F2P games are intentionally more unclear than sub games in regards to how much it will cost you. In sub games (barring free trials) you know the cost up front. In F2P games you know you will be able to log in without paying anything. From that point on it varys from F2P game to F2P game how much you will spend.
What about expansions? These are a staple of P2P MMOs and nobody balks at them the way they balk at cash shops. A P2P MMO can come out with an expansion that costs two or three times as much as your monthly subscription fee, and you feel fairly obligated to buy it.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, or that it's worse than what happens with cash shop nickle-and-diming, but if your argument is that you always know up front exactly how much you'll be paying for a subscription, that's a key part that you're missing. You have no advance knowledge of how expensive expansions will be nor how much you will have to pay for them.
Has there been any subscription game ever for which buying expansions were more than a tiny fraction of the price of staying continuously subscribed?
That said, I'm curious how subscription numbers are changed by charging for expansions--as opposed to releasing the same content without charging for it. I doubt that all that many active subscribers quit over an expansion, but you might get a lot fewer people coming back if they have to pay $50 up front to do so.
F2P games are intentionally more unclear than sub games in regards to how much it will cost you. In sub games (barring free trials) you know the cost up front. In F2P games you know you will be able to log in without paying anything. From that point on it varys from F2P game to F2P game how much you will spend.
What about expansions? These are a staple of P2P MMOs and nobody balks at them the way they balk at cash shops. A P2P MMO can come out with an expansion that costs two or three times as much as your monthly subscription fee, and you feel fairly obligated to buy it.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, or that it's worse than what happens with cash shop nickle-and-diming, but if your argument is that you always know up front exactly how much you'll be paying for a subscription, that's a key part that you're missing. You have no advance knowledge of how expensive expansions will be nor how much you will have to pay for them.
Has there been any subscription game ever for which buying expansions were more than a tiny fraction of the price of staying continuously subscribed?
That said, I'm curious how subscription numbers are changed by charging for expansions--as opposed to releasing the same content without charging for it. I doubt that all that many active subscribers quit over an expansion, but you might get a lot fewer people coming back if they have to pay $50 up front to do so.
A $50 expansion is 27.8% of an annual subscription based on $15/mo being the sub price. I'm not sure in what math world more than 1/4 of a whole is considered a small fraction, but I guess that is subjective based on whether it supports a view or not.
If we're going to dismiss content prices from the equation of sub-locked games then that should be excluded from sub-free games as well. That would make EQ2 and LotRO particularly good deals.
I've played both types of sub games (those that charge for dlc and those that don't). LIneage did not and was a straight $15/mo. After that I played GW and then LotRO and EQ2 both of which charged and were sub-locked at the time. I didn't mind it, but it was a consideration in my gaming budget. I didn't buy the Storm Legion xpac because I felt their subfee should have included the xpac. It was part of my consideration when moving away from sub-locked games. The total required cost of the game along with the recurring fee aspect exceeded what I considered the worthwhile benefit.
I'm not defending charging for expansions on top of a subscription fee, really. I'm fine with Guild Wars-style buy to play or with a pure subscription fee, but both is too much in my view unless they're smaller fees than normal for games that only have one or the other.
But my point is that it's a relatively small fraction of the total cost. With an item mall, it's common for an update to make it so that to get what you want costs several times as much as it did before. Or worse, so that you don't even know what it will cost but just have to play random boxes with an unknown probability until you get it. Subscription games don't take it to anywhere near that extreme.
F2P games are intentionally more unclear than sub games in regards to how much it will cost you. In sub games (barring free trials) you know the cost up front. In F2P games you know you will be able to log in without paying anything. From that point on it varys from F2P game to F2P game how much you will spend.
What about expansions? These are a staple of P2P MMOs and nobody balks at them the way they balk at cash shops. A P2P MMO can come out with an expansion that costs two or three times as much as your monthly subscription fee, and you feel fairly obligated to buy it.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, or that it's worse than what happens with cash shop nickle-and-diming, but if your argument is that you always know up front exactly how much you'll be paying for a subscription, that's a key part that you're missing. You have no advance knowledge of how expensive expansions will be nor how much you will have to pay for them.
