Originally posted by Superman0X I remember this same aurguement in relation to email providers... everyone was complaining about how terrible free email was, and that it wasnt the future, because anyone that wanted quality would pay for email. We can all see how that went (for the same reasons).
I wonder how many people who call f2p players freeloaders use gmail or hotmail.
Bad analogy. Most complaints about F2P games are about the cash shops that come with them. There's nothing similar with free email.
I don't think most people would have a problem with ad supported games but they don't exist, at least on the level of MMOs, because MMOs are way too expensive.
I think most forum people would have a problem with anything that's different than what they have decided the best system is. Most normal people probably wouldn't care either way, as long as it's fun.
F2P = uneven revenue stream for a developer. Hence why they spend more time developing cool things for the pay shop to entice you to continue playing vice content. Or, they develop content that can only be beaten with a huge amount of items bought from the cash shop to get you "over the hump" of the new content. Look at Neverwinter as your example there.
Yeah, I've played F2P games, but I'm not going to do it any more. I want developers on staff who are paid to create content for the game. You have to pay for that. If there is not a subscription, there is not a steady revenue stream to develop new content with. And a pay shop doesn't get you a steady revenue stream - it comes and goes dependent on the popularity of the items you offer. Then you have to keep your developers cranking out new things to go in that pay shop instead of creating new world content, and you probably can't keep as many on hand because you have to also use that revenue stream to pay for hardware, bandwidth, etc ... and still pay licensing, turn a profit for investors, and all that jazz, too.
F2P sounds nice, but it ends up P2W ... I'd rather shell out $15 a month and win on my own terms than have to go to the cash shop for $40, $60, $80 a pop to be able to beat whatever insane content comes out. If you want to win, you end up spending a LOT more in a cash shop than $15 a month.
Tera is probably one of the more successful models, IMO. It started as a sub, but went F2P. There is a cash shop, but it's mostly cosmetic items, although there are xp boosts, gold boosts, and that sort of thing. There is also an optional subscription ... wait for it ... for $15 a month. The subscription is more about convenience items than anything (a quick travel book, a discount in the cash shop - sometimes, and more dungeon entries per day), but it provides a steady revenue stream to work off of. Not everyone goes sub, but enough to keep developers on duty with content.
I would rather pay $60 for a box (or download) to cover the cost of development (although it's more like $45 + $15 for my first month's play) and then $15 a month after to know there are developers fixing the inevitable bugs as well as working on new content than playing a F2P game where I have to pay to win. Pay to win costs so much more in the long run.
I think most forum people would have a problem with anything that's different than what they have decided the best system is. Most normal people probably wouldn't care either way, as long as it's fun.
You got that right and the latest poster above just proved that. He proved that he just came on the forum and post his preference despite people bringing valid arguments why F2P is better for us the players over B2P+P2P.
People are simply judgmental and prejudice toward the entire model if they've experienced "F2P" MMO's that choose to abuse that model and ruin their game for the benefit of quick money grabs. From all these posts so far I still am certain about 3 things that F2P has the edge over B2P+P2P
#1 The player is in control on what to spend his $ (potentially saving more in the process)
#2 The player does not have to risk or wait (or lose interest while waiting) if he can try the game then decide to pay or not.
#3 The bad/good community argument is invalid since both communities exist in both type of games. If all the F2P model at least has healthier community/population, thus making the game better overall in the long term.
The problem with p2p is that every single person doing it is devaluing both their presence and their time. If you choose to play a MMO, then you become part of the attraction that draws more people in to that game. Why would I pay you for doing you the favor of playing your game? The only way you could successfully argue that I'm not doing you a favor, and getting charged for the privilege, is if you have zero box cost and no cash shop. If you have a box cost or a cash shop then every player you add, even ones who don't use your cash shop, has an inherent value to the publisher, and the longer they play your game the more valuable they become.
It's not really about you paying them for maintenance and expansion, their goal will always be to "buy" your attention and leverage that attention in to the attention of others, so maintenance and expansion are necessary to continue expanding and maintaining market share. Paying a subscription is like paying a door fee to get in to a club or bar. There will always be pretentious people insisting that the place with the door fee is "better" because it's "exclusive", snobs like exclusive, but in reality they're just paying a business owner for the privilege of paying a business owner.
I don't have a problem with p2p games. I only buy the ones I want to play, not the ones I want to try just to see what they are like. I do the same with console games, only buy the ones I want. I also don't run around crying that all console games aren't free (aka f2p) so that I can play them.
