I have no problems though with the model SOE currently implements with their games. Its basically an extended testing time. Test the game as long as you want, if you want certain things, you have to pay.
I prefer f2p if it is done right. Not all of us were born rich. [...]
Rich ?!?
I pay 6 € per month for my MMO ... internet is much more expensive, my computer is much more expensive, really anything I can think of that I spend money on is much more expensive.
Of course in the short term F2P is the model people like - they get to play for free! Well, for a while.
Then they end up getting nagged to buy this for $5, that for $10. Eventually, they get sick of it, or end up realizing they spent $100 on something that used to cost $50.
Give me a subscription, anyday. Levels the field, it ends up being cheaper, and the income is consistent. F2P games just encourage poor purchases and a few big spenders supporting the ones who pay nothing.
Subs are evil If I tell any of my friends that I would (or that I was in fact paying a sub for a game in the past) be paying a sub for a game, they will be like "man are you out of your freakin mind, only game addicts pay sub fees for games!!!"
My personal thoughts on the sub fee matter is now more in line with that of my friends. I don't think any game should charge a subscription. I don't believe it that a game company needs to charge me a sub fee every month to keep itself profitable. Although I don't like F2P MMOs either. I gave a few F2P MMOs a try when the whole payment model kicked off but I wouldn't play a F2P MMO game. I guess that's one of the many reasons I don't play MMOs any more They are all F2P now but I am also not willing to pay a sub (guess only P2P game left is WoW and EvE now).
I think it's time MMOs adopted the traditional business model of pretty much every single game genre out there. Sell boxes, sell expansions, sell DLCs. I am all up for that but no sub fees and certainly not those crazy life sucking F2P games like LOTRO and EQ2.
Game addicts pay sub fees for games? Some do it to have games not being flooded with trolls, cheaters, and trash players the dominate the F2P games today, Subs offer better value and you get access to the whole game and benefits , subs arent for addicts , its a service just like people pay for pay per view channels or cable or satellite tv. If people can't afford 15$ a month then playing games should be the last thing on their minds.. cheapskates for crying out loud want something for nothing always.
I prefer f2p if it is done right. Not all of us were born rich. But many f2p's are more expensive than sub/box because they're getting greedy. F2p done right is about many options and a large variety showing in a game with a sizable window for those with no money to play and advance along with people who can pay.
You anti-f2p peeps should check yourselves. You make free sound evil. I bet you use free file storage services and gank pictures, movies, and music from the internet. Yet you bitch about games having a free avenue for the public - AND THEIRS WAS LEGAL.
EA did good with Sims 2 but I don't play anything else they have supported since. They lost something along the way and everyone is mad at them for it. Or maybe they never had it. Maybe Maxis had it and EA just had the greedy compulsion to sell it.
If you think 15$ a month is expensive perhaps MMO gaming shouldn't be on your priority list then, people piss away more money going out to the bar, restaurants , buying other toys , but noooo!!! 15$ a month is somehow so much money that it is the cheapest form of enterainment money can buy and at a great value compared to other forms of recreation.
I prefer f2p if it is done right. Not all of us were born rich. But many f2p's are more expensive than sub/box because they're getting greedy. F2p done right is about many options and a large variety showing in a game with a sizable window for those with no money to play and advance along with people who can pay.
You anti-f2p peeps should check yourselves. You make free sound evil. I bet you use free file storage services and gank pictures, movies, and music from the internet. Yet you bitch about games having a free avenue for the public - AND THEIRS WAS LEGAL.
EA did good with Sims 2 but I don't play anything else they have supported since. They lost something along the way and everyone is mad at them for it. Or maybe they never had it. Maybe Maxis had it and EA just had the greedy compulsion to sell it.
If you think 15$ a month is expensive perhaps MMO gaming shouldn't be on your priority list then, people piss away more money going out to the bar, restaurants , buying other toys , but noooo!!! 15$ a month is somehow so much money that it is the cheapest form of enterainment money can buy and at a great value compared to other forms of recreation.
$180 a year plus box prices would be fine if most of that money was invested in content, but if its not then you are being ripped off. this thread is about the comparison of different payment methods. sub would be fine if it cost the same as a good cash shop.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
B2P is evil. Anything with a 60$ upfront fee is evil.
Free is to intrusive.
Most sub game require you to buy the game first, so I don't see how sub can be fine if B2P is evil. Free would be fine if there were no such thing as greed when they get high enough player numbers.
B2P is the middle ground between evil and evil.
Edit: typo
Just so you know: GW isn't B2P. It's B2P + Cash Shop.
I think that goes without saying. Afterall, is there any MMO out there that doesn't allow for further purchases after the initial buy? Even console and offline games that used to be B2P are now B2P + DLC.
personaly i prefer a monthly sub dont mind if theres a fluff cashshop as long as theres nothing in it that gives an advantage i really hate cashshops that make you pay for extra content or make you pay to equip your epic etc armor/weapon
F2P is not all bad, companies just need to figure out what to charge people money for. However, there will always be people who say 'Oh I'm not against you charging me money for things, I'm agains you charging me money for things I think I need.'