Has there been any subscription game ever for which buying expansions were more than a tiny fraction of the price of staying continuously subscribed?
That said, I'm curious how subscription numbers are changed by charging for expansions--as opposed to releasing the same content without charging for it. I doubt that all that many active subscribers quit over an expansion, but you might get a lot fewer people coming back if they have to pay $50 up front to do so.
A $50 expansion is 27.8% of an annual subscription based on $15/mo being the sub price. I'm not sure in what math world more than 1/4 of a whole is considered a small fraction, but I guess that is subjective based on whether it supports a view or not.
If we're going to dismiss content prices from the equation of sub-locked games then that should be excluded from sub-free games as well. That would make EQ2 and LotRO particularly good deals.
I've played both types of sub games (those that charge for dlc and those that don't). LIneage did not and was a straight $15/mo. After that I played GW and then LotRO and EQ2 both of which charged and were sub-locked at the time. I didn't mind it, but it was a consideration in my gaming budget. I didn't buy the Storm Legion xpac because I felt their subfee should have included the xpac. It was part of my consideration when moving away from sub-locked games. The total required cost of the game along with the recurring fee aspect exceeded what I considered the worthwhile benefit.
I'm not defending charging for expansions on top of a subscription fee, really. I'm fine with Guild Wars-style buy to play or with a pure subscription fee, but both is too much in my view unless they're smaller fees than normal for games that only have one or the other.
But my point is that it's a relatively small fraction of the total cost. With an item mall, it's common for an update to make it so that to get what you want costs several times as much as it did before. Or worse, so that you don't even know what it will cost but just have to play random boxes with an unknown probability until you get it. Subscription games don't take it to anywhere near that extreme.
Sure they do - Rift's CS shop? People spent money to get special mounts for bragging rights. With an itme mall it is not common, there are games that do it that way but not all. Can't use generalities on this one.
F2P games are intentionally more unclear than sub games in regards to how much it will cost you. In sub games (barring free trials) you know the cost up front. In F2P games you know you will be able to log in without paying anything. From that point on it varys from F2P game to F2P game how much you will spend.
What about expansions? These are a staple of P2P MMOs and nobody balks at them the way they balk at cash shops. A P2P MMO can come out with an expansion that costs two or three times as much as your monthly subscription fee, and you feel fairly obligated to buy it.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, or that it's worse than what happens with cash shop nickle-and-diming, but if your argument is that you always know up front exactly how much you'll be paying for a subscription, that's a key part that you're missing. You have no advance knowledge of how expensive expansions will be nor how much you will have to pay for them.
And this "clarity of costs" is just not that important in F2P games because you get to play some parts for free. So why would i care what teh other parts cost? As soon as i hit a pay wall, i will play some other F2P games.
Plus there are many you can finish the main story line without paying a cent. And it is not like i am running out of new F2P games to play anytime soon.
Originally posted by nariusseldon And this "clarity of costs" is just not that important in F2P games because you get to play some parts for free. So why would i care what teh other parts cost? As soon as i hit a pay wall, i will play some other F2P games.
Plus there are many you can finish the main story line without paying a cent. And it is not like i am running out of new F2P games to play anytime soon.
Your whole "play while it's fun" argument is weak. Imagine the movie industry worked that way. You see a movie trailer with epic action, and it is Free to Watch! But after buying popcorn and soda, and watching the movie for an hour, it abruptly stops. Want to see the end? That cost money. Ok so you pay to watch the ending. Hmm some parts from the trailer were missing from the movie. Oh those cost extra too.
But hey who cares, you had fun watching the parts that you did see, right? Never mind the fact that you dedicated the most valuable currency of all (time from your limited life) to seek what you thought would be a full movie experience.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
F2P games are intentionally more unclear than sub games in regards to how much it will cost you. In sub games (barring free trials) you know the cost up front. In F2P games you know you will be able to log in without paying anything. From that point on it varys from F2P game to F2P game how much you will spend.
What about expansions? These are a staple of P2P MMOs and nobody balks at them the way they balk at cash shops. A P2P MMO can come out with an expansion that costs two or three times as much as your monthly subscription fee, and you feel fairly obligated to buy it.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, or that it's worse than what happens with cash shop nickle-and-diming, but if your argument is that you always know up front exactly how much you'll be paying for a subscription, that's a key part that you're missing. You have no advance knowledge of how expensive expansions will be nor how much you will have to pay for them.