Communities are better in p2p, there can be no argument in that. Add in a freeloader to any game and they really don't care about their behaviour. I've played online game since the late 90's, when your online reputation in a game meant something. In a game that has f2p access the community is dire, people don't care about there online persona. If they get a really bad reputation or get banned they just create a new account. Get banned for being a tit, you'll have to pay out for another box, hence majority of players are a bit more respectful and better behaved.
End of the day, I don't see why mmo's should be free for spongers. No other games are, or dvds (use the same argument, I won't buy the film in case I don't like it so it should be free). To many freeloading idiots in society today who want something for nothing. Do what decent folk do, work hard, earn your money and only spend it on things you really want.
You got that right and the latest poster above just proved that. He proved that he just came on the forum and post his preference despite people bringing valid arguments why F2P is better for us the players over B2P+P2P.
Yeh .. they are like that. But that is only good for some forum pvp. Whatever they are saying is moot and have little impact in the real world anyway.
F2P is making more money than sub-only ... fact & data.
There are more f2p games than sub-only .. fact & data.
And personally i enjoy some f2p games ... as do millions ... and no matter how people are ranting in forums, that is not going to change any time soon.
Anyone is willing to bet that in the next LoL report, there will even be MORE players?
I don't have a problem with p2p games. I only buy the ones I want to play, not the ones I want to try just to see what they are like. I do the same with console games, only buy the ones I want. I also don't run around crying that all console games aren't free (aka f2p) so that I can play them.
Communities are better in p2p, there can be no argument in that. Add in a freeloader to any game and they really don't care about their behaviour. I've played online game since the late 90's, when your online reputation in a game meant something. In a game that has f2p access the community is dire, people don't care about there online persona. If they get a really bad reputation or get banned they just create a new account. Get banned for being a tit, you'll have to pay out for another box, hence majority of players are a bit more respectful and better behaved.
End of the day, I don't see why mmo's should be free for spongers. No other games are, or dvds (use the same argument, I won't buy the film in case I don't like it so it should be free). To many freeloading idiots in society today who want something for nothing. Do what decent folk do, work hard, earn your money and only spend it on things you really want.
Naw. The community is not any better in p2p games. WoW is p2p and has a horrible reputation due to it's community. EQ had to implement a play nice policy because people are jerks.
There are good communities with f2p and bad communities with p2p - there was no difference.
I will concede on one point. The bigger the community the more likely it is that it SEEMS (not actual) the community is bad because there are more people, more people = more jerks. Smaller communities tend to be more like-minded, and therefore tight-knit. This however is not a given and so cannot be used as a rule for f2p or p2p.
And I played those old games. Don't kid yourself, your reputation meant nothing then either. Only a few people then, like today really cared about what people were saying on boards or in game about another player. To the majority, they could care less.
Free players are a significant part of the model for f2p games, they provide word of mouth, they attract players, they provide content... do some reading, it's been explained loads of times.
edit - and lots of other games and movies are free to people.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I think most forum people would have a problem with anything that's different than what they have decided the best system is. Most normal people probably wouldn't care either way, as long as it's fun.
You got that right and the latest poster above just proved that. He proved that he just came on the forum and post his preference despite people bringing valid arguments why F2P is better for us the players over B2P+P2P.
People are simply judgmental and prejudice toward the entire model if they've experienced "F2P" MMO's that choose to abuse that model and ruin their game for the benefit of quick money grabs. From all these posts so far I still am certain about 3 things that F2P has the edge over B2P+P2P
#1 The player is in control on what to spend his $ (potentially saving more in the process)
#2 The player does not have to risk or wait (or lose interest while waiting) if he can try the game then decide to pay or not.
#3 The bad/good community argument is invalid since both communities exist in both type of games. If all the F2P model at least has healthier community/population, thus making the game better overall in the long term.
I don't think there is a valid argument for why one is better than the other. Both can give good value to the player if done correctly. It's more about how it's done and how the game is managed that make the real difference.
The problem is people put blinders on to any game in the payment model they like and only focus on the good ones, and ignore any good example of the one they don't like and focus on the bad. All of these arguments center around the poster being close minded. It's kind of sad.
I don't think there is a valid argument for why one is better than the other. Both can give good value to the player if done correctly. It's more about how it's done and how the game is managed that make the real difference.
Agreed. Becasuse "better" is subjective and varies from person to person.
But it is valid to show the trend in the market, and say one is making more money than the other.
I think the only fact based way of determining which payment model is better was outlined in a previous article on MMORPG.com.
For an example lets assume every game out there has 50% of the development time spent on making it fun and awesome, and 50% of the development time planning and making the game so it will make money. Clearly these balances shift based on the studio developing the game.
