The movement of F2P appears to be changing, not going away...in fact it's increasing.
Free to Play, Pay to Excel seems to be the next model so would that be F2P/P2E? LOL
Low barrier to entry, once you've committed to the game, then you can pay and get normal sub perks. What's nice about this model is that it keeps new players flowing into the game and also makes it easy for your friends/kids try a game out or at least play casually from time to time.
The movement of F2P appears to be changing, not going away...in fact it's increasing.
Free to Play, Pay to Excel seems to be the next model so would that be F2P/P2E? LOL
Low barrier to entry, once you've committed to the game, then you can pay and get normal sub perks. What's nice about this model is that it keeps new players flowing into the game and also makes it easy for your friends/kids try a game out or at least play casually from time to time.
Pay to excel? Why don't we just call it what it often turns into: pay2win. Another downside with f2p is that they'll often nerf players with every patch to force them (more or less gently, usually less) towards the cash shop to keep on playing like they are used to playing. Always looking over your shoulder, thinking 'what are they going to do next to twist my arm into paying now?".
On the upside, free to play casually, no box price to try the game, no monthly fees...
If there is a sub option, then you should really call it Freemium since that's more like a limited trial. Some F2P games go for a very rude bait and switch, most do it more gradually.
Meh. Not sure what to think. Of all my friends playing MMORPGs right now, none of them are playing a F2P game. Every single person I know tries them for a week or two, then walks, never quite happy.
For me, games that are F2P always have the feel that something is lacking. Maybe it's just my own dislike coming through.
Now, GW2 I put in a different class. Buying the original box at a premium to pay for the production value you are getting is a whole different animal than say, Allods.
I agree, this industry desperately needs more room in it for buy to play with optional expansion purchases at reasonably paced intervals. Both the sub model and the free to play/freemium models annoy me in ways buy to play does not.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
There is nothing really controversial about your arguement. In fact, I think it's pretty much spot on...and really only represents common sense from a business perspective.
The simple fact is that the audience for MMO's is very diverse and has a wide variety of tastes and interests. Something that appeals to one segment of it is going to turn off another. In a market with little competition that might mean much and trying to appeal to (what you percieve) as the largest segment may work just fine. In a saturated market where there is lots of competition, companies that are successfull are those that tend to find an underserved segment within that market and cater to thier tastes better then anyone.
Payment models are just like anything else, people have preferences...based upon thier individual circumstances. Some folks love going on a vacation and paying ala-carte for just what they want....others can't stand that and love the idea of all-inclusives or all access passes where they can relax and enjoy the vacation as much as they want without thinking about money. With automobiles...some folks will only Lease...others only want to buy and will never Lease, some folks only want to get new cars, others will only buy used.
Other industries realize that customers don't come in just one shape and size......and vendors exist to meet the preferences of that diversity of customers.
It's true, if I like the game and have fun I am going to want to keep playing no matter what pay method is used. However if you design a game around your pay model so that fun and game play is significantly negitivly affected, you just lost your costumers. And so many developers seem to not understand the fun factor very well, or rather what makes the mmo they are working on fun.
If you have the greatest graphics in the world are you going to successfully lean on that to make your game fun? No.
To be sure it is hard to tell if a game designer is worth hireing and that could be why the indie market is picking up speed and gaining momentum compared to large well funded corperate structured studios. Passion drives indie dev's more offten than not because they are betting that their time put into THEIR idea is worth it. Or something like that.
So it's not the pay model that makes a good game by a long shot.
But I will agree with (Satan) on one thing, the game must be good, meaning Fun..if it is not fun no matter your payement Plan I will simply not play it.
I think the Western Industry is shooting itself on the Foot by approaching F2P as alast resort model to addopt.
When you make a game and then you release it with a Sub which on a later Date you turn in to a F2P game, the message that is being echoed everywhere is that
"Our game was crap and it could not hold enough Subs so we decided to give it another shot as a F2P and see if we can make a few Bucks out of that model".
So the idea that a F2P game is Crap is what people retain. "Oh it is F2P then it must not be Fun to play".
What the industry needs, is to go back and rethink the way it makes games and how it can make Fun MMOs that players will play in the long term, instead of trying to find an IP that people like and try to capitalise off of that by following the same design model for gameplay dressing it up with elements from that IP instead.
Unless of cource, the reality is quite different and the Industry just does not know how to make Fun games anymore of anything different than the existing Model.
In that case this is bad news for you and good news for me and many others, since well, I intend on making my own MMO now, and it will be Fun.
- Duke Suraknar - Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
This article is not needed. The massive change to F2P are just MMO's that couldnt cope as pure subscription based MMO's. They also didnt become F2P MMO's in the same way as F2P MMO's in the Asian market. Because next to the (limited) F2P accounts, most of them still offer subscriptions. So there is no transition to F2P, there is just an expanded offer in payment models, but subscriptions havent gone for these MMO's.
It would help if everyone wouldnt think of it in black and white terms. Its not F2P OR subscription based in the western MMO market. In most of the cases its hybrid where both payment models are offered for the same MMO.
One of reasons (above many other) why F2P is here is that there are just too many mmorpg titles vs overall numbers of players. And alot of mmrpg's still are getting poured in the market + many games just was not mmorpg enough to be justified a subscription (DCUO best example).
Anyway there is no push towards F2P as original F2P games / concept was (is) to have totally free game with cosmetic / storage only things in cash shop.
What we see now advertised as f2p is actually freemium model, which combine subscription + cash shop + expansion packs and cash shop offer far more than original f2p games once were offering.
