P2P games have the advantage of better communities , not every kid can play a P2P . I don't like B2P a game who requires a subscription , I buy the game than I have to pay you to play the game , wtf is this ?
The best example of a P2P game is Eve online , this is how every P2P game should look , no B2P and no fees on expansions , subscription every month and they provide great quality and service.
The worst example ( in my limited MMO experience ) is LOTRO 1st you buy the game , 2nd you buy the expansions ( a lot of them and every year another one) , 3rd you have cash shop and 4th you have to P2P for all content ( PvP)
When I'm looking for new games to play I'm always looking at P2P games because this games are more likely to provide a better service and have a better community than F2P games
I only need mention 1 game to disprove your "better, more mature community" theory. I might be able to give you the better service point though.
NVM. Funny you use EvE because some of the biggest scum bags on this earth play that game.
One thing I am sure, if a mmo is subscription based, it should not have a fee to buy the game or create a account. Maybe only a fee that is the exact price of X amount of months in the game. So you would need to pre-pay some amount of months (just one or more) to create a account.
I like the idea, but as many good ideas, it looks good only on the paper...
Problem The 1st: Making games AND keeping servers up isn't free. B2P is likely the best option today, as developers get cash from the box, and players with low internet speed/D-load limit (Yes, they do exist) won't have the need of waiting to play the game
Problem 2nd: Making the money mentioned earlier for continually. Without sub's, without Box there isn't really anything to keep you playing the game... Some people play the game, but move to another one, because it looks better. And having all MMO free, would REALLY make the competition more Survivals-Themed than ever!
Problem the 3rd: How to get the money mentioned earlier Yes, the same situation as with the 2nd... No subs, no box. And MMO players can possess apocalyptic hate for DLC and Cash Shop's.
If there comes a perfect solution to the mentioned (making and releasing could be paid by kickstart) i would jump off a nearby bridge, for i would be Superman!
The fundemental question is how to best align the desires of the community with the desires of the publisher. Each model has strengths and weaknesses. However cash shop games that I have tried make me deeply uncomfortable - there is a deeply adversarial relationship between the publishers and the players: the entire game is a constant exercise in psychological manipulation and I personally don't find that entertaining to play in.
P2P works best for games with subs over 200k, which seems to be somewhere around the threshold where the sub fees will cover the future development. Once EQ dropped under 200k is when SoE started toying with other options. LOTRO converted at about 250k. Rift now, most lkely around 200k, is putting another mount for sale. Maybe the number is lower than that, who knows, but there is a general range where p2p works.
Aion and L2 are both games that have 200k subscribers, much more than 200k subscribers. Their large Korean player bases are the reason they can do the model they can do. These models wont work for NA/EU based games.
The old games that are still p2p no shop like daoc and ac...that is because, unlike EQ1, they do not recieve heavy development. EQ1 still gets a rather large expansion every year.
What WoW does is inexcusable, they have their trading card game as a massive cash cow and of course their expensive mounts. WoW does not need the money. SoE and Trion, they probably do.
And Guild Wars 2 B2P...this is not a success yet and it has a cash shop thats already toeing the line a little.
With the leval of A+ games out now that are free 2 play is any game worth a sub and if so how much after free 2 play games have made more money then most sub games not counting WOW
so waht do you think
Oh lord no. All games going F2P is like my worst nightmare. What is the entire world becoming moocher hobos?
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind" 1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN 2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
No way, especially for the games with high production values. They should be buy-to-play with an ethical cash shop. That way they can recoup some production costs upfront and make profit in the future.
With the leval of A+ games out now that are free 2 play is any game worth a sub and if so how much after free 2 play games have made more money then most sub games not counting WOW
so waht do you think
If F2P games make more money than sub games why is it that 95% of AAA MMO games have been sub-based at launch ?
The sub-based AAA MMO's that introduced F2P, or variants of it, mostly did so after their subscriber base shrank substantially. So it's very possible that they made more money after they went F2P than they did when they had 100K monthly subs. But that does NOT mean they made more money as F2P than they did with 400K+ monthly paying subscribers...
This is an easy one to answer.
Sub games only make more money than F2P games if they hit over a certain amount of subscribers, probably 600+ thousand.
Most AAA MMO's don't retain this amount of subs, so then change to F2P.
F2P makes more money than sub games with less than 600 thousand players because not only does F2P attract a massive number of new players, but most of them usually spend money in the game, even if its just once.
So sub works best for WoW (as the revenue is very stable considering it's playerbase) , and F2P works best for Lotro (it's sub revenue is not stable, but it's cash shop revenue is.)