Now Lets look at Free to Play vs. Subscription.
Free to play games make their money off the cash shop. So we have 50% of the time going to make fun content, and 50% of the time going to make the cash shop something that players will want to use.
Subscription games make their money on players sticking around so 50% goes to making the content fun, and the rest goes to making the game something that people will want to continue playing for many months so as to get the most revenue.
The Free to Play version is fairly self explanatory as to the idea that exactly 50% (and no more) of dev. time will be spent on making the game something people will want to play.
However the subscription model has a slightly different skew, that extra 50% can contain a fair amount of effort in making the gamer want to keep playing. Not all of this 50% is good of course, gating/etc are added to make content take longer, but when it comes down to it, people won't stay subbed just because gates are in place. So likely some portion of the 50% of time that is spent trying to make money is spent making the game keep people invested and enjoying themselves.
This breakdown (only addressing dev. time) shows:
F2P having exactly 50% of time spent creating a fun/engaging experience that makes you want to keep playing
Sub's having >= 50% of time spent creating a fun/engaging experience that makes you want to keep playing
That all being said - and on to my opinions - I believe all MMO's should be at least partially free to play. The model where getting to level cap or some level is free to play but what happens after that requires a sub is my personal preference. I dislike the idea of buying a game without some kind of demo.
I believe there is room for a hybrid system where f2p people can do the nickle and dime thing and sub people can sub and have no f2p people or cash shop now to convince the people that implement mmo business models that this can and should exist
I don't think there is a valid argument for why one is better than the other. Both can give good value to the player if done correctly. It's more about how it's done and how the game is managed that make the real difference.
That's THE problem, when it comes to F2P: usually it isn't.
Although I loved playing DDO, the nickle and diming in that game got to be ridiculous, even if you subbed.
Also dislike the arcade style buy x-amount of currency, all designed to force you to buy more to even use up what is left.
Michelin Star Restaurants and $60 bottles of wine...riiiiight.
You've big upped your lifestyle on so many occasions that the truth is becoming pretty obvious. That truth is something you're going to have to open your eyes to when you wake up tomorrow morning.
Happy Valentine's Day
Yeah .. and also $50 movie excursion with my kids ... the new robocop movie is playing.
Tomorrow, actually i have to work. Dining with the missus is for Sat evening. And what is so special about $60 wine? .. those are not even the truly expensive ones. A decent pinot noir in carneros will cost you that much.
But again ... there are plenty of stuff to spend money on .. but MMO is not one of those.
Oh, I am well aware of the cost of high end wines. I don't drink anything else but wine, however you will never catch me bragging about what I pay for wine or other things like cars/ fine dining on the internet. Just a hint: 60 bucks is a lot more than the masses are going to drop on a 750 ml bottle of wine. Hint numero deux: some of the greatest wines cost much less than 60 bucks.
It boils down to poor form, and it would never occur to most people with (genuine) means to broadcast that kind of information about themselves on an internet forum.
"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
If this were true Wildstar and ESO wouldn't even attempt making a P2P game. Yoshi-P actually answered a question about when they were remaking FFXIV (which if they thought F2P was a better option there could be better time to switch than remaking the game from scratch basically). Then later said the game will never be F2P (ifi it's the ideal business model that's an odd thing to say don't you think?).
F2P started as game for young people and people who like P2W. Or, for countries where this model works better (a lot of Asia) but we don't see a lot of their games and most don't do to well over here for a reason.
F2P will see more games but that's simply because the market exploded with WoW and now so many people have moved on from it and can't find something that draws them in again. And, they don't feel unless it really draws them it's worth a sub for more than a couple months. So they bounce between a bunch of F2P games to pass the time.
While I'll stick to FFXIV since I love the game and enjoy paying my sub and getting everything.
If this were true Wildstar and ESO wouldn't even attempt making a P2P game. Yoshi-P actually answered a question about when they were remaking FFXIV (which if they thought F2P was a better option there could be better time to switch than remaking the game from scratch basically). Then later said the game will never be F2P (ifi it's the ideal business model that's an odd thing to say don't you think?).
F2P started as game for young people and people who like P2W. Or, for countries where this model works better (a lot of Asia) but we don't see a lot of their games and most don't do to well over here for a reason.
F2P will see more games but that's simply because the market exploded with WoW and now so many people have moved on from it and can't find something that draws them in again. And, they don't feel unless it really draws them it's worth a sub for more than a couple months. So they bounce between a bunch of F2P games to pass the time.
