Generally speaking, I don't have an issue with games starting off sub and going F2P, provided there's a comfortable gap between launch and the switch. The most problematic issue for me is rather how the game treats its former subscribers, players who have done their part to keep the game going under the old model. On the one hand you have games like Tera and Rift (TSW, too, if we're talking P2P->B2P) that took extra steps to value their former players. On the other hand there are games like SWTOR that seemed downright miserly in comparison.
Experiencing this in Rift I then went and played a ton of different F2P games to understand it more clearly and really I think it comes down to the model used and what Trion uses I really like - how much you can still get without spending real money.
I think having a player base that was there before F2P also creates a more helpful community as this loyal player base have already contributed to a game with subscription and remain loyal to it. (If that makes sense)
F2P at release also seems quieter on the community front which doesn't suit an MMORPG.
Interesting perspective. Subscribers probably do make a better loyal fanbase.
I now I have a mental image of subscription players being happily chin linked to their MMO as if they belong to it. Along with players that are chained to an MMO, burdened by it. F2P- no burden and not entirely belonging to it.
Should make it sub and some play time required to run to the forum and demand class/combat changes. Because if a person is only going to play for 30 days, he has no business trying to model the game he's just passing through with. That's a problem with the F2P model too, the danger of making changes to a game that players don't last long enough to care anyway.
With so many going F2P the odds are you've had a MMO you've played make the switch to F2P. Did the switch improve or harm your game experience? Were you glad to have played it in the time that it was subscription based or do you feel ripped off that you were part of it? Does the possibility of a F2P switch make you less interested?
Without a doubt the payment model they choose is a business decision but is making the switch worse for business than choosing F2P from the start?
OP,
If it's good for the long term life of the game and I still enjoy the game, I have no problem with it. With one caveat. That it doesn't go fully F2P. I hate, loathe microtransactions. I like paying my sub and getting access to the full game. If the company feels they need to offer a F2P option, so be it. But, don't take away my sub.
I'm actually in favor of a Hybrid model from the start. There is a good sized market out there for both Subscription players and F2P players. So, why not just offer both from the get go?
Should make it sub and some play time required to run to the forum and demand class/combat changes. Because if a person is only going to play for 30 days, he has no business trying to model the game he's just passing through with. That's a problem with the F2P model too, the danger of making changes to a game that players don't last long enough to care anyway.
What if the devs want to attract similar short term players?
May be the strategy is attract lots of short term players, fleece the whales, and let them go. Then move onto the second patch of short term players.
No one says the devs need to be loyal to the players.
It is excusable for older games, but the new games coming out its a pretty blatant bait and switch. The CEO of Pathfinder even came out and said he was planning on doing box + subscription and then moving on to F2P (in a recent Massively article, for some reason I cant copy and paste onto this website so you'll have to look it up yourselves). I personally think that is dishonest and mean spirited to early adopters who want to support the game.
I don't think that deliberate bait and switch tactics foster community or trust from the customer, and will result in most of those early adopters leaving the game.
I think this is better because they are upfront and honest about their plans. For games like SWTOR, Rift, and TSW that don't put the F2P option in their game design before release, I end up feeling betrayed when they switch. There are two reasons I have for my feelings of betrayal. The first is that I paid money for access to the game, and it just felt like they only delivered a paid beta but called it finished. The second is that the cash shops end up being a horrible mess and screw over both free players and former subscribers.
I will give Pathfinder a chance because they have time to integrate their free and paid services in a way that doesn't make me feel betrayed when they do switch.
I think this is better because they are upfront and honest about their plans. For games like SWTOR, Rift, and TSW that don't put the F2P option in their game design before release, I end up feeling betrayed when they switch. There are two reasons I have for my feelings of betrayal. The first is that I paid money for access to the game, and it just felt like they only delivered a paid beta but called it finished. The second is that the cash shops end up being a horrible mess and screw over both free players and former subscribers.
I will give Pathfinder a chance because they have time to integrate their free and paid services in a way that doesn't make me feel betrayed when they do switch.
don't play sub games. Problem solved.
In fact, most games (except may be wow) will be f2P anyway. So it is not like you will be missing out much.
