This is such a stupid question that doesn't even merit discussion. Payment models do not define a games success. The games worth as a game is what defines if it succeeds or not.
The reason why games that go free to play manage to stay afloat and continue going vs shutting down completely is people will do anything if its free. And you will find those crazy few that spend thousands a month that will support the game(by support i mean, make the game enough to keep it running but profits will be very low and almost not worth keeping the game running for all the effort) until the end of time.
People who say P2P cant survive in current mmorpg genre are just deluding themselves into thinking the recent failures of mmos are because they were p2p when the actual problem is the games were superficial and stale. When devs stop making shallow games and actually start polishing the fuck out of their games while having a LOT of varied content, then they won't have to worry about succeeding(far cry above just surviving) no matter what payment model they pick be it p2p b2p or f2p.
I think the question is wrong. I think it's more like can F2P survive. So much more competition among titles now, So many choices and so many mediocre games. GW2 was supposed to usher in a new billing model revolution. NCSoft has reported a decline in profits from GW2 and it's next Western release is going to be subscription based. Why did NCSoft abandon B2P? Obviously, there are many more factors in that decision, I get that, but if the Cash Shop generated revenue and boxed fees is as profitable as people hoped, there'd be no reason to ever go for a sub model again. But yet here we are.
FF14 is going P2P
ESO is going P2P
WildStar is going P2P
There are links in this forum right now discussing SWTOR and speculations that model is not as profitable as EA wants. There are discussions arguing over GW2's profitability. The most successful Western Theme Park (WoW) and the most successful Western sand box (EVE) are both still P2P models.
IMO, the argument has never been, nor should it ever be about the business model. The argument is about the quality of games. If you have a quality product, people will pay for it.
source?
Go find your own source. Prove me wrong and I'll revise my post. I have no problem with that.
Its not about the subscription model. People who truly cannot afford $13 or similar each month for one of their primary hobbies are usually not able to spend much in cash shops, nor are they usually able to afford a rig capable of running these newer games.
At the same time, 13$ isnt a whole lot compared to what the people with money like to spend on a good game cash shop. I dont think anyone in my entire GW2 guild has spent less than that per month on the cash shop, and GW2 isnt very ruthless in its shop... its really just nice stuff there, nothing crucial.
The huge emphasis on payment models is really just a smokescreen. Good games will prevail, bad games will not. P2P games should think harder about providing an easy "get-in", like a trial version, demo or somesuch, whereas F2P games need to walk the fine line between making money and ripping off their customers.
The one thing I personally dislike about F2P games is that the player base is MUCH MUCH MUCH more abrasive and immature (nothing to do with age, though) because frankly, being banned doesnt hurt as much, and many are just hanging out there waiting for their next "main" game.
Hmm... I have to admit that I find this argument a little odd. I know that I, personally, don't care how much other people are spending in the game so long as their expenditures really don't offer them an overall advantage in the game. If I'm having fun I don't care that that guy over there spent $500 for a nice looking set of armor with the same stats as the armor I crafted for myself. So as I see it, financial commitment really shouldn't be a factor, and if it is there's something significantly wrong with the core of the game itself.
Games have to make money to survive. But to the one not spending the money screaming "It's not fair" I ask....Why on earth would anyone spend said $500 unless it's to be able to wipe your @$$ all over the game?
Guess what? They should be able to that's what they are paying for. Publishers are learning now that fluff and frill don't keep lights on. "I-WIN" buttons do. Don't want to get your @$$ wiped all over the game? Break out the credit card then.
Or, we can all go back to the original principal of everyone pays the same money for equal opportunity. At least there, if you get your ass wiped, it's because you chose not to do the same thing someone else in the game did, not because they spent more than you.
Well, ok, you've very nicely justified the P2W model for games designed to be P2W games, and in those games I'll agree with you. Therefore the fault in my argument lies in my opinion where I'm not fond of P2W games. Sorry 'bout that.
You have, however, left off the third (think GW2 model) where everyone can spend whatever they wish and everyone still has equal opportunity in the game. This is my personal preference these days.
Its not about the subscription model. People who truly cannot afford $13 or similar each month for one of their primary hobbies are usually not able to spend much in cash shops, nor are they usually able to afford a rig capable of running these newer games.
At the same time, 13$ isnt a whole lot compared to what the people with money like to spend on a good game cash shop. I dont think anyone in my entire GW2 guild has spent less than that per month on the cash shop, and GW2 isnt very ruthless in its shop... its really just nice stuff there, nothing crucial.
The huge emphasis on payment models is really just a smokescreen. Good games will prevail, bad games will not. P2P games should think harder about providing an easy "get-in", like a trial version, demo or somesuch, whereas F2P games need to walk the fine line between making money and ripping off their customers.
The one thing I personally dislike about F2P games is that the player base is MUCH MUCH MUCH more abrasive and immature (nothing to do with age, though) because frankly, being banned doesnt hurt as much, and many are just hanging out there waiting for their next "main" game.
Not to be rude but get out of this forum with that talk about people not being able to afford 13 dollars a month. Please. You pay more a year for your internet bill alone than you do for 5 years of a p2p mmo(probably even more than 5 years, more like 10 years probably).
Even if you went to an internet cafe to play mmo's, you usually have to pay to use their internet, so the amount you pay in 1 month to enjoy your mmos cause you don't have internet at home would still be way more than just 13 a month for a p2p mmo. Have to also factor in gas costs driving back and forth on top of fee for use of internet cafe which just makes it even more.
Even a child if they had the mind to, could go cut neighbor's lawns 2 or 3 times a month and make 13 dollars to give to their parents so they can play whatever game they wanted or do any number of other chores for same effect.
Seriously that is the STUPIDEST argument you can possibly make, that people can't afford 13 a month to play an mmo? If you have a computer, internet to even be on this forum and also to play ANY mmorpg, and electricity to power said computer, and food to keep you alive so you can even play or do anything at all, then you can afford 13 a month to play an mmo.
To put the above in another way, if you cannot even afford 13 a month to play a p2p mmo, then you really shouldn't be wasting your time playing ANY mmorpg in the first place.
With that said i agree with the rest of your post. About Quality of a game being the deciding factor if its successful or not over its payment model.
I think the question is wrong. I think it's more like can F2P survive. So much more competition among titles now, So many choices and so many mediocre games. GW2 was supposed to usher in a new billing model revolution. NCSoft has reported a decline in profits from GW2 and it's next Western release is going to be subscription based. Why did NCSoft abandon B2P? Obviously, there are many more factors in that decision, I get that, but if the Cash Shop generated revenue and boxed fees is as profitable as people hoped, there'd be no reason to ever go for a sub model again. But yet here we are.
