My main problem with F2P games with their cash shop is down to whats the point. If all the cool looking stuff has to be bought whats the point in playing.
In the golden days you went questing you did a long chain took time and patience but at the end you had a nice set of gear and you knew anyone else who had that gear had gone through what you did. You had bragging rights you had an adventure.
Originally posted by cheyane I am not sure I got this correct but if only 5 % spend and 95 % are needed to keep game going ,I don't think that that sounds like a sound business model that can be sustained for a long time. I am not a business major or anything but common sense tells me that the bottom is apt to fall out .
There are many factors to consider.
1. its not the same 5% of people who pay month after month. (IE in any particular months only 5% of your player base may pay but throught a year more then 5% of your player base might have payed for something ergo the bigger the player base its still the better)
2. 5% of a lot may still be more than 100% of a little. So much so games that go free to play end up doing more money then they did when they were subscription based which seems to support the thesis this may actually be the case.
3. Every MMO looses players as it gets older which means its important to get new players. F2P MMO have no entry barrier and thus find it easier to replace lost players which in turn might make it a lot more sustainable than a Game where your players still leave but much fewer players join to replace those who left.
Question all is it just because of the whales or is it because more people paying less is more profitable then less people paying regularly? Thats the real question imho
F2P works because it reduces the cost of new customer acquisition. Marketing is often 5-10x the cost of development. If you can reduce that cost 10x by going F2P, you can reach the break even point much sooner, and easier. This is why F2P is good for independants, and for games after the 1st year. P2P is still the best deal (for the first year) for any big studio, as they can put out cash for a marketing blitz, and get it back with the initial buy-in.
Most people (outside of the business) do not realize that F2P is about the EXPENSE side, not the REVENUE side. If you lower your cost, becoming profitable is much easier. F2P was a counter to the big publishers (like EA) that could push huge marketing campaigns. Now that customers have started to become more wary of these, they have changed to F2P as well, because they are getting less return for their dollar, except with the established brands.
Is that truly the case though? Do companies cut marketing when they go Free to Play? Is cutting marketing out the equation even viable? Your game may be free but people still need to pick it over the other million out there which means you still need to convince to them to play it. It may be easier then convincing them to buy it month after month sure but you still need to get the word out there. Lets look at all those games then switched from subscription to free to play for example? did they really cut their advertisement ? I've seen a strong marketing push for rift's nightmare tide and currently there is quite an effort being done by Tera.
Even low budget browser based MMOs have a truckload of advertising going on all the time.
There is obviously no way for anyone to know how it compares to subscription based games but from where I sit it doesnt seem its drastically less certainly not by a factor of 10.
"I don’t personally have anything against pay-to-win games." Dave Georgeson
I think it fundamental that the integrity and immersion of an alternate world be preserved and buying in game items and gold and cash shops let alone straight up Pay 2 Win completely and utterly destroy any reason for me to play the game.
You quoted Dave out of context.
The full quote states that he has no problem with P2W games, provided they are upfront and perfectly clear about their model. And there I agree with him (even though I disagree with many of his other points).
My beef with F2P is that it is primarily built on manipulation and deception. The monetization schemes are deliberately obscure and hidden under layers of obfuscation. All the weaknesses and foibles of human nature are ruthlessly exploited. It will inevitably influence the game play, itemization and drop rates in any game.
You just prooved that old school P2P games had extreme time sinks/grinds just so players pay 15/month longer and no other reason. It uses same principle as F2P games, sorry to burst your bubble.
It was aslo much worse in old school games because there was no option to pay OR invest extreme time in it you HAD to do both.
"I don’t personally have anything against pay-to-win games." Dave Georgeson
I think it fundamental that the integrity and immersion of an alternate world be preserved and buying in game items and gold and cash shops let alone straight up Pay 2 Win completely and utterly destroy any reason for me to play the game.
You quoted Dave out of context.
The full quote states that he has no problem with P2W games, provided they are upfront and perfectly clear about their model. And there I agree with him (even though I disagree with many of his other points).
My beef with F2P is that it is primarily built on manipulation and deception. The monetization schemes are deliberately obscure and hidden under layers of obfuscation. All the weaknesses and foibles of human nature are ruthlessly exploited. It will inevitably influence the game play, itemization and drop rates in any game.
You just prooved that old school P2P games had extreme time sinks/grinds just so players pay 15/month longer and no other reason. It uses same principle as F2P games, sorry to burst your bubble.
It was aslo much worse in old school games because there was no option to pay OR invest extreme time in it you HAD to do both.
My post "proved" nothing, but it seemed to give you an opportunity to air your own favourite misconception.
But you're right in one thing, F2P games do give the player the option to pay extreme amounts of money instead of investing extreme amounts of time.
And while we're on the topic of "grind":
A sub-only game would require you to grind for 6 months to get that 6-piece armour set (6 months @ $15).
A F2P game would require you to grind for 9 months to get that 6-piece armour set for free. But conveniently, you can buy all 6 pieces in the Cash Shop right now for $17.50 a piece. The day after that set goes on sale in the Cash Shop, you'll be meeting players in battle that are wearing the full set. But don't worry, it's not P2W, because 9 months from now you'll have the same as them without paying a cent...
"I don’t personally have anything against pay-to-win games." Dave Georgeson
I think it fundamental that the integrity and immersion of an alternate world be preserved and buying in game items and gold and cash shops let alone straight up Pay 2 Win completely and utterly destroy any reason for me to play the game.
You quoted Dave out of context.
The full quote states that he has no problem with P2W games, provided they are upfront and perfectly clear about their model. And there I agree with him (even though I disagree with many of his other points).