On topic; Free to play doesn't work for everything.
Yes, it works for a game like Guild Wars, which have very sparse and small updates throughout the year.
But for the likes of WoW, Rift and The Secret World - F2P just wouldn't work. They have the amount of subscribers to make subbing very profitable, and they update very, very often (Rift anyway, TSW looks to beat Rift at updating too.)
At the end of the day it's all about numbers, companies care more about money than their players, so it depends on what they believe their game will make most money in.
With the leval of A+ games out now that are free 2 play is any game worth a sub and if so how much after free 2 play games have made more money then most sub games not counting WOW
so waht do you think
Oh lord no. All games going F2P is like my worst nightmare. What is the entire world becoming moocher hobos?
And all games going F2P is like a dream come true. No more commitment with subs. No more high entrance fee with box prices. Don't like it? Play an hour and quit. And you can play/try as many games as you like. One sub is cheap. 20 sub is getting expensive (as a hobby) and not to mention you will never get your money worth.
With the leval of A+ games out now that are free 2 play is any game worth a sub and if so how much after free 2 play games have made more money then most sub games not counting WOW
so waht do you think
Oh lord no. All games going F2P is like my worst nightmare. What is the entire world becoming moocher hobos?
And all games going F2P is like a dream come true. No more commitment with subs. No more high entrance fee with box prices. Don't like it? Play an hour and quit. And you can play/try as many games as you like. One sub is cheap. 20 sub is getting expensive (as a hobby) and not to mention you will never get your money worth.
And also no more AAA games. All MMO's will suddenly become as good quality as asian F2P's, which isn't good. No game company will ever make a AAA MMO without either a box fee or a sub, that is a fact. They will not rely on in-game sales alone to recouparate their budget.
With the leval of A+ games out now that are free 2 play is any game worth a sub and if so how much after free 2 play games have made more money then most sub games not counting WOW
so waht do you think
Oh lord no. All games going F2P is like my worst nightmare. What is the entire world becoming moocher hobos?
And all games going F2P is like a dream come true. No more commitment with subs. No more high entrance fee with box prices. Don't like it? Play an hour and quit. And you can play/try as many games as you like. One sub is cheap. 20 sub is getting expensive (as a hobby) and not to mention you will never get your money worth.
And also no more AAA games. All MMO's will suddenly become as good quality as asian F2P's, which isn't good. No game company will ever make a AAA MMO without either a box fee or a sub, that is a fact. They will not rely on in-game sales alone to recouparate their budget.
This is the reality. I rather have B2P or P2P games over F2P with cash shops anyday.
No...SImply because some gamers will pay 50-60 bucks for anything just because it is new.......THeres money to be made on f2p games down the road, but these companies really should take advantage of people who have zero self control and will hand over their money blindly.
With the leval of A+ games out now that are free 2 play is any game worth a sub and if so how much after free 2 play games have made more money then most sub games not counting WOW
so waht do you think
Oh lord no. All games going F2P is like my worst nightmare. What is the entire world becoming moocher hobos?
And all games going F2P is like a dream come true. No more commitment with subs. No more high entrance fee with box prices. Don't like it? Play an hour and quit. And you can play/try as many games as you like. One sub is cheap. 20 sub is getting expensive (as a hobby) and not to mention you will never get your money worth.
And also no more AAA games. All MMO's will suddenly become as good quality as asian F2P's, which isn't good. No game company will ever make a AAA MMO without either a box fee or a sub, that is a fact. They will not rely on in-game sales alone to recouparate their budget.
This is the reality. I rather have B2P or P2P games over F2P with cash shops anyday.
Exactly..B2P and P2P over F2P any day.
The quality of F2P is really poor compared to what a B2P or Sub game offers, Subs are my personal choice and I hope more games revert back to a box/digital and Sub fee.
I would rather dedicate my time to one or two really good in depth MMOs than a lot of scattered poorly designed and soulless F2P games.
Bring on Arche Age and plenty more game like it (the West needs to start creating them here!!)
Well its certianly going that way. I think I like Buy to Play more. But again I haven't had any experience with a buy to play mmorpg.
I hate F2P kind off. The crushing restrictions many of them have dont really make it free. Or it is, but you just have to be incredibly frustrated as you play and often. Its a lie. F2P is just an extremely extended trial with limitations so annoying they hope you will eventually begin to pay to play it decently.