FF14 is going P2P
ESO is going P2P
WildStar is going P2P
There are links in this forum right now discussing SWTOR and speculations that model is not as profitable as EA wants. There are discussions arguing over GW2's profitability. The most successful Western Theme Park (WoW) and the most successful Western sand box (EVE) are both still P2P models.
IMO, the argument has never been, nor should it ever be about the business model. The argument is about the quality of games. If you have a quality product, people will pay for it.
GW2 was never ushering in any new billing model revolution. They had very strategic marketing, positioning against subscription while avoiding the F2P stigma, brilliantly selling the mantra of "Just buy it and play it" to rake in truckloads of cash on a box fee for what is an item mall game. Subscription fans rejoiced because they perceived it as "subscription quality" without the monthly fee, and F2P fans rejoiced because they perceived the box fee as a sign that more money would go into creating a quality game for them.
That aside, your conclusion that it should be about quality is correct but very skewed, as it makes the leap from "they will pay for quality" to "they will pay for quality by business model x", the latter only being true if business model x aligns with how the target audience wants to pay for their MMO entertainment.
My statement about GW2 wasn't from ANET/NCSOFT's perspective, but from the player's. A year and a half ago, this board, along with others like guru, were filled with threads about B2P this and B2P that and "paradigm shifts" and changing the way we "MMORPG" and all that nonsense. So yes, there is some validity to what I said. (And admittedly a touch of hyperbole)
as for the main point of my post, I have said in the past. The business model has to match the product. This was SWTOR's problem. The game itself wasn't bad per se, bu it didn't have the longevity that would be required to charge a monthly fee for.
Yes, my post was simplified, but let's at least assume we are talking about the kind of game that should match this model in the 1st place. Most of us can say we would like an MMORPG that will be around long term.
Hmm... I have to admit that I find this argument a little odd. I know that I, personally, don't care how much other people are spending in the game so long as their expenditures really don't offer them an overall advantage in the game. If I'm having fun I don't care that that guy over there spent $500 for a nice looking set of armor with the same stats as the armor I crafted for myself. So as I see it, financial commitment really shouldn't be a factor, and if it is there's something significantly wrong with the core of the game itself.
Games have to make money to survive. But to the one not spending the money screaming "It's not fair" I ask....Why on earth would anyone spend said $500 unless it's to be able to wipe your @$$ all over the game?
Guess what? They should be able to that's what they are paying for. Publishers are learning now that fluff and frill don't keep lights on. "I-WIN" buttons do. Don't want to get your @$$ wiped all over the game? Break out the credit card then.
Or, we can all go back to the original principal of everyone pays the same money for equal opportunity. At least there, if you get your ass wiped, it's because you chose not to do the same thing someone else in the game did, not because they spent more than you.
Well, ok, you've very nicely justified the P2W model for games designed to be P2W games, and in those games I'll agree with you. Therefore the fault in my argument lies in my opinion where I'm not fond of P2W games. Sorry 'bout that.
You have, however, left off the third (think GW2 model) where everyone can spend whatever they wish and everyone still has equal opportunity in the game. This is my personal preference these days.
F2P will only exist for as long as people remain ignorant and/or companies implementations. Allow my to explain.
First, the consumer aspect.
People will play a game if it's free...because...well it's free. Once they've decided they want to keep playing it and they get further into the game most (not all) f2p games will start off by only really getting you to buy a little bit here or there for features/unlocks/bonuses. However, most (once again, not all) f2p games will require you to buy certain amount of specific content from the cash shop in order to stand on equal footing with other players at the end of the content. For example a game that provides a potion buff that provides a bonus to health/mana, and a few stat points. Every point counts when you're in the end-game and it can mean the difference between a guild taking you to a raid or replacing you with someone else willing to buy that cash shop potion. These games on average cost $20+ a month to keep playing within end-game content. So long as people remain ignorant to the fact that, yes they got into the game for free. But the content and cost to keep playing will add up to a significantly higher amount payed over time than a p2p model. Then that model will continue to nickel and dime the fiscally ignorant.
Now from a developer perspective.
If the goal is to create gates that players eventually have to pay in order to unlock, or stats/gear that must be purchased to achieve competitive results. There will be only one outcome. Eventually, the community will begin to fade as the continual cost and tediousness of buying these things every week/month, along with the cost. Will eventually alienate people against the company. This is where the foreign import market is at. The game has already made it's money and seen it's hayday overseas. When a distributor buys the regional license they are just hoping to get as much money out of it as they can and don't truly care about long-term goals or community. These are were the real bad cash shops are found. This will eventually kill f2p when people wise up. However, if more companies adopt policies similar to say Rift. Then we could see a long term presence of f2p models.
Ultimately, it comes down to people and the game being marketed.
P2P can survive in the modern MMORPG genre. World of Warcraft is proof of that.
When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter whether or not you pay a one time fee with occasional/optional cash shop purchases, pay a subscription, or never pay anything outside of occasional/optional cash shop purchases; all it comes down to is how fun/popular the game is. I wish upcoming subscription games (Wildstar, Final Fantasy XIV, and Elder Scrolls Online) the best of luck, but if they do not provide enjoyable experiences that cause people to come back for more, they will go the route of The Secret World and go B2P or go the route of Rift and go F2P, if not go the route of APB and shut down (and then get picked up by another studio that rereleases the game as a F2P title).
"modern mmo genre"?? Yeah, keep telling yourself that games are going in a specific direction. Entry level gaming vs recurring charges is what you are looking at.
1) Games that make their money primarily through cash shops have 0 due upon entry.
2) Games that make their money through subscriptions can have 0 due upon entry (like Most SOE games, including EQN) and then charge a subscription fee, or can have a box price as the entry fee + subscription.
3) Games that make their money through box sales, have HUGE entry fees, without even granting a physical item (like the box with disks or artwork), and do not charge a direct recurring fee, but instead gain additional monthly funds through the purchase of non-physical goods. Like GW2 and the like. (Think you own anything you purchase in GW2? Try selling it to someone who doesn't have the game. It all belongs to Arenanet, and the moment their servers shut down, you "ownership" is gone.)
In the end it is all about companies making money, and if you think one of the other methods of making cash is going to go away, you are severely mistaken and are only deluding yourself into the PR garbage that certain companies have been spewing.
Remember to always be skeptical and prove things to yourself instead of taking things others tell you at face value <-life lesson.
P2P can survive in the modern MMORPG genre. World of Warcraft is proof of that.