While I'll stick to FFXIV since I love the game and enjoy paying my sub and getting everything.
No.
It's pretty well understood that there are stages of release. Launch with p2p because millions will come in. It's not realistic to sustain those numbers though and they will drop to the more realistic number of 50-500k players. Then re-launch as f2p to get a 2nd rush, and push past the $15 dollar ceiling.
Guaranteed the games have a f2p table all ready and waiting for when the day comes.
F2p has been doing very well here for years.
actually as someone said above, it's pretty much exactly the same stages as with movies.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
F2P started as game for young people and people who like P2W. Or, for countries where this model works better (a lot of Asia) but we don't see a lot of their games and most don't do to well over here for a reason.
F2P will see more games but that's simply because the market exploded with WoW and now so many people have moved on from it and can't find something that draws them in again. And, they don't feel unless it really draws them it's worth a sub for more than a couple months. So they bounce between a bunch of F2P games to pass the time.
While I'll stick to FFXIV since I love the game and enjoy paying my sub and getting everything.
In the East a top/down hierarchy exists in their countries, that their model of MMOs work best with them. It's tailored to their cultures.
Bring that to the USA, it'll usually stumble around and die in the end, as the West puts more emphasis on the individual. MMOs have a smaller player base than the FPS games in the West, because it relies on FORCED grouping to even keep the MMOs alive, which Westerners despise. Look at WoW, does the tank have the power to direct the pulls? Just try to tank a dungeon or LFR without some DPS pulling before the tank. The success in WoW is that it is Bedlam, as it supports the individual to play the game, and within circles of influence with families and friends, that keeps them there playing for years.
The danger in all this pay model forecasting is people aren't looking past the $$$. There's a lot more in why MMOs are successful than just who pays and who doesn't. WoW would've been successful regardless of pay model; game style or even release date. It's successful for the sum of it's parts, and how independently they operate, for so many types of players (can't ignore the solo players; the PvPers; the PvErs; the questing types; the dungeoneers...everyone has to be satisfied, which is why few MMOs can even compete with WoW. It takes a-l-o-t of management, and even Blizzard faces the reality of their design decisions, hard...Cata anyone?).
There's stability to forecast funding of projects with the P2P formula (and since nothing is done in gaming unless it's paid for first), it's best for the largest MMOs to budget with, as they have hundreds of employees that need paychecks.
F2P for indies and smaller MMOs can work, as they're not investing much beyond a few improvements over time and staff is usually under 100. Most of the F2P MMOs people don't expect to last beyond 2 years, anyway.
I think we all need to go out beat the hell out of each other blood for blood and i like the buy ityou get it and then has a cash shop in it where i can spend a 100 now and then
It's not the cash shops thats the problem with F2P MMO's. It's what they are selling in them. Cash shops are the best thing that happened to this genre since they give power to the player to make his choices on what and how he wants to spend his $, which can cost you more than a B2P+P2P forced upon the player.
What's better, spending $10 every 3-5 months for new DLC/content and playing the game with less character slots, less inventory, less credits/gold limit, less customer support, longer server queue, etc or paying $15 every month?
I already stated in previous posts why the B2P model is unhealthy and risky to many including me. Look what happened to Guild Wars 2 and The Secret World. They both were asking $60 from me and today they've both received $0. Sure year+ from launch I've seen some promos, but I end up spending $0. So they end up losing more $ from potential players like me by asking $60 on launch.
I like B2P + frequent small paid expansions like TSW does. It's probably my favorite model. But most companies don't seem to like it. I like the feeling of actually paying for something tangible though and if they don't give me extra content I don't pay them.
Cash shops are horrible and I'd actually say one of the worst thing that's ever happened to gaming. The reason is because companies want to maximize their profit and you just can't trust them with cash shops.
Even if they say "We're only going to ever sell A and B in our cash shop!" and you have no problem with them selling A and B you have to think that they probably also have plans to sell C and D in the shop if they can figure out a way to get away with it. Cash shop games are always a slippery slope.
Paying a simple $15 a month is so much better I think. Is the game worth it? OK I will play this game and focus on it, not needing to buy any other games while I'm playing it. That way I can easily afford the $15 and make it worth my while to pay it. I don't have to worry about stupid hidden charges or grind fests that I can pay to skip.
Paying for the game and unlocking content as I need to use it is even a better model for me than sub. Anything with a cash shop is way worse than those alternatives for me as a consumer.
I'm not a fan of F2P games.. They are just filled with too many unknowns and surprises.. I support both subscription based games like WoW, and B2P games like GW2.. However, even both have slippery slopes I'm not in agreement with.. The only time I would be ok with WoW having a cash shop items are when they are used exclusively for charity donations like "Make a Wish" or "Breast Cancer Awareness"..