My beef with F2P is that it is primarily built on manipulation and deception. The monetization schemes are deliberately obscure and hidden under layers of obfuscation. All the weaknesses and foibles of human nature are ruthlessly exploited. It will inevitably influence the game play, itemization and drop rates in any game.
You just prooved that old school P2P games had extreme time sinks/grinds just so players pay 15/month longer and no other reason. It uses same principle as F2P games, sorry to burst your bubble.
It was aslo much worse in old school games because there was no option to pay OR invest extreme time in it you HAD to do both.
My post "proved" nothing, but it seemed to give you an opportunity to air your own favourite misconception.
But you're right in one thing, F2P games do give the player the option to pay extreme amounts of money instead of investing extreme amounts of time.
Lol, dont be so hard on yourself, it what it is, those games were designed with specific goal in mind thats pretty much same as F2P games, and with mostly same mentality. But since they demanded huge amounts of time they ultimately failed when alternative presented it(them)self(ves).
It seems to me that the MMOs touted with the best F2P models almost always started out as a sub game and converted to F2P afterwards. Those designed as F2P from the start are usually held up as examples of not only having bad monetization models, but are usually considered as being shallow in actual gameplay due to the heavy focus on revenue generation activities.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Lol, dont be so hard on yourself, it what it is, those games were designed with specific goal in mind thats pretty much same as F2P games, and with mostly same mentality. But since they demanded huge amounts of time they ultimately failed when alternative presented it(them)self(ves).
No, there's a fundamental difference in approach between building and running a sub-based game and a F2P game.
In a sub-based game, activities and loot are designed to keep the player entertained and busy for as long as possible.
The same is basically true for a F2P game (you also want to keep the customers around as long as possible), but with one vitally important additional consideration: How can the activities and loot be designed/implemented in such a way as to keep the player constantly spending amounts of money ? And how can itemization be linked to the Cash Shop in such a way as to offer the player the maximum possible ways to spend extra money ?
A game that's developed as a purely F2P game will actually be quite a lot more expensive to develop than the exact same game with sub-only payment !
That's because the F2P version requires everything the sub-only version has, PLUS the additional costs of a Monetization Team, as well as the cost of building and testing the Cash Shop integration. And the Monetization Team is one part of the staff that you DON'T cut after launch, which again means the ongoing costs of running the same game as F2P will be higher than its sub-only counterpart...
You can mitigate the additional financial risk of the F2P development by either reducing the cost of developing the core game (so the F2P version is of lower "quality" than the sub-only version would have been), or by implementing more aggressive monetization schemes (more RNG lockboxes, more P2W ?). Some games attempt to do both. But somewhere that additional cost associated with the F2P monetization will have to be accounted for.
"I don’t personally have anything against pay-to-win games." Dave Georgeson
I think it fundamental that the integrity and immersion of an alternate world be preserved and buying in game items and gold and cash shops let alone straight up Pay 2 Win completely and utterly destroy any reason for me to play the game.
You quoted Dave out of context.
The full quote states that he has no problem with P2W games, provided they are upfront and perfectly clear about their model. And there I agree with him (even though I disagree with many of his other points).
My beef with F2P is that it is primarily built on manipulation and deception. The monetization schemes are deliberately obscure and hidden under layers of obfuscation. All the weaknesses and foibles of human nature are ruthlessly exploited. It will inevitably influence the game play, itemization and drop rates in any game.
You just prooved that old school P2P games had extreme time sinks/grinds just so players pay 15/month longer and no other reason. It uses same principle as F2P games, sorry to burst your bubble.
It was aslo much worse in old school games because there was no option to pay OR invest extreme time in it you HAD to do both.
My post "proved" nothing, but it seemed to give you an opportunity to air your own favourite misconception.
But you're right in one thing, F2P games do give the player the option to pay extreme amounts of money instead of investing extreme amounts of time.
Lol, dont be so hard on yourself, it what it is, those games were designed with specific goal in mind thats pretty much same as F2P games, and with mostly same mentality. But since they demanded huge amounts of time they ultimately failed when alternative presented it(them)self(ves).
How do you rationalize saying that with little things like facts... such as subscriptions are a flat monthly fee with a spending cap and free 2 play has no flat fee and no spending cap? In one all you pay for is the access and in the other you pay for everything but the access.
Unless pretty much the same means not the same at all. Which can be demonstrated by games sporting the wonderful combination cash shop + sub.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
You're kind of creepy digging up the past and trying to throw it in my face. You think you know it all and come across as pretty high and mighty, but you're not. How convenient for you that you get to hide behind a new account name and take pot shots at other people from the safety of your anonymity.
I don't really owe you an explanation of why I've changed, but I have. In short my feelings and perspective then isn't the way I feel and think now. I've changed.
Totally predicted this response; it's the default "go-to" reply when ever someone uses someone's own words to call them out. "Oh, you're stalking me! That's so creepy!". Only it isn't. Not at all. It's an indication that some people pay attention, and can remember what someone has said in the past". Nothing more.
Recovering posts as evidence is no more than a few Google searches - just like we do when looking up quotes from developers, etc. Yet, no one ever calls that creepy... when it's exactly the same thing.
I remember people's names, and their overall "tone" and opinions on various subjects as well. Again, it's a sign of someone actually paying attention to what they're reading. This is actually a good thing.. considering how few people seem to actually do that, and just respond half-cocked, without even knowing what the hell they're replying to.
Like I said, I remember people's names, some more than others, and I become familiar enough with their overall arguments over time where, if someone who has a history of consistently arguing in favor of something, suddenly starts saying things that completely contradicts that... I'm going to notice. I'm sure many around here do as well.
