I don't think F2P and freemium games have improved the MMOs, no. But I don't think we would be in a much better position MMO wise if all MMOs still were P2P either.
While pay2win can make me stay away from a game the real issue here is that most of the MMOs offer more or less the same content, similar setting and same difficulty (which is the worst part). Some might have more action wise combat system but you basically do the same thing in close to all MMOs even if the possibilities are almost limitless.
Besides Eve and a few other game I basically do the exact same thing no matter what game I play and that means while F2P makes it easy to play several MMOs and switch between them there is no reason for me to do so.
The other thing is, if the subscription model was so good, why did they all fail? The quality of the game is still the same as a F2P game. Not only that, but F2P games such as Rift were pumping out more content than subscription games, and still failed to stay subscription.
Well, there is 2 possibilities for that, either don't players enjoy paying a fixed sum or the games have drop in quality the last 10 years. It is probably a mix of those 2.
Rift for example did have rifts and invasions but besides them it really didn't do anything other games already havn't done as least as good. And the rifts were not fun for long so people moved back to what they were playing before when they tired. It is not one of the top games as F2P either.
TOR is a bit odd there though, it made lousy as P2P but turned things around as F2P.
- all in all just playing the game itself can eventually unlock anything in the cash shop/subscription.
Creating a grinding wheel. To have a cash shop, you have to tailor the game to support it. This is absolutely true with Wildstar. These cash shop games get more repetitive and grindy every year. Full of filler content designed to make you want to either suck start a shotgun or break out the credit card. The fact that there are subscription options that give you all sorts of bonuses, but still have to pay separate for limit increases is mind boggling.
Not only that, the reason you play games like that is to get the best gear and when you can buy them there is no reason to play any longer.
But not all F2P games are that bad, TERA for example is far better then many others. Still, I think F2P have hurt the long term fun in MMOs.
We all know the evils of F2P, however F2P did manage to put the genre in the most possible hands. 90% of the people I know who play MMORPGs, started on a F2P and are now sub'd to WoW or FFXIV.
For the life of me i cannot understand why there has not been more reduced sub mmorpgs. $10? $5? $3?
I have a question. Any former DAOC players out there tell me if they dropped the sub to $5 would you sub.
I would
Everyone I know and I am still in contact with that played with me said they would. As it is now I m the only one subbed. I can almost guarantee they would get more then 3 times the player base they have now, which would obviously make them more.
Are we better off??? Well hmmm, 10 years ago WoW was on top and today let me see...... Well no mmo today can claim near the numbers that WoW had 10 years ago so I guess that is your answer a big heck no we are not better off. Subs are still the way to go. Feel free to give me any mmo game with the numbers WoW had 10 years ago.
they did. That's why their average lifespan has changed to a range between the "payed Alpha" and "almost-release" when it shuts down.
On that thought, maybe they should NOT learn to live with shorter timespans afterall. In fact that's a pretty awful idea.
It's so bad that i feel obligated as someone who enjoys MMORPGs to ask for your motivation for wanting to kill the genre I like.
Plenty of games last longer: World of Tanks, Marvel Heroes, ... heck even star conflict. And what is wrong to live with shorter live span if the firm is making enough money to move onto a new game?
hmm ... you are confused. Devs are the ones who see where their audience move, and want to change the genre. I am just liking the directions of change. No one is obligated to keep mmorpgs perpetually in their old design forever just because you like it.
I have a question. Any former DAOC players out there tell me if they dropped the sub to $5 would you sub.
Nope. I just went back to that game a few months ago. I know a lot of people say DAOC was the best pvp game ever, but to me it's one of the worst. RvR was ground breaking, it was a lot of fun, but all it turned into was giant death balls of 100 players steam rolling through the frontiers.
If you don't like being killed instantly by 5 infiltrators controlled by one person using macros, stay away if it ever becomes f2p, because so many people are already paying to do it. Even better is when a train of minstrels are auto following a train of necromancers.
Who was questioning PvP?
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
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
For the life of me i cannot understand why there has not been more reduced sub mmorpgs. $10? $5? $3?
