me personally, i can't stand F2P and try to avoid them. F2P games are just too expensive for me to play if i want all the cool stuff in game and in some cases if i want to compete.
i want to play games where you need to get the cool stuff by playing the game, not opening your wallet book. f2p is cool for many of you, a lot of you like it and i get that. there is a huge market for people that are okay with spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars on these games, phone games are like that too.
but there needs to be an alternative or i'm not going to play it, not for any significant amount of time at least.
I mistook what you were saying about the posts, indeed many did say the subs were high before F2P really got of the ground. But have you ever known people not to complain about having to spend money?
I am not making an argument about WoW, it was but one of ten top revenue MMOs which to my knowledge all started as subscription MMOs. Most are now some version of F2P/Sub hybrid. So sure itemised purchases have given them a huge boost, but starting as F2P does not get you into the big top ten league. The effect of F2P on the business climate for subscription cannot be underestimated either.
It is very hard to separate the idea of subscription from the idea of F2P now you have subs as a cash shop item. Do the itemized cash shop revenue from superdata include a subscription as a purchase?
While we can argue what was the best revenue model on the run up to where we are today, I think it has been a pointless conjecture for the last few years. The revenue models have merged to much, subscription becomes sub with cash shop. F2P becomes or even starts now with a sub option.
I'd agree with most of that.
However the definition of F2P is clear: can you play the majority of the game for free? Then it's free to play. Whereas a cash shop is just a cash shop and doesn't make a game F2P on its own.
You're completely correct that players are going to complain about having to spend money regardless of the above distinction. Whether a game is F2P+shop or sub+shop, it's charging money for the content and players hate that.
The Subscription model is also clear: does playing the game require a subscription? Then it's a subscription game.
How is the evidence at hand "pointless conjecture"? These are two games (of maybe 4 total that've posted data) which have shown dramatic revenue increases by switching to F2P. It's strong evidence of what a revenue model's strength is judged by: revenue. They're two games from the same company and while ~11 months isn't a huge length of time, certainly they wouldn't have switched the second game if the first had nosedived during those ~11 months.
So these definitions are clear, and so is the evidence. You shouldn't act as though these concepts are hazy and unknowable. You're smart, you can know these things. If the truth comes out that F2P is the stronger model, you lose nothing by admitting facts about reality. It doesn't force you to like F2P games. It just means you understand it's a stronger model.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
When was self interest redefined as greed? It's greedy to sell bottles of water to those dying of thirst of $50,000 each. It's not greedy to sell the same bottle for 60 cents each in a store for those who want convenience. Just because you don't like the price of something doesn't mean the seller is greedy. Sometimes it just means you're a cheapskate.
I could have sworn self interest was by nature selfish and greedy by nature. But I do consider double charging to be a but greedy but more power to them.
I keep reading criticisms of the subscription model for MMORPGs. In addition, it seems as though very few of the upcoming games are planning to use it. Why is that? It seems as though it's an ideal compromise between scaring off users by charging them a larger amount to buy the game up front, messing up game balance with pay to win in-game purchases, and not generating enough revenue by selling only cosmetic in-game purchases. It seems as though the WoW model of letting users play for free until they're hooked, and then charging them a relatively modest monthly fee is the best mix of generating a lot of revenue, not scaring off users and not negatively impacting game play and game balance. What am I missing that's convinced everyone that it's not a good business model for most games?
Subscription model brings in less money then the f2p cash shop model. That's why companies are lean towards it. As for players liking it. In recent years more and more people think they should get everything for free. Why pay money when you can play for free. Basically they are cheap fuckers and don't feel that a subscription is worth their money.
Not saying it's not making more money in general, but there is a myriad of reasons, and game quality is in reality one of the least of them.
If we are to take your four games as an example, then if quality truly were a primary determining factor then the conversion to F2P should not have worked for them.
The only thing to be said for the model is it gives roaming gamers an easy in to pull them by that traditionally stops them if they have to pay for a game.
In fact there is the whole thing about "the race to the bottom" that happened in game development because of the bid for F2P sales and the subsequent fallout it has caused in the industry.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Because they're not WoW. Because WoW has been around for a decade.
So when it comes down to it MMO's thrive more on their playerbase. Essentially you need a playerbase to grow/maintain your playerbase.
Which means you're number one concern is getting/keeping players. So not having a sub at the start means that players find it easier to get into your game. when players start to get bored(which they will, especially with current designs) it means players will cancel their sub, once a sub is cancelled it's harder to get that player back than to get a new player(So better to have no sub).