Game companies want to earn more, that's why they want several income sources (know as double (triple,etc) dipping or nickle & diming).
Truth is mmorpg genre was overinvested in recent years. Genre really has to split. Fortunatelly we see that is what is starting to happen.
1 .There are more games created as graphical lobbies games / mmos : Vindictus, GW1, D&D and big success of Vindictus is already making similar games beign into production. Hopefully this kind of games will get their own name soon enough as there are going to definately be more games of this type. Maybe like Arenat.net labelled : CORPG?
2. MMOFPS - "new" trend I think we gonna see much more games like that. Planescape 2 best example.
How to categorize games like Firefly? It is TTP but I think it has much more common with Planescape than with f.e. DAoC
3. MMORTS - not too sure if that'll work out. Attempts more or less failed, like with AoE Online, but definately there will be more tries.
4. MOBA type of games like LoL. Imho they are NOT MMO games, at least not more MMO than for example Call of Duty, still sometimes they get labelled like that and surely they do get some former mmorpg players.
Up until now, since WoW mmorpg's tried to cater to all types of gamers. For those who want open persistant world, for those who want nice in-game economy and crafting, for those who want to cooeprate in open world in groups, for those who want to solo quests and do countless alts, for those who just want to do instances and don't care about open world / crafting, etc - that was one of reason of WoW success it was catering to many groups of players.
Thing is if you try to all you have to make very big compromises + there are more players of certain types than other so mmorpg focuses more on certain things than on other, etc
This is going to start to lose with "specialized" games. Those who just enjoy running dungeons and don't care for 'journey', crafting, exploring ,etc will have much more fun with games that focuses on instace running like Vindictus and many games like that that'll soon come.
Game like LoL and already have many ex-WoW players, DOTA2 will also be hugely popular and many smaller games like that are in production.
MMORPG with persistant world, many zones, rich crafting, etc are gonna start be a niche in few years. There will still be big productions in mmorpg's BUT we will see much less AAA titles like that and that's GOOD.
Having mmorpg's that try to compete for players with LoL or CoD and soon-to-rise genres like MMOFPS and CORPG are gonna fail. There is not much space that you can do mmorpg more 'accessible' that they already are with LFG tools, facerool single player ultra fast open world content (that many players find a nuisance to even play through), etc
Many ex-WoW and mmorpg players are tired with having to 'level' , craft, travel, explore, do many quests, etc - they just want to enter game and start doing dungeons and not have to spend time with anything else.
That's the reason there are so much players 'levelling' their characters solely in instances, or power-levelling or rushing as fast as possible to max level or buying max. level characters.
At same time mmrpg's chanign their design made players looking for more 'classical' mmorpg-ish gameplay get bored fast as they hit 'sit in a city and queue into LFG to grind medallions in instances' part fast and thus are leaving mmorpg after few months of gameplay.
There is a growing trend of people getting bored with 'yet another like-WoW gameplay".
This is a good article. I have been thinking the same thing for half a year now. The problem with F2P is that they are really pay-to-win. RMT will occur even under a subscription model BUT at least the secondary economy in that case is player driven. This is a very important point and why I feel the market will move back away from F2P - players just need to discover on their own that when the company sells you items / coin / other value directly, the wolves are essentially guarding the hen house, and if they can get away with it, they'll force you to stand toe-to-toe ( and wallet to wallet ) with everyone else in the game just to milk it for all its worth. I don't like this concept. With a subscription based game AT LEAST you know what your investment is going to be, and can be fairly certain that the game administrators are trying to safeguard the balance and fairness of their game world.
In other words, I'd MUCH prefer a game that was designed with fairness in mind and not worry about whether content is being witheld because I elect NOT to buy cash shop items, or even because I elect to buy LESS cash shop items. $10 to $15 a month is a trivial expense, and its a limited expense.
the reason f2p also works is , one big spender (lets say a guy paying 240 bucks on his game)
covers the cost of 20 subs , and u allways have a few BIGGGGG spenders in ure game that make up for over a 100 subs easily :P
True, but it is also somewhat risky because with a old styled P2P game you get more or less same income every month.
With F2P you can get a great months followed by almost nothing several months after.
I don't honestly think you can keep a crap game running forever with F2P though. It is great games that earns money, not how you choose to bill your customers.
The F2P "miracle" that keeps old P2P games running forever wont last in the long run, as more and more games go over to F2P will the fight over peoples money get harder.
Right now have the stupidity of the P2P games played the F2P right in the hands since most P2P games started RMT shops as well, and many people wonder why they should pay a monthly fee for a game with monthly fess when they can play a game as good without those fees but in a long run will the best games win.
I really like Arena.nets model of selling the game and no sub with a cosmetic type cash shop. The problem is that there are simply too many games out there and most are junk. Good games will always sell well. We will see how GW2 does. I think they will easily clear 350 million in sales.
I believe the P2P model in the traditional sense is dying not because people want free stuff or any of the other trollish arguments but due to one very simple very real reason: the demographic of MMO players hell even PC users in general have gone from 20-30 area in the days of UO to 14+ these days and not allot of that new market has the disposable income to pay to play, it's down really to simple math: better to have a larger market which from time to time buys certain game experience enhancing items from a in-game shop than a small dedicated/paying community, the reasons why are simple: the P2P model while more profitable in the predictable income department is also far less forgiving when it comes to developer screw ups, the F2P model is far more forgiving in that respect (we're talking about a quality game using either model) but you have to design a good premium system that both wants people to buy items using real cash while also not screwing over free players ( cosmetic changes, xp boosts, special mounts, etc,etc these are the options which both make sense and also make the player want them).