I will need someone who runs a business to doublecheck on this one, but from what I'm aware from a certain price-point downwards the cost of running a subscription becomes unprofitable, because they cost that the bank/subscription service providers' service charges will eat into your monthly takings.
I think $5 is doable I'm not sure about $3 or less per transactions (banks and CC companies will probably loot the business more than that).
There seem to be two primary philosophies that developers take when it comes to free-2-play games:
1) F2P offers an alternative way to pay for the game, instead of subscriptions
2) F2P offers a way to increase revenue compared to subscriptions
I think that developers that adopt point 1 have shown us that F2P can have a positive effect on the industry. Developers that adopt point 2 have shown us that F2P can also have a very negative effect on the industry.
Good examples of developers that have chosen to use F2P as an alternative payment method:
Turbine - LotRO - I think turbine did a great job here with their F2P transition. They used F2P to remove the payment obstacle for new users. It got more users into the game, the prices were pretty fair / honest and it suited the game, i.e. casuals only needed to pay small amounts every few months in order to keep playing, rather than subscribing and feeling like they're wasting money.
Carbine - Wildstar - Again, this is all about attracting new players and removing the payment barrier, and it worked. Costs were fair, but content was accessible to everyone so it seemed like a good deal.
Example of developers who chose to use F2P to rip off players:
Bioware - SWTOR - Definitely the worst F2P conversion I've personally played. The game was basically unplayable until you spent money and Bioware ripped you off on everything. Constantly felt nickel-and-dimed. Tons of people quit after the conversion, to be replaced by whales. F2P here offered nothing to the customer - it wasn't cheaper, better, or fair. It only served to help generate money for Bioware.
Most Asian MMORPGs - I tend to avoid them anyway, but F2P / microtransactions has been the preferred business model in the east for far longer than the west. They seem to have perfected the art of selling stuff to impressionable gamers, resulting in overblown adverts, large variety of prices and disruption of immersion.
With all that in mind, I've still yet to play an MMO that was better after it converted to F2P than before. Game quality always drops. Creativity drops. Community deteriorates. Games just always seem worse if they are F2P. However, I'd prefer a game to go F2P and keep running than stick to subscriptions and die, even though I would likely quit after F2P conversion.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
With all that in mind, I've still yet to play an MMO that was better after it converted to F2P than before. Game quality always drops. Creativity drops. Community deteriorates. Games just always seem worse if they are F2P. However, I'd prefer a game to go F2P and keep running than stick to subscriptions and die, even though I would likely quit after F2P conversion.
My experience exactly, and I'm glad that you came up with a list of issues without mentioning P2W because some people seem to be under the impression that a game going F2P without going P2W is evidence of everything being hunky dory. It isn't.
This new era has encouraged way too many low end developers to pop out of no where.It has also encouraged cheaper game development,nobody is going to risk Tripele A production on the whim of a successful cash shop.Even in the b2p area your not going to get a full game,they will just chop it up into 4 sales so you end up paying more for one game anyhow.
Then we have to look at how mmo are these games really investing in or are they just single player games with a login screen?We have a good idea what a single player game is worth,around 60-80 bucks.So is there any deal what so ever if a developer is trying to grind 100+ dollars out of us for a single player game chopped into 3-4 sales or a cash shop trying to grind 100 + dollars out of us for a single player game?
No there is not,that is why i can go out and spend 12 bucks get an amazing single player game and be much happier than paying for soeme half ass CS or B2p game.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
who are "we"? Everyone's experience can be different.
For me, I am better off. There are so many games to play, and can sample them at zero cost is really a great thing. I probably will never sub any game, mmo or not, again.
That's kind of why I asked, "what do you guys think".
I feel your post is not meant to incite objective discussion, but rather an attempt to add to the pile of complaints about F2P/B2P business models in the gaming industry.
For example most sub based games now contain micro transactions. Most of the AAA Titles that have gone F2P/B2P have not ended up as P2W. Furthermore since P2W seems to be wildly subjective it is hard to quantify which titles are actually P2W.
Bottom line, you can post about the pros and cons of all the different payment models, it won't actually change anything. My advice is to stick with titles that work for you and skip the ones that do not.