Im so very wary of any game that is F2P along with the option to sub. I dont mess with those. Because I know full well what the deal is there. Plus there's a cash shop along with it which I never like. I get to play a game (FOR FREE!) thats going to annoy me to no end on PURPOSE, so that they can hopefully tempt me to sub. Gah.....
I'd almost rather have subs than that idiotic mess. And I hate subs with an absolute passion.
I think there should be more B2P MMOs. Most F2Pers don't even pay a cent. It would take a load off of all the players in F2P games if everybody just pitched in a little. Instead of trying to get a few people to toss out +$100 dollars by making the game have multiple inconviences, why not just have everybody pay $60 dollars for the base game?
I think there should be more B2P MMOs. Most F2Pers don't even pay a cent. It would take a load off of all the players in F2P games if everybody just pitched in a little. Instead of trying to get a few people to toss out +$100 dollars by making the game have multiple inconviences, why not just have everybody pay $60 dollars for the base game?
You said it yourself, most f2pers dont' even pay a cent. So they probably dont' want to pay 60$ too. Consider they can find ways to entertain themself for 0$, they dont' need to pay the 60$.
Also, I find DDO, Aion, LOTRO, are bad example of f2p games. Because those are games that were transformed to F2P, they don't start as f2p, and they are actually hybrid games which have a subscription option. Those few people who use cashshop not just spend 100$+, they spend 100$+ every month.
F2P games are "inherently unfair" to people who play a lot. P2P are "inherently unfair" to people who play a little. I play a little. I will play only F2P games. What will play you doesn't interest me.
Comments
Hi!
Give me liberty or give me lasers
One thing I am sure, if a mmo is subscription based, it should not have a fee to buy the game or create a account. Maybe only a fee that is the exact price of X amount of months in the game. So you would need to pre-pay some amount of months (just one or more) to create a account.
Yes lets make them like the Korean games......Aren't those just awesome.
I like the idea, but as many good ideas, it looks good only on the paper...
Problem The 1st: Making games AND keeping servers up isn't free. B2P is likely the best option today, as developers get cash from the box, and players with low internet speed/D-load limit (Yes, they do exist) won't have the need of waiting to play the game
Problem 2nd: Making the money mentioned earlier for continually. Without sub's, without Box there isn't really anything to keep you playing the game... Some people play the game, but move to another one, because it looks better. And having all MMO free, would REALLY make the competition more Survivals-Themed than ever!
Problem the 3rd: How to get the money mentioned earlier
Yes, the same situation as with the 2nd... No subs, no box. And MMO players can possess apocalyptic hate for DLC and Cash Shop's.
If there comes a perfect solution to the mentioned (making and releasing could be paid by kickstart) i would jump off a nearby bridge, for i would be Superman!
Sure all MMOs should be free to play.
Free to play incentiivizes companies to make the game fun enough for players to want to pay.
Buy to play incentivizes heavy advertising. With B2P developers are selling the promise of fun -- they're selling an idea, not the actual product.
It's better for gamers if games have to earn their money through actual fun than through a hyped promise.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The fundemental question is how to best align the desires of the community with the desires of the publisher. Each model has strengths and weaknesses. However cash shop games that I have tried make me deeply uncomfortable - there is a deeply adversarial relationship between the publishers and the players: the entire game is a constant exercise in psychological manipulation and I personally don't find that entertaining to play in.
I think so yes, its a much better model and a sure fire way to get millions of people.
Plus, MMORPG needs a damn quick reply section on these forums!
P2P works best for games with subs over 200k, which seems to be somewhere around the threshold where the sub fees will cover the future development. Once EQ dropped under 200k is when SoE started toying with other options. LOTRO converted at about 250k. Rift now, most lkely around 200k, is putting another mount for sale. Maybe the number is lower than that, who knows, but there is a general range where p2p works.
Aion and L2 are both games that have 200k subscribers, much more than 200k subscribers. Their large Korean player bases are the reason they can do the model they can do. These models wont work for NA/EU based games.
The old games that are still p2p no shop like daoc and ac...that is because, unlike EQ1, they do not recieve heavy development. EQ1 still gets a rather large expansion every year.
What WoW does is inexcusable, they have their trading card game as a massive cash cow and of course their expensive mounts. WoW does not need the money. SoE and Trion, they probably do.
And Guild Wars 2 B2P...this is not a success yet and it has a cash shop thats already toeing the line a little.
Oh lord no. All games going F2P is like my worst nightmare. What is the entire world becoming moocher hobos?
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind"
1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN
2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
No way, especially for the games with high production values. They should be buy-to-play with an ethical cash shop. That way they can recoup some production costs upfront and make profit in the future.