A little about my gaming background: EVE-Online (going on my 7th year soon), 3 weeks in WoW, 2 years in Gunbound, 1 year + in World of Tanks and a slew of other MMO type games which were completely forgettable (both P2P and F2P ones).
In the Western market there is no F2P OR P2P. Most of those games that went 'F2P' just added F2P option. They never removed the subscription models. So its not a transition to, but just an expanded payment model.
This is also why it is not comparable to the F2P titles in the Asian market.
"The simple fact is that players are going to play whatever is A.) fun and B.) quality."
Quality in an artform is a very abstract concept, lest ye be talkin' about massive CTD's, game killing quest bugs that prevent you from completing, and fall through the earth graphic bugs. If so, I agree on that point.
F2P will stop being the saviour of crappy games fairly soon. Recently, there have been a massive slew of games going F2P: CoX, AoC, DCUO, and soon, STO.
When alot of the AAA games go F2P(and we're really on the verge, now), I think we'll start seeing the bottom fall out for the F2P games that are barely worth playing. CoX and DCUO, for example, will probably knock Champions Online right back down to where it was before F2P.
the demographic of MMO players hell even PC users in general have gone from 20-30 area in the days of UO to 14+ these days
I think it's the other way round. The MMO crowd is still the same, just older, and therefore has less time. These people want to play but don't feel that $15 a month is justified considering that they have a lot less time to play. They also want to get their kids on it, but don't feel like paying yet another $15 per kid. F2P is a boon for this mature crowd.
I think that the hybrid model is going to become the main model in large part because one thing the Devil's Advocate said is true: subscription games fail because they're not good enough. Thing is, that's not so much their fault but what they're compared to. There are quite a few hybrid games on the market with many years of good content. They might look dated compared to a new game, but a new player looking for an MMO would likely prefer to try them over a newer game which has an up front cost and monthly payments. Such a player also has a good chance of staying with a game such as EQ2 or City of Heroes because they have a lot of good content. Only hardcore veterans who have tried most games will gravitate towards new subscription games, looking for something they haven't seen before, and they're more likely than other players to feel disappointed.
the demographic of MMO players hell even PC users in general have gone from 20-30 area in the days of UO to 14+ these days
I think it's the other way round. The MMO crowd is still the same, just older, and therefore has less time. These people want to play but don't feel that $15 a month is justified considering that they have a lot less time to play. They also want to get their kids on it, but don't feel like paying yet another $15 per kid. F2P is a boon for this mature crowd.
I think that the hybrid model is going to become the main model in large part because one thing the Devil's Advocate said is true: subscription games fail because they're not good enough. Thing is, that's not so much their fault but what they're compared to. There are quite a few hybrid games on the market with many years of good content. They might look dated compared to a new game, but a new player looking for an MMO would likely prefer to try them over a newer game which has an up front cost and monthly payments. Such a player also has a good chance of staying with a game such as EQ2 or City of Heroes because they have a lot of good content. Only hardcore veterans who have tried most games will gravitate towards new subscription games, looking for something they haven't seen before, and they're more likely than other players to feel disappointed.
First I want to correct you on your quote of the original article regarding why sub-based MMOs fail. You paraphrased it as "Subscription based MMOs fail because they're not good enough". That could very well have just been how you worded it, but it seems to be a generalization (that I see a lot lately) that sub-based games are somehow inferior and that's why they fail. That's not what the article is saying. What they're saying, to summarize, is that Sub-based MMOs fail when they're not good enough. And taking it a step further, they fail when they're not good enough to enough people.
That's a failing of the game, not the revenue model.
Second, your statement about people getting older, feeling $15 isn't justified due to less time to play is a pretty big generalization, as it assumes a number of things about people that you couldn't possibly know. You can't just neatly fit everyone in a certain category into a neat little box like that. I'm certainly more mature, I have less time to play MMOs and I still prefer a subscription model. First, because the value of that subscription has nothing to do with how much time I have to play, but with how much I enjoy myself when I am. Second because even if I only had 20 hours in a month to play, I'm still paying less than a dollar an hour overall, which is a value you're not going to find in many other comparable forms of entertainment.
That's just two examples of how your assertion is far too generalized and certainly doesn't apply to me. There are many people out there who fit the "grown up with less time" category you describe, and each of them has their own values, their own opinions, their own situations and their own sense of "what's worth $15 a month" to them.
I hope you're right, that hybrid (offering the option for a subscription for full access to the game) is the way it's going. If people are truly open to options of how one chooses to play and pay for their game time, then I think that's the best of them.
That said...
I find this recent trend of people on various sites, in numerous articles, etc (not this one, obviously), talking about sub-based games as some kind of failed, red-headed step-child of an idea to be disturbingly disingenuous - especially in light of how much more of a push F2P is being given at the same time.
It's as though people are taking what can only be called the success of the subscription model over the past 10+ years in the MMO genre, ignoring it or, worse, trying to revise history altogether to make it seem like subs have never been successful. Further still, they're ignoring the fact that sub-based MMOs still exist today and are doing just fine.
Many won't even acknowledge subs and F2P co-existing as a viable option (ie. hybrid).
And further still you have recent remarks like those from Smedley and another person from SOE stating that "MMOs will no longer use the subscription model" going forward. That is so factually and blatantly false - and I'm sure they know it is - that I'd go so far as to say they're flat out lying in order to serve their own agenda. They probably figure most people couldn't be bothered to follow-up and check the accuracy of their statements and would just think "well if Smed says so... and he's in the industry... then it must be true!".