I think GW2 does a good job with their B2P formula.. and I don't see any glaring issues with it.. from what limited time I"ve looked into it..
It boils down to poor form, and it would never occur to most people with (genuine) means to broadcast that kind of information about themselves on an internet forum.
As if there is a difference between that .. and broadcasting subbing $15 a month for a game. I am not aware we can't talk about prices on the internet. And don't tell me i am the only one who drinks wine here.
Poor form is only allowing comparison of $15 ($180 a year) sub to free games, but not $60 bottle of wine to subs ... both are entertainment. How about $60 SP game .. will that make it "better"?
I still say anyone willing to pay a subscription is hugely underestimating their value to the game publisher. Interaction with other players is what they are selling, without you they have no product. I think if they charge a box price and/or have a cash shop, then charging a subscription fee is a blatant insult. I understand some people feel the subscription fee keeps out an unpleasant element, country club members feel the same way.
Originally posted by imsoenthused I understand some people feel the subscription fee keeps out an unpleasant element, country club members feel the same way.
If you play WoW you'll see your statement doesn't hold water: it's community is pretty bad regardless of pay model or even if Blizzard raised the sub fee to $100/mon.
Fees don't keep players out who's determined to get in to cause trouble.
But it's a low bar to keep most rug rats out...they goto the F2P games, instead. And after playing some, I saw where a lot of those rug rats that played in WoW where they went, and good riddance (now those publishers have to babysit them!).
Side note:
People aren't realizing that the F2P games don't come with a quality standard. I've seen these F2P games and played some, yet they don't hold a light against a nearly 10 year-old game. The polish isn't there, the game rules and culture isn't there. And they don't have a class I prefer to play for over 30 years, and better, made that paladin even a valid healer (when Blizzard isn't busy destroying it!).
Now when I finally see another publisher make a game that takes the best elements that WoW has, the classes -- and sub-classes -- then there can be something that I'd love to try anew. But to date that hasn't happen. That's why WoW players don't leave. The other publishers are busy trying to copy what they feel would appeal to WoW players, but they're copying all the wrong elements. Case in point: the paladin class is the most popular class in WoW. If a MMO doesn't offer a paladin class that can tank, heal and DPS, then they lost it. Because most are playing paladins in WoW. RIFT had the potential to really compete with WoW, but they borked their version of a paladin. ESO doesn't even have a paladin. SOE will do the same borking in EQN, and copying the graphics format as a method to keep the game looking fresh longer (but even Blizzard understands, the comic look has to be updated to look fresh again). So, they failed even before release. GW2 failed with eliminating the Holy Trinity (which the paladin class depends upon). They all think they have THE solution, but they completely ignore what's in plain sight and why those players keep coming back to the roost.
Until we see a crusader like MMO with a bona fide paladin to play 3+ roles, the MMORPG genre will be dominated by WoW. Pure and simple (and Nari can plaster another superdata link, and it won't change a thing).
Comments
I think most forum people would have a problem with anything that's different than what they have decided the best system is. Most normal people probably wouldn't care either way, as long as it's fun.
F2P = uneven revenue stream for a developer. Hence why they spend more time developing cool things for the pay shop to entice you to continue playing vice content. Or, they develop content that can only be beaten with a huge amount of items bought from the cash shop to get you "over the hump" of the new content. Look at Neverwinter as your example there.
Yeah, I've played F2P games, but I'm not going to do it any more. I want developers on staff who are paid to create content for the game. You have to pay for that. If there is not a subscription, there is not a steady revenue stream to develop new content with. And a pay shop doesn't get you a steady revenue stream - it comes and goes dependent on the popularity of the items you offer. Then you have to keep your developers cranking out new things to go in that pay shop instead of creating new world content, and you probably can't keep as many on hand because you have to also use that revenue stream to pay for hardware, bandwidth, etc ... and still pay licensing, turn a profit for investors, and all that jazz, too.
F2P sounds nice, but it ends up P2W ... I'd rather shell out $15 a month and win on my own terms than have to go to the cash shop for $40, $60, $80 a pop to be able to beat whatever insane content comes out. If you want to win, you end up spending a LOT more in a cash shop than $15 a month.