I've been having a fairly good discussion on Reddit and one other game-specific forum, but maybe this forum is still as toxic as ever. Post your thoughts, that's what I asked, if not then so be it.
Reddit is no less toxic. If anything, Reddit is far more polarized with a heavier migration to the extremes.
As for the topic,1st off, I want to say, that I don't follow MOBAS and Mobile App games. I only care about MMORPGs. Those games may be appropriate for the topic, but I am not addressing those since I know little about them. I am speaking about the MMORPG side of the MMO coin. I believe the question really puts the cart before the horse. I don't believe we are better off. But it's not because of business models. It's because of game development. Developers tried to turn this genre into something else. To appeal to a group that had found something in one game but try as they might, could not repeat that. And so, in order to pay for all those mistakes, we have the business models we see now. It came more or less a Stop-Gap.
We are constantly being reminded about how successful F2P business models are. We are constantly being show "Snapshots" of the most successful titles and the top earners are F2P games. But it's a muddy snapshot to begin with. Also what these "snapshot" posts (over and over and over and over) fail to show is long term success for individual titles. Sure you have your WoTs and your LoLs, but how many more F2P games fizzle out or never even really make it at all?
FFXIV said it when they released ARR. They wanted the consistency and predictability of the long term income that subs offer rather than the instability of cash shops.
Either way, if you have a shitty game, no one's going to pay for it. Isn't' that right Carbine?
This is just my opinion and nothing else. F2P is a horrible, it has diluted the quality level of MMO's produced today and most are just big money grabs that last a couple years and end up closing down. I am not pushing subscriptions either.
B2P that has a free trial period before you have to pay is where game companies should be going. This allows a developer to recoup expenses up front after the trial and be able to continue the development of new material. Anyone who plays a game should support the developers of the game. No one should ever be allowed to play a game for months to years without supporting the business because if everyone did that there would not be a gaming business. Also you don't have to charge a ton of money for a B2P either, you could do $30 dollars and probably get 3x the sales as a $60 one. It could even be less for a smaller scale game or more for a bigger one.
Basically I look at it like this if you can't support or afford the hobby you are doing you should find something else to do. Cash shops open up a whole different can of worms that I will leave for another time, but I will say this if done right they can be great. But most have been done horrible in what I have personally seen.
This is just my opinion and nothing else. F2P is a horrible, it has diluted the quality level of MMO's produced today and most are just big money grabs that last a couple years and end up closing down. I am not pushing subscriptions either.
B2P that has a free trial period before you have to pay is where game companies should be going. This allows a developer to recoup expenses up front after the trial and be able to continue the development of new material. Anyone who plays a game should support the developers of the game. No one should ever be allowed to play a game for months to years without supporting the business because if everyone did that there would not be a gaming business. Also you don't have to charge a ton of money for a B2P either, you could do $30 dollars and probably get 3x the sales as a $60 one. It could even be less for a smaller scale game or more for a bigger one.
Basically I look at it like this if you can't support or afford the hobby you are doing you should find something else to do. Cash shops open up a whole different can of worms that I will leave for another time, but I will say this if done right they can be great. But most have been done horrible in what I have personally seen.
Actually, if you play a F2P title that long without paying, you still support the game. You see, it's all part of how the business model works. You are supposed to become "Dynamic Content" to be farmed.
This is just my opinion and nothing else. F2P is a horrible, it has diluted the quality level of MMO's produced today and most are just big money grabs that last a couple years and end up closing down. I am not pushing subscriptions either.
B2P that has a free trial period before you have to pay is where game companies should be going. This allows a developer to recoup expenses up front after the trial and be able to continue the development of new material. Anyone who plays a game should support the developers of the game. No one should ever be allowed to play a game for months to years without supporting the business because if everyone did that there would not be a gaming business. Also you don't have to charge a ton of money for a B2P either, you could do $30 dollars and probably get 3x the sales as a $60 one. It could even be less for a smaller scale game or more for a bigger one.
Basically I look at it like this if you can't support or afford the hobby you are doing you should find something else to do. Cash shops open up a whole different can of worms that I will leave for another time, but I will say this if done right they can be great. But most have been done horrible in what I have personally seen.
