subscription.
That statement in that video is the first and only time I've ever heard anyone explain the reality behind cash shops.Other proponents are usually too busy spinning it, or trying to make subscriptions sound like some kind of evil concept (such as yourself with the "held hostage" remark) to make F2P sound like some superior concept. It's nonsense.
I know F2Ps have the potential to cost just as much, if not more, than a subcription-based game (I knew a guy who dropped $10k in Runes of Magic), but rarely do they necessarily cost more. The vast majority of the time one can play and enjoy all of the content available for far less than the cost of a subscription based game. The few F2P games that do require more money than a P2P are simply bad games with poor cash shop implementation.
Not only the potential to... they're designed to cost more money than a subscription based game. It's often stated how many people play these games without ever paying a dime.. Ever notice those same claims never indicate what level most of those "non-paying" players get to? Guaranteed, and I would spend real money betting on this - that if the numbers were revealed, they would all fall within the first 20-30 levels of gameplay, when the designers are still trying to get you hooked by throwing all kinds of freebies at you.
I've played the games, I've reviewed their cash shops and compared what is sold to the various "inconveniences" deliberately designed into the game... and on and on... Pure Cash Shop MMOs are, in my opinion, a sleazy and dishonest way to get more money from players... without giving them any more content for it.
I mean, people talk about "not getting their money's worth" for a $15 a month subscription, that gets them full access to everything in the game... yet will happily spend that much or more in a week for freaking health pots, xp charms and extra storage space (that, in some F2P MMOs is only "rented" and eventually expires).... and feel convinced they're getting the better deal. With so many gullible people lining up... it's no wonder developers can make more money with Cash Shops.
Again, this isn't just me "hating on" Cash Shop MMOs. Again, it's been stated directly from the mouth of someone in the industry themselves. It's not about providing a better experience for the players.. it's about potentially getting far more $$$ from them. That's it.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Hybrid models looks like the future for the western market. Nor everybody wants to pay a sub, but lots of people want some kind of fun in exchange of payment.
Again, this isn't just me "hating on" Cash Shop MMOs. Again, it's been stated directly from the mouth of someone in the industry themselves. It's not about providing a better experience for the players.. it's about potentially getting far more $$$ from them. That's it.
Yeah but the "monetization" doesn't necessarily take the form of extracting more money than someone would have otherwise paid. Sure some people are stupid and gullible, but so what?
Actually, what it means, what market segmentation in this instance means, is what the guy you were responding to spoke about: pay for play. You pay for as much as you play of the game. You don't like paying anything? Fine, you can play a goodly chunk of the game for absolutely nothing and have some fun that way. You sort of like the game a bit but not enough to subscribe, but you're happy to pay for a bit of fluff now and then? Fine. You sort of like the game but not enough to subscribe, but you quite fancy the sound of a particular adventure pack? Fine, you can do that. You absolutely love the game to bits and don't want to be bothered by thinking about unlocking bits of content? Fine, you can get a sub, monthly, yearly, or even lifetime. You love it so much you love the devs too and are willing to sub and pay for fluff on top of that? Fine, you can do that too.
I think that's the idea behind "monetization". Not everyone likes a game equally, or is as committed to a game, so the idea is to monetize whatever degree of commitment to the game they have - right up to a lifetime sub, or subscription, etc.
IOW,tl;dr, so long as a f2p game also offers a subscription possibility it's ok in my book. That shows the devs are balancing proper game design with extracting money from people.
Comments
Two thoughts
-game companys are being disingenous by choice in their free to play descriptions.They don't want you to know what FTP hybrid they are, until they have you as a tryer of their game
-AOC still is what it is.Still has some of the warts that Funcome doesn't seem to know how to remove
"At the other, when a title with a required monthly fee adds optional content for sale, it's still called subscription. Wouldn't it be more accurate to call it a hybrid too?"
No.
if anything, WAR should be "buy to play", same as Guild Wars is. there really isn't enough to be proper MMO. i doubt there will ever be proper crafting and free roam in there.
same here. have it on my drive and not played for almost 2 years now. if it goes f2p i might give it a try. i miss my guild, it was one of the best i experienced in mmos, but it fell apart when the whole game community fell apart (6 months after release), not that i think they are still there
AoC is not such a bad game, it couldnt hold up with the hype they created and left a lot of unfulfilled promises. but i love the setting, the music etc. Allthough i was on a rp-pvp server. i guess today it would be filled with non-rp gank-idiots all over the place.
but if i could play a month or 2 without throwing more money after fc i would consider t again.
It would be nice to be able to re-install AoC and take a look around now and then without having to give FC any money.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Hybrid models looks like the future for the western market. Nor everybody wants to pay a sub, but lots of people want some kind of fun in exchange of payment.
Yeah but the "monetization" doesn't necessarily take the form of extracting more money than someone would have otherwise paid. Sure some people are stupid and gullible, but so what?
Actually, what it means, what market segmentation in this instance means, is what the guy you were responding to spoke about: pay for play. You pay for as much as you play of the game. You don't like paying anything? Fine, you can play a goodly chunk of the game for absolutely nothing and have some fun that way. You sort of like the game a bit but not enough to subscribe, but you're happy to pay for a bit of fluff now and then? Fine. You sort of like the game but not enough to subscribe, but you quite fancy the sound of a particular adventure pack? Fine, you can do that. You absolutely love the game to bits and don't want to be bothered by thinking about unlocking bits of content? Fine, you can get a sub, monthly, yearly, or even lifetime. You love it so much you love the devs too and are willing to sub and pay for fluff on top of that? Fine, you can do that too.
I think that's the idea behind "monetization". Not everyone likes a game equally, or is as committed to a game, so the idea is to monetize whatever degree of commitment to the game they have - right up to a lifetime sub, or subscription, etc.
IOW,tl;dr, so long as a f2p game also offers a subscription possibility it's ok in my book. That shows the devs are balancing proper game design with extracting money from people.