If you've changed your mind in the interim, then great. You're entitled to do that. But don't attack someone else and accuse them of "stalking" you simply because they saw a conflict in your statements, and were able to find previous statements that contradict them. That reflects more poorly on you than it does on them.
You just prooved that old school P2P games had extreme time sinks/grinds just so players pay 15/month longer and no other reason. It uses same principle as F2P games, sorry to burst your bubble.
It was aslo much worse in old school games because there was no option to pay OR invest extreme time in it you HAD to do both.
First of all... ALL MMOs - particularly MMORPGs - have time sinks and grinds. Every last one. P2P, F2P, etc.
But here's the thing..
Complaining that a MMORPG has content designed to take time to complete is like complaining that motorcycles are made with only two wheels, and no proper windows to keep the wind out. It's completely missing the point of what a MMORPG is... and it's amazing to me that people are still making this argument, so many years on. I'd have expected folks to have figured this out by now.
MMORPGs are not, and never were, designed as "finish it and move on" affairs. There is no "finishing" a MMORPG. They are intended to be long-term hobbies. Something you play for a long time - months or even years. They are the online computer analog to the classic tabletop RPGs, where a single adventure/campaign could last months.
Keeping people engaged for the long term is the entire point of a properly designed MMORPG.
The trick is... and this is the important bit... to make the content people are doing enjoyable enough to make them feel like it's worth their time and money, to keep paying that sub fee, and coming back month after month. If they're not enjoying what they're doing... it doesn't matter how long the content is intended to take... because they ain't gonna be there playing it.
You know what happens when a MMORPG has content that isn't designed to last for a while, and that can be done in very short time? You have a MMORPG whose population has completed almost everything the game offers, and begin unsubbing from boredom within the first few months. You have a MMO whose devs are looking at "alternative revenue models" to try and keep it afloat. You know... the very thing that's happened to the majority of MMORPGs to be released in the last decade or so since WoW hit the scene and inspired every other developer to play "Me, too!".
Notice how old-school P2P MMOs never had that problem? How, so long as they were good enough to keep people interested, they ran for years and years... well over a decade in some cases... How some are still going to this day with a subscription, and doing fine? There's a reason for that. It isn't because "the content was a boring grind". Because, so long as the game offered content you enjoy... it wasn't.
And don't give me the "Well, they only survived because there weren't as many options" nonsense.
1. There were several options, each very different from the other - because back then, MMO devs strived to make their games as unique as possible.. not like today, where the idea is to make them as similar as possible. Anarchy Online, EQ1, FFXI, Lineage 1/2, AC1, DAoC, UO... beyond the shared foundation of being a "RPG", all those games were very different from each other.
2. If someone couldn't find a MMORPG they liked, there was always the option to not play one at all. You know, play something else with multiplayer instead.
3. Most of the MMORPGs that launched back then continued on into the post-WoW world... maintaining a playerbase, and a subscription... despite the amount of "other options" having multiplied several times over. There are many people who have stuck with those games... as well as new players who have come along despite having many more options to choose from.
So, sorry to people who love to pull it out as an Ace card, but the "oh well people only played those because there weren't as many options to choose from" argument is bogus and easily debunked.
But back to the main point...
ALL MMOs are designed to last a player a long time. One of the core points of a MMORPG is that it doesn't end. There is no "You Won! The End" screen. The adventure continues for as long as the developer keeps it going, and for as long as people want to play.
If what you're doing in a MMORPG feels like a boring grind to you... that's not a sign of the game not being designed well. It's a sign that it just isn't the MMORPG for you, and you should maybe try out others and find one that's more to your liking.
And by the by... if you're seriously complaining about the grind in a P2P MMO.. Try playing through a F2P MMORPG for the long-term without buying anything from the cash shop. Then talk to me about grind. F2P MMOs are extremely grindy by design. Why? Well.. they need something to get people buying those XP potions and other "convenience" items from the cash shop!
I love reading these threads with the raging disenfranchised very vocal minority. For all the raging they've pretty much shown that the industry can't sustain itself, no, their demographic can't sustain the industry on a mandatory subscription model that doesn't include secondary sources of revenue. Other than a few old titles slowly lingering on their way to the graveyard, every P2P game has and/or keeps adding more and more revenue streams (FFXIV, EVE, WoW, etc). We even see this with the gorilla that is going to add RMT "Play to Pay" in the near future.
Personally, I prefer hybrid games with an upfront "box" fee, or B2P. I really hope ESO's model becomes the template for future revenue systems. I don't mind F2P but the negative point about trolls is true. Sometimes I think some P2P freaks go and make accounts on F2P games just to spew their hatred. In any event having a nominal "box" fee cuts down on this. It also provides some direct return on every account created. The trick, I think, is to not have that initial fee be too high and for it to include enough of the game that players don't fee immediately driven to a cash shop.
Anyway it was a good read. I hope to see what new project(s) Georgeson gets involved with after some rest and time off.
1st you are making the assumption that "raging disenfranchised" and "very vocal minority" are mutually inclusive. Meaning, players who are playing F2P games wouldn't rather be playing a decent subscription game.....if only there was one good enough. And what about the people who hop from game to game to game to game the moment he invariably hit the paywall? Yeah, all those individual games must have made lasting impressions. And the players LOVE those individual games......Or is it maybe just them being able to maintain a mediocre entertainment experience for free that appeals to them? Of course, none of those individual games sound like they are overly appealing in their own right. As a publisher of a F2P game, what would you care about how successful the business model as a whole is doing when your game is "meh"? I think it's rather difficult to pinpoint with any true accuracy the number of people who play MMOs and what the numbers are on how they feel about business models.
