Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
[General Article] General: The Pros & Cons of Free-to-Play
SBFord
Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
The traditional “pay wall” (pay a single price and play forever) or subscription (pay an up-front cost plus a monthly maintenance fee) models are every bit as valid and stable as free-to-play, but there are plusses and minuses to each of the models. To compare them, let’s outline the pros and cons for free-to-play and discuss the others as we go.
Read more of Dave Georgeson's The Pros & Cons of Free-to-Play.
)
Image source: GamesIndustry.biz
Comments
F2p has killed AAA mmos. = in a bad way-their maintnance and updates are far in between. i dont blame them with their small staff.
B2p is ok= with purchasable DLC.
Sub is best = by a long shot! with alternate models.
Agree with Orbitxo. F2P kind of killed of good MMORPG because the focus became on getting the most dollars in the shortest time rather than retaining the customer for the long haul. Subscription games generally had to focus on content with an eye on 2-3 years down the road, not the bright and shinny object that would separate the gamer from their dollar.
Not saying there aren't good F2P game but generally the good ones, like WoT and Warthunder aren't RPGs and have an entirely different gameplay focus. F2P just doesn't work well for involved game with long term goals.
F2P most of the time means you spend more money that you ever did on the P2P games. So the whole point is that it's not for the benefit of the user, it's for the investors.
When I played WoW back in the day I spend only on the monthly subscription. Now when I play something like SWTOR, Tera, Vindictus, and so on, I spend 10+ times more. Just so I can have a better chance of getting something nice looking, or in the later two games, just so I can have better weapons and armor and not needing to grind for months to have that chance. WoW killed my love for (some) grinding, I want it now. And F2P often gives it to you now, at a very high cost of course. Last year was when I finally quit playing all those games because it was eating my money faster than anything else.
In the end of the day I still like the F2P aspect, but games like Vindictus and Tera is mostly aimed at rich people or those that do not have a job and family to take care of. People like me are better off playing single player games.
I always equate F2P to throwing shit at a wall to see how much sticks, both in terms of player retention and spending, and the quality of the games themselves.
The only way to sell a game with a box price and a subscription is to make a quality product or it fails, as we've seen recently with the rise in supposedly AAA titles going F2P in the first year, becaue they were shit.
Add to all this the influx of casual whining freeloaders destroying the genre from the inside and it's little wonder the genre is in it's present state. There may be more MMO's than ever before to choose from but when the choices are all equally turds, it's no real choice at all.
While the "obvious" pay to win game may be short lived, F2P has definitely bent the MMO world. Games with marketplaces are designed towards the store, not towards the fun. So while there may not be any obvious P2W in the store such as overpowered weapons or uber gear, you will have barriers purposely set up in the game that require either a significant amount of time to overcome or a few bucks spent in the store.
Storage is the perfect example. You start with a tiny bag, are given a shit-load of useless starting crap and lots of meaningless drops. Before you're level 5, you have one space left in your bag. So either dump stuff or buy more space, which will cost you in-game currency you couldn't possibly have or real money. Every F2P game does this because it works.
Most of the time with F2P games, I feel that I am playing a marketing scheme rather than an MMO.
P2P is fine if you didnt had to pay for extra services like name change, server transfers, race/faction change etc and there isn't any kind of cash shop at all.
When i m paying 60-80$ for the box and another 15$ per month, then i think its too much asking people to pay more for any service. Plus there must be content updates in regular base, not every 6+ months.
All Time Favorites: EQ1, WoW, EvE, GW1
Playing Now: WoW, ESO, GW2
I really like the simplicity of developing for a “pay wall” strategy. It feels like the old days of box products and it’s just nice not having that constant noise in your head of developing the never-ending month-to-month strategies. I think this is the best of all player experiences also.
Seriously? This method hits on almost all the cons in the articles. It forces players out of their enjoyment once the wall as hit and forces them to make a decision on whether or not to purchase whatever is needed to overcome said pay wall - basically it absolutely forces them to notice your pay options at some point which you listed as a con. Making a paywall (or multiple paywalls) at any point of the game is a good way to drive customers away that would have normally been long term free to play players and as stated in the article that's a bad strategy because it's going to hurt retention for the paying players as well when there are less people to play with at their level. I don't really see how it benefits consumers over a F2P model without a pay model. This is the first time I've ever heard anyone call a paywall a good thing.
Except those services you listed are optional. If you want to play on a different server for whatever reason then you reroll, same goes for all the other services you listed. You don't have to pay for them since you have the option of making another character.
I will agree on the content updates though. If I am paying 15 dollars a month then I would like to see content updates on a somewhat regular basis. I'm not talking about a whole new dungeon every week but something that is new to add to the daily list of things to do otherwise why would I keep paying a sub?
Pros:
The ability to try before you buy
Supports indie devs
Allows for more risk taking in game design
Cons:
Can siphon actual game content development
Intrusive, breaks immersion
Sacrifices items that could have been used to enhance existing game systems
It is easy to compare the tangibles. But the intangibles... Endless debate
Developers like the paywall because there is no need to do anything else for them. They dont have to care if anyone will like what they made, they just pass it to marketing to hype.. and collect the fees before anyone can find out if it is any good. This is the traditional P2P approach, which is driven by marketing hype.
F2P requires that developers change how they work, and that they be responsive to outside forces, specifically the customer. It is much more commercial (as compared to industrial) as you have to make the products that people want.... not the products that you want. As he mentioned there is now a long list of supporting roles INSIDE the company that watch how the customer plays, finds out what they want, and gets feedback on anything that has been created. In the past you did not need to know any of these, as they were unimportant. This makes it a lot more difficult for the developer, but also makes it a lot better for the customer.