It isn't. He's lying.
There are MMOs coming out down the road that are still going to use the subscription model, they've already been announced and are being discussed on a regular basis. If Smed and co aren't flat out lying and are merely oblivious to this fact, then they are keeping themselves in a pretty serious bubble.
FFS... The Old Republic is going to have subscriptions. Even Smed must know that.
And worse still, they're talking out of both sides of their mouths by dismissing subs at this point, considering they still charge subs themselves on some of their games, Vanguard to name just one. They've been offering subs on EQ2 and only just recently announced the game going fully F2P. Well gee, that's convenient isn't it? As soon as SOE decides to go fully F2P with EQ2, suddenly Smed and co are doubting the future of subscriptions. How completely transparent can they be? If anyone doesn't see the blatant self-interest in that sudden change of heart, they're either blind or willfully ignorant.
I'm sure I can't be the only one seeing a push to legitimize F2P/Cash Shops lately, from a number of fronts. There's a serious attempt - and it's very obvious to me - by many people - particularly those in the industry - to try and change the perception of F2P to be "the future" or "a superior revenue model", while trying to talk down subs. F2P/Cash Shop MMOs have a horrible reputation (well-earned and deserved on its own merits) and these folks are trying their damndest to change that... going so far as to ignore or revise history, misrepresent facts, or flat out lie to do so.
It's plain as day for those who care to pay attention. What we're seeing lately in the media is a clear push to change public perception; to steer it away from subs and steer it toward F2P.
I mean, for years, before F2P took hold here in the Western market, if a P2P game failed... it failed because it was a bad game. F2P catches on and all of a sudden, "P2P games fail because of their subscription model". I mean, really. Just like "that", the entire reason for games failing changes, simply due to a new revenue model entering the scene? And people actually buy into this?
Why? Because that's the model these companies want to go with because all indicators show them making potentially far more on nickel-and-dime cash shop sales than they ever could on subs. And that, at the end of the day, is what it all boils down to; developers and publishers looking to get more $$$$ for the same, or even less, content.
"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
Basically, have a game F2P, but be very restricted unless you subscribe, but it is enough that you can get into the game and look at what's there without paying the fee first, just to get in and find out you hate it.
But any game that is just F2P, you're going to end up spending just as much or more than a subscription... usually more, because obviously they're not going F2P to benefit the players, they think it will bring in more revenue, which means more money from the player.
The only exception to this I think are most of the F2P Eastern MMOs, which while many are grindfests, there are some that weren't bad... Dungeon Fighter, Dragon's Nest, etc... and mainly what is available in their cash shop is cosmetic items. There are inevitably going to be upgrades available, and you won't be as good without them, but I personally do not have panic attacks at the thought of someone possibly being better than me at a video game, unlike some people these days.
However, many of the MMOs that were once P2P now going F2P, are a terrible F2P model. They have no clue how to do it... they restrict content that is not restricted in any eastern MMO you will find, such as classes, game systems, etc that are main content for the game. This is not acceptable, you should not have to unlock this content unless it's an expansion or something.
As pointed out... the F2P vs P2P is not what will decide the fate of the industry, it is if they can kick their investors in the teeth, tell them to screw off, and try making something ORIGINAL instead of just rehashing the same game over and over.
I think that does indeed hold truth, that WoW would be losing subs due to how old it is. The fact is, when you take any standard singleplayer / multiplayer game, RPG or otherwise, few people play it for more than 2 years straight... and playing it for that long consistently is rare, usually it's an off-and-on thing...
The fact that they managed to make games that hold peoples interest for years on end, playing every day, says something... but there have been many people who have pointed out that this is because of the whole psychological aspect of: if you reward a rat every time it presses a button, it will lose interest faster... but instead, you make the rat press the button more times before sparringly rewarding it, it will keep doing it and become pretty much obsessed for getting the next reward. That's how games like WoW work at end-game... it's all about the next piece of gear, or some other reward.
Personally I enjoy MMOs but I think that this kind of system isn't really enjoyable so much as aimed at people's tendency to become addicted to being rewarded... hopefully at some point we will get an MMO that is more like a singleplayer game, not simply about rewards, but about actually having fun playing the game itself.
Edit: Oh and, I very much agree with the poster(s) who have stated what garbage these MMOs are pulling these days with the double-dipping model.
Seriously guys... subscription AND a cash shop? I'm calling BS... what am I paying the subscription for if I don't even get all the content? Expansion is one thing... but when you're releasing more new content in the cash shop only, and not to subscribers who are paying monthly... that's rediculous..
For example right now I just got back into City of Heroes, and I am enjoying myself for the most part... except I hate the fact that they keep releasing a ton of cash shop stuff that I don't have access too despite the fact that I am a VIP subscriber...
Though at least they do give you 400 points every month you subscribe, that's something anyway, but that's not even enough to buy one new Powerset they release. Considering that an expansion would probably cost $30/$40/$50 dollars... and it would bring in a lot of new content... I am paying $15 and not even getting 1/10th the content of such an expansion... so if you bought each piece of content from one of those expansions seperately at this price... you'd end up paying like $500 for each expansion.
Yes, at one time I was like... ok, F2P is kinda cool... now I kind of want it to go away, if they're just going to use it as an excuse to add more expenses... I guess what they're saying is $15 a month is not enough to motivate them to give more content, you have to pay that plus for each piece of content they develop, and to this I say... screw off. Peace out.