That said, even within the sample sizes we are aware of, don't you think it's rather surprising at how the size of the "raging disenfranchised very vocal minority" is growing at such an alarming rate here? Familiarity breeds contempt. The more and more people that are exposed to this business model, the more dislike it.
I understand your sentiments on Sub and how you consider it Rent. And I won't say that you are incorrect, but of all monetization methods, that one is the least invasive. They need to perpetuate the game, but aside from making things take longer, which I don't find particularly offensive, most everything else in and about the game play itself is equalized for each player. Cash Shop games are "in your face" at every turn, and they seem to love to remind you just how much more fun your experience would be if only you'd spend some money. I hate that, even when it's subtle.
No, there's a fundamental difference in approach between building and running a sub-based game and a F2P game.
In a sub-based game, activities and loot are designed to keep the player entertained and busy for as long as possible.
The same is basically true for a F2P game (you also want to keep the customers around as long as possible), but with one vitally important additional consideration: How can the activities and loot be designed/implemented in such a way as to keep the player constantly spending amounts of money ? And how can itemization be linked to the Cash Shop in such a way as to offer the player the maximum possible ways to spend extra money ?
A game that's developed as a purely F2P game will actually be quite a lot more expensive to develop than the exact same game with sub-only payment !
That's because the F2P version requires everything the sub-only version has, PLUS the additional costs of a Monetization Team, as well as the cost of building and testing the Cash Shop integration. And the Monetization Team is one part of the staff that you DON'T cut after launch, which again means the ongoing costs of running the same game as F2P will be higher than its sub-only counterpart...
You can mitigate the additional financial risk of the F2P development by either reducing the cost of developing the core game (so the F2P version is of lower "quality" than the sub-only version would have been), or by implementing more aggressive monetization schemes (more RNG lockboxes, more P2W ?). Some games attempt to do both. But somewhere that additional cost associated with the F2P monetization will have to be accounted for.
There is no fundamental difference in developing a P2P or F2P game. These are monetization strategies, not development strategies. The difference is in how you market and monetize, not develop.
Let me give you an example. Developers make a game where you do quests, and kill mobs. Here are some examples of how this would vary with business model:
Traditional P2P. Heavy Marketing. Upfront purchase. Monthly Sub. Quests are given out in slow, incremental fashion (kill 10, then kill 10 more, etc). Mobs take a while to kill, but you have to travel around a lot, eating up time. You get slow steady progression, which eats up your time (subscription is time=money)
Typical F2P. Low/No Marketing. No upfront cost. Optional Monthly Sub. Cash Shop items. Quests are given out in slow, incremental fashion (kill 10, then kill 10 more, etc). Mobs take a while to kill, but you have to travel around a lot, eating up time. You get slow progression, which eats up more time than the traditional P2P. They offer an optional sub that speeds up progress, so that it now feels like the traditional P2P.
With this example, you can see that the basic content is the same, and that the experience might even be the same, but that the methods of monetization are very different. One requires payment upfront, the other allows for payment later, but can have a higher cost.
We are now starting to see both F2P and P2P to provide an option to rush through the content at a higher cost. They offer items in the cash shop that allow you to kill quickly, move faster, etc They are single use/short time period usage, and if you use them constantly, you can blitz through the content... but it is very expensive. This is something we are now starting to see in both business models, as it is not an inherent part of either.
P.S. The marketing cost of launching a P2P games is 5-10x the development cost. For a F2P game it is .5-1x the cost. This is why F2P is lower risk... and cheaper.
WoW, has had a free trial and it maintains its high sub bas. Eve, free trial, high sub base.
The main point still stands. Make a GOOD GAME, retain players. Don't? Enjoy F2P because its the ONLY option...and that is why so many are taking it because of the massive amount of average or lower games being made.
Did you just cite WoW as the reason why your argument stands? Credibility meet window.
Because Eve is Wow?
You have no credibility because you cant even read.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
"P.S. The marketing cost of launching a P2P games is 5-10x the development cost. For a F2P game it is .5-1x the cost. This is why F2P is lower risk... and cheaper."
That statement alone makes your entire spiel nonsense. Marketing is expensive, but it does not cost even clost to the development costs let alone 5X. You can tell you have no experience in the business.
It is pretty simple, most f2p games have a lot less content that p2p games. They also have mechanisms to extend play with heavy grinding at higher levels, which of course can be lessened through the item shop. The f2p games can get by with a lot less development because the quest system usually disappears about mid leveling ranges.
"P.S. The marketing cost of launching a P2P games is 5-10x the development cost. For a F2P game it is .5-1x the cost. This is why F2P is lower risk... and cheaper."
That statement alone makes your entire spiel nonsense. Marketing is expensive, but it does not cost even clost to the development costs let alone 5X. You can tell you have no experience in the business.
It is pretty simple, most f2p games have a lot less content that p2p games. They also have mechanisms to extend play with heavy grinding at higher levels, which of course can be lessened through the item shop. The f2p games can get by with a lot less development because the quest system usually disappears about mid leveling ranges.
Just look at the numbers presented for some recent launches.
Lets start with Destiny. They are spending 500M on the game, but development cost is estimated to be 60M.
Next, lets look at a mobile game. Game of War just spent 40M for a single ad campaign.
Marketing is the single largest cost for publishing a game. The advantage of F2P is lower CPA, which is based on marketing costs. The lower cost is what makes F2P feasible, and profitable.