I think it's just a sign of the times. Poor quality games or games that have the same tired formula keep getting cranked out. Then devs have the cojones to think their new shiny MMO with quest hubs, gear grind, and raids will be done better than all of the others that have gone before them, ....and that also went f2p afterwards? Psshhh
Honestly i feel like it use to be a sub game going free to play was to actually help the game stay going for the people who enjoy it. get more people interested and maybe they will spend a little money.
But now i feel like these games are being made knowing they will be free to play later. take star wars for example. they knew from day one that was going to be free to play later down the road and they were just trying to milk as much money as possible for sub fees till the day they rolled out the free to play.
I wouldnt be surprised at all if these new games coming out go the same route TORtanic did. sub fees as long as possible then roll out the free to play model, lay off a bunch of devs, delay all the promised content, and move onto the next project, because they already got their money and then some in copys sold so who cares now.
I don't have a problem with MMOs going F2P after a sub mostly because I am probably no longer playing it by then. When a game goes F2P soon after being a sub game, it is because the game is doing poorly, and probably sucks.
I've never had a game I was still playing turn F2P on me. Some have switched after I quit playing though. I do think going to a mostly F2P on old games is fine though. I like how EQ did it. Can play most of the game for free, can even purchase a mount or mercenary slots, but if you want the full game it is a subscription. I agree with that model because they're trying to bring in more customers on an old game.
As far as F2P games, I don't like them. I prefer sub games or old sub games that went to a freemium model. The main reason is I have never played a quality F2P MMO. Not even close. I've tried a lot and they have all been garbage. I've had much better success in finding a quality sub game. Sure a lot of them lately have sucked, but I could tell that before even buying, and avoided them.
I've never felt ripped off from any sub games I have purchased, but I have felt like I wasted my time when trying F2P games.
With so many going F2P the odds are you've had a MMO you've played make the switch to F2P. Did the switch improve or harm your game experience? Were you glad to have played it in the time that it was subscription based or do you feel ripped off that you were part of it? Does the possibility of a F2P switch make you less interested?
Without a doubt the payment model they choose is a business decision but is making the switch worse for business than choosing F2P from the start?
I do not see this as a problem. EVERY company want to make money from their game(s) ... sub is best for this so they try. But if quality is not adequate ... well they must ADAPT and do something about or close servers.
Didn't like it in EQII when it was done. It created complicated tier schemes which I'm sure folks had to contact SOE to revoke payments for the new sub model, as they were that confusing.
It also fractured the community, as EQII kept sub and free in different sides of the game, and only one way transfers of toons.
If WoW ever goes that route, never ever make payment schemes like EQII had, nor isolate pay and free. If F2P is offered everyone is together, just the free guys won't have the same account perks (i.e., more toon slots and such).
Unbelievable as it may sound, there are sometimes as many as 800+ long queues in the evenings on my WoW server. It has gone crazy. Where are all these players coming from? Why are they not playing all those F2P MMOs, like GW2 for example.
Or, what does WoW have that so may prefer to pay a subscription than to play a free MMO ?
IMO it depends on the F2P system implemented and the quality of the MMO. If both of those are good the whether it stays sub or switches it should remain a quality MMO. A sub first, F2P sub can only help this because the company is able to recoup costs earlier and get to work on future content.
From what I remember most games that have gone F2P after release have done so after I have stopped playing them, if I ever even subscribed. The simple answer is that these games are not good enough to justify a subscription and they go F2P in a last ditch effort to stay alive rather than shutting down altogether.
If I were launching a mediocre game today, and if I planned to have a subscription on it, I would at least allow my players more than ample time to experience the game and get drawn in it, so as to maximise my chances of getting them hooked.
Basically any new game that demands a subscription on top of the initial purchase price must go to great lengths to convince the players that it is worth it. Unfortunately the industry is dominated by arrogance - they treat players, ie paying customers, with contempt, and so they lose.
FFIV is offering free play this weekend... Good luck with that....
Edit: actually I think this is where they get it wrong: they start the wrong way, demanding subscription at the start and then backing down. When they should be doing the opposite - be as free as possible to start with, ie allow customers a large amount of play time with their initial purchase and then charge, a modicum of , a subscription.