Played: DAoC, AC2, WoW, CoH, GW, GW2, WAR, AoC, Champions Online, Rift, Dragon Nest, Vindictus, Warframe, Neverwinter, Dungeon Fighter Online
Comments
The movement of F2P appears to be changing, not going away...in fact it's increasing.
Free to Play, Pay to Excel seems to be the next model so would that be F2P/P2E? LOL
Low barrier to entry, once you've committed to the game, then you can pay and get normal sub perks. What's nice about this model is that it keeps new players flowing into the game and also makes it easy for your friends/kids try a game out or at least play casually from time to time.
Pay to excel? Why don't we just call it what it often turns into: pay2win. Another downside with f2p is that they'll often nerf players with every patch to force them (more or less gently, usually less) towards the cash shop to keep on playing like they are used to playing. Always looking over your shoulder, thinking 'what are they going to do next to twist my arm into paying now?".
On the upside, free to play casually, no box price to try the game, no monthly fees...
If there is a sub option, then you should really call it Freemium since that's more like a limited trial. Some F2P games go for a very rude bait and switch, most do it more gradually.
I agree, this industry desperately needs more room in it for buy to play with optional expansion purchases at reasonably paced intervals. Both the sub model and the free to play/freemium models annoy me in ways buy to play does not.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
There is nothing really controversial about your arguement. In fact, I think it's pretty much spot on...and really only represents common sense from a business perspective.
The simple fact is that the audience for MMO's is very diverse and has a wide variety of tastes and interests. Something that appeals to one segment of it is going to turn off another. In a market with little competition that might mean much and trying to appeal to (what you percieve) as the largest segment may work just fine. In a saturated market where there is lots of competition, companies that are successfull are those that tend to find an underserved segment within that market and cater to thier tastes better then anyone.
Payment models are just like anything else, people have preferences...based upon thier individual circumstances. Some folks love going on a vacation and paying ala-carte for just what they want....others can't stand that and love the idea of all-inclusives or all access passes where they can relax and enjoy the vacation as much as they want without thinking about money. With automobiles...some folks will only Lease...others only want to buy and will never Lease, some folks only want to get new cars, others will only buy used.
Other industries realize that customers don't come in just one shape and size......and vendors exist to meet the preferences of that diversity of customers.
It's true, if I like the game and have fun I am going to want to keep playing no matter what pay method is used. However if you design a game around your pay model so that fun and game play is significantly negitivly affected, you just lost your costumers. And so many developers seem to not understand the fun factor very well, or rather what makes the mmo they are working on fun.
If you have the greatest graphics in the world are you going to successfully lean on that to make your game fun? No.
To be sure it is hard to tell if a game designer is worth hireing and that could be why the indie market is picking up speed and gaining momentum compared to large well funded corperate structured studios. Passion drives indie dev's more offten than not because they are betting that their time put into THEIR idea is worth it. Or something like that.
So it's not the pay model that makes a good game by a long shot.
<a href="http://s526.photobucket.com/albums/cc344/zori4/Guild Wars 2 Beta/?action=view&current=zoyita.png" target="_blank"><img src="http://i526.photobucket.com/albums/cc344/zori4/Guild Wars 2 Beta/zoyita.png" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
The isue is complex I beleive.
But I will agree with (Satan) on one thing, the game must be good, meaning Fun..if it is not fun no matter your payement Plan I will simply not play it.
I think the Western Industry is shooting itself on the Foot by approaching F2P as alast resort model to addopt.
When you make a game and then you release it with a Sub which on a later Date you turn in to a F2P game, the message that is being echoed everywhere is that
"Our game was crap and it could not hold enough Subs so we decided to give it another shot as a F2P and see if we can make a few Bucks out of that model".
So the idea that a F2P game is Crap is what people retain. "Oh it is F2P then it must not be Fun to play".
What the industry needs, is to go back and rethink the way it makes games and how it can make Fun MMOs that players will play in the long term, instead of trying to find an IP that people like and try to capitalise off of that by following the same design model for gameplay dressing it up with elements from that IP instead.
Unless of cource, the reality is quite different and the Industry just does not know how to make Fun games anymore of anything different than the existing Model.
In that case this is bad news for you and good news for me and many others, since well, I intend on making my own MMO now, and it will be Fun.
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
This article is not needed. The massive change to F2P are just MMO's that couldnt cope as pure subscription based MMO's. They also didnt become F2P MMO's in the same way as F2P MMO's in the Asian market. Because next to the (limited) F2P accounts, most of them still offer subscriptions. So there is no transition to F2P, there is just an expanded offer in payment models, but subscriptions havent gone for these MMO's.
It would help if everyone wouldnt think of it in black and white terms. Its not F2P OR subscription based in the western MMO market. In most of the cases its hybrid where both payment models are offered for the same MMO.
the reason f2p also works is , one big spender (lets say a guy paying 240 bucks on his game)
covers the cost of 20 subs , and u allways have a few BIGGGGG spenders in ure game that make up for over a 100 subs easily :P
One of reasons (above many other) why F2P is here is that there are just too many mmorpg titles vs overall numbers of players. And alot of mmrpg's still are getting poured in the market + many games just was not mmorpg enough to be justified a subscription (DCUO best example).
Anyway there is no push towards F2P as original F2P games / concept was (is) to have totally free game with cosmetic / storage only things in cash shop.
What we see now advertised as f2p is actually freemium model, which combine subscription + cash shop + expansion packs and cash shop offer far more than original f2p games once were offering.
Game companies want to earn more, that's why they want several income sources (know as double (triple,etc) dipping or nickle & diming).