What I don't like about subs is it pins you down to 1 or 2 games unless you make room for a huge gaming budget. When rl gets in the way days off gaming is just wasted. BTP or FTP allows me to play as many games as my hard drive can hold. If you can't control your spending in a cash shop the fault is your own.
WoW, has had a free trial and it maintains its high sub bas. Eve, free trial, high sub base.
The main point still stands. Make a GOOD GAME, retain players. Don't? Enjoy F2P because its the ONLY option...and that is why so many are taking it because of the massive amount of average or lower games being made.
Did you just cite WoW as the reason why your argument stands? Credibility meet window.
Because Eve is Wow?
You have no credibility because you cant even read.
Yeah, I can't read. I'm not talking about EVE am I? EVE doesn't have a very high subscriber base compared to other sub-option games. EVE does have a dedicated niche following and I think subs can work for them if the publisher doesn't mind leaving revenue on the table.
However, neither one of those is a sub only game. They both have cash shops and RMT currency conversions (WoW is adding theirs now). So not only did you cite WoW as our main example, but you used EVE which isn't a good support for your argument. You're arguing from wishful thinking, not reality.
The first pro point listed is utter bogus crap because literally any P2P could have a free trial (and most do). In my personal experience I have been able to play every major MMORPG before I bought it via 1-2 week free trials, free weekends, open betas, buddy keys, or any of the tons of other player recruitment or return programs in any modern MMO.
Free to play has almost no advantage in the barrier to entry field from my perspective. That probably has something to do with me also having no problem paying for a sub if the game is worth it. Really it's a paper thin point unless one is dead set against paying anything for entertainment.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Originally posted by mikuniman What I don't like about subs is it pins you down to 1 or 2 games <== the horror == unless you make room for a huge gaming budget. Why in the world would you want to play more than 1 or 2 MMOs? We're not talking about single player games or MOBAs, FPSs etc. When rl gets in the way days off gaming is just wasted. Never understood this mentality. Even when I miss an entire month (has happened on occasion) it falls into the category of "who gives a shit". We're talking about $15. This is less expensive than dinner for two at McDonald's of all places. I'm not left in financial ruin and life goes on. If it looks as though RL will continue to keep me too busy for gaming I'll just unsub until that changes. BTP or FTP allows me to play as many games as my hard drive can hold. If you can't control your spending in a cash shop the fault is your own. I don't think I've ever seen anyone complain about that. While I'm sure a small minority of people have this problem, it's likely mostly an issue for children with a credit cad belonging to Daddy.
"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
I love reading these threads with the raging disenfranchised very vocal minority. For all the raging they've pretty much shown that the industry can't sustain itself, no, their demographic can't sustain the industry on a mandatory subscription model that doesn't include secondary sources of revenue. Other than a few old titles slowly lingering on their way to the graveyard, every P2P game has and/or keeps adding more and more revenue streams (FFXIV, EVE, WoW, etc). We even see this with the gorilla that is going to add RMT "Play to Pay" in the near future.
Personally, I prefer hybrid games with an upfront "box" fee, or B2P. I really hope ESO's model becomes the template for future revenue systems. I don't mind F2P but the negative point about trolls is true. Sometimes I think some P2P freaks go and make accounts on F2P games just to spew their hatred. In any event having a nominal "box" fee cuts down on this. It also provides some direct return on every account created. The trick, I think, is to not have that initial fee be too high and for it to include enough of the game that players don't fee immediately driven to a cash shop.
Anyway it was a good read. I hope to see what new project(s) Georgeson gets involved with after some rest and time off.
1st you are making the assumption that "raging disenfranchised" and "very vocal minority" are mutually inclusive. Meaning, players who are playing F2P games wouldn't rather be playing a decent subscription game.....if only there was one good enough. And what about the people who hop from game to game to game to game the moment he invariably hit the paywall? Yeah, all those individual games must have made lasting impressions. And the players LOVE those individual games......Or is it maybe just them being able to maintain a mediocre entertainment experience for free that appeals to them? Of course, none of those individual games sound like they are overly appealing in their own right. As a publisher of a F2P game, what would you care about how successful the business model as a whole is doing when your game is "meh"? I think it's rather difficult to pinpoint with any true accuracy the number of people who play MMOs and what the numbers are on how they feel about business models.
That said, even within the sample sizes we are aware of, don't you think it's rather surprising at how the size of the "raging disenfranchised very vocal minority" is growing at such an alarming rate here? Familiarity breeds contempt. The more and more people that are exposed to this business model, the more dislike it.
I understand your sentiments on Sub and how you consider it Rent. And I won't say that you are incorrect, but of all monetization methods, that one is the least invasive. They need to perpetuate the game, but aside from making things take longer, which I don't find particularly offensive, most everything else in and about the game play itself is equalized for each player. Cash Shop games are "in your face" at every turn, and they seem to love to remind you just how much more fun your experience would be if only you'd spend some money. I hate that, even when it's subtle.
On the other hand you're implying that the demographics are separate entities. The raging disenfranchised and very vocal minority are the same in this case. That doesn't preclude others from preferring another payment method, but once they rage and are vocal about it they are indeed the raging vocal disenfranchised minority. If they're playing F2P games at the same time that just makes them hypocritical in their vocal dissent. If they're not vocal about it then they don't fit into that demographic I mentioned. All the other speculation in that paragraph is just filler.
Is the size of that demographic growing? I haven't noticed that at all, especially not at "an alarming rate". I think the contempt has already been bread in that demographic. Do more and more people not like the business model? I haven't noticed any large trend that way either. Financial data in the industry doesn't seem to support your assertion. Do you care to support that with more than your personal belief?
