F2P is a rather general term when you look at different games using this model. Each one has different methods for implementing their funding method. Most have cash shops, but their implementation varies widely. In fact, so widely, that to date there is no type of unofficial industry standard, which would go a long way in determining whether people like the model or not. For now it is a matter of I like A games F2P model but not B games. (of course this allows for unlimited debate of the forums, so it provides that extra bit of entertainment) Because of this, it will take a while before F2P can be lumped into this broad category if ever. P2P is simple, you pay you play... or is it.
Is P2P dead. Not yet I don't think. In particular, there are many older folks who grew up with this and feel more comfortable with it. In fact, I would hazard a guess that it's a pretty large group, with the resources to pay if they choose. As they begin fading out (hopefully not for a long time), I think F2P will ultimately win the battle.
P2P isn't dying, if anything, we're seeing more P2P games incorporating F2P options, Archeage is just another example of them. I think its inevitable that we will increasingly see games that are 'Free to try' where you can play the game with certain restrictions, until you either buy unlocks and/or take out a subscription, I think we are going to see more games with that type of payment models in the future. Its not a question of any one type of payment model winning, its just a continued evolution of the P2P model itself.
And so what if the meaning is losing a little. It is not like there is a high value attached to a very rigorous definition of a set of entertainment products in the first place.
Wth does that even mean? Is called language, we use it to communicate. Is not about high or low value or whatever you're talking about. Is about using a term to describe to me wth is in your mind.
If you say X game is multiplayer I understand you can play it with 2 players, 6, 10 ,1000 players. If you specify is massive multiplayer then I can filter more. That's the whole point of the term, is not there just to look good.
There is this obsession to just name everything a MMO like that is some kind of a badge of honor or something. Is not. Miscalling a game an MMO is not going to make it better or worse. It serves no purpose but to confuse people that want to know with how many players it can be played.
Curiously the f2p conversion of MMO's is mostly the last step before the final servers get closed.
f2p is a nightmare for long term investments like MMORPG's.
Why ? the infrastructure and the open world is too costly to depend on the uncertain revenue of "f2p".
While many MMO's declared they upped their revenue by going free to play, figures now show they actually trail FAR BEHIND subscription based MMO's.
f2p only works with limited content games with a narrow playing surface and a small design team.
Without most realising it; ... but I think that the time of f2p MMO's is slowly coming to an end as investors will no longer support an uncertain form of long term revenue.
What we saw in recent years is subscription based AAA MMORPG's going free to play as they were trampled down by WOW.
The only choice they had was going free to play, BUT they already were made as AAA subscription based games, so the funding was already done and they just needed to add extra money making tools.
The Titan case from Blizzard is a typical new point in the decision making for MMORPG's. Blizzard decided that investing money in small projects like HS and HOTS was more worthwhile than hugely investing in yet another new MMORPG with an uncertain f2p money stream.
So f2P is on the brink of collapse for NEW games. It will stay to serve as a transition for subscription based MMO games on their last legs.
But f2p is NOT the future for MMORPG's - unlike other smaller games like iPad Apps and Dota games which are not full fledged open world MMORPG's. These small games only cost a fraction of an open ended MMORPG and so the investment risk is much smaller and more lucrative.
It is ... if the definition of MMO is continuously broadened.
Misused, you meant to say misused. Terms gets misused all the time for various reasons. Ignorance, marketing, trolling.
When a term is broadened too much its meaning gets lost and there is no purpose to it anymore. Lets take the term MMO. If you keep broadening it as to include every multiplayer game from 2 to a thousand then there is no point to the term MMO anymore because we already have one for that which is multiplayer. We only add massive in front of multiplayer to help us specify what kind of multiplayer it is.
"misused" is just an opinion. If everyone is using it .. it becomes the norm. You can argue to your face blue that calling World of Tanks a MMO is a "misuse" but since everyone is doing it, your complaining won't matter much.
And so what if the meaning is losing a little. It is not like there is a high value attached to a very rigorous definition of a set of entertainment products in the first place. And now it is broadened, although not yet to include all multiplayer games (for example, CoD is still not included), so it still have some meaning.