When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter whether or not you pay a one time fee with occasional/optional cash shop purchases, pay a subscription, or never pay anything outside of occasional/optional cash shop purchases; all it comes down to is how fun/popular the game is. I wish upcoming subscription games (Wildstar, Final Fantasy XIV, and Elder Scrolls Online) the best of luck, but if they do not provide enjoyable experiences that cause people to come back for more, they will go the route of The Secret World and go B2P or go the route of Rift and go F2P, if not go the route of APB and shut down (and then get picked up by another studio that rereleases the game as a F2P title).
Sorry to say this but WoW have built up their community since many years back when mmorpgs was pretty new, there were ultima and everquest etc before which no people really payed any attention to. WoW was the first mmorpg to build a strong community of players, especially because it was Blizzard and had warcraft lore. You can't compare WoW which had 12 million subscribers a few years ago and a newly released mmorpg in 2013. Why would people pay a monthly subscription for Wildstar in 2013 when there's is a lot of F2P or B2P mmorpgs already. The only new mmorpg i could see have a slight chance would be TESO but they will most likely drop in subs in a few months and be forced to go B2P or F2P. WoW have already lost about 4-6 million subscription over a few years time. Subscriptions won't work.
I feel P2P games can and will survive the modern era. The thing that appeals to me about P2P is everything in the game is unlocked. No pay to unlock weapons/classes/bagslots/ etc...
The thing is with games like WOW charging 15 bucks a month you get all that content. When a new game is buggy, content lacking, and full of development short cuts (instancing zones, balance issues) but they charge the same exact amount as WoW you are not getting the same amount of content/quality for the same price.
That is what I feel keeps P2P games looking bad right now. F2P if it sucks "whatever it's free right?" P2P if it sucks "Fuck that I am not paying for some half finished beta bullshit!"
P2P can survive in the modern MMORPG genre. World of Warcraft is proof of that.
When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter whether or not you pay a one time fee with occasional/optional cash shop purchases, pay a subscription, or never pay anything outside of occasional/optional cash shop purchases; all it comes down to is how fun/popular the game is. I wish upcoming subscription games (Wildstar, Final Fantasy XIV, and Elder Scrolls Online) the best of luck, but if they do not provide enjoyable experiences that cause people to come back for more, they will go the route of The Secret World and go B2P or go the route of Rift and go F2P, if not go the route of APB and shut down (and then get picked up by another studio that rereleases the game as a F2P title).
Sorry to say this but WoW have built up their community since many years back when mmorpgs was pretty new, there were ultima and everquest etc before which no people really payed any attention to. WoW was the first mmorpg to build a strong community of players, especially because it was Blizzard and had warcraft lore. You can't compare WoW which had 12 million subscribers a few years ago and a newly released mmorpg in 2013. Why would people pay a monthly subscription for Wildstar in 2013 when there's is a lot of F2P or B2P mmorpgs already. The only new mmorpg i could see have a slight chance would be TESO but they will most likely drop in subs in a few months and be forced to go B2P or F2P. WoW have already lost about 4-6 million subscription over a few years time. Subscriptions won't work.
Why would people pay a monthly subscription for Wildstar in 2013 when there's a lot of F2P or B2P mmorpgs already.
Did you seriously ask that question? Are you that dense? People spend money because they find whatever they're spending that money on to be WORTH the cost. Since we're talking about mmorpgs, that worth is defined in how much enjoyment/fun will the person have.
If they feel Wildstar is going to provide them immense fun, then they're going pay a subscription for it. If a person doesn't find GW2 fun after buying it, are they going to throw their money at the cash shop even though they hate the game, or are they gonna uninstall and forget about it?
Did you seriously ask that question?
Its....not...rocket science. Trying so hard not to get banned again but you people are making it so hard.
I feel P2P games can and will survive the modern era. The thing that appeals to me about P2P is everything in the game is unlocked. No pay to unlock weapons/classes/bagslots/ etc...
The thing is with games like WOW charging 15 bucks a month you get all that content. When a new game is buggy, content lacking, and full of development short cuts (instancing zones, balance issues) but they charge the same exact amount as WoW you are not getting the same amount of content/quality for the same price.
That is what I feel keeps P2P games looking bad right now. F2P if it sucks "whatever it's free right?" P2P if it sucks "Fuck that I am not paying for some half finished beta bullshit!"
But thats just it isn't it? I can not think of a game P2P or other that wasn't "half finished" in that some aspect of the game needed more fleshing out. It seems like comparitively they all have some degree of suck at the beginning.
P2P can survive in the modern MMORPG genre. World of Warcraft is proof of that.
When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter whether or not you pay a one time fee with occasional/optional cash shop purchases, pay a subscription, or never pay anything outside of occasional/optional cash shop purchases; all it comes down to is how fun/popular the game is. I wish upcoming subscription games (Wildstar, Final Fantasy XIV, and Elder Scrolls Online) the best of luck, but if they do not provide enjoyable experiences that cause people to come back for more, they will go the route of The Secret World and go B2P or go the route of Rift and go F2P, if not go the route of APB and shut down (and then get picked up by another studio that rereleases the game as a F2P title).
Sorry to say this but WoW have built up their community since many years back when mmorpgs was pretty new, there were ultima and everquest etc before which no people really payed any attention to. WoW was the first mmorpg to build a strong community of players, especially because it was Blizzard and had warcraft lore. You can't compare WoW which had 12 million subscribers a few years ago and a newly released mmorpg in 2013. Why would people pay a monthly subscription for Wildstar in 2013 when there's is a lot of F2P or B2P mmorpgs already. The only new mmorpg i could see have a slight chance would be TESO but they will most likely drop in subs in a few months and be forced to go B2P or F2P. WoW have already lost about 4-6 million subscription over a few years time. Subscriptions won't work.
They're not losing subs because of the model no longer working. They're losing subs because the market in general is being saturated and people are growing complacent with the game after so long.
Spinning the facts to fit your perspective makes you look ignorant.
That is what I feel keeps P2P games looking bad right now. F2P if it sucks "whatever it's free right?" P2P if it sucks "Fuck that I am not paying for some half finished beta bullshit!"
I think you have it backwards... P2P games get much more development time than F2P games, and It is exactly for the reason you stated. The companies know that if their game is lacking in P2P, where a monthly fee is involved, they will see a decrease in revenue, while F2P companies just have to dish out a new pet, or new overpowered weapon, or activity, and sell it for an exorbitant price, and people will keep throwing money at them, so they don't fall behind others who they are playing with.