Truth is mmorpg genre was overinvested in recent years. Genre really has to split. Fortunatelly we see that is what is starting to happen.
1 .There are more games created as graphical lobbies games / mmos : Vindictus, GW1, D&D and big success of Vindictus is already making similar games beign into production. Hopefully this kind of games will get their own name soon enough as there are going to definately be more games of this type. Maybe like Arenat.net labelled : CORPG?
2. MMOFPS - "new" trend I think we gonna see much more games like that. Planescape 2 best example.
How to categorize games like Firefly? It is TTP but I think it has much more common with Planescape than with f.e. DAoC
3. MMORTS - not too sure if that'll work out. Attempts more or less failed, like with AoE Online, but definately there will be more tries.
4. MOBA type of games like LoL. Imho they are NOT MMO games, at least not more MMO than for example Call of Duty, still sometimes they get labelled like that and surely they do get some former mmorpg players.
Up until now, since WoW mmorpg's tried to cater to all types of gamers. For those who want open persistant world, for those who want nice in-game economy and crafting, for those who want to cooeprate in open world in groups, for those who want to solo quests and do countless alts, for those who just want to do instances and don't care about open world / crafting, etc - that was one of reason of WoW success it was catering to many groups of players.
Thing is if you try to all you have to make very big compromises + there are more players of certain types than other so mmorpg focuses more on certain things than on other, etc
This is going to start to lose with "specialized" games. Those who just enjoy running dungeons and don't care for 'journey', crafting, exploring ,etc will have much more fun with games that focuses on instace running like Vindictus and many games like that that'll soon come.
Game like LoL and already have many ex-WoW players, DOTA2 will also be hugely popular and many smaller games like that are in production.
MMORPG with persistant world, many zones, rich crafting, etc are gonna start be a niche in few years. There will still be big productions in mmorpg's BUT we will see much less AAA titles like that and that's GOOD.
Having mmorpg's that try to compete for players with LoL or CoD and soon-to-rise genres like MMOFPS and CORPG are gonna fail. There is not much space that you can do mmorpg more 'accessible' that they already are with LFG tools, facerool single player ultra fast open world content (that many players find a nuisance to even play through), etc
Many ex-WoW and mmorpg players are tired with having to 'level' , craft, travel, explore, do many quests, etc - they just want to enter game and start doing dungeons and not have to spend time with anything else.
That's the reason there are so much players 'levelling' their characters solely in instances, or power-levelling or rushing as fast as possible to max level or buying max. level characters.
At same time mmrpg's chanign their design made players looking for more 'classical' mmorpg-ish gameplay get bored fast as they hit 'sit in a city and queue into LFG to grind medallions in instances' part fast and thus are leaving mmorpg after few months of gameplay.
There is a growing trend of people getting bored with 'yet another like-WoW gameplay".
In the MMO market it's as simple as "you get what you pay for". I would rather play a sub based game instead of F2P...
"Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful. It's the transition that's troublesome."
This is a good article. I have been thinking the same thing for half a year now. The problem with F2P is that they are really pay-to-win. RMT will occur even under a subscription model BUT at least the secondary economy in that case is player driven. This is a very important point and why I feel the market will move back away from F2P - players just need to discover on their own that when the company sells you items / coin / other value directly, the wolves are essentially guarding the hen house, and if they can get away with it, they'll force you to stand toe-to-toe ( and wallet to wallet ) with everyone else in the game just to milk it for all its worth. I don't like this concept. With a subscription based game AT LEAST you know what your investment is going to be, and can be fairly certain that the game administrators are trying to safeguard the balance and fairness of their game world.
In other words, I'd MUCH prefer a game that was designed with fairness in mind and not worry about whether content is being witheld because I elect NOT to buy cash shop items, or even because I elect to buy LESS cash shop items. $10 to $15 a month is a trivial expense, and its a limited expense.
True, but it is also somewhat risky because with a old styled P2P game you get more or less same income every month.
With F2P you can get a great months followed by almost nothing several months after.
I don't honestly think you can keep a crap game running forever with F2P though. It is great games that earns money, not how you choose to bill your customers.
The F2P "miracle" that keeps old P2P games running forever wont last in the long run, as more and more games go over to F2P will the fight over peoples money get harder.
Right now have the stupidity of the P2P games played the F2P right in the hands since most P2P games started RMT shops as well, and many people wonder why they should pay a monthly fee for a game with monthly fess when they can play a game as good without those fees but in a long run will the best games win.
I really like Arena.nets model of selling the game and no sub with a cosmetic type cash shop. The problem is that there are simply too many games out there and most are junk. Good games will always sell well. We will see how GW2 does. I think they will easily clear 350 million in sales.
Chris Anderson's book titled Free . . . touches upon the history of "free" and discusses the future.
While F2P may be a new term...the model itself is not new. F2P tends to get a bad name from two things - P2W and crippleware.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
I believe the P2P model in the traditional sense is dying not because people want free stuff or any of the other trollish arguments but due to one very simple very real reason: the demographic of MMO players hell even PC users in general have gone from 20-30 area in the days of UO to 14+ these days and not allot of that new market has the disposable income to pay to play, it's down really to simple math: better to have a larger market which from time to time buys certain game experience enhancing items from a in-game shop than a small dedicated/paying community, the reasons why are simple: the P2P model while more profitable in the predictable income department is also far less forgiving when it comes to developer screw ups, the F2P model is far more forgiving in that respect (we're talking about a quality game using either model) but you have to design a good premium system that both wants people to buy items using real cash while also not screwing over free players ( cosmetic changes, xp boosts, special mounts, etc,etc these are the options which both make sense and also make the player want them).