And, given the market, i suspect that is exactly right .. there is less and less "point" of having MMOs anymore, hence why it is broadened.
You argue this all the time, like the traditional MMO is dying. Newsflash: MMOs aren't turning to SP games for ideas, SP games are turning to MMOs for ideas. Cases in point:
Destiny incorporates MMO elements into an FPS. This is not because Bungie was previously a big-time MMO developer and just decided, "Screw that genre, nobody wants to play it!" It's because Bungie was previously a big-time FPS developer who said, "Y'know what? MMOs got some good ideas for longevity. Let's borrow them for our next FPS and bring it to consoles!" Where does that say, "The market's tired of MMOs"? To any logical person, it should say the ideas originally attributed exclusively to MMOs are being borrowed by developers from other genres, not the other way around.
The Division incorporates MMO elements into a Third-Person Shooter. Again, this is not Ubisoft, a traditionally MMO developer, saying screw the genre. This is a traditionally singleplayer game developer saying, "Hey, I like those ideas. Let's use them in our next third-person game!" Again, how do you glean from that "The MMO genre proper has horrible ideas and just needs to admit it's dying"?? It's the opposite: "AC was good, but I think using these ideas in this next game will make for an even better experience with more longevity!"
TOR got made. KOTOR3 didn't. More recently, the canon included in KOTOR is coming to TOR, not getting its own SP game. LucasArts/Disney seems to be betting on the MMO market and not the SP RPG market. Coincidence? Nah. STO got made. A singleplayer Star Trek RPG didn't. Maybe in the future, if LucasArts and investors think there's a SP RPG market there for those IPs, they will happen. But while there's still a market there for the MMOs already released (i.e. they make money), I highly doubt it.
Elder Scrolls Online got made, despite the automatic success of SP Elder Scrolls games. You really think that would have happened at all if backers had looked at the market and said, "Nah, the MMO market is dying"? Nope. If they had decided that was true, we'd have Elder Scrolls Arena, or Elder Scrolls VI with Dead Space 2-style coop and multiplayer PvP. We don't have that. We have ESO: an MMO with large-scale siege PvP as one of its main boons.
Blizzard, a company who had never before done anything but hack n' slash and RTS, decided they wanted to cash in on the longevity of MMOs. They did so fantastically. Now they're branching out into other areas. Because MMOs are dying? No, because that's what companies do when they achieve success branching out. They do it some more. And Blizz's gameplan is this: expand into new and resurging genres. That's it. That's why WoW was made. That's why Hearthstone was made. That's why their MOBA was made. Not because this genre is outdated, but because Blizz likes to develop based on the untapped potential of a young market. Developing against themselves in a market they've dominated for years isn't a good gameplan. Bringing years of game development experience to a genre full of largely novice mainstream game developers is a great gameplan. And this is really the only major "MMO developer" who has changed genres. Seeing as how they never started in this genre, it's a pretty weak argument for, "Nobody wants traditional MMOs anymore."
And no amount of "nah devs just know MMOs are so last decade" being posted on MMORPG.com forum threads will change any of this.
It is ... if the definition of MMO is continuously broadened.
Misused, you meant to say misused. Terms gets misused all the time for various reasons. Ignorance, marketing, trolling.
When a term is broadened too much its meaning gets lost and there is no purpose to it anymore. Lets take the term MMO. If you keep broadening it as to include every multiplayer game from 2 to a thousand then there is no point to the term MMO anymore because we already have one for that which is multiplayer. We only add massive in front of multiplayer to help us specify what kind of multiplayer it is.
"misused" is just an opinion. If everyone is using it .. it becomes the norm. You can argue to your face blue that calling World of Tanks a MMO is a "misuse" but since everyone is doing it, your complaining won't matter much.
And so what if the meaning is losing a little. It is not like there is a high value attached to a very rigorous definition of a set of entertainment products in the first place. And now it is broadened, although not yet to include all multiplayer games (for example, CoD is still not included), so it still have some meaning.