Actually, if you play a F2P title that long without paying, you still support the game. You see, it's all part of how the business model works. You are supposed to become "Dynamic Content" to be farmed.
I don't disagree with this but I am looking at it from a developer monetary value side.
Also I see to be farmed as a PVP thing which I want touch with a ten foot pole in a F2P title.
Now looking at it as you could be contributing to the in game market etc.... yes that may be true but from the point of are you contributing to the developer yourself the answer would be no.
I think anyone who plays a game should contribute to help the developer period no if and or buts. That is why I say there must be a trial period so someone can say this is done well and I would like to continue to play, whereas if they didn't think it was good they didn't lose a thing by not continuing.
I like being able to "sample" a game that is F2P, but at the same time, that is NOT worth the baggage that comes with F2P IMO, I'd rather have better trial systems for B2P and P2P (sub) games.
7 and 14 day trials without a boat load of restrictions are fantastic.
I think the biggest problem there is that leveling up/etc. has become SO fast the devs are scared to give out free trials because players could experience way, way too much of the content for free in 7-14 days unless they put in pretty heavy restrictions.
Also, bots, gold sellers etc. are a huge plague on games with trials, hence why you see chat restrictions and the likes.
But to answer the question, I don't think it is 100% fair to correlate the rise in B2P/F2P and the decline of P2P (sub) with the (IMO) overall decline in the quality of the MMO genre in terms of AAA games.
I think the biggest problem is that after the rise of WoW, too many games were made that promised to be AAA but really were not, and it burned a whole lot of people.
There are few true success stories in the MMO genre, really, and that has more to do with the games than the business model.
Games that change their business model do so because they were not able to find success, in most cases. True they can have renewed "success" under a new model, but the reason the first/initial model failed was about the game itself, not the model.
Better off with F2P/B2P rather than a subscription?
Western mmos were B2P + subscription when they launched; and in the case of EQ1 you had an expansion to buy every 6 months as well. So the idea of "B2P" and "having to buy expansions" is not new.
I still hate microtransactions and I still have never made a microtransactional purchase , I am the ultimate F - YOU when it comes to microtransactions.
Comments
If you had two servers one b2p one subs
i think you would have 50 times the players on the b2p server
the biggest problem with a sub is, you're pretty much tied into one game when you sub
most people can only pay for one/two subs a month so all the other games will not get any players
And the other problem is nothing great has come out for years and people are bored and moving on
the only hope i can see in the next few years is star citizen it offers so much but its all on paper atm so will probabaly let us all down as normal
While pay2win can make me stay away from a game the real issue here is that most of the MMOs offer more or less the same content, similar setting and same difficulty (which is the worst part). Some might have more action wise combat system but you basically do the same thing in close to all MMOs even if the possibilities are almost limitless.
Besides Eve and a few other game I basically do the exact same thing no matter what game I play and that means while F2P makes it easy to play several MMOs and switch between them there is no reason for me to do so.
Well, there is 2 possibilities for that, either don't players enjoy paying a fixed sum or the games have drop in quality the last 10 years. It is probably a mix of those 2.
Rift for example did have rifts and invasions but besides them it really didn't do anything other games already havn't done as least as good. And the rifts were not fun for long so people moved back to what they were playing before when they tired. It is not one of the top games as F2P either.
TOR is a bit odd there though, it made lousy as P2P but turned things around as F2P.
But not all F2P games are that bad, TERA for example is far better then many others. Still, I think F2P have hurt the long term fun in MMOs.
I have a question. Any former DAOC players out there tell me if they dropped the sub to $5 would you sub.
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Everyone I know and I am still in contact with that played with me said they would. As it is now I m the only one subbed. I can almost guarantee they would get more then 3 times the player base they have now, which would obviously make them more.
hmm ... you are confused. Devs are the ones who see where their audience move, and want to change the genre. I am just liking the directions of change. No one is obligated to keep mmorpgs perpetually in their old design forever just because you like it.
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Just waiting for it to happen, regardless who puts it up.
"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
I think $5 is doable I'm not sure about $3 or less per transactions (banks and CC companies will probably loot the business more than that).