It's the least invasive to you in your opinion. It's the only model that is setup to automatically deduct money from my account on a recurring basis. I personally don't find any model invasive because I decide when and if I'll spend money. In fact B2P and cash shops put the spending control entirely in my court all the while not preventing me from logging into the servers and accessing content I've already paid for. I think subs are a scam because after 10 years of sub payments (that's likely over $2,000 spent on a single game) you still can't access what you've paid for unless you keep ponying up more money. If a game pesters me for cash and is "in my face" then I don't find that fun and I don't play it. That's one thing I hate about mandatory subs - the first thing you have to do is fork over cash whether you like it or not. Talk about in your face.
That's my perspective and why I don't like subs. I couldn't care less if someone else likes to do it that way though. It's not my money or time to spend.
I believe it is growing. I have noticed a lot more people, at least on this site, speaking out against the F2P model that before. I believe more and more people are becoming disillusioned at the idea of playing for free. At best its a deliberately compromised experience.
"P.S. The marketing cost of launching a P2P games is 5-10x the development cost. For a F2P game it is .5-1x the cost. This is why F2P is lower risk... and cheaper."
That statement alone makes your entire spiel nonsense. Marketing is expensive, but it does not cost even clost to the development costs let alone 5X. You can tell you have no experience in the business.
It is pretty simple, most f2p games have a lot less content that p2p games. They also have mechanisms to extend play with heavy grinding at higher levels, which of course can be lessened through the item shop. The f2p games can get by with a lot less development because the quest system usually disappears about mid leveling ranges.
Where have you been living? Things have changed in last 20-30 years.
What are you saying, P2P games have no"mechanisms to extend play with heavy grinding at endgame" lol
Lets go even further and look at "old school" games - they were designed to have "mechanisms tha extend play with heavy grinding" from THE START anlong with enforced paying for it.
the only fundamental difference in P2P and F2P is the option to bypass/lessen the grind by paying in F2P games. In P2P games you have no option and have to pay AND grind.
I believe it is growing. I have noticed a lot more people, at least on this site, speaking out against the F2P model that before. I believe more and more people are becoming disillusioned at the idea of playing for free. At best its a deliberately compromised experience.
You must have missed the F2P discussions 5 years ago. F2P is absolutely loved by all today in comparison. It used to be that you could not even talk about it here, because your inbox would be filled with spam/hatemail. Now there are people that like it, and people that dont... and both types post on these forums.
Comments
My main problem with F2P games with their cash shop is down to whats the point. If all the cool looking stuff has to be bought whats the point in playing.
In the golden days you went questing you did a long chain took time and patience but at the end you had a nice set of gear and you knew anyone else who had that gear had gone through what you did. You had bragging rights you had an adventure.
Now.... you had 5 bucks and a buy now button.
There are many factors to consider.
1. its not the same 5% of people who pay month after month. (IE in any particular months only 5% of your player base may pay but throught a year more then 5% of your player base might have payed for something ergo the bigger the player base its still the better)
2. 5% of a lot may still be more than 100% of a little. So much so games that go free to play end up doing more money then they did when they were subscription based which seems to support the thesis this may actually be the case.
3. Every MMO looses players as it gets older which means its important to get new players. F2P MMO have no entry barrier and thus find it easier to replace lost players which in turn might make it a lot more sustainable than a Game where your players still leave but much fewer players join to replace those who left.
Is that truly the case though? Do companies cut marketing when they go Free to Play? Is cutting marketing out the equation even viable? Your game may be free but people still need to pick it over the other million out there which means you still need to convince to them to play it. It may be easier then convincing them to buy it month after month sure but you still need to get the word out there. Lets look at all those games then switched from subscription to free to play for example? did they really cut their advertisement ? I've seen a strong marketing push for rift's nightmare tide and currently there is quite an effort being done by Tera.
Even low budget browser based MMOs have a truckload of advertising going on all the time.
There is obviously no way for anyone to know how it compares to subscription based games but from where I sit it doesnt seem its drastically less certainly not by a factor of 10.
You just prooved that old school P2P games had extreme time sinks/grinds just so players pay 15/month longer and no other reason. It uses same principle as F2P games, sorry to burst your bubble.
It was aslo much worse in old school games because there was no option to pay OR invest extreme time in it you HAD to do both.
My post "proved" nothing, but it seemed to give you an opportunity to air your own favourite misconception.
But you're right in one thing, F2P games do give the player the option to pay extreme amounts of money instead of investing extreme amounts of time.
And while we're on the topic of "grind":
A sub-only game would require you to grind for 6 months to get that 6-piece armour set (6 months @ $15).
A F2P game would require you to grind for 9 months to get that 6-piece armour set for free. But conveniently, you can buy all 6 pieces in the Cash Shop right now for $17.50 a piece. The day after that set goes on sale in the Cash Shop, you'll be meeting players in battle that are wearing the full set. But don't worry, it's not P2W, because 9 months from now you'll have the same as them without paying a cent...
Lol, dont be so hard on yourself, it what it is, those games were designed with specific goal in mind thats pretty much same as F2P games, and with mostly same mentality. But since they demanded huge amounts of time they ultimately failed when alternative presented it(them)self(ves).
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
No, there's a fundamental difference in approach between building and running a sub-based game and a F2P game.
In a sub-based game, activities and loot are designed to keep the player entertained and busy for as long as possible.