And, given the market, i suspect that is exactly right .. there is less and less "point" of having MMOs anymore, hence why it is broadened.
You argue this all the time, like the traditional MMO is dying. Newsflash: MMOs aren't turning to SP games for ideas, SP games are turning to MMOs for ideas. Cases in point:
Destiny incorporates MMO elements into an FPS. This is not because Bungie was previously a big-time MMO developer and just decided, "Screw that genre, nobody wants to play it!" It's because Bungie was previously a big-time FPS developer who said, "Y'know what? MMOs got some good ideas for longevity. Let's borrow them for our next FPS and bring it to consoles!" Where does that say, "The market's tired of MMOs"? To any logical person, it should say the ideas originally attributed exclusively to MMOs are being borrowed by developers from other genres, not the other way around.
The Division incorporates MMO elements into a Third-Person Shooter. Again, this is not Ubisoft, a traditionally MMO developer, saying screw the genre. This is a traditionally singleplayer game developer saying, "Hey, I like those ideas. Let's use them in our next third-person game!" Again, how do you glean from that "The MMO genre proper has horrible ideas and just needs to admit it's dying"?? It's the opposite: "AC was good, but I think using these ideas in this next game will make for an even better experience with more longevity!"
TOR got made. KOTOR3 didn't. More recently, the canon included in KOTOR is coming to TOR, not getting its own SP game. LucasArts/Disney seems to be betting on the MMO market and not the SP RPG market. Coincidence? Nah. STO got made. A singleplayer Star Trek RPG didn't. Maybe in the future, if LucasArts and investors think there's a SP RPG market there for those IPs, they will happen. But while there's still a market there for the MMOs already released (i.e. they make money), I highly doubt it.
Elder Scrolls Online got made, despite the automatic success of SP Elder Scrolls games. You really think that would have happened at all if backers had looked at the market and said, "Nah, the MMO market is dying"? Nope. If they had decided that was true, we'd have Elder Scrolls Arena, or Elder Scrolls VI with Dead Space 2-style coop and multiplayer PvP. We don't have that. We have ESO: an MMO with large-scale siege PvP as one of its main boons.
Blizzard, a company who had never before done anything but hack n' slash and RTS, decided they wanted to cash in on the longevity of MMOs. They did so fantastically. Now they're branching out into other areas. Because MMOs are dying? No, because that's what companies do when they achieve success branching out. They do it some more. And Blizz's gameplan is this: expand into new and resurging genres. That's it. That's why WoW was made. That's why Hearthstone was made. That's why their MOBA was made. Not because this genre is outdated, but because Blizz likes to develop based on the untapped potential of a young market. Developing against themselves in a market they've dominated for years isn't a good gameplan. Bringing years of game development experience to a genre full of largely novice mainstream game developers is a great gameplan. And this is really the only major "MMO developer" who has changed genres. Seeing as how they never started in this genre, it's a pretty weak argument for, "Nobody wants traditional MMOs anymore."
And no amount of "nah devs just know MMOs are so last decade" being posted on MMORPG.com forum threads will change any of this.
Well Done
"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
It is ... if the definition of MMO is continuously broadened.
Misused, you meant to say misused. Terms gets misused all the time for various reasons. Ignorance, marketing, trolling.
When a term is broadened too much its meaning gets lost and there is no purpose to it anymore. Lets take the term MMO. If you keep broadening it as to include every multiplayer game from 2 to a thousand then there is no point to the term MMO anymore because we already have one for that which is multiplayer. We only add massive in front of multiplayer to help us specify what kind of multiplayer it is.
"misused" is just an opinion. If everyone is using it .. it becomes the norm. You can argue to your face blue that calling World of Tanks a MMO is a "misuse" but since everyone is doing it, your complaining won't matter much.
And so what if the meaning is losing a little. It is not like there is a high value attached to a very rigorous definition of a set of entertainment products in the first place. And now it is broadened, although not yet to include all multiplayer games (for example, CoD is still not included), so it still have some meaning.
And, given the market, i suspect that is exactly right .. there is less and less "point" of having MMOs anymore, hence why it is broadened.