It doesn't make one payment scheme better than the other, because, at the end of the day, you are giving money away for something intangible. If you value what you have spent your money on, then to you at least, it was worth it. In reality... not that much. Your 10, 100, or 1000 (choice of currency here) that you spent on your entertainment could have been much better implemented in helping people who are truly in need, saving for your next generation's survival, or other much more merit worthy accomplishments. This is what you have to think about if you really want to discuss how game companies gain their profits. If you do not what to think about this, then just be quiet, and pay for your entertainment in whatever method you want, without questioning how others want to pay for theirs.
I feel P2P games can and will survive the modern era. The thing that appeals to me about P2P is everything in the game is unlocked. No pay to unlock weapons/classes/bagslots/ etc...
The thing is with games like WOW charging 15 bucks a month you get all that content. When a new game is buggy, content lacking, and full of development short cuts (instancing zones, balance issues) but they charge the same exact amount as WoW you are not getting the same amount of content/quality for the same price.
That is what I feel keeps P2P games looking bad right now. F2P if it sucks "whatever it's free right?" P2P if it sucks "Fuck that I am not paying for some half finished beta bullshit!"
But thats just it isn't it? I can not think of a game P2P or other that wasn't "half finished" in that some aspect of the game needed more fleshing out. It seems like comparitively they all have some degree of suck at the beginning.
FFXI wasn't half finished. Tera wasn't half finished(tho it did have bugs all through launch that were around since closed beta so meh). Rift definitely wasn't half finished. I'm willing to bet money that FFXIV: ARR won't be half finished otherwise, some japanese people will need to commit seppuku.
I feel P2P games can and will survive the modern era. The thing that appeals to me about P2P is everything in the game is unlocked. No pay to unlock weapons/classes/bagslots/ etc...
The thing is with games like WOW charging 15 bucks a month you get all that content. When a new game is buggy, content lacking, and full of development short cuts (instancing zones, balance issues) but they charge the same exact amount as WoW you are not getting the same amount of content/quality for the same price.
That is what I feel keeps P2P games looking bad right now. F2P if it sucks "whatever it's free right?" P2P if it sucks "Fuck that I am not paying for some half finished beta bullshit!"
But thats just it isn't it? I can not think of a game P2P or other that wasn't "half finished" in that some aspect of the game needed more fleshing out. It seems like comparitively they all have some degree of suck at the beginning.
FFXI wasn't half finished. Tera wasn't half finished(tho it did have bugs all through launch that were around since closed beta so meh). Rift definitely wasn't half finished. I'm willing to bet money that FFXIV: ARR won't be half finished otherwise, some japanese people will need to commit seppuku.
FF11 was around before wow and held a good bit of subs (WoW raised the bar on what was excepted) Tera was unfinished there were no raids (or endgame really at all) at launch. Rift never played can't comment. Couldn't remember my log in details so missed out on the beta for ffxiv. But the first incarnation of it was broken and fail else it would not have been redone.
The point is if the value is not there neither will the subs.
Also I think what makes P2P games fail is the quick time it takes to reach endgame. If there was enough to do and it took you 6 months to reach the endgame not 6 weeks. Then there would be people paying for longer.
Why would people pay a monthly subscription for Wildstar in 2013 when there's a lot of F2P or B2P mmorpgs already.
I know i won't. Why would i even pay a cent when there are so many fun f2p games? I don't even have enough time to finish all the free content.
I like how you quoted me, but deleted every single word that i myself wrote as the part that you quoted is what you yourself wrote. Here's the words you forgot to read.
Did you seriously ask that question? Are you that dense? People spend money because they find whatever they're spending that money on to be WORTH the cost. Since we're talking about mmorpgs, that worth is defined in how much enjoyment/fun will the person have.
If they feel Wildstar is going to provide them immense fun, then they're going pay a subscription for it. If a person doesn't find GW2 fun after buying it, are they going to throw their money at the cash shop even though they hate the game, or are they gonna uninstall and forget about it?
Did you seriously ask that question?
Its....not...rocket science. Trying so hard not to get banned again but you people are making it so hard.
Originally posted by mrputts
Originally posted by Sephiroso
Originally posted by Muntz
Originally posted by mrputts
I feel P2P games can and will survive the modern era. The thing that appeals to me about P2P is everything in the game is unlocked. No pay to unlock weapons/classes/bagslots/ etc...
The thing is with games like WOW charging 15 bucks a month you get all that content. When a new game is buggy, content lacking, and full of development short cuts (instancing zones, balance issues) but they charge the same exact amount as WoW you are not getting the same amount of content/quality for the same price.
That is what I feel keeps P2P games looking bad right now. F2P if it sucks "whatever it's free right?" P2P if it sucks "Fuck that I am not paying for some half finished beta bullshit!"
But thats just it isn't it? I can not think of a game P2P or other that wasn't "half finished" in that some aspect of the game needed more fleshing out. It seems like comparitively they all have some degree of suck at the beginning.
FFXI wasn't half finished. Tera wasn't half finished(tho it did have bugs all through launch that were around since closed beta so meh). Rift definitely wasn't half finished. I'm willing to bet money that FFXIV: ARR won't be half finished otherwise, some japanese people will need to commit seppuku.
FF11 was around before wow and held a good bit of subs (WoW raised the bar on what was excepted) Tera was unfinished there were no raids (or endgame really at all) at launch. Rift never played can't comment. Couldn't remember my log in details so missed out on the beta for ffxiv. But the first incarnation of it was broken and fail else it would not have been redone.
The point is if the value is not there neither will the subs.
Also I think what makes P2P games fail is the quick time it takes to reach endgame. If there was enough to do and it took you 6 months to reach the endgame not 6 weeks. Then there would be people paying for longer.
i can't really say i disagree with anything you said, though tera did have some endgame at launch, tera's problem was much the same as most others and that it wasnt enough(mostly due to like you said, modern mmos makes it much to quick to reach end game)
And let's be honest, what game does it take 6 weeks to reach end game? I mean really. Not since EQ 1/FFXI/WoW-vanilla did it take longer than a week to reach max level. And that's with taking plenty of breaks from playing and not playign 24/7.
I feel P2P games can and will survive the modern era. The thing that appeals to me about P2P is everything in the game is unlocked. No pay to unlock weapons/classes/bagslots/ etc...
The thing is with games like WOW charging 15 bucks a month you get all that content. When a new game is buggy, content lacking, and full of development short cuts (instancing zones, balance issues) but they charge the same exact amount as WoW you are not getting the same amount of content/quality for the same price.