The same is basically true for a F2P game (you also want to keep the customers around as long as possible), but with one vitally important additional consideration: How can the activities and loot be designed/implemented in such a way as to keep the player constantly spending amounts of money ? And how can itemization be linked to the Cash Shop in such a way as to offer the player the maximum possible ways to spend extra money ?
A game that's developed as a purely F2P game will actually be quite a lot more expensive to develop than the exact same game with sub-only payment !
That's because the F2P version requires everything the sub-only version has, PLUS the additional costs of a Monetization Team, as well as the cost of building and testing the Cash Shop integration. And the Monetization Team is one part of the staff that you DON'T cut after launch, which again means the ongoing costs of running the same game as F2P will be higher than its sub-only counterpart...
You can mitigate the additional financial risk of the F2P development by either reducing the cost of developing the core game (so the F2P version is of lower "quality" than the sub-only version would have been), or by implementing more aggressive monetization schemes (more RNG lockboxes, more P2W ?). Some games attempt to do both. But somewhere that additional cost associated with the F2P monetization will have to be accounted for.
How do you rationalize saying that with little things like facts... such as subscriptions are a flat monthly fee with a spending cap and free 2 play has no flat fee and no spending cap? In one all you pay for is the access and in the other you pay for everything but the access.
Unless pretty much the same means not the same at all. Which can be demonstrated by games sporting the wonderful combination cash shop + sub.
"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/Totally predicted this response; it's the default "go-to" reply when ever someone uses someone's own words to call them out. "Oh, you're stalking me! That's so creepy!". Only it isn't. Not at all. It's an indication that some people pay attention, and can remember what someone has said in the past". Nothing more.
Recovering posts as evidence is no more than a few Google searches - just like we do when looking up quotes from developers, etc. Yet, no one ever calls that creepy... when it's exactly the same thing.
I remember people's names, and their overall "tone" and opinions on various subjects as well. Again, it's a sign of someone actually paying attention to what they're reading. This is actually a good thing.. considering how few people seem to actually do that, and just respond half-cocked, without even knowing what the hell they're replying to.
Like I said, I remember people's names, some more than others, and I become familiar enough with their overall arguments over time where, if someone who has a history of consistently arguing in favor of something, suddenly starts saying things that completely contradicts that... I'm going to notice. I'm sure many around here do as well.
If you've changed your mind in the interim, then great. You're entitled to do that. But don't attack someone else and accuse them of "stalking" you simply because they saw a conflict in your statements, and were able to find previous statements that contradict them. That reflects more poorly on you than it does on them.
First of all... ALL MMOs - particularly MMORPGs - have time sinks and grinds. Every last one. P2P, F2P, etc.
But here's the thing..
Complaining that a MMORPG has content designed to take time to complete is like complaining that motorcycles are made with only two wheels, and no proper windows to keep the wind out. It's completely missing the point of what a MMORPG is... and it's amazing to me that people are still making this argument, so many years on. I'd have expected folks to have figured this out by now.
MMORPGs are not, and never were, designed as "finish it and move on" affairs. There is no "finishing" a MMORPG. They are intended to be long-term hobbies. Something you play for a long time - months or even years. They are the online computer analog to the classic tabletop RPGs, where a single adventure/campaign could last months.
Keeping people engaged for the long term is the entire point of a properly designed MMORPG.
The trick is... and this is the important bit... to make the content people are doing enjoyable enough to make them feel like it's worth their time and money, to keep paying that sub fee, and coming back month after month. If they're not enjoying what they're doing... it doesn't matter how long the content is intended to take... because they ain't gonna be there playing it.
You know what happens when a MMORPG has content that isn't designed to last for a while, and that can be done in very short time? You have a MMORPG whose population has completed almost everything the game offers, and begin unsubbing from boredom within the first few months. You have a MMO whose devs are looking at "alternative revenue models" to try and keep it afloat. You know... the very thing that's happened to the majority of MMORPGs to be released in the last decade or so since WoW hit the scene and inspired every other developer to play "Me, too!".
Notice how old-school P2P MMOs never had that problem? How, so long as they were good enough to keep people interested, they ran for years and years... well over a decade in some cases... How some are still going to this day with a subscription, and doing fine? There's a reason for that. It isn't because "the content was a boring grind". Because, so long as the game offered content you enjoy... it wasn't.
And don't give me the "Well, they only survived because there weren't as many options" nonsense.
1. There were several options, each very different from the other - because back then, MMO devs strived to make their games as unique as possible.. not like today, where the idea is to make them as similar as possible. Anarchy Online, EQ1, FFXI, Lineage 1/2, AC1, DAoC, UO... beyond the shared foundation of being a "RPG", all those games were very different from each other.
2. If someone couldn't find a MMORPG they liked, there was always the option to not play one at all. You know, play something else with multiplayer instead.
3. Most of the MMORPGs that launched back then continued on into the post-WoW world... maintaining a playerbase, and a subscription... despite the amount of "other options" having multiplied several times over. There are many people who have stuck with those games... as well as new players who have come along despite having many more options to choose from.
So, sorry to people who love to pull it out as an Ace card, but the "oh well people only played those because there weren't as many options to choose from" argument is bogus and easily debunked.
But back to the main point...
ALL MMOs are designed to last a player a long time. One of the core points of a MMORPG is that it doesn't end. There is no "You Won! The End" screen. The adventure continues for as long as the developer keeps it going, and for as long as people want to play.
If what you're doing in a MMORPG feels like a boring grind to you... that's not a sign of the game not being designed well. It's a sign that it just isn't the MMORPG for you, and you should maybe try out others and find one that's more to your liking.