I think "misused" was the wrong word. If everyone is using it... it's usually a sign that it's being "abused". And no, it doesn't make it the norm or make it right.
"if everyone is using it" .. by definition it is the norm. And i know you think it is not right. But so? I think it is fine, so does everyone who is using it.
When you can change everyone's usage, let me know, and I will follow suit. Until then, i will go with the common, broadened, usage of the MMO label.
I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of people in the english speaking world don't even know what the term "MMO" stands for, so how could it be the norm?
Change everyone's usage? Who is everyone?
So we change a definition because some companies shady marketing practices are abusing the term for monetary gain? (misuse is accidental, abuse is purposely)
Na IMHO It seems to be a very small minority abusing the term.
If it is many reviewer, and MMO sites .. yes .. that is practically all who cares about MMO, and they are the audience. And as I said before, who are you to decide what is the right usage? You are the MMO police?
Like i am calling World of Tank a MMO, as many reviews. How exactly are you going to change the usage?
You argue this all the time, like the traditional MMO is dying. Newsflash: MMOs aren't turning to SP games for ideas, SP games are turning to MMOs for ideas. Cases in point:
Really?
I suppose solo content, and solo friendly is not a SP game thing .. it is totally a MMO principle, and more MMOs should fully embrace solo content.
Now we are in agreement. Where is the next solo-able MMO?
I bet more lobby feature is also a MMO thing, nothing to do with online modes in SP games. Great that we clear that up.
The term "Massive" refers to a large amount of players one can interact with while playing the game. How? In what way? That's up for the players to decide.
If a game is RTS for instance like old school Diablo II or Star Craft where only 2-8 individuals can play the game together, but be able to interact with thousands of players is it considered "massive"?. Now, the question is does chatting/socializing to thousands of players through the game feels like I'm being part of a massive online game? That's what it all comes down to.
Reality is even in the traditional, persistand and open world MMORPG with thousands of players the player will always be limited to interact with few individuals at a time, which is the same principle as a game with system similar to battle net.
Bottom line, if the player is playing the game by interacting/socializing to massive amount of players it's considered massive.
And as in COMPLETLY free to play...League of Legends is best example and MMORPG's should start adopting this. Reality is the experienced gamer can enjoy a lot of great games free out there to justify paying for a game these days, especially one with sub attached.
MMORPG's should start adopting a more modern payment model if they want to stay competitive and attractive. Payment models such as adding advertisement ingame that fits for the virtual world. Have system in place where players are welcome to donate if they enjoy the product, but give them limited recognition, like supporter tag on forums, something like Path of Exile does.
Reality is completely free to play is the new player in town and it's taking the market rapidly by surprise. Fact is the bigger the playerbase you attract, the better it is for your product, free advertising through word of mouth and more potential players more potential ways to get $ floating to your product.
So, I won't be surprised at all if the next AAA MMORPG's coming in the next few years come completely free to play. Times are indeed changing and for the better for us the players. I've bought every single expensaion on release for WOW since launch, but it won't be the case anymore.
Bottom line is, why pay to enjoy a game when I'm already enjoying another one for free? The free will always have priority.
Blizzard and 7.4 MILLION other people are laughing at you.
The term "Massive" refers to a large amount of players one can interact with while playing the game. How? In what way? That's up for the players to decide.
nope. The term has little meaning when used in the label MMO.
Otherwise, how would lobby games like World of Tanks classified as such? Either the fact that you can grouped with a "massive" number of players in the lobby is enough, or that 10 or so is massive enough.
The term "Massive" refers to a large amount of players one can interact with while playing the game. How? In what way? That's up for the players to decide.
If a game is RTS for instance like old school Diablo II or Star Craft where only 2-8 individuals can play the game together, but be able to interact with thousands of players is it considered "massive"?. Now, the question is does chatting/socializing to thousands of players through the game feels like I'm being part of a massive online game? That's what it all comes down to.
Reality is even in the traditional, persistand and open world MMORPG with thousands of players the player will always be limited to interact with few individuals at a time, which is the same principle as a game with system similar to battle net.