The issue with F2P is that most companies do not realize that there are different types of development. Some infrastructure development needs to be done REGARDLESS of player feedback, as it improves the product, regardless of any player desires/feedback/demand. This development doesnt make money directly, but it is what allows the Development of the products that DO make money. Most companies do not separate these two things, and as such are constantly at odds with themselves, and can not figure out how to move forward in a way that is both profitable and sustainable.
I won't talk about most of what I have just read, because it's pretty much all tripe and life is too short, but I will take exception with this one statement...
"The goal should be “Nail down a great game and then go as big as you can with it.” Free-to-play helps you go big. It’s as simple as that to me. Everything else is just an obstacle to overcome."
The 'go big as possible' mentality, aiming for the broadest possible audience with diluted challenge and cloned ideas is a HUGE part of what has brought us to where we are now.
I think the distinction is false...games will exploit every revenue source they can. GW2 has buy (paywall) + cash shop + expansion cost. ESO rode the sub model as long as possible before switching. And don't forget the entire 'Collector Imperial Gold Pre-Order Edition' type of revenue.
I do agree in general that having people who enjoy the game and can afford to buy stuff be the ones to support the game is a good trend.
Um try before you buy is a weak point at best considering open betas, 1-2 week free trials, buddy keys, free weekends etc.
So really the only pro is more revenue but we all know that it's more than that it's the ability to buy things in the game. The point is this is one of those things that's both a pro and con at the same time. People like buying stuff like items and cosmetics and time saving potions but they are compromising the very game by injecting an item mall into it. The drop rates, the economy, the items, the cosmetic visuals of the items that go in the actual game or item store it all gets compromised and filtered by the cash shop lens of profit.
Honestly the fact that you listed 2 pros and one is paper thin at best... says a lot about free 2 play.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/Unfortunately developers like to dream big. They like to think that their creation is great, and that everyone will want to play it. I am not sure what you would get if you build a team based on 'think small', or how you would make any money on that. People generally want to do as well as possible.... not the opposite.
In case anyone hasn't seen it yet
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1016417/-100-000-Whales-An
Here's the pros and cons of Free to Play from a business's perspective! A business that makes like, millions so odds are pretty good they know their stuff.
Which games are you talking about though?
If you are talking about games that converted to some sort of F2P model then in reality those games "died" and were heading for the mmo graveyard. With zero maintenance and no updates going forward. Look at games to games that didn't go F2P like WAR (no updates at all for its final 3.5 years) or DAoC say (pre-Broadsword). So probably more accurate to say that F2P revived rather than killed.
However as the games were never designed to be F2P from day 1 and the companies were desperate they have almost all made "poor" F2P games. That, I suggest, is the source of your comment.
All payment models - as DG says - are valid but you need "critical mass"; enough players paying enough money.
F2P killed nothing. F2P filled a gap left by flagging interest in MMOs and unfairly gets blamed for being the cause.
If anything F2P has kept MMOs alive by providing such variety and so many different scenarios.
I have always liked Jared. He is brutally honest about the business, be it gold selling, or F2P. He presents the facts in a clear manner, and doesnt try to 'hide' anything. He also realizes that things change, and you have to adapt. He is a service based thinker, and looks for ways to provide what people want... so that they will give him money in exchange.
In your mind, 'going big' is fundamentally and exclusively the same as 'doing well'? I would disagree and would suggest that you are falling into the same traps as the devs like Dave here.
The Dev that is dreaming big in terms of having the biggest game on the block, instead of dreaming big in terms of imagination and design and striving to be fresh and exciting (even if that might limit their audience), is actually very much of the problem.
Have you not noticed the whole rebirth of passionate inspired niche audience grassroots development that's exploded again over the last few years? A lot of the best games in general made over the last five years were built with no expectation of 'going big'. The fact that they might have done so just because they were so damn good is a bonus after the fact.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/Except that most f2p things are also optional as well. Let's see spend a required 60 bucks +15 per month and lose access forever if you never want to pay or play a f2p game have access no matter what? Not forced to spend money.
FYI: there is a fine line between WANTS and NEED.
I see that you may have missed several key phrases. Let me draw them to your attention:
"Nail down a great game and then go as big as you can with it."
"They like to think that their creation is great, and that everyone will want to play it."
In both of these sentences, there is a cause and action. The developers make the best game that they can (Nail down a great game, or think that their creation is great). They are invested in this process, and when they are done, they feel that others will enjoy it (go as big as you can with it or everyone will want to play it). At this point they are concerned with anything that will block this process (only release on mac, require payment in rubles, only make it available in latin, etc). They want to see their creation offered to everyone, and in a method that is as broadly acceptable as possible... F2P does that.
You have forgotten that developers make games... and that the rest falls on other teams. This is why George has stated that he likes the paywall, as it allows the developer to work in isolation (no input from anyone), and to just pass off the work at the end. He has pointed out that the new models give feedback to the developer, and that this can be a distraction.
As for the indy games.... well I would state that most of them was built with the expectation of 'going big'. I can give a couple of examples of games that did well despite the developer thinking that they were terrible... Cow Clicker or Flappy Bird. One was made to parody.... and people didnt get it. The other was considered 'too addictive' by the developer. However, neither of these intentionally 'went small' and didnt try to do as good a job as they could.