Please amend your title to something like; "Nick Earl says market has spoken in favor of free-to-play, no premium mobile games"
As it stands it gives the impression that he is talking about MMORPGs.
But, have to say, what EA say or think has zero zilch value to me.
I agree, and just 1 person says that's how it is, doesn't make it so. There are plenty of people that will gladly pay a subscription for a good mmo. Problem is, there haven't been any worthy of a subscription fee in years. People have knowingly bought mmo's the past few years knowing full well they had a subscription fee, the problem is they find the game not worthy of their money and leave it, causing the piss poor game that should have been a F2P or B2P to begin with, to go that way.
F2P is a nothing more than a bubble. It'll pop. And, all these companies that made the massive move to it (like EA) will suffer.
And how do you know that?
In 2012, F2P players outnumber P2P 6 to 1. In terms of revenue, F2p is making as much as P2P and growing from 2009 to 2012.
All i see is a trend for more F2P. If indeed it is a bubble, show me some evidence.
Do you have a source for that? I was under the impression that there were vastly more subscribers in WoW, EVE, Rift, than there are ftpers in all other MMO's combined.
Thats not even counting the subscribers in said "ftp" games.
F2P is a nothing more than a bubble. It'll pop. And, all these companies that made the massive move to it (like EA) will suffer.
And how do you know that?
In 2012, F2P players outnumber P2P 6 to 1. In terms of revenue, F2p is making as much as P2P and growing from 2009 to 2012.
All i see is a trend for more F2P. If indeed it is a bubble, show me some evidence.
Please remember I said this when it happens that way you'll realize there are people who know what their talking about.
I found plenty of sources for comapnies stating that thier MMOs were generating more revenu as FTP+Cash shop, than when they were just sub based. That does not mean FTP MMOs in general generated more revenu than WoW+EVE+Rift combined, nor out numvber them (esp 6 to 1, unless someone can provide a source).
There is no doubt that FTP is an excellet option if your MMO was not doing well enough to keep players subscribed, but that does not mean its the "better" option for developers, it just means its the better option if your MMO is lacking content/functionality.
The F2P preferences are mostly the companies fault for upselling a game through extensive marketing that they know will not do well after box sales. It's a shame too because it makes for a much worse product with developers designing purchasable mounts and toys over the actual game.
Maybe you should have run a spell check on my posts as well and further derail the topic on my grammar? Considering you knew exactly what I was saying, my point still stands regardless if I looked up the exact comment made by Einstein or not.
Another note which just occurred to me about this mighty successful GW2, that it is the common opinion that GW2 cannot be played long-term as a main MMO. So basically this successful game needs to be supplemented with another MMO. So unless you LOVE temporary content, how do you play GW2 in it's current state long term? Again you get what you pay for.
You're going to have to define "long term". I've been playing since before launch and still am going strong. There's plenty of content to keep me entertained quite nicely, from WvW to the PvE world to the holiday events and insertion of new living world content... I'm getting a lot more than I paid for.
F2P is a nothing more than a bubble. It'll pop. And, all these companies that made the massive move to it (like EA) will suffer.
And how do you know that?
In 2012, F2P players outnumber P2P 6 to 1. In terms of revenue, F2p is making as much as P2P and growing from 2009 to 2012.
All i see is a trend for more F2P. If indeed it is a bubble, show me some evidence.
Please remember I said this when it happens that way you'll realize there are people who know what their talking about.
I found plenty of sources for comapnies stating that thier MMOs were generating more revenu as FTP+Cash shop, than when they were just sub based. That does not mean FTP MMOs in general generated more revenu than WoW+EVE+Rift combined, nor out numvber them (esp 6 to 1, unless someone can provide a source).
There is no doubt that FTP is an excellet option if your MMO was not doing well enough to keep players subscribed, but that does not mean its the "better" option for developers, it just means its the better option if your MMO is lacking content/functionality.
Can you point to those sources? Having said that I'm not denying that f2p is a viable business model 'now'. But, it's not a stable one either.
F2P is a nothing more than a bubble. It'll pop. And, all these companies that made the massive move to it (like EA) will suffer.
And how do you know that?
In 2012, F2P players outnumber P2P 6 to 1. In terms of revenue, F2p is making as much as P2P and growing from 2009 to 2012.
All i see is a trend for more F2P. If indeed it is a bubble, show me some evidence.
Please remember I said this when it happens that way you'll realize there are people who know what their talking about.
I found plenty of sources for comapnies stating that thier MMOs were generating more revenu as FTP+Cash shop, than when they were just sub based. That does not mean FTP MMOs in general generated more revenu than WoW+EVE+Rift combined, nor out numvber them (esp 6 to 1, unless someone can provide a source).
There is no doubt that FTP is an excellet option if your MMO was not doing well enough to keep players subscribed, but that does not mean its the "better" option for developers, it just means its the better option if your MMO is lacking content/functionality.
Can you point to those sources? Having said that I'm not denying that f2p is a viable business model 'now'. But, it's not a stable one either.