Bottom line, if the player is playing the game by interacting/socializing to massive amount of players it's considered massive.
According to Richard Garriott, persistent interactions was the thing that separated UO from other games of the time. UO was massively interactive, and it did that by being persistent. Players interacted with each other in little ways all the time and those interactions could happen while a player was logged in, or after a player had logged out. In Diablo, players could interact with a massive number of players over time, but the interactions weren't persistent when the game session ended. In UO, players could interact with a massive number of players over time and the interactions persisted after their game sessions ended. One was massive, the other wasn't.
You'll have to take my word for it that what he said about Massively Multiplayer centered on the persistent world and the interactions that result from having a persistent world. I can't find the interview any longer.
:-(
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
P2P isn't dying, if anything, we're seeing more P2P games incorporating F2P options, Archeage is just another example of them. I think its inevitable that we will increasingly see games that are 'Free to try' where you can play the game with certain restrictions, until you either buy unlocks and/or take out a subscription, I think we are going to see more games with that type of payment models in the future. Its not a question of any one type of payment model winning, its just a continued evolution of the P2P model itself.
Wth does that even mean? Is called language, we use it to communicate. Is not about high or low value or whatever you're talking about. Is about using a term to describe to me wth is in your mind.
If you say X game is multiplayer I understand you can play it with 2 players, 6, 10 ,1000 players. If you specify is massive multiplayer then I can filter more. That's the whole point of the term, is not there just to look good.
There is this obsession to just name everything a MMO like that is some kind of a badge of honor or something. Is not. Miscalling a game an MMO is not going to make it better or worse. It serves no purpose but to confuse people that want to know with how many players it can be played.
Curiously the f2p conversion of MMO's is mostly the last step before the final servers get closed.
f2p is a nightmare for long term investments like MMORPG's.
Why ? the infrastructure and the open world is too costly to depend on the uncertain revenue of "f2p".
While many MMO's declared they upped their revenue by going free to play, figures now show they actually trail FAR BEHIND subscription based MMO's.
f2p only works with limited content games with a narrow playing surface and a small design team.
Without most realising it; ... but I think that the time of f2p MMO's is slowly coming to an end as investors will no longer support an uncertain form of long term revenue.
What we saw in recent years is subscription based AAA MMORPG's going free to play as they were trampled down by WOW.
The only choice they had was going free to play, BUT they already were made as AAA subscription based games, so the funding was already done and they just needed to add extra money making tools.
The Titan case from Blizzard is a typical new point in the decision making for MMORPG's. Blizzard decided that investing money in small projects like HS and HOTS was more worthwhile than hugely investing in yet another new MMORPG with an uncertain f2p money stream.
So f2P is on the brink of collapse for NEW games. It will stay to serve as a transition for subscription based MMO games on their last legs.
But f2p is NOT the future for MMORPG's - unlike other smaller games like iPad Apps and Dota games which are not full fledged open world MMORPG's. These small games only cost a fraction of an open ended MMORPG and so the investment risk is much smaller and more lucrative.
You argue this all the time, like the traditional MMO is dying. Newsflash: MMOs aren't turning to SP games for ideas, SP games are turning to MMOs for ideas. Cases in point:
Destiny incorporates MMO elements into an FPS. This is not because Bungie was previously a big-time MMO developer and just decided, "Screw that genre, nobody wants to play it!" It's because Bungie was previously a big-time FPS developer who said, "Y'know what? MMOs got some good ideas for longevity. Let's borrow them for our next FPS and bring it to consoles!" Where does that say, "The market's tired of MMOs"? To any logical person, it should say the ideas originally attributed exclusively to MMOs are being borrowed by developers from other genres, not the other way around.
The Division incorporates MMO elements into a Third-Person Shooter. Again, this is not Ubisoft, a traditionally MMO developer, saying screw the genre. This is a traditionally singleplayer game developer saying, "Hey, I like those ideas. Let's use them in our next third-person game!" Again, how do you glean from that "The MMO genre proper has horrible ideas and just needs to admit it's dying"?? It's the opposite: "AC was good, but I think using these ideas in this next game will make for an even better experience with more longevity!"