That is what I feel keeps P2P games looking bad right now. F2P if it sucks "whatever it's free right?" P2P if it sucks "Fuck that I am not paying for some half finished beta bullshit!"
But thats just it isn't it? I can not think of a game P2P or other that wasn't "half finished" in that some aspect of the game needed more fleshing out. It seems like comparitively they all have some degree of suck at the beginning.
FFXI wasn't half finished. Tera wasn't half finished(tho it did have bugs all through launch that were around since closed beta so meh). Rift definitely wasn't half finished. I'm willing to bet money that FFXIV: ARR won't be half finished otherwise, some japanese people will need to commit seppuku.
FF11 was around before wow and held a good bit of subs (WoW raised the bar on what was excepted) Tera was unfinished there were no raids (or endgame really at all) at launch. Rift never played can't comment. Couldn't remember my log in details so missed out on the beta for ffxiv. But the first incarnation of it was broken and fail else it would not have been redone.
The point is if the value is not there neither will the subs.
Also I think what makes P2P games fail is the quick time it takes to reach endgame. If there was enough to do and it took you 6 months to reach the endgame not 6 weeks. Then there would be people paying for longer.
I agree with you on endgame although I have little interest at this point in playing a game that takes 6mo to level because for the amount of time I can commit to play that would be x10. If a game could make the journey fun instead of putting so much emphasis on end-game it could be worth it. Hell I might reconsider and play such a game if the journey was actually fun. From past P2P games I know that there are huge gaps in the journey that weren't that fun. The thought of having to stretch those out over a longer period of time makes me avoid these hard leveling grinders.
I feel P2P games can and will survive the modern era. The thing that appeals to me about P2P is everything in the game is unlocked. No pay to unlock weapons/classes/bagslots/ etc...
The thing is with games like WOW charging 15 bucks a month you get all that content. When a new game is buggy, content lacking, and full of development short cuts (instancing zones, balance issues) but they charge the same exact amount as WoW you are not getting the same amount of content/quality for the same price.
That is what I feel keeps P2P games looking bad right now. F2P if it sucks "whatever it's free right?" P2P if it sucks "Fuck that I am not paying for some half finished beta bullshit!"
But thats just it isn't it? I can not think of a game P2P or other that wasn't "half finished" in that some aspect of the game needed more fleshing out. It seems like comparitively they all have some degree of suck at the beginning.
FFXI wasn't half finished. Tera wasn't half finished(tho it did have bugs all through launch that were around since closed beta so meh). Rift definitely wasn't half finished. I'm willing to bet money that FFXIV: ARR won't be half finished otherwise, some japanese people will need to commit seppuku.
FF11 was around before wow and held a good bit of subs (WoW raised the bar on what was excepted) Tera was unfinished there were no raids (or endgame really at all) at launch. Rift never played can't comment. Couldn't remember my log in details so missed out on the beta for ffxiv. But the first incarnation of it was broken and fail else it would not have been redone.
The point is if the value is not there neither will the subs.
Also I think what makes P2P games fail is the quick time it takes to reach endgame. If there was enough to do and it took you 6 months to reach the endgame not 6 weeks. Then there would be people paying for longer.
I agree with you on endgame although I have little interest at this point in playing a game that takes 6mo to level because for the amount of time I can commit to play that would be x10. If a game could make the journey fun instead of putting so much emphasis on end-game it could be worth it. Hell I might reconsider and play such a game if the journey was actually fun. From past P2P games I know that there are huge gaps in the journey that weren't that fun. The thought of having to stretch those out over a longer period of time makes me avoid these hard leveling grinders.
And this is a good reason why games that are P2P fail. No offense to you intended, but really and truly you are the reason P2P fails devs cater to you. So the rest of the MMO world burn through the little leveling content there is quickly. Then get bored and hang out in that game's version of orgrimmar being bored because the content was burnt to fast. So they go "Fuck this game ain't worth 15 bucks a month." and bail.
Up to a point $15 a month are needed for upkeep, but like anything in bulk, once you have enough players it becomes cheaper per player and then whatever is left over is used to fund future updates and expansion packs. So no the $15 upkeep hasn't really been debunked, there are just a lot of gamers who think they know it all who really don't.
As to the title of the thread. I think it will be very hard for P2P to survive in the near term future, but much easier in the more distant future. Too many gamers are completely blinded to what F2P really is and how much worse it is going to get for gamers. They want to believe that it really means F2P and that it really gives players freedom to choose what to buy and when. In reality companies are doing everything they can to make that not so and to make it as expensive as they can in a given month to play and to fuel the desire of whales to spend massive amounts of cash. Once it all becomes clear, players will be asking for P2P to return.
A big barrier for P2P is that they still do a box price. The problem is that is a huge investment right off the bat and that scares away people. I truly think subscription games should get rid of the box price and launch with a 7 day free trial and then simply the $15 a month. It allows people to try the game for free to see if it fits them, and then jump in at a lower cost point. I am not dumb however and realize this a lot to ask from a company. Selling a million boxes out the gate can often times pay for the entire development of the game where as giving those same people a chance to try it for free for a week and then pay only $15 vs $50 for the first month loses out on a lot of revenue. It also would mean the game had to have a lot of depth and great playability to keep people interested long enough to get the money that you would have gotten with a box sale. That is why companies prefer F2P. Instead of making a great game they can have an artist spend a day making a pair of sunglasses (which have no place in a medieval world) and then sell them for $4 followed by a pair of boxing gloves for $6 all while having a game that has no depth or interesting gameplay at all.
Another way of saying it is that F2P allows a company to be lazy and not make a good product but still make money from people who can't help to 1) buy cute pointless objects in pixel form and 2) will always instantly pay to win even if they don't like the game simply because they like beating others. Where as P2P requires a deep, rich, engaging game to be successful.
There is a reason why in Asia most companies make F2P games that are expected to only run a few months before people get bored and then they release a new rehashed version of it for very cheap over and over. The type of gamers who flock to them like the instant high of buying everything to be the best in the game and get bored when everyone else gets there so they go chase the high again. I don't look forward to that being the games released here in the west where many really great games have been made over the years.
I feel P2P games can and will survive the modern era. The thing that appeals to me about P2P is everything in the game is unlocked. No pay to unlock weapons/classes/bagslots/ etc...
The thing is with games like WOW charging 15 bucks a month you get all that content. When a new game is buggy, content lacking, and full of development short cuts (instancing zones, balance issues) but they charge the same exact amount as WoW you are not getting the same amount of content/quality for the same price.
That is what I feel keeps P2P games looking bad right now. F2P if it sucks "whatever it's free right?" P2P if it sucks "Fuck that I am not paying for some half finished beta bullshit!"