And this "clarity of costs" is just not that important in F2P games because you get to play some parts for free. So why would i care what teh other parts cost? As soon as i hit a pay wall, i will play some other F2P games.
Plus there are many you can finish the main story line without paying a cent. And it is not like i am running out of new F2P games to play anytime soon.
If you're never going to pay, then of course you wouldn't care whether it costs a lot or a little to pay. But if you're never going to pay, then why should any game company care what you think about their business model?
Your whole "play while it's fun" argument is weak. Imagine the movie industry worked that way. You see a movie trailer with epic action, and it is Free to Watch! But after buying popcorn and soda, and watching the movie for an hour, it abruptly stops. Want to see the end? That cost money.
You just described expansion packs in a subscription MMO.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Your whole "play while it's fun" argument is weak. Imagine the movie industry worked that way. You see a movie trailer with epic action, and it is Free to Watch! But after buying popcorn and soda, and watching the movie for an hour, it abruptly stops. Want to see the end? That cost money.
You just described expansion packs in a subscription MMO.
Not quite. Most MMOs allow to continue to play the game even without the expansion.
None of this affects me though as the two MMOs that I play do not charge for expansions.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Your whole "play while it's fun" argument is weak. Imagine the movie industry worked that way. You see a movie trailer with epic action, and it is Free to Watch! But after buying popcorn and soda, and watching the movie for an hour, it abruptly stops. Want to see the end? That cost money. Ok so you pay to watch the ending. Hmm some parts from the trailer were missing from the movie. Oh those cost extra too.
But hey who cares, you had fun watching the parts that you did see, right? Never mind the fact that you dedicated the most valuable currency of all (time from your limited life) to seek what you thought would be a full movie experience.
That whole analogy is off.
First, even if you didn't pay for the movie to begin with, you paid for the drink and popcorn and you knew the industry does this. How is this similar to a something free from the start?
Unless it's a trial or a freemium business model, I don't see your enjoyment of a F2P hampered the way you mention.
That's how most people are. Most people aren't busy dissecting business practices or worrying about how much milk the guy next to them has in their glass, especially in PvE games where it really doesn't make a damn bit of difference.
They try a game and if they find it fun, they play until it isn't. It's that simple.
You're wrong, though. It's human nature to want to know what someone else has and how much. Everyone is looking to see what their peers are doing, how much they have, how they got it, etc. If you're not enjoying the game, sure you don't care about people spending in a cash shop. They've stopped being yoru peers. If you are enjoying a game, though, you'll always be looking at stuff like that.
F2P games wouldn't make any money at all if it weren't a basic human desire to always keep up with the Jones's.
That's how most people are. Most people aren't busy dissecting business practices or worrying about how much milk the guy next to them has in their glass, especially in PvE games where it really doesn't make a damn bit of difference.
They try a game and if they find it fun, they play until it isn't. It's that simple.
You're wrong, though. It's human nature to want to know what someone else has and how much. Everyone is looking to see what their peers are doing, how much they have, how they got it, etc. If you're not enjoying the game, sure you don't care about people spending in a cash shop. They've stopped being yoru peers. If you are enjoying a game, though, you'll always be looking at stuff like that.
F2P games wouldn't make any money at all if it weren't a basic human desire to always keep up with the Jones's.
I totally disagree. I don't think most people "keep up with the jones's." I think that is actually a minority, which echoes the f2p market, the minority pay a lot to "keep up with the jones's"
With regard to peers. I think most people view their peers as someone they have a common interest with (work, social circle...), not because of their holdings.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
If you're never going to pay, then of course you wouldn't care whether it costs a lot or a little to pay. But if you're never going to pay, then why should any game company care what you think about their business model?
Well... it's not as though attracting freeloaders to the game is bad for business. The more new people that join the game, the more full (and thus worth continuing to play) it feels to the rest of the playerbase. And even if those people aren't spending money in the cash shop, they may attract other new players to the game who are willing to spend money. These are businesses trying to make money, but there's really no cost (well, a negligible cost) associated with providing service to some players for free, so there's no downside. I don't think you'll find a F2P business model anywhere that says We lose money when a nonpaying player joins our game and we gain money when he leaves.