TOR got made. KOTOR3 didn't. More recently, the canon included in KOTOR is coming to TOR, not getting its own SP game. LucasArts/Disney seems to be betting on the MMO market and not the SP RPG market. Coincidence? Nah. STO got made. A singleplayer Star Trek RPG didn't. Maybe in the future, if LucasArts and investors think there's a SP RPG market there for those IPs, they will happen. But while there's still a market there for the MMOs already released (i.e. they make money), I highly doubt it.
Elder Scrolls Online got made, despite the automatic success of SP Elder Scrolls games. You really think that would have happened at all if backers had looked at the market and said, "Nah, the MMO market is dying"? Nope. If they had decided that was true, we'd have Elder Scrolls Arena, or Elder Scrolls VI with Dead Space 2-style coop and multiplayer PvP. We don't have that. We have ESO: an MMO with large-scale siege PvP as one of its main boons.
Blizzard, a company who had never before done anything but hack n' slash and RTS, decided they wanted to cash in on the longevity of MMOs. They did so fantastically. Now they're branching out into other areas. Because MMOs are dying? No, because that's what companies do when they achieve success branching out. They do it some more. And Blizz's gameplan is this: expand into new and resurging genres. That's it. That's why WoW was made. That's why Hearthstone was made. That's why their MOBA was made. Not because this genre is outdated, but because Blizz likes to develop based on the untapped potential of a young market. Developing against themselves in a market they've dominated for years isn't a good gameplan. Bringing years of game development experience to a genre full of largely novice mainstream game developers is a great gameplan. And this is really the only major "MMO developer" who has changed genres. Seeing as how they never started in this genre, it's a pretty weak argument for, "Nobody wants traditional MMOs anymore."
And no amount of "nah devs just know MMOs are so last decade" being posted on MMORPG.com forum threads will change any of this.
Well Done
"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 it is many reviewer, and MMO sites .. yes .. that is practically all who cares about MMO, and they are the audience. And as I said before, who are you to decide what is the right usage? You are the MMO police?
Like i am calling World of Tank a MMO, as many reviews. How exactly are you going to change the usage?
Really?
I suppose solo content, and solo friendly is not a SP game thing .. it is totally a MMO principle, and more MMOs should fully embrace solo content.
Now we are in agreement. Where is the next solo-able MMO?
I bet more lobby feature is also a MMO thing, nothing to do with online modes in SP games. Great that we clear that up.
The term "Massive" refers to a large amount of players one can interact with while playing the game. How? In what way? That's up for the players to decide.
If a game is RTS for instance like old school Diablo II or Star Craft where only 2-8 individuals can play the game together, but be able to interact with thousands of players is it considered "massive"?. Now, the question is does chatting/socializing to thousands of players through the game feels like I'm being part of a massive online game? That's what it all comes down to.
Reality is even in the traditional, persistand and open world MMORPG with thousands of players the player will always be limited to interact with few individuals at a time, which is the same principle as a game with system similar to battle net.
Bottom line, if the player is playing the game by interacting/socializing to massive amount of players it's considered massive.
Blizzard and 7.4 MILLION other people are laughing at you.
So much for your fail2play prediction.
When I wake up, the real nightmare begins
nope. The term has little meaning when used in the label MMO.
Otherwise, how would lobby games like World of Tanks classified as such? Either the fact that you can grouped with a "massive" number of players in the lobby is enough, or that 10 or so is massive enough.
Take your pick.
According to Richard Garriott, persistent interactions was the thing that separated UO from other games of the time. UO was massively interactive, and it did that by being persistent. Players interacted with each other in little ways all the time and those interactions could happen while a player was logged in, or after a player had logged out. In Diablo, players could interact with a massive number of players over time, but the interactions weren't persistent when the game session ended. In UO, players could interact with a massive number of players over time and the interactions persisted after their game sessions ended. One was massive, the other wasn't.
You'll have to take my word for it that what he said about Massively Multiplayer centered on the persistent world and the interactions that result from having a persistent world. I can't find the interview any longer.
:-(
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.