And by the by... if you're seriously complaining about the grind in a P2P MMO.. Try playing through a F2P MMORPG for the long-term without buying anything from the cash shop. Then talk to me about grind. F2P MMOs are extremely grindy by design. Why? Well.. they need something to get people buying those XP potions and other "convenience" items from the cash shop!
1st you are making the assumption that "raging disenfranchised" and "very vocal minority" are mutually inclusive. Meaning, players who are playing F2P games wouldn't rather be playing a decent subscription game.....if only there was one good enough. And what about the people who hop from game to game to game to game the moment he invariably hit the paywall? Yeah, all those individual games must have made lasting impressions. And the players LOVE those individual games......Or is it maybe just them being able to maintain a mediocre entertainment experience for free that appeals to them? Of course, none of those individual games sound like they are overly appealing in their own right. As a publisher of a F2P game, what would you care about how successful the business model as a whole is doing when your game is "meh"? I think it's rather difficult to pinpoint with any true accuracy the number of people who play MMOs and what the numbers are on how they feel about business models.
That said, even within the sample sizes we are aware of, don't you think it's rather surprising at how the size of the "raging disenfranchised very vocal minority" is growing at such an alarming rate here? Familiarity breeds contempt. The more and more people that are exposed to this business model, the more dislike it.
I understand your sentiments on Sub and how you consider it Rent. And I won't say that you are incorrect, but of all monetization methods, that one is the least invasive. They need to perpetuate the game, but aside from making things take longer, which I don't find particularly offensive, most everything else in and about the game play itself is equalized for each player. Cash Shop games are "in your face" at every turn, and they seem to love to remind you just how much more fun your experience would be if only you'd spend some money. I hate that, even when it's subtle.
There is no fundamental difference in developing a P2P or F2P game. These are monetization strategies, not development strategies. The difference is in how you market and monetize, not develop.
Let me give you an example. Developers make a game where you do quests, and kill mobs. Here are some examples of how this would vary with business model:
Traditional P2P. Heavy Marketing. Upfront purchase. Monthly Sub. Quests are given out in slow, incremental fashion (kill 10, then kill 10 more, etc). Mobs take a while to kill, but you have to travel around a lot, eating up time. You get slow steady progression, which eats up your time (subscription is time=money)
Typical F2P. Low/No Marketing. No upfront cost. Optional Monthly Sub. Cash Shop items. Quests are given out in slow, incremental fashion (kill 10, then kill 10 more, etc). Mobs take a while to kill, but you have to travel around a lot, eating up time. You get slow progression, which eats up more time than the traditional P2P. They offer an optional sub that speeds up progress, so that it now feels like the traditional P2P.
With this example, you can see that the basic content is the same, and that the experience might even be the same, but that the methods of monetization are very different. One requires payment upfront, the other allows for payment later, but can have a higher cost.
We are now starting to see both F2P and P2P to provide an option to rush through the content at a higher cost. They offer items in the cash shop that allow you to kill quickly, move faster, etc They are single use/short time period usage, and if you use them constantly, you can blitz through the content... but it is very expensive. This is something we are now starting to see in both business models, as it is not an inherent part of either.
P.S. The marketing cost of launching a P2P games is 5-10x the development cost. For a F2P game it is .5-1x the cost. This is why F2P is lower risk... and cheaper.
Because Eve is Wow?
You have no credibility because you cant even read.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
"P.S. The marketing cost of launching a P2P games is 5-10x the development cost. For a F2P game it is .5-1x the cost. This is why F2P is lower risk... and cheaper."
That statement alone makes your entire spiel nonsense. Marketing is expensive, but it does not cost even clost to the development costs let alone 5X. You can tell you have no experience in the business.
It is pretty simple, most f2p games have a lot less content that p2p games. They also have mechanisms to extend play with heavy grinding at higher levels, which of course can be lessened through the item shop. The f2p games can get by with a lot less development because the quest system usually disappears about mid leveling ranges.
Just look at the numbers presented for some recent launches.
Lets start with Destiny. They are spending 500M on the game, but development cost is estimated to be 60M.
Next, lets look at a mobile game. Game of War just spent 40M for a single ad campaign.
Marketing is the single largest cost for publishing a game. The advantage of F2P is lower CPA, which is based on marketing costs. The lower cost is what makes F2P feasible, and profitable.
The first pro point listed is utter bogus crap because literally any P2P could have a free trial (and most do). In my personal experience I have been able to play every major MMORPG before I bought it via 1-2 week free trials, free weekends, open betas, buddy keys, or any of the tons of other player recruitment or return programs in any modern MMO.
Free to play has almost no advantage in the barrier to entry field from my perspective. That probably has something to do with me also having no problem paying for a sub if the game is worth it. Really it's a paper thin point unless one is dead set against paying anything for entertainment.
"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/"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
I believe it is growing. I have noticed a lot more people, at least on this site, speaking out against the F2P model that before. I believe more and more people are becoming disillusioned at the idea of playing for free. At best its a deliberately compromised experience.
Where have you been living? Things have changed in last 20-30 years.
What are you saying, P2P games have no"mechanisms to extend play with heavy grinding at endgame" lol
Lets go even further and look at "old school" games - they were designed to have "mechanisms tha extend play with heavy grinding" from THE START anlong with enforced paying for it.
the only fundamental difference in P2P and F2P is the option to bypass/lessen the grind by paying in F2P games. In P2P games you have no option and have to pay AND grind.
You must have missed the F2P discussions 5 years ago. F2P is absolutely loved by all today in comparison. It used to be that you could not even talk about it here, because your inbox would be filled with spam/hatemail. Now there are people that like it, and people that dont... and both types post on these forums.