But thats just it isn't it? I can not think of a game P2P or other that wasn't "half finished" in that some aspect of the game needed more fleshing out. It seems like comparitively they all have some degree of suck at the beginning.
FFXI wasn't half finished. Tera wasn't half finished(tho it did have bugs all through launch that were around since closed beta so meh). Rift definitely wasn't half finished. I'm willing to bet money that FFXIV: ARR won't be half finished otherwise, some japanese people will need to commit seppuku.
FF11 was around before wow and held a good bit of subs (WoW raised the bar on what was excepted) Tera was unfinished there were no raids (or endgame really at all) at launch. Rift never played can't comment. Couldn't remember my log in details so missed out on the beta for ffxiv. But the first incarnation of it was broken and fail else it would not have been redone.
The point is if the value is not there neither will the subs.
Also I think what makes P2P games fail is the quick time it takes to reach endgame. If there was enough to do and it took you 6 months to reach the endgame not 6 weeks. Then there would be people paying for longer.
I agree with you on endgame although I have little interest at this point in playing a game that takes 6mo to level because for the amount of time I can commit to play that would be x10. If a game could make the journey fun instead of putting so much emphasis on end-game it could be worth it. Hell I might reconsider and play such a game if the journey was actually fun. From past P2P games I know that there are huge gaps in the journey that weren't that fun. The thought of having to stretch those out over a longer period of time makes me avoid these hard leveling grinders.
And this is a good reason why games that are P2P fail. No offense to you intended, but really and truly you are the reason P2P fails devs cater to you. So the rest of the MMO world burn through the little leveling content there is quickly. Then get bored and hang out in that game's version of orgrimmar being bored because the content was burnt to fast. So they go "Fuck this game ain't worth 15 bucks a month." and bail.
I disagree for his very next sentence is the actual reason why games that are P2P fail(in addition to making us level way to fast).
The red is the major reason why p2p mmo's of late have been failing, along with the fact that they let us players level to cap insanely fast and we consume what little content they have released because we reached max level within just days of purchase and we're done and bored.
The journey to end game isn't even long enough to be called a journey. It's just a skip really. If the leveling process is where the bulk of the funds of a game is spent to improve and 'end-game' was just a bonus for people who made it that far, then the mmorpg genre would finally be in sight of the pearly gates.
But until a dev studio realizes this, we'll have to do with shit game after shit game, with the occasional shined and polished gem but still even thoughs gems aren't worth that much, what we really want is gold but we settle for now.
And this is a good reason why games that are P2P fail. No offense to you intended, but really and truly you are the reason P2P fails devs cater to you. So the rest of the MMO world burn through the little leveling content there is quickly. Then get bored and hang out in that game's version of orgrimmar being bored because the content was burnt to fast. So they go "Fuck this game ain't worth 15 bucks a month." and bail.
And the market works as it should.
If most players don't want to spend 6 month leveling, the market should produce games with shorter leveling curves.
And sub-only games failing is not a bad thing if people want to game hop and don't want a stable, every month $15 game.
Comments
This is such a stupid question that doesn't even merit discussion. Payment models do not define a games success. The games worth as a game is what defines if it succeeds or not.
The reason why games that go free to play manage to stay afloat and continue going vs shutting down completely is people will do anything if its free. And you will find those crazy few that spend thousands a month that will support the game(by support i mean, make the game enough to keep it running but profits will be very low and almost not worth keeping the game running for all the effort) until the end of time.
People who say P2P cant survive in current mmorpg genre are just deluding themselves into thinking the recent failures of mmos are because they were p2p when the actual problem is the games were superficial and stale. When devs stop making shallow games and actually start polishing the fuck out of their games while having a LOT of varied content, then they won't have to worry about succeeding(far cry above just surviving) no matter what payment model they pick be it p2p b2p or f2p.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
Go find your own source. Prove me wrong and I'll revise my post. I have no problem with that.
Its not about the subscription model. People who truly cannot afford $13 or similar each month for one of their primary hobbies are usually not able to spend much in cash shops, nor are they usually able to afford a rig capable of running these newer games.
At the same time, 13$ isnt a whole lot compared to what the people with money like to spend on a good game cash shop. I dont think anyone in my entire GW2 guild has spent less than that per month on the cash shop, and GW2 isnt very ruthless in its shop... its really just nice stuff there, nothing crucial.
The huge emphasis on payment models is really just a smokescreen. Good games will prevail, bad games will not. P2P games should think harder about providing an easy "get-in", like a trial version, demo or somesuch, whereas F2P games need to walk the fine line between making money and ripping off their customers.
The one thing I personally dislike about F2P games is that the player base is MUCH MUCH MUCH more abrasive and immature (nothing to do with age, though) because frankly, being banned doesnt hurt as much, and many are just hanging out there waiting for their next "main" game.
Well, ok, you've very nicely justified the P2W model for games designed to be P2W games, and in those games I'll agree with you. Therefore the fault in my argument lies in my opinion where I'm not fond of P2W games. Sorry 'bout that.
You have, however, left off the third (think GW2 model) where everyone can spend whatever they wish and everyone still has equal opportunity in the game. This is my personal preference these days.
Oderint, dum metuant.
Not to be rude but get out of this forum with that talk about people not being able to afford 13 dollars a month. Please. You pay more a year for your internet bill alone than you do for 5 years of a p2p mmo(probably even more than 5 years, more like 10 years probably).
Even if you went to an internet cafe to play mmo's, you usually have to pay to use their internet, so the amount you pay in 1 month to enjoy your mmos cause you don't have internet at home would still be way more than just 13 a month for a p2p mmo. Have to also factor in gas costs driving back and forth on top of fee for use of internet cafe which just makes it even more.
Even a child if they had the mind to, could go cut neighbor's lawns 2 or 3 times a month and make 13 dollars to give to their parents so they can play whatever game they wanted or do any number of other chores for same effect.
Seriously that is the STUPIDEST argument you can possibly make, that people can't afford 13 a month to play an mmo? If you have a computer, internet to even be on this forum and also to play ANY mmorpg, and electricity to power said computer, and food to keep you alive so you can even play or do anything at all, then you can afford 13 a month to play an mmo.
To put the above in another way, if you cannot even afford 13 a month to play a p2p mmo, then you really shouldn't be wasting your time playing ANY mmorpg in the first place.