A little about my gaming background: EVE-Online (going on my 7th year soon), 3 weeks in WoW, 2 years in Gunbound, 1 year + in World of Tanks and a slew of other MMO type games which were completely forgettable (both P2P and F2P ones).
In the Western market there is no F2P OR P2P. Most of those games that went 'F2P' just added F2P option. They never removed the subscription models. So its not a transition to, but just an expanded payment model.
This is also why it is not comparable to the F2P titles in the Asian market.
"The simple fact is that players are going to play whatever is A.) fun and B.) quality."
Quality in an artform is a very abstract concept, lest ye be talkin' about massive CTD's, game killing quest bugs that prevent you from completing, and fall through the earth graphic bugs. If so, I agree on that point.
F2P will stop being the saviour of crappy games fairly soon. Recently, there have been a massive slew of games going F2P: CoX, AoC, DCUO, and soon, STO.
When alot of the AAA games go F2P(and we're really on the verge, now), I think we'll start seeing the bottom fall out for the F2P games that are barely worth playing. CoX and DCUO, for example, will probably knock Champions Online right back down to where it was before F2P.
Darkfall online will soon become the only P2P left in the market. Who wonna bet. Join us today, we need more players cuz we do not advertize enough.
C:\Users\FF\Desktop\spin move.gif
Sounds like a good candidate for a Freemium game.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
I think it's the other way round. The MMO crowd is still the same, just older, and therefore has less time. These people want to play but don't feel that $15 a month is justified considering that they have a lot less time to play. They also want to get their kids on it, but don't feel like paying yet another $15 per kid. F2P is a boon for this mature crowd.
I think that the hybrid model is going to become the main model in large part because one thing the Devil's Advocate said is true: subscription games fail because they're not good enough. Thing is, that's not so much their fault but what they're compared to. There are quite a few hybrid games on the market with many years of good content. They might look dated compared to a new game, but a new player looking for an MMO would likely prefer to try them over a newer game which has an up front cost and monthly payments. Such a player also has a good chance of staying with a game such as EQ2 or City of Heroes because they have a lot of good content. Only hardcore veterans who have tried most games will gravitate towards new subscription games, looking for something they haven't seen before, and they're more likely than other players to feel disappointed.
First I want to correct you on your quote of the original article regarding why sub-based MMOs fail. You paraphrased it as "Subscription based MMOs fail because they're not good enough". That could very well have just been how you worded it, but it seems to be a generalization (that I see a lot lately) that sub-based games are somehow inferior and that's why they fail. That's not what the article is saying. What they're saying, to summarize, is that Sub-based MMOs fail when they're not good enough. And taking it a step further, they fail when they're not good enough to enough people.
That's a failing of the game, not the revenue model.
Second, your statement about people getting older, feeling $15 isn't justified due to less time to play is a pretty big generalization, as it assumes a number of things about people that you couldn't possibly know. You can't just neatly fit everyone in a certain category into a neat little box like that. I'm certainly more mature, I have less time to play MMOs and I still prefer a subscription model. First, because the value of that subscription has nothing to do with how much time I have to play, but with how much I enjoy myself when I am. Second because even if I only had 20 hours in a month to play, I'm still paying less than a dollar an hour overall, which is a value you're not going to find in many other comparable forms of entertainment.
That's just two examples of how your assertion is far too generalized and certainly doesn't apply to me. There are many people out there who fit the "grown up with less time" category you describe, and each of them has their own values, their own opinions, their own situations and their own sense of "what's worth $15 a month" to them.
I hope you're right, that hybrid (offering the option for a subscription for full access to the game) is the way it's going. If people are truly open to options of how one chooses to play and pay for their game time, then I think that's the best of them.
That said...
I find this recent trend of people on various sites, in numerous articles, etc (not this one, obviously), talking about sub-based games as some kind of failed, red-headed step-child of an idea to be disturbingly disingenuous - especially in light of how much more of a push F2P is being given at the same time.
It's as though people are taking what can only be called the success of the subscription model over the past 10+ years in the MMO genre, ignoring it or, worse, trying to revise history altogether to make it seem like subs have never been successful. Further still, they're ignoring the fact that sub-based MMOs still exist today and are doing just fine.
Many won't even acknowledge subs and F2P co-existing as a viable option (ie. hybrid).
And further still you have recent remarks like those from Smedley and another person from SOE stating that "MMOs will no longer use the subscription model" going forward. That is so factually and blatantly false - and I'm sure they know it is - that I'd go so far as to say they're flat out lying in order to serve their own agenda. They probably figure most people couldn't be bothered to follow-up and check the accuracy of their statements and would just think "well if Smed says so... and he's in the industry... then it must be true!".
It isn't. He's lying.
There are MMOs coming out down the road that are still going to use the subscription model, they've already been announced and are being discussed on a regular basis. If Smed and co aren't flat out lying and are merely oblivious to this fact, then they are keeping themselves in a pretty serious bubble.
FFS... The Old Republic is going to have subscriptions. Even Smed must know that.
And worse still, they're talking out of both sides of their mouths by dismissing subs at this point, considering they still charge subs themselves on some of their games, Vanguard to name just one. They've been offering subs on EQ2 and only just recently announced the game going fully F2P. Well gee, that's convenient isn't it? As soon as SOE decides to go fully F2P with EQ2, suddenly Smed and co are doubting the future of subscriptions. How completely transparent can they be? If anyone doesn't see the blatant self-interest in that sudden change of heart, they're either blind or willfully ignorant.