Like wise WoW has been around so long that they have man centuries(not man hours/decades centuries) invested into content. Which means it sets the bar of what $15 a month and a $20 box gets you for content. Likewise $15 a month is such a low sum that you can't really charge less than that every month, well at least without saying "we know we're an un-superior product"(The only game that really gets away with this is Runescape, and that's a weird case)..
Shocker for you : WoW is not the only sub based MMO, nor the first, nor the only one with a subscription alive.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
I don't want to have to pay a sub at all but I still do. (EQ2) I do it to play on the Time Lock Server and also to support the development. I prefer the B2P model like ESO where you pay for the expansion you want but the basic game is not locked beyond anything other than the box price. If the game is good most players will pay for the expansions anyway. I mean look at the big sub games still left. They have a box price,a sub and a cash shop. WOW should be F2P but with that many people still paying $15 USD or higher why not. Just leave it and let them pay it. At least it is not by the hour like it used to be.
I too like the B2P model of ESO's
There is plenty of competition these days and MMORPG companies know it. Customers want to play more than one game and this is what the industry is catering too.
It is up to us as Consumers to show these companies where to set the boundaries. As far as things like P2W goes, were our own worst enemies.
Gamers as a whole are not known for being smart spenders.
For argument's sake, what does everyone think of the following scenario? Assume that the game is an open world MMORPG with good graphics and great gameplay, but not with true 'content' updates. I'm picturing something like what Chronicles of Elyria is shooting for (except that they've already announced a completely different business model), but other games that are under development would fit the bill as well. Free to play for 30 days. Cash shop, but only for purely cosmetic/vanity items. Initial month of subscription is $5 (that's month two of play). Following months are $15 per month. Anyone who has spent over $100 in the cash shop by the end of their first 30 days gets their subscription fee waived. Subscriptions auto-renew month to month unless you opt out.
Took a ‘short break’ from MMORPGs after the initial
excitement about the launch of Ultima Online wore off. Beginning to reacquaint myself with the genre
in anticipation of Chronicles of Elyria (friend code E1E266).
Games which posted data showed that they all made more* as F2P. *Not just more, but a lot more. Most companies would love to get a huge +25% increase to their revenue, but we're talking about 100-500% increases.
However the definition of F2P is clear: can you play the majority of the game for free? Then it's free to play.
Sounds more like playing a majority of the game for 100-500% more.
I know that's a simplification, but the excuse above is a bit too much of an avoidance of reality. The reason F2P works s because you can lure people in through the use of no immediate cost and then bill a myriad of the content within the game to compensate.
Part of the reason it works better is because in a system where you are heavily dependent on microtransactions for revenue rather than a fixed cost, you can use a variety of means to incentivize players that would otherwise not be open to you. Some of them are ok, but many of them fall into the category of manipulation honestly. Things like reward denial is rather common for drawing a player to desire something regardless of the surrounding user experience.
But point to be made here. "Free to play the majority of the game." is a very subjective and semantic excuse for a business model that is intent on maximizing revenue through a variety of means both standard and morally questionable.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
An MMO is a service and I don't have a problem paying for a service I enjoy. People pay by the month for internet access, cable TV, phones, etc so why not a game?
Because the competition is free?
It is not about the amount of money $15 is dirt cheap .. cheaper than a IMAX 3D ticket, about the same as a wine flight or a class of wine in a good restaurant.
But I cannot get a good glass of wine for nothing .. not even a sip but I certainly can play a fun MMO for nothing. So why would I even pay a cent for a MMO?
Certainly i will play some money for a single player game, because I cannot get the same entertainment without paying .. but MMOs?
Nari is expanding on what I called the F2P business climate. As in the example I gave, once you have cheap car insurance, who is going to buy expensive car insurance? This is what happened to MMOs and why F2P started to replace subscription. Of course cheap car insurance is like cheap F2P MMOs, don't expect a Rolls Royce service.
Many of us will pay a subscription, but just not enough to keep a genre of subscription MMOs alive. ESO did quite well and I see a space for a new sub MMO every couple of years, but that's it, just one. Which is just as well for the genre, because the top ten revenue MMOs are ex-subscription MMOs, not F2P.
The irony here is that F2P started a few years ago to adopt "subscriptions" as part of their Cash Shop package. Now I don't regard every "subscription" option you can find as a real subscription but some are. The effect long term of this is hard to predicate, but at least it means the player base will remain familiar with the concept of a subscription in MMOs.
I mistook what you were saying about the posts, indeed many did say the subs were high before F2P really got of the ground. But have you ever known people not to complain about having to spend money?
I am not making an argument about WoW, it was but one of ten top revenue MMOs which to my knowledge all started as subscription MMOs. Most are now some version of F2P/Sub hybrid. So sure itemised purchases have given them a huge boost, but starting as F2P does not get you into the big top ten league. The effect of F2P on the business climate for subscription cannot be underestimated either.