With that said i agree with the rest of your post. About Quality of a game being the deciding factor if its successful or not over its payment model.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
My statement about GW2 wasn't from ANET/NCSOFT's perspective, but from the player's. A year and a half ago, this board, along with others like guru, were filled with threads about B2P this and B2P that and "paradigm shifts" and changing the way we "MMORPG" and all that nonsense. So yes, there is some validity to what I said. (And admittedly a touch of hyperbole)
as for the main point of my post, I have said in the past. The business model has to match the product. This was SWTOR's problem. The game itself wasn't bad per se, bu it didn't have the longevity that would be required to charge a monthly fee for.
Yes, my post was simplified, but let's at least assume we are talking about the kind of game that should match this model in the 1st place. Most of us can say we would like an MMORPG that will be around long term.
Fair enough.
F2P will only exist for as long as people remain ignorant and/or companies implementations. Allow my to explain.
First, the consumer aspect.
People will play a game if it's free...because...well it's free. Once they've decided they want to keep playing it and they get further into the game most (not all) f2p games will start off by only really getting you to buy a little bit here or there for features/unlocks/bonuses. However, most (once again, not all) f2p games will require you to buy certain amount of specific content from the cash shop in order to stand on equal footing with other players at the end of the content. For example a game that provides a potion buff that provides a bonus to health/mana, and a few stat points. Every point counts when you're in the end-game and it can mean the difference between a guild taking you to a raid or replacing you with someone else willing to buy that cash shop potion. These games on average cost $20+ a month to keep playing within end-game content. So long as people remain ignorant to the fact that, yes they got into the game for free. But the content and cost to keep playing will add up to a significantly higher amount payed over time than a p2p model. Then that model will continue to nickel and dime the fiscally ignorant.
Now from a developer perspective.
If the goal is to create gates that players eventually have to pay in order to unlock, or stats/gear that must be purchased to achieve competitive results. There will be only one outcome. Eventually, the community will begin to fade as the continual cost and tediousness of buying these things every week/month, along with the cost. Will eventually alienate people against the company. This is where the foreign import market is at. The game has already made it's money and seen it's hayday overseas. When a distributor buys the regional license they are just hoping to get as much money out of it as they can and don't truly care about long-term goals or community. These are were the real bad cash shops are found. This will eventually kill f2p when people wise up. However, if more companies adopt policies similar to say Rift. Then we could see a long term presence of f2p models.
Ultimately, it comes down to people and the game being marketed.
P2P can survive in the modern MMORPG genre. World of Warcraft is proof of that.
When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter whether or not you pay a one time fee with occasional/optional cash shop purchases, pay a subscription, or never pay anything outside of occasional/optional cash shop purchases; all it comes down to is how fun/popular the game is. I wish upcoming subscription games (Wildstar, Final Fantasy XIV, and Elder Scrolls Online) the best of luck, but if they do not provide enjoyable experiences that cause people to come back for more, they will go the route of The Secret World and go B2P or go the route of Rift and go F2P, if not go the route of APB and shut down (and then get picked up by another studio that rereleases the game as a F2P title).
Since when is Tuesday a direction?
"modern mmo genre"?? Yeah, keep telling yourself that games are going in a specific direction. Entry level gaming vs recurring charges is what you are looking at.
1) Games that make their money primarily through cash shops have 0 due upon entry.
2) Games that make their money through subscriptions can have 0 due upon entry (like Most SOE games, including EQN) and then charge a subscription fee, or can have a box price as the entry fee + subscription.
3) Games that make their money through box sales, have HUGE entry fees, without even granting a physical item (like the box with disks or artwork), and do not charge a direct recurring fee, but instead gain additional monthly funds through the purchase of non-physical goods. Like GW2 and the like. (Think you own anything you purchase in GW2? Try selling it to someone who doesn't have the game. It all belongs to Arenanet, and the moment their servers shut down, you "ownership" is gone.)
In the end it is all about companies making money, and if you think one of the other methods of making cash is going to go away, you are severely mistaken and are only deluding yourself into the PR garbage that certain companies have been spewing.
Remember to always be skeptical and prove things to yourself instead of taking things others tell you at face value <-life lesson.
Sorry to say this but WoW have built up their community since many years back when mmorpgs was pretty new, there were ultima and everquest etc before which no people really payed any attention to. WoW was the first mmorpg to build a strong community of players, especially because it was Blizzard and had warcraft lore. You can't compare WoW which had 12 million subscribers a few years ago and a newly released mmorpg in 2013. Why would people pay a monthly subscription for Wildstar in 2013 when there's is a lot of F2P or B2P mmorpgs already. The only new mmorpg i could see have a slight chance would be TESO but they will most likely drop in subs in a few months and be forced to go B2P or F2P. WoW have already lost about 4-6 million subscription over a few years time. Subscriptions won't work.
I feel P2P games can and will survive the modern era. The thing that appeals to me about P2P is everything in the game is unlocked. No pay to unlock weapons/classes/bagslots/ etc...
The thing is with games like WOW charging 15 bucks a month you get all that content. When a new game is buggy, content lacking, and full of development short cuts (instancing zones, balance issues) but they charge the same exact amount as WoW you are not getting the same amount of content/quality for the same price.
That is what I feel keeps P2P games looking bad right now. F2P if it sucks "whatever it's free right?" P2P if it sucks "Fuck that I am not paying for some half finished beta bullshit!"
Ea is like a poo fingered midas ~ShakyMo
Why would people pay a monthly subscription for Wildstar in 2013 when there's a lot of F2P or B2P mmorpgs already.
Did you seriously ask that question? Are you that dense? People spend money because they find whatever they're spending that money on to be WORTH the cost. Since we're talking about mmorpgs, that worth is defined in how much enjoyment/fun will the person have.
If they feel Wildstar is going to provide them immense fun, then they're going pay a subscription for it. If a person doesn't find GW2 fun after buying it, are they going to throw their money at the cash shop even though they hate the game, or are they gonna uninstall and forget about it?
Did you seriously ask that question?
Its....not...rocket science. Trying so hard not to get banned again but you people are making it so hard.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
But thats just it isn't it? I can not think of a game P2P or other that wasn't "half finished" in that some aspect of the game needed more fleshing out. It seems like comparitively they all have some degree of suck at the beginning.
They're not losing subs because of the model no longer working. They're losing subs because the market in general is being saturated and people are growing complacent with the game after so long.
Spinning the facts to fit your perspective makes you look ignorant.
I think you have it backwards... P2P games get much more development time than F2P games, and It is exactly for the reason you stated. The companies know that if their game is lacking in P2P, where a monthly fee is involved, they will see a decrease in revenue, while F2P companies just have to dish out a new pet, or new overpowered weapon, or activity, and sell it for an exorbitant price, and people will keep throwing money at them, so they don't fall behind others who they are playing with.