P2P aren't because they need a specific amount of people to pay in order to make money. It is really that simple.
elaborate on the quoted part. why do P2P need a specific ammount of people and F2P don't ?
is it because P2P having a fixed rate can only increase revenue by increasing playerbase whereas F2P can do so by increasing prices ?
Pretty easy - many F2P games more people spend money in the CS (even in a very little) while people will try a P2P and leave if is not exactly what they wanted, recently. Notice all the P2P games going F2P and wonder why? SWTOR, TSW and TERA are examples. What game has come out RECENTLY that has STAYED P2P?
What game that has come out RECENTLY that was good enough to be P2P?
The answer to that is: None.
I believe Rift was the last P2P MMO that is still P2P...and for good reason, everything else that's been released since has been crap...nuff said
As for the whole arguement of P2P vs F2P. I'd rather know upfront and pay upfront for what I'm getting. Lotro I got a lifetime subscription...best subscription I've ever had. I basically get all expansions for free now, since I can save up my 500 TP to buy new expansions when they release, and still have some TP left over for mounts and stuff
P2P games seem to have a better community too. You don't find people in the zone/general/world chats bashing the game and trolling. Since they're paying, they're playing.
If you're never going to pay, then of course you wouldn't care whether it costs a lot or a little to pay. But if you're never going to pay, then why should any game company care what you think about their business model?
I don't think they should care and I don't care if they do care. I am playing a product that is on the market. I have no say over the product. If I want to play it, I play it. If I don't, I don't. I have no say over a P2P product either and don't expect to, they don't listen to individuals, they listen to massive groups of players. Same difference, I just understand that I'm not entitled, as a single player, to have my voice heard individually.
Gaming companies know that many players use the term F2P in a derisory fashion. But they also know that many more players flock to such games because they are called F2P. So I don't see that term going away any time soon.
As to the financial model, we do not have a clue where we are these days. With 'F2P' games being really B2P but still being called F2P and many so called F2P games having a subscription option. Players are bound to be be confused or unaware of how their MMO's financial model effects their gameplay.
Companies (not just gaming ones) do have a history of using confusing pricing to get the most money out of a customer. I think thats where we are now.
That's how most people are. Most people aren't busy dissecting business practices or worrying about how much milk the guy next to them has in their glass, especially in PvE games where it really doesn't make a damn bit of difference.
They try a game and if they find it fun, they play until it isn't. It's that simple.
You're wrong, though. It's human nature to want to know what someone else has and how much. Everyone is looking to see what their peers are doing, how much they have, how they got it, etc. If you're not enjoying the game, sure you don't care about people spending in a cash shop. They've stopped being yoru peers. If you are enjoying a game, though, you'll always be looking at stuff like that.
F2P games wouldn't make any money at all if it weren't a basic human desire to always keep up with the Jones's.
I totally disagree. I don't think most people "keep up with the jones's." I think that is actually a minority, which echoes the f2p market, the minority pay a lot to "keep up with the jones's"
With regard to peers. I think most people view their peers as someone they have a common interest with (work, social circle...), not because of their holdings.
We don't disagree on the definition of peers... Not sure why you're trying to correct me there. Two people enjoying the same game are peers. I wasn't saying they were peers because one person had a shinier sword than the other. I was saying that because they both enjoy the game and are peers already, if one gets a desirable CS sword the other will want a desirable CS sword.
And we'll just have to agree to disagree on that last bit. I believe we are always comparing ourselves to others and playing a game of 'keep up or one up'. It's purely an anecdotal observation, but my friends and I all do this, my wife and her friends all do this, and my coworkers in the upper and lower echelons of the company all do this.
You don't have to answer this, this is rhetorical: Haven't you ever seen something that someone else had, and then went out and obtained that thing out of desire to also have it? That could be clothes, cars, a novel skill, a specific knowledge... pretty much anything. That's the human behavior I'm suggesting F2P games try to tap into.
That's how most people are. Most people aren't busy dissecting business practices or worrying about how much milk the guy next to them has in their glass, especially in PvE games where it really doesn't make a damn bit of difference.