This is an easy one to answer.
Sub games only make more money than F2P games if they hit over a certain amount of subscribers, probably 600+ thousand.
Most AAA MMO's don't retain this amount of subs, so then change to F2P.
F2P makes more money than sub games with less than 600 thousand players because not only does F2P attract a massive number of new players, but most of them usually spend money in the game, even if its just once.
So sub works best for WoW (as the revenue is very stable considering it's playerbase) , and F2P works best for Lotro (it's sub revenue is not stable, but it's cash shop revenue is.)
On topic; Free to play doesn't work for everything.
Yes, it works for a game like Guild Wars, which have very sparse and small updates throughout the year.
But for the likes of WoW, Rift and The Secret World - F2P just wouldn't work. They have the amount of subscribers to make subbing very profitable, and they update very, very often (Rift anyway, TSW looks to beat Rift at updating too.)
At the end of the day it's all about numbers, companies care more about money than their players, so it depends on what they believe their game will make most money in.
And all games going F2P is like a dream come true. No more commitment with subs. No more high entrance fee with box prices. Don't like it? Play an hour and quit. And you can play/try as many games as you like. One sub is cheap. 20 sub is getting expensive (as a hobby) and not to mention you will never get your money worth.
And also no more AAA games. All MMO's will suddenly become as good quality as asian F2P's, which isn't good. No game company will ever make a AAA MMO without either a box fee or a sub, that is a fact. They will not rely on in-game sales alone to recouparate their budget.
This is the reality. I rather have B2P or P2P games over F2P with cash shops anyday.
No...SImply because some gamers will pay 50-60 bucks for anything just because it is new.......THeres money to be made on f2p games down the road, but these companies really should take advantage of people who have zero self control and will hand over their money blindly.
I hope not. Because I paid far more money on f2p games than p2p games. I have no self control.
Exactly..B2P and P2P over F2P any day.
The quality of F2P is really poor compared to what a B2P or Sub game offers, Subs are my personal choice and I hope more games revert back to a box/digital and Sub fee.
I would rather dedicate my time to one or two really good in depth MMOs than a lot of scattered poorly designed and soulless F2P games.
Bring on Arche Age and plenty more game like it (the West needs to start creating them here!!)
Well its certianly going that way. I think I like Buy to Play more. But again I haven't had any experience with a buy to play mmorpg.
I hate F2P kind off. The crushing restrictions many of them have dont really make it free. Or it is, but you just have to be incredibly frustrated as you play and often. Its a lie. F2P is just an extremely extended trial with limitations so annoying they hope you will eventually begin to pay to play it decently.
Im so very wary of any game that is F2P along with the option to sub. I dont mess with those. Because I know full well what the deal is there. Plus there's a cash shop along with it which I never like. I get to play a game (FOR FREE!) thats going to annoy me to no end on PURPOSE, so that they can hopefully tempt me to sub. Gah.....
I'd almost rather have subs than that idiotic mess. And I hate subs with an absolute passion.
It's not the quality of f2p games that worries me. My favorite mmorpg is a f2p. It's the ethical of their cashshop that bothers me.
Usually they have cash shop with (too many unlocks), pay 2 win items, teleport scroll without it you have to walk 30 minutes from place to place.
It's possible for game company to make alot of money with any type of subscription model. There's pros and cons in each.
Definitely not.
FTP games are inherantly unfair because people who pay more for perks in them have advantages over people who do not.
The only way to have an even playing field is to have a subscription model -- or at least not have any form of cash shop.
Since FTP games make their money off a cash shop, it would be impossible to run a FTP game that way.
I think there should be more B2P MMOs. Most F2Pers don't even pay a cent. It would take a load off of all the players in F2P games if everybody just pitched in a little. Instead of trying to get a few people to toss out +$100 dollars by making the game have multiple inconviences, why not just have everybody pay $60 dollars for the base game?
You said it yourself, most f2pers dont' even pay a cent. So they probably dont' want to pay 60$ too. Consider they can find ways to entertain themself for 0$, they dont' need to pay the 60$.
Also, I find DDO, Aion, LOTRO, are bad example of f2p games. Because those are games that were transformed to F2P, they don't start as f2p, and they are actually hybrid games which have a subscription option. Those few people who use cashshop not just spend 100$+, they spend 100$+ every month.
F2P games are "inherently unfair" to people who play a lot. P2P are "inherently unfair" to people who play a little. I play a little. I will play only F2P games. What will play you doesn't interest me.