Tera is probably one of the more successful models, IMO. It started as a sub, but went F2P. There is a cash shop, but it's mostly cosmetic items, although there are xp boosts, gold boosts, and that sort of thing. There is also an optional subscription ... wait for it ... for $15 a month. The subscription is more about convenience items than anything (a quick travel book, a discount in the cash shop - sometimes, and more dungeon entries per day), but it provides a steady revenue stream to work off of. Not everyone goes sub, but enough to keep developers on duty with content.
I would rather pay $60 for a box (or download) to cover the cost of development (although it's more like $45 + $15 for my first month's play) and then $15 a month after to know there are developers fixing the inevitable bugs as well as working on new content than playing a F2P game where I have to pay to win. Pay to win costs so much more in the long run.
My 2 cents.
You got that right and the latest poster above just proved that. He proved that he just came on the forum and post his preference despite people bringing valid arguments why F2P is better for us the players over B2P+P2P.
People are simply judgmental and prejudice toward the entire model if they've experienced "F2P" MMO's that choose to abuse that model and ruin their game for the benefit of quick money grabs. From all these posts so far I still am certain about 3 things that F2P has the edge over B2P+P2P
#1 The player is in control on what to spend his $ (potentially saving more in the process)
#2 The player does not have to risk or wait (or lose interest while waiting) if he can try the game then decide to pay or not.
#3 The bad/good community argument is invalid since both communities exist in both type of games. If all the F2P model at least has healthier community/population, thus making the game better overall in the long term.
The problem with p2p is that every single person doing it is devaluing both their presence and their time. If you choose to play a MMO, then you become part of the attraction that draws more people in to that game. Why would I pay you for doing you the favor of playing your game? The only way you could successfully argue that I'm not doing you a favor, and getting charged for the privilege, is if you have zero box cost and no cash shop. If you have a box cost or a cash shop then every player you add, even ones who don't use your cash shop, has an inherent value to the publisher, and the longer they play your game the more valuable they become.
It's not really about you paying them for maintenance and expansion, their goal will always be to "buy" your attention and leverage that attention in to the attention of others, so maintenance and expansion are necessary to continue expanding and maintaining market share. Paying a subscription is like paying a door fee to get in to a club or bar. There will always be pretentious people insisting that the place with the door fee is "better" because it's "exclusive", snobs like exclusive, but in reality they're just paying a business owner for the privilege of paying a business owner.
I don't have a problem with p2p games. I only buy the ones I want to play, not the ones I want to try just to see what they are like. I do the same with console games, only buy the ones I want. I also don't run around crying that all console games aren't free (aka f2p) so that I can play them.
Communities are better in p2p, there can be no argument in that. Add in a freeloader to any game and they really don't care about their behaviour. I've played online game since the late 90's, when your online reputation in a game meant something. In a game that has f2p access the community is dire, people don't care about there online persona. If they get a really bad reputation or get banned they just create a new account. Get banned for being a tit, you'll have to pay out for another box, hence majority of players are a bit more respectful and better behaved.
End of the day, I don't see why mmo's should be free for spongers. No other games are, or dvds (use the same argument, I won't buy the film in case I don't like it so it should be free). To many freeloading idiots in society today who want something for nothing. Do what decent folk do, work hard, earn your money and only spend it on things you really want.
Yeh .. they are like that. But that is only good for some forum pvp. Whatever they are saying is moot and have little impact in the real world anyway.
F2P is making more money than sub-only ... fact & data.
There are more f2p games than sub-only .. fact & data.
And personally i enjoy some f2p games ... as do millions ... and no matter how people are ranting in forums, that is not going to change any time soon.
Anyone is willing to bet that in the next LoL report, there will even be MORE players?
Naw. The community is not any better in p2p games. WoW is p2p and has a horrible reputation due to it's community. EQ had to implement a play nice policy because people are jerks.
There are good communities with f2p and bad communities with p2p - there was no difference.
I will concede on one point. The bigger the community the more likely it is that it SEEMS (not actual) the community is bad because there are more people, more people = more jerks. Smaller communities tend to be more like-minded, and therefore tight-knit. This however is not a given and so cannot be used as a rule for f2p or p2p.
And I played those old games. Don't kid yourself, your reputation meant nothing then either. Only a few people then, like today really cared about what people were saying on boards or in game about another player. To the majority, they could care less.
Free players are a significant part of the model for f2p games, they provide word of mouth, they attract players, they provide content... do some reading, it's been explained loads of times.
edit - and lots of other games and movies are free to people.
I don't think there is a valid argument for why one is better than the other. Both can give good value to the player if done correctly. It's more about how it's done and how the game is managed that make the real difference.
The problem is people put blinders on to any game in the payment model they like and only focus on the good ones, and ignore any good example of the one they don't like and focus on the bad. All of these arguments center around the poster being close minded. It's kind of sad.