They try a game and if they find it fun, they play until it isn't. It's that simple.
You're wrong, though. It's human nature to want to know what someone else has and how much. Everyone is looking to see what their peers are doing, how much they have, how they got it, etc. If you're not enjoying the game, sure you don't care about people spending in a cash shop. They've stopped being yoru peers. If you are enjoying a game, though, you'll always be looking at stuff like that.
F2P games wouldn't make any money at all if it weren't a basic human desire to always keep up with the Jones's.
F2P games don't need everyone to do that, just the whales.
While it is true that people want to know about their peers (just look at how popular sites like Diabloprogress is, and add-ons like gearscore is), most are not willing to pay lots of money to keep up in games.
You don't have to answer this, this is rhetorical: Haven't you ever seen something that someone else had, and then went out and obtained that thing out of desire to also have it? That could be clothes, cars, a novel skill, a specific knowledge... pretty much anything. That's the human behavior I'm suggesting F2P games try to tap into.
Yes. But that behavior is not universal in all situations. F2P games is tapping into a small percentage of people who would do that, and let others play for free.
You don't have to answer this, this is rhetorical: Haven't you ever seen something that someone else had, and then went out and obtained that thing out of desire to also have it? That could be clothes, cars, a novel skill, a specific knowledge... pretty much anything. That's the human behavior I'm suggesting F2P games try to tap into.
Yes. But that behavior is not universal in all situations. F2P games is tapping into a small percentage of people who would do that, and let others play for free.
I think it much more common than you think. Why else do you think the server announes everytime someone wins one of thsoe rare items out a random cash shop key box in F2P games? Everytime you see one of those messages there is a precentage of the player base that looks at all those unopened boxes in their inventory and wonders if they bought just a few keys if they to could have what that other person got. It works really well.
You don't have to answer this, this is rhetorical: Haven't you ever seen something that someone else had, and then went out and obtained that thing out of desire to also have it? That could be clothes, cars, a novel skill, a specific knowledge... pretty much anything. That's the human behavior I'm suggesting F2P games try to tap into.
Yes. But that behavior is not universal in all situations. F2P games is tapping into a small percentage of people who would do that, and let others play for free.
I think it much more common than you think. Why else do you think the server announes everytime someone wins one of thsoe rare items out a random cash shop key box in F2P games? Everytime you see one of those messages there is a precentage of the player base that looks at all those unopened boxes in their inventory and wonders if they bought just a few keys if they to could have what that other person got. It works really well.
If it is so common, why are F2P really on a minority of whales?
Keeping up wiht the jones's means you want something simply because someone else has something you don't.
If my friend has a new book or car or whatever I may want it, but not because he has it. Him having it just made me aware of it's existence, I'll want it because I feel it would benefit me in some way, either be usefull or entertaining. In games it's the same thing. I may see a cool sword or armor and decide I wanted that because it has the look that I want or the skill modifier that I want, not because the other person has it.
IMO more people respond to the latter than the former.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
You don't have to answer this, this is rhetorical: Haven't you ever seen something that someone else had, and then went out and obtained that thing out of desire to also have it? That could be clothes, cars, a novel skill, a specific knowledge... pretty much anything. That's the human behavior I'm suggesting F2P games try to tap into.
Yes. But that behavior is not universal in all situations. F2P games is tapping into a small percentage of people who would do that, and let others play for free.
I think it much more common than you think. Why else do you think the server announes everytime someone wins one of thsoe rare items out a random cash shop key box in F2P games? Everytime you see one of those messages there is a precentage of the player base that looks at all those unopened boxes in their inventory and wonders if they bought just a few keys if they to could have what that other person got. It works really well.
I"ve never seen it announced, but I'm sure it happens in some f2p games. I would say they announce it because you are right peole will want it.
If I heard it, I would wonder what it was. If it was something that is usefull I would probably want it as well, but not because someone else got it. That was just the medium that informed me of it.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
You don't have to answer this, this is rhetorical: Haven't you ever seen something that someone else had, and then went out and obtained that thing out of desire to also have it? That could be clothes, cars, a novel skill, a specific knowledge... pretty much anything. That's the human behavior I'm suggesting F2P games try to tap into.