It is very hard to separate the idea of subscription from the idea of F2P now you have subs as a cash shop item. Do the itemized cash shop revenue from superdata include a subscription as a purchase?
While we can argue what was the best revenue model on the run up to where we are today, I think it has been a pointless conjecture for the last few years. The revenue models have merged to much, subscription becomes sub with cash shop. F2P becomes or even starts now with a sub option.
I'd agree with most of that.
However the definition of F2P is clear: can you play the majority of the game for free? Then it's free to play. Whereas a cash shop is just a cash shop and doesn't make a game F2P on its own.
You're completely correct that players are going to complain about having to spend money regardless of the above distinction. Whether a game is F2P+shop or sub+shop, it's charging money for the content and players hate that.
The Subscription model is also clear: does playing the game require a subscription? Then it's a subscription game.
How is the evidence at hand "pointless conjecture"? These are two games (of maybe 4 total that've posted data) which have shown dramatic revenue increases by switching to F2P. It's strong evidence of what a revenue model's strength is judged by: revenue. They're two games from the same company and while ~11 months isn't a huge length of time, certainly they wouldn't have switched the second game if the first had nosedived during those ~11 months.
So these definitions are clear, and so is the evidence. You shouldn't act as though these concepts are hazy and unknowable. You're smart, you can know these things. If the truth comes out that F2P is the stronger model, you lose nothing by admitting facts about reality. It doesn't force you to like F2P games. It just means you understand it's a stronger model.
Is anyone saying that changing to a hybrid Sub/F2P MMO did not give those games a boost? There is the strength of F2P for you. I question the strength of F2P as a starting option if you want to make the big league, though there must be exceptions.
Comparing the two as a business strategy is also tricky, if you just add up all itemised purchases and compare that to all subscriptions, then I would not be surprised if itemised purchase wins out. If this is going to be your dividing line: F2P means you can play without a sub, Subscription means you need to have a sub then F2P generates more. And that's because you are no doubt lumping in ex-sub games as F2P games. That's where I think it gets tricky, are games that launched as subs but now generate money as F2P, truly F2P? The way the game was built factors into how well it is doing as a re-launched "F2P" game.
Not only that, but with the Sub option now appearing in nearly all(?) F2P MMOs makes me question how F2P there are. We know not being a cash shop user effects your gameplay in a F2P game, be it not being able to do raids or making you 2nd class in PvP. If you start offering subs is that dividing line not being deepened? But you may well say, you can be F2P up to level 30 and you can't do PvP or raids before then, so does it matter? There I would accept that it does not.
Personally if a game is F2P I prefer having a sub option. I dislike having to pay separately for this and that so I have no problem just paying monthly for everything without worrying about the cash shop. They give me a token monthly for the sub and I can get an outfit or two from the shop. I love the way SWTOR does it.
Is anyone saying that changing to a hybrid Sub/F2P MMO did not give those games a boost? There is the strength of F2P for you. I question the strength of F2P as a starting option if you want to make the big league, though there must be exceptions.
Comparing the two as a business strategy is also tricky, if you just add up all itemised purchases and compare that to all subscriptions, then I would not be surprised if itemised purchase wins out. If this is going to be your dividing line: F2P means you can play without a sub, Subscription means you need to have a sub then F2P generates more. And that's because you are no doubt lumping in ex-sub games as F2P games. That's where I think it gets tricky, are games that launched as subs but now generate money as F2P, truly F2P? The way the game was built factors into how well it is doing as a re-launched "F2P" game.
Not only that, but with the Sub option now appearing in nearly all(?) F2P MMOs makes me question how F2P there are. We know not being a cash shop user effects your gameplay in a F2P game, be it not being able to do raids or making you 2nd class in PvP. If you start offering subs is that dividing line not being deepened? But you may well say, you can be F2P up to level 30 and you can't do PvP or raids before then, so does it matter? There I would accept that it does not.
Sure, I'd agree that it's possible that launching B2P has decent potential to beat a F2P launch.
And yeah in F2P itemized purchases almost certainly beat non-mandatory subscriptions. I've seen the revenue breakdown for at least a couple F2P games which offered a non-mandatory subscription and the revenue gained from subs was very trivial. Granted I think a non-mandatory subscription like ESO's is vastly more appealing to players than the subs from those other two games, but even if it was 2-3x as profitable it'd still be a relatively small source of income. (Although the relation shifts even more than 2-3x, since ESO's recurring shop items weren't as compelling as the other two.)
If a game is free to play, it's F2P. The history of a game doesn't matter. If it's now F2P, it's F2P. And that's also where it becomes a lot