Agreed. Becasuse "better" is subjective and varies from person to person.
But it is valid to show the trend in the market, and say one is making more money than the other.
I think the only fact based way of determining which payment model is better was outlined in a previous article on MMORPG.com.
For an example lets assume every game out there has 50% of the development time spent on making it fun and awesome, and 50% of the development time planning and making the game so it will make money. Clearly these balances shift based on the studio developing the game.
Now Lets look at Free to Play vs. Subscription.
Free to play games make their money off the cash shop. So we have 50% of the time going to make fun content, and 50% of the time going to make the cash shop something that players will want to use.
Subscription games make their money on players sticking around so 50% goes to making the content fun, and the rest goes to making the game something that people will want to continue playing for many months so as to get the most revenue.
The Free to Play version is fairly self explanatory as to the idea that exactly 50% (and no more) of dev. time will be spent on making the game something people will want to play.
However the subscription model has a slightly different skew, that extra 50% can contain a fair amount of effort in making the gamer want to keep playing. Not all of this 50% is good of course, gating/etc are added to make content take longer, but when it comes down to it, people won't stay subbed just because gates are in place. So likely some portion of the 50% of time that is spent trying to make money is spent making the game keep people invested and enjoying themselves.
This breakdown (only addressing dev. time) shows:
F2P having exactly 50% of time spent creating a fun/engaging experience that makes you want to keep playing
Sub's having >= 50% of time spent creating a fun/engaging experience that makes you want to keep playing
That all being said - and on to my opinions - I believe all MMO's should be at least partially free to play. The model where getting to level cap or some level is free to play but what happens after that requires a sub is my personal preference. I dislike the idea of buying a game without some kind of demo.
That's THE problem, when it comes to F2P: usually it isn't.
Although I loved playing DDO, the nickle and diming in that game got to be ridiculous, even if you subbed.
Also dislike the arcade style buy x-amount of currency, all designed to force you to buy more to even use up what is left.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
Oh, I am well aware of the cost of high end wines. I don't drink anything else but wine, however you will never catch me bragging about what I pay for wine or other things like cars/ fine dining on the internet. Just a hint: 60 bucks is a lot more than the masses are going to drop on a 750 ml bottle of wine. Hint numero deux: some of the greatest wines cost much less than 60 bucks.
It boils down to poor form, and it would never occur to most people with (genuine) means to broadcast that kind of information about themselves on an internet forum.
"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
If this were true Wildstar and ESO wouldn't even attempt making a P2P game. Yoshi-P actually answered a question about when they were remaking FFXIV (which if they thought F2P was a better option there could be better time to switch than remaking the game from scratch basically). Then later said the game will never be F2P (ifi it's the ideal business model that's an odd thing to say don't you think?).
F2P started as game for young people and people who like P2W. Or, for countries where this model works better (a lot of Asia) but we don't see a lot of their games and most don't do to well over here for a reason.
F2P will see more games but that's simply because the market exploded with WoW and now so many people have moved on from it and can't find something that draws them in again. And, they don't feel unless it really draws them it's worth a sub for more than a couple months. So they bounce between a bunch of F2P games to pass the time.
While I'll stick to FFXIV since I love the game and enjoy paying my sub and getting everything.
No.
It's pretty well understood that there are stages of release. Launch with p2p because millions will come in. It's not realistic to sustain those numbers though and they will drop to the more realistic number of 50-500k players. Then re-launch as f2p to get a 2nd rush, and push past the $15 dollar ceiling.
Guaranteed the games have a f2p table all ready and waiting for when the day comes.
F2p has been doing very well here for years.
actually as someone said above, it's pretty much exactly the same stages as with movies.
In the East a top/down hierarchy exists in their countries, that their model of MMOs work best with them. It's tailored to their cultures.
Bring that to the USA, it'll usually stumble around and die in the end, as the West puts more emphasis on the individual. MMOs have a smaller player base than the FPS games in the West, because it relies on FORCED grouping to even keep the MMOs alive, which Westerners despise. Look at WoW, does the tank have the power to direct the pulls? Just try to tank a dungeon or LFR without some DPS pulling before the tank. The success in WoW is that it is Bedlam, as it supports the individual to play the game, and within circles of influence with families and friends, that keeps them there playing for years.