1) F2P offers an alternative way to pay for the game, instead of subscriptions
2) F2P offers a way to increase revenue compared to subscriptions
I think that developers that adopt point 1 have shown us that F2P can have a positive effect on the industry. Developers that adopt point 2 have shown us that F2P can also have a very negative effect on the industry.
Good examples of developers that have chosen to use F2P as an alternative payment method:
Example of developers who chose to use F2P to rip off players:
With all that in mind, I've still yet to play an MMO that was better after it converted to F2P than before. Game quality always drops. Creativity drops. Community deteriorates. Games just always seem worse if they are F2P. However, I'd prefer a game to go F2P and keep running than stick to subscriptions and die, even though I would likely quit after F2P conversion.
Then we have to look at how mmo are these games really investing in or are they just single player games with a login screen?We have a good idea what a single player game is worth,around 60-80 bucks.So is there any deal what so ever if a developer is trying to grind 100+ dollars out of us for a single player game chopped into 3-4 sales or a cash shop trying to grind 100
+ dollars out of us for a single player game?
No there is not,that is why i can go out and spend 12 bucks get an amazing single player game and be much happier than paying for soeme half ass CS or B2p game.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
If anything, Reddit is far more polarized with a heavier migration to the extremes.
Well, that's what I've noticed in general anyway.
We are constantly being reminded about how successful F2P business models are. We are constantly being show "Snapshots" of the most successful titles and the top earners are F2P games. But it's a muddy snapshot to begin with. Also what these "snapshot" posts (over and over and over and over) fail to show is long term success for individual titles. Sure you have your WoTs and your LoLs, but how many more F2P games fizzle out or never even really make it at all?
FFXIV said it when they released ARR. They wanted the consistency and predictability of the long term income that subs offer rather than the instability of cash shops.
Either way, if you have a shitty game, no one's going to pay for it. Isn't' that right Carbine?
B2P that has a free trial period before you have to pay is where game companies should be going. This allows a developer to recoup expenses up front after the trial and be able to continue the development of new material. Anyone who plays a game should support the developers of the game. No one should ever be allowed to play a game for months to years without supporting the business because if everyone did that there would not be a gaming business. Also you don't have to charge a ton of money for a B2P either, you could do $30 dollars and probably get 3x the sales as a $60 one. It could even be less for a smaller scale game or more for a bigger one.
Basically I look at it like this if you can't support or afford the hobby you are doing you should find something else to do. Cash shops open up a whole different can of worms that I will leave for another time, but I will say this if done right they can be great. But most have been done horrible in what I have personally seen.
Also I see to be farmed as a PVP thing which I want touch with a ten foot pole in a F2P title.
Now looking at it as you could be contributing to the in game market etc.... yes that may be true but from the point of are you contributing to the developer yourself the answer would be no.
I think anyone who plays a game should contribute to help the developer period no if and or buts. That is why I say there must be a trial period so someone can say this is done well and I would like to continue to play, whereas if they didn't think it was good they didn't lose a thing by not continuing.
7 and 14 day trials without a boat load of restrictions are fantastic.
I think the biggest problem there is that leveling up/etc. has become SO fast the devs are scared to give out free trials because players could experience way, way too much of the content for free in 7-14 days unless they put in pretty heavy restrictions.
Also, bots, gold sellers etc. are a huge plague on games with trials, hence why you see chat restrictions and the likes.
But to answer the question, I don't think it is 100% fair to correlate the rise in B2P/F2P and the decline of P2P (sub) with the (IMO) overall decline in the quality of the MMO genre in terms of AAA games.
I think the biggest problem is that after the rise of WoW, too many games were made that promised to be AAA but really were not, and it burned a whole lot of people.
There are few true success stories in the MMO genre, really, and that has more to do with the games than the business model.
Games that change their business model do so because they were not able to find success, in most cases. True they can have renewed "success" under a new model, but the reason the first/initial model failed was about the game itself, not the model.
Western mmos were B2P + subscription when they launched; and in the case of EQ1 you had an expansion to buy every 6 months as well. So the idea of "B2P" and "having to buy expansions" is not new.