What I am saying is that even though it "trippled" for that specific game, P2P as a whole is in a LOT better shape. I am willing to bet that lotor's "trippled" revenu is still less than Rift's subscription revenu at this point.
I just don't see the point of the article. "We've come to conclude that people want stuff for free over paying for it." Holy crap I really needed someone to tell me that.
Honestly the devs for MMO's have never given us what we want which is a MMO that can keep us enjoyed and meet new people and keep us entertained for more then 6 monthes, they only give us what they think we want and charge us out the arse in microtransactions because they weren't bleeding us our are money enough their subs.
Comments
Well, I dont do f2p. End of discussion.
I have no problems though with the model SOE currently implements with their games. Its basically an extended testing time. Test the game as long as you want, if you want certain things, you have to pay.
Rich ?!?
I pay 6 € per month for my MMO ... internet is much more expensive, my computer is much more expensive, really anything I can think of that I spend money on is much more expensive.
Of course in the short term F2P is the model people like - they get to play for free! Well, for a while.
Then they end up getting nagged to buy this for $5, that for $10. Eventually, they get sick of it, or end up realizing they spent $100 on something that used to cost $50.
Give me a subscription, anyday. Levels the field, it ends up being cheaper, and the income is consistent. F2P games just encourage poor purchases and a few big spenders supporting the ones who pay nothing.
This was about games on a mobile platform. Dont worry, Angry Birds is not going to have a subscription any time soon.
This thread should be in the General Gaming section, please move it there.
Game addicts pay sub fees for games? Some do it to have games not being flooded with trolls, cheaters, and trash players the dominate the F2P games today, Subs offer better value and you get access to the whole game and benefits , subs arent for addicts , its a service just like people pay for pay per view channels or cable or satellite tv. If people can't afford 15$ a month then playing games should be the last thing on their minds.. cheapskates for crying out loud want something for nothing always.
If you think 15$ a month is expensive perhaps MMO gaming shouldn't be on your priority list then, people piss away more money going out to the bar, restaurants , buying other toys , but noooo!!! 15$ a month is somehow so much money that it is the cheapest form of enterainment money can buy and at a great value compared to other forms of recreation.
$180 a year plus box prices would be fine if most of that money was invested in content, but if its not then you are being ripped off. this thread is about the comparison of different payment methods. sub would be fine if it cost the same as a good cash shop.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
I think that goes without saying. Afterall, is there any MMO out there that doesn't allow for further purchases after the initial buy? Even console and offline games that used to be B2P are now B2P + DLC.
Like wow has ?
WoW is an anomaly.
2013 subscription games are a niche ( small developers ) game.
It will only cater to hardcore and old school gamers.
The rest of the world will move on to F2P and B2P.
Everyone is happy
.
No need to blah blah blah anymore.
/ close thread.
Pardon my English as it is not my 1st language
F2P is a nothing more than a bubble. It'll pop. And, all these companies that made the massive move to it (like EA) will suffer.
And how do you know that?
In 2012, F2P players outnumber P2P 6 to 1. In terms of revenue, F2p is making as much as P2P and growing from 2009 to 2012.
All i see is a trend for more F2P. If indeed it is a bubble, show me some evidence.
I agree, and just 1 person says that's how it is, doesn't make it so. There are plenty of people that will gladly pay a subscription for a good mmo. Problem is, there haven't been any worthy of a subscription fee in years. People have knowingly bought mmo's the past few years knowing full well they had a subscription fee, the problem is they find the game not worthy of their money and leave it, causing the piss poor game that should have been a F2P or B2P to begin with, to go that way.
What happens when you log off your characters????.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFQhfhnjYMk
Dark Age of Camelot
Do you have a source for that? I was under the impression that there were vastly more subscribers in WoW, EVE, Rift, than there are ftpers in all other MMO's combined.
Thats not even counting the subscribers in said "ftp" games.
Please remember I said this when it happens that way you'll realize there are people who know what their talking about.
I found plenty of sources for comapnies stating that thier MMOs were generating more revenu as FTP+Cash shop, than when they were just sub based. That does not mean FTP MMOs in general generated more revenu than WoW+EVE+Rift combined, nor out numvber them (esp 6 to 1, unless someone can provide a source).
There is no doubt that FTP is an excellet option if your MMO was not doing well enough to keep players subscribed, but that does not mean its the "better" option for developers, it just means its the better option if your MMO is lacking content/functionality.
You're going to have to define "long term". I've been playing since before launch and still am going strong. There's plenty of content to keep me entertained quite nicely, from WvW to the PvE world to the holiday events and insertion of new living world content... I'm getting a lot more than I paid for.
Oderint, dum metuant.
Can you point to those sources? Having said that I'm not denying that f2p is a viable business model 'now'. But, it's not a stable one either.
Relax, I am on your side.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/32322/Turbine_Lord_of_the_Rings_Online_Revenues_Tripled_As_FreeToPlay_Game.php
Thats just one, there are plenty others.
What I am saying is that even though it "trippled" for that specific game, P2P as a whole is in a LOT better shape. I am willing to bet that lotor's "trippled" revenu is still less than Rift's subscription revenu at this point.