Yes. But that behavior is not universal in all situations. F2P games is tapping into a small percentage of people who would do that, and let others play for free.
I think it much more common than you think. Why else do you think the server announes everytime someone wins one of thsoe rare items out a random cash shop key box in F2P games? Everytime you see one of those messages there is a precentage of the player base that looks at all those unopened boxes in their inventory and wonders if they bought just a few keys if they to could have what that other person got. It works really well.
If it is so common, why are F2P really on a minority of whales?
Casino's make huge profits off their big rollers but that doesn't mean they don't make large sums of money off penny slots to.
Comments
Has there been any subscription game ever for which buying expansions were more than a tiny fraction of the price of staying continuously subscribed?
That said, I'm curious how subscription numbers are changed by charging for expansions--as opposed to releasing the same content without charging for it. I doubt that all that many active subscribers quit over an expansion, but you might get a lot fewer people coming back if they have to pay $50 up front to do so.
I'm not defending charging for expansions on top of a subscription fee, really. I'm fine with Guild Wars-style buy to play or with a pure subscription fee, but both is too much in my view unless they're smaller fees than normal for games that only have one or the other.
But my point is that it's a relatively small fraction of the total cost. With an item mall, it's common for an update to make it so that to get what you want costs several times as much as it did before. Or worse, so that you don't even know what it will cost but just have to play random boxes with an unknown probability until you get it. Subscription games don't take it to anywhere near that extreme.
Sure they do - Rift's CS shop? People spent money to get special mounts for bragging rights. With an itme mall it is not common, there are games that do it that way but not all. Can't use generalities on this one.
And this "clarity of costs" is just not that important in F2P games because you get to play some parts for free. So why would i care what teh other parts cost? As soon as i hit a pay wall, i will play some other F2P games.
Plus there are many you can finish the main story line without paying a cent. And it is not like i am running out of new F2P games to play anytime soon.
Your whole "play while it's fun" argument is weak. Imagine the movie industry worked that way. You see a movie trailer with epic action, and it is Free to Watch! But after buying popcorn and soda, and watching the movie for an hour, it abruptly stops. Want to see the end? That cost money. Ok so you pay to watch the ending. Hmm some parts from the trailer were missing from the movie. Oh those cost extra too.
But hey who cares, you had fun watching the parts that you did see, right? Never mind the fact that you dedicated the most valuable currency of all (time from your limited life) to seek what you thought would be a full movie experience.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
They do however provide trailers for free.
And I completely agree with the play while it's fun, for a game. IMO thats the only way it should be. The moment it is unfun I stop playing.
IMO anyone who continues to play a game, when they are not having fun, is nuts.
If you're never going to pay, then of course you wouldn't care whether it costs a lot or a little to pay. But if you're never going to pay, then why should any game company care what you think about their business model?
You just described expansion packs in a subscription MMO.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Not quite. Most MMOs allow to continue to play the game even without the expansion.
None of this affects me though as the two MMOs that I play do not charge for expansions.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
That whole analogy is off.
First, even if you didn't pay for the movie to begin with, you paid for the drink and popcorn and you knew the industry does this. How is this similar to a something free from the start?
Unless it's a trial or a freemium business model, I don't see your enjoyment of a F2P hampered the way you mention.
You're wrong, though. It's human nature to want to know what someone else has and how much. Everyone is looking to see what their peers are doing, how much they have, how they got it, etc. If you're not enjoying the game, sure you don't care about people spending in a cash shop. They've stopped being yoru peers. If you are enjoying a game, though, you'll always be looking at stuff like that.
F2P games wouldn't make any money at all if it weren't a basic human desire to always keep up with the Jones's.
I totally disagree. I don't think most people "keep up with the jones's." I think that is actually a minority, which echoes the f2p market, the minority pay a lot to "keep up with the jones's"
With regard to peers. I think most people view their peers as someone they have a common interest with (work, social circle...), not because of their holdings.