It doesn't make one payment scheme better than the other, because, at the end of the day, you are giving money away for something intangible. If you value what you have spent your money on, then to you at least, it was worth it. In reality... not that much. Your 10, 100, or 1000 (choice of currency here) that you spent on your entertainment could have been much better implemented in helping people who are truly in need, saving for your next generation's survival, or other much more merit worthy accomplishments. This is what you have to think about if you really want to discuss how game companies gain their profits. If you do not what to think about this, then just be quiet, and pay for your entertainment in whatever method you want, without questioning how others want to pay for theirs.
FFXI wasn't half finished. Tera wasn't half finished(tho it did have bugs all through launch that were around since closed beta so meh). Rift definitely wasn't half finished. I'm willing to bet money that FFXIV: ARR won't be half finished otherwise, some japanese people will need to commit seppuku.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
FF11 was around before wow and held a good bit of subs (WoW raised the bar on what was excepted) Tera was unfinished there were no raids (or endgame really at all) at launch. Rift never played can't comment. Couldn't remember my log in details so missed out on the beta for ffxiv. But the first incarnation of it was broken and fail else it would not have been redone.
The point is if the value is not there neither will the subs.
Also I think what makes P2P games fail is the quick time it takes to reach endgame. If there was enough to do and it took you 6 months to reach the endgame not 6 weeks. Then there would be people paying for longer.
Ea is like a poo fingered midas ~ShakyMo
I like how you quoted me, but deleted every single word that i myself wrote as the part that you quoted is what you yourself wrote. Here's the words you forgot to read.
Did you seriously ask that question? Are you that dense? People spend money because they find whatever they're spending that money on to be WORTH the cost. Since we're talking about mmorpgs, that worth is defined in how much enjoyment/fun will the person have.
If they feel Wildstar is going to provide them immense fun, then they're going pay a subscription for it. If a person doesn't find GW2 fun after buying it, are they going to throw their money at the cash shop even though they hate the game, or are they gonna uninstall and forget about it?
Did you seriously ask that question?
Its....not...rocket science. Trying so hard not to get banned again but you people are making it so hard.
i can't really say i disagree with anything you said, though tera did have some endgame at launch, tera's problem was much the same as most others and that it wasnt enough(mostly due to like you said, modern mmos makes it much to quick to reach end game)
And let's be honest, what game does it take 6 weeks to reach end game? I mean really. Not since EQ 1/FFXI/WoW-vanilla did it take longer than a week to reach max level. And that's with taking plenty of breaks from playing and not playign 24/7.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
I agree with you on endgame although I have little interest at this point in playing a game that takes 6mo to level because for the amount of time I can commit to play that would be x10. If a game could make the journey fun instead of putting so much emphasis on end-game it could be worth it. Hell I might reconsider and play such a game if the journey was actually fun. From past P2P games I know that there are huge gaps in the journey that weren't that fun. The thought of having to stretch those out over a longer period of time makes me avoid these hard leveling grinders.
And this is a good reason why games that are P2P fail. No offense to you intended, but really and truly you are the reason P2P fails devs cater to you. So the rest of the MMO world burn through the little leveling content there is quickly. Then get bored and hang out in that game's version of orgrimmar being bored because the content was burnt to fast. So they go "Fuck this game ain't worth 15 bucks a month." and bail.
Ea is like a poo fingered midas ~ShakyMo
Up to a point $15 a month are needed for upkeep, but like anything in bulk, once you have enough players it becomes cheaper per player and then whatever is left over is used to fund future updates and expansion packs. So no the $15 upkeep hasn't really been debunked, there are just a lot of gamers who think they know it all who really don't.
As to the title of the thread. I think it will be very hard for P2P to survive in the near term future, but much easier in the more distant future. Too many gamers are completely blinded to what F2P really is and how much worse it is going to get for gamers. They want to believe that it really means F2P and that it really gives players freedom to choose what to buy and when. In reality companies are doing everything they can to make that not so and to make it as expensive as they can in a given month to play and to fuel the desire of whales to spend massive amounts of cash. Once it all becomes clear, players will be asking for P2P to return.
A big barrier for P2P is that they still do a box price. The problem is that is a huge investment right off the bat and that scares away people. I truly think subscription games should get rid of the box price and launch with a 7 day free trial and then simply the $15 a month. It allows people to try the game for free to see if it fits them, and then jump in at a lower cost point. I am not dumb however and realize this a lot to ask from a company. Selling a million boxes out the gate can often times pay for the entire development of the game where as giving those same people a chance to try it for free for a week and then pay only $15 vs $50 for the first month loses out on a lot of revenue. It also would mean the game had to have a lot of depth and great playability to keep people interested long enough to get the money that you would have gotten with a box sale. That is why companies prefer F2P. Instead of making a great game they can have an artist spend a day making a pair of sunglasses (which have no place in a medieval world) and then sell them for $4 followed by a pair of boxing gloves for $6 all while having a game that has no depth or interesting gameplay at all.
Another way of saying it is that F2P allows a company to be lazy and not make a good product but still make money from people who can't help to 1) buy cute pointless objects in pixel form and 2) will always instantly pay to win even if they don't like the game simply because they like beating others. Where as P2P requires a deep, rich, engaging game to be successful.
There is a reason why in Asia most companies make F2P games that are expected to only run a few months before people get bored and then they release a new rehashed version of it for very cheap over and over. The type of gamers who flock to them like the instant high of buying everything to be the best in the game and get bored when everyone else gets there so they go chase the high again. I don't look forward to that being the games released here in the west where many really great games have been made over the years.
I disagree for his very next sentence is the actual reason why games that are P2P fail(in addition to making us level way to fast).
The red is the major reason why p2p mmo's of late have been failing, along with the fact that they let us players level to cap insanely fast and we consume what little content they have released because we reached max level within just days of purchase and we're done and bored.
The journey to end game isn't even long enough to be called a journey. It's just a skip really. If the leveling process is where the bulk of the funds of a game is spent to improve and 'end-game' was just a bonus for people who made it that far, then the mmorpg genre would finally be in sight of the pearly gates.
But until a dev studio realizes this, we'll have to do with shit game after shit game, with the occasional shined and polished gem but still even thoughs gems aren't worth that much, what we really want is gold but we settle for now.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
And the market works as it should.
If most players don't want to spend 6 month leveling, the market should produce games with shorter leveling curves.
And sub-only games failing is not a bad thing if people want to game hop and don't want a stable, every month $15 game.