The danger in all this pay model forecasting is people aren't looking past the $$$. There's a lot more in why MMOs are successful than just who pays and who doesn't. WoW would've been successful regardless of pay model; game style or even release date. It's successful for the sum of it's parts, and how independently they operate, for so many types of players (can't ignore the solo players; the PvPers; the PvErs; the questing types; the dungeoneers...everyone has to be satisfied, which is why few MMOs can even compete with WoW. It takes a-l-o-t of management, and even Blizzard faces the reality of their design decisions, hard...Cata anyone?).
There's stability to forecast funding of projects with the P2P formula (and since nothing is done in gaming unless it's paid for first), it's best for the largest MMOs to budget with, as they have hundreds of employees that need paychecks.
F2P for indies and smaller MMOs can work, as they're not investing much beyond a few improvements over time and staff is usually under 100. Most of the F2P MMOs people don't expect to last beyond 2 years, anyway.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
I think we all need to go out beat the hell out of each other blood for blood and i like the buy ityou get it and then has a cash shop in it where i can spend a 100 now and then
I like B2P + frequent small paid expansions like TSW does. It's probably my favorite model. But most companies don't seem to like it. I like the feeling of actually paying for something tangible though and if they don't give me extra content I don't pay them.
Cash shops are horrible and I'd actually say one of the worst thing that's ever happened to gaming. The reason is because companies want to maximize their profit and you just can't trust them with cash shops.
Even if they say "We're only going to ever sell A and B in our cash shop!" and you have no problem with them selling A and B you have to think that they probably also have plans to sell C and D in the shop if they can figure out a way to get away with it. Cash shop games are always a slippery slope.
Paying a simple $15 a month is so much better I think. Is the game worth it? OK I will play this game and focus on it, not needing to buy any other games while I'm playing it. That way I can easily afford the $15 and make it worth my while to pay it. I don't have to worry about stupid hidden charges or grind fests that I can pay to skip.
Paying for the game and unlocking content as I need to use it is even a better model for me than sub. Anything with a cash shop is way worse than those alternatives for me as a consumer.
I agree Ir for the most part..
I'm not a fan of F2P games.. They are just filled with too many unknowns and surprises.. I support both subscription based games like WoW, and B2P games like GW2.. However, even both have slippery slopes I'm not in agreement with.. The only time I would be ok with WoW having a cash shop items are when they are used exclusively for charity donations like "Make a Wish" or "Breast Cancer Awareness"..
I think GW2 does a good job with their B2P formula.. and I don't see any glaring issues with it.. from what limited time I"ve looked into it..
As if there is a difference between that .. and broadcasting subbing $15 a month for a game. I am not aware we can't talk about prices on the internet. And don't tell me i am the only one who drinks wine here.
Poor form is only allowing comparison of $15 ($180 a year) sub to free games, but not $60 bottle of wine to subs ... both are entertainment. How about $60 SP game .. will that make it "better"?
If you play WoW you'll see your statement doesn't hold water: it's community is pretty bad regardless of pay model or even if Blizzard raised the sub fee to $100/mon.
Fees don't keep players out who's determined to get in to cause trouble.
But it's a low bar to keep most rug rats out...they goto the F2P games, instead. And after playing some, I saw where a lot of those rug rats that played in WoW where they went, and good riddance (now those publishers have to babysit them!).
Side note:
People aren't realizing that the F2P games don't come with a quality standard. I've seen these F2P games and played some, yet they don't hold a light against a nearly 10 year-old game. The polish isn't there, the game rules and culture isn't there. And they don't have a class I prefer to play for over 30 years, and better, made that paladin even a valid healer (when Blizzard isn't busy destroying it!).
Now when I finally see another publisher make a game that takes the best elements that WoW has, the classes -- and sub-classes -- then there can be something that I'd love to try anew. But to date that hasn't happen. That's why WoW players don't leave. The other publishers are busy trying to copy what they feel would appeal to WoW players, but they're copying all the wrong elements. Case in point: the paladin class is the most popular class in WoW. If a MMO doesn't offer a paladin class that can tank, heal and DPS, then they lost it. Because most are playing paladins in WoW. RIFT had the potential to really compete with WoW, but they borked their version of a paladin. ESO doesn't even have a paladin. SOE will do the same borking in EQN, and copying the graphics format as a method to keep the game looking fresh longer (but even Blizzard understands, the comic look has to be updated to look fresh again). So, they failed even before release. GW2 failed with eliminating the Holy Trinity (which the paladin class depends upon). They all think they have THE solution, but they completely ignore what's in plain sight and why those players keep coming back to the roost.
Until we see a crusader like MMO with a bona fide paladin to play 3+ roles, the MMORPG genre will be dominated by WoW. Pure and simple (and Nari can plaster another superdata link, and it won't change a thing).
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.