Well... it's not as though attracting freeloaders to the game is bad for business. The more new people that join the game, the more full (and thus worth continuing to play) it feels to the rest of the playerbase. And even if those people aren't spending money in the cash shop, they may attract other new players to the game who are willing to spend money. These are businesses trying to make money, but there's really no cost (well, a negligible cost) associated with providing service to some players for free, so there's no downside. I don't think you'll find a F2P business model anywhere that says We lose money when a nonpaying player joins our game and we gain money when he leaves.
I believe Rift was the last P2P MMO that is still P2P...and for good reason, everything else that's been released since has been crap...nuff said
As for the whole arguement of P2P vs F2P. I'd rather know upfront and pay upfront for what I'm getting. Lotro I got a lifetime subscription...best subscription I've ever had. I basically get all expansions for free now, since I can save up my 500 TP to buy new expansions when they release, and still have some TP left over for mounts and stuff
P2P games seem to have a better community too. You don't find people in the zone/general/world chats bashing the game and trolling. Since they're paying, they're playing.
I don't think they should care and I don't care if they do care. I am playing a product that is on the market. I have no say over the product. If I want to play it, I play it. If I don't, I don't. I have no say over a P2P product either and don't expect to, they don't listen to individuals, they listen to massive groups of players. Same difference, I just understand that I'm not entitled, as a single player, to have my voice heard individually.
That's reality.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
I have always seen F2P games more or less like a demo, If I like what I see I fork out a sub for it.
If it dosen't have a sub option I won't play it.
If it's not broken, you are not innovating.
Gaming companies know that many players use the term F2P in a derisory fashion. But they also know that many more players flock to such games because they are called F2P. So I don't see that term going away any time soon.
As to the financial model, we do not have a clue where we are these days. With 'F2P' games being really B2P but still being called F2P and many so called F2P games having a subscription option. Players are bound to be be confused or unaware of how their MMO's financial model effects their gameplay.
Companies (not just gaming ones) do have a history of using confusing pricing to get the most money out of a customer. I think thats where we are now.
We don't disagree on the definition of peers... Not sure why you're trying to correct me there. Two people enjoying the same game are peers. I wasn't saying they were peers because one person had a shinier sword than the other. I was saying that because they both enjoy the game and are peers already, if one gets a desirable CS sword the other will want a desirable CS sword.
And we'll just have to agree to disagree on that last bit. I believe we are always comparing ourselves to others and playing a game of 'keep up or one up'. It's purely an anecdotal observation, but my friends and I all do this, my wife and her friends all do this, and my coworkers in the upper and lower echelons of the company all do this.
You don't have to answer this, this is rhetorical: Haven't you ever seen something that someone else had, and then went out and obtained that thing out of desire to also have it? That could be clothes, cars, a novel skill, a specific knowledge... pretty much anything. That's the human behavior I'm suggesting F2P games try to tap into.
F2P games don't need everyone to do that, just the whales.
While it is true that people want to know about their peers (just look at how popular sites like Diabloprogress is, and add-ons like gearscore is), most are not willing to pay lots of money to keep up in games.
That is why a majorit of f2p players don't pay.
Yes. But that behavior is not universal in all situations. F2P games is tapping into a small percentage of people who would do that, and let others play for free.
I think it much more common than you think. Why else do you think the server announes everytime someone wins one of thsoe rare items out a random cash shop key box in F2P games? Everytime you see one of those messages there is a precentage of the player base that looks at all those unopened boxes in their inventory and wonders if they bought just a few keys if they to could have what that other person got. It works really well.
If it is so common, why are F2P really on a minority of whales?
Keeping up wiht the jones's means you want something simply because someone else has something you don't.
If my friend has a new book or car or whatever I may want it, but not because he has it. Him having it just made me aware of it's existence, I'll want it because I feel it would benefit me in some way, either be usefull or entertaining. In games it's the same thing. I may see a cool sword or armor and decide I wanted that because it has the look that I want or the skill modifier that I want, not because the other person has it.
IMO more people respond to the latter than the former.
I"ve never seen it announced, but I'm sure it happens in some f2p games. I would say they announce it because you are right peole will want it.
If I heard it, I would wonder what it was. If it was something that is usefull I would probably want it as well, but not because someone else got it. That was just the medium that informed me of it.
Casino's make huge profits off their big rollers but that doesn't mean they don't make large sums of money off penny slots to.