Comments
Should make it sub and some play time required to run to the forum and demand class/combat changes. Because if a person is only going to play for 30 days, he has no business trying to model the game he's just passing through with. That's a problem with the F2P model too, the danger of making changes to a game that players don't last long enough to care anyway.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
OP,
If it's good for the long term life of the game and I still enjoy the game, I have no problem with it. With one caveat. That it doesn't go fully F2P. I hate, loathe microtransactions. I like paying my sub and getting access to the full game. If the company feels they need to offer a F2P option, so be it. But, don't take away my sub.
I'm actually in favor of a Hybrid model from the start. There is a good sized market out there for both Subscription players and F2P players. So, why not just offer both from the get go?
What if the devs want to attract similar short term players?
May be the strategy is attract lots of short term players, fleece the whales, and let them go. Then move onto the second patch of short term players.
No one says the devs need to be loyal to the players.
I think this is better because they are upfront and honest about their plans. For games like SWTOR, Rift, and TSW that don't put the F2P option in their game design before release, I end up feeling betrayed when they switch. There are two reasons I have for my feelings of betrayal. The first is that I paid money for access to the game, and it just felt like they only delivered a paid beta but called it finished. The second is that the cash shops end up being a horrible mess and screw over both free players and former subscribers.
I will give Pathfinder a chance because they have time to integrate their free and paid services in a way that doesn't make me feel betrayed when they do switch.
don't play sub games. Problem solved.
In fact, most games (except may be wow) will be f2P anyway. So it is not like you will be missing out much.
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
How do I feel about sub MMO's going F2P afterwards?
...I am already thinking about memes for when Wildstar does this to it's supporters.
Honestly i feel like it use to be a sub game going free to play was to actually help the game stay going for the people who enjoy it. get more people interested and maybe they will spend a little money.
But now i feel like these games are being made knowing they will be free to play later. take star wars for example. they knew from day one that was going to be free to play later down the road and they were just trying to milk as much money as possible for sub fees till the day they rolled out the free to play.
I wouldnt be surprised at all if these new games coming out go the same route TORtanic did. sub fees as long as possible then roll out the free to play model, lay off a bunch of devs, delay all the promised content, and move onto the next project, because they already got their money and then some in copys sold so who cares now.
make it free and move along.
I don't have a problem with MMOs going F2P after a sub mostly because I am probably no longer playing it by then. When a game goes F2P soon after being a sub game, it is because the game is doing poorly, and probably sucks.
I've never had a game I was still playing turn F2P on me. Some have switched after I quit playing though. I do think going to a mostly F2P on old games is fine though. I like how EQ did it. Can play most of the game for free, can even purchase a mount or mercenary slots, but if you want the full game it is a subscription. I agree with that model because they're trying to bring in more customers on an old game.
As far as F2P games, I don't like them. I prefer sub games or old sub games that went to a freemium model. The main reason is I have never played a quality F2P MMO. Not even close. I've tried a lot and they have all been garbage. I've had much better success in finding a quality sub game. Sure a lot of them lately have sucked, but I could tell that before even buying, and avoided them.
I've never felt ripped off from any sub games I have purchased, but I have felt like I wasted my time when trying F2P games.
I do not see this as a problem. EVERY company want to make money from their game(s) ... sub is best for this so they try. But if quality is not adequate ... well they must ADAPT and do something about or close servers.
Unbelievable as it may sound, there are sometimes as many as 800+ long queues in the evenings on my WoW server. It has gone crazy. Where are all these players coming from? Why are they not playing all those F2P MMOs, like GW2 for example.
Or, what does WoW have that so may prefer to pay a subscription than to play a free MMO ?
From what I remember most games that have gone F2P after release have done so after I have stopped playing them, if I ever even subscribed. The simple answer is that these games are not good enough to justify a subscription and they go F2P in a last ditch effort to stay alive rather than shutting down altogether.
If I were launching a mediocre game today, and if I planned to have a subscription on it, I would at least allow my players more than ample time to experience the game and get drawn in it, so as to maximise my chances of getting them hooked.
Basically any new game that demands a subscription on top of the initial purchase price must go to great lengths to convince the players that it is worth it. Unfortunately the industry is dominated by arrogance - they treat players, ie paying customers, with contempt, and so they lose.
FFIV is offering free play this weekend... Good luck with that....
Edit: actually I think this is where they get it wrong: they start the wrong way, demanding subscription at the start and then backing down. When they should be doing the opposite - be as free as possible to start with, ie allow customers a large amount of play time with their initial purchase and then charge, a modicum of , a subscription.