I'm sure I can't be the only one seeing a push to legitimize F2P/Cash Shops lately, from a number of fronts. There's a serious attempt - and it's very obvious to me - by many people - particularly those in the industry - to try and change the perception of F2P to be "the future" or "a superior revenue model", while trying to talk down subs. F2P/Cash Shop MMOs have a horrible reputation (well-earned and deserved on its own merits) and these folks are trying their damndest to change that... going so far as to ignore or revise history, misrepresent facts, or flat out lie to do so.
It's plain as day for those who care to pay attention. What we're seeing lately in the media is a clear push to change public perception; to steer it away from subs and steer it toward F2P.
I mean, for years, before F2P took hold here in the Western market, if a P2P game failed... it failed because it was a bad game. F2P catches on and all of a sudden, "P2P games fail because of their subscription model". I mean, really. Just like "that", the entire reason for games failing changes, simply due to a new revenue model entering the scene? And people actually buy into this?
Why? Because that's the model these companies want to go with because all indicators show them making potentially far more on nickel-and-dime cash shop sales than they ever could on subs. And that, at the end of the day, is what it all boils down to; developers and publishers looking to get more $$$$ for the same, or even less, content.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
I knew this day would come, finnally ppl are seeing it!
F2P is for garbage games that cannot compete, too bad there is nothing much to compete with these days.
Also, for those ppl saying F2P is mainly for cosmetic stuff, please stop lying to your fellow gamers, those types of F2P models also have a sub.
The games that are ONLY F2P, are NOT all cosmetic, you actually have to pay if you want to be competative.
Unless your the kind of player that just likes to pve alone on your own time, then I guess F2P is for you...lol
I'm going to hold out for a real MMO, I will not participate in F2P just so some lame company and survive to make another crappy game....
F2P, P2P, it's all the same.
Honestly, what I like is the idea of "F2P Trial".
Basically, have a game F2P, but be very restricted unless you subscribe, but it is enough that you can get into the game and look at what's there without paying the fee first, just to get in and find out you hate it.
But any game that is just F2P, you're going to end up spending just as much or more than a subscription... usually more, because obviously they're not going F2P to benefit the players, they think it will bring in more revenue, which means more money from the player.
The only exception to this I think are most of the F2P Eastern MMOs, which while many are grindfests, there are some that weren't bad... Dungeon Fighter, Dragon's Nest, etc... and mainly what is available in their cash shop is cosmetic items. There are inevitably going to be upgrades available, and you won't be as good without them, but I personally do not have panic attacks at the thought of someone possibly being better than me at a video game, unlike some people these days.
However, many of the MMOs that were once P2P now going F2P, are a terrible F2P model. They have no clue how to do it... they restrict content that is not restricted in any eastern MMO you will find, such as classes, game systems, etc that are main content for the game. This is not acceptable, you should not have to unlock this content unless it's an expansion or something.
As pointed out... the F2P vs P2P is not what will decide the fate of the industry, it is if they can kick their investors in the teeth, tell them to screw off, and try making something ORIGINAL instead of just rehashing the same game over and over.
I think that does indeed hold truth, that WoW would be losing subs due to how old it is. The fact is, when you take any standard singleplayer / multiplayer game, RPG or otherwise, few people play it for more than 2 years straight... and playing it for that long consistently is rare, usually it's an off-and-on thing...
The fact that they managed to make games that hold peoples interest for years on end, playing every day, says something... but there have been many people who have pointed out that this is because of the whole psychological aspect of: if you reward a rat every time it presses a button, it will lose interest faster... but instead, you make the rat press the button more times before sparringly rewarding it, it will keep doing it and become pretty much obsessed for getting the next reward. That's how games like WoW work at end-game... it's all about the next piece of gear, or some other reward.
Personally I enjoy MMOs but I think that this kind of system isn't really enjoyable so much as aimed at people's tendency to become addicted to being rewarded... hopefully at some point we will get an MMO that is more like a singleplayer game, not simply about rewards, but about actually having fun playing the game itself.
Edit: Oh and, I very much agree with the poster(s) who have stated what garbage these MMOs are pulling these days with the double-dipping model.
Seriously guys... subscription AND a cash shop? I'm calling BS... what am I paying the subscription for if I don't even get all the content? Expansion is one thing... but when you're releasing more new content in the cash shop only, and not to subscribers who are paying monthly... that's rediculous..
For example right now I just got back into City of Heroes, and I am enjoying myself for the most part... except I hate the fact that they keep releasing a ton of cash shop stuff that I don't have access too despite the fact that I am a VIP subscriber...
Though at least they do give you 400 points every month you subscribe, that's something anyway, but that's not even enough to buy one new Powerset they release. Considering that an expansion would probably cost $30/$40/$50 dollars... and it would bring in a lot of new content... I am paying $15 and not even getting 1/10th the content of such an expansion... so if you bought each piece of content from one of those expansions seperately at this price... you'd end up paying like $500 for each expansion.
Yes, at one time I was like... ok, F2P is kinda cool... now I kind of want it to go away, if they're just going to use it as an excuse to add more expenses... I guess what they're saying is $15 a month is not enough to motivate them to give more content, you have to pay that plus for each piece of content they develop, and to this I say... screw off. Peace out.
Played: DAoC, AC2, WoW, CoH, GW, GW2, WAR, AoC, Champions Online, Rift, Dragon Nest, Vindictus, Warframe, Neverwinter, Dungeon Fighter Online
Currently Playing: Dungeon Fighter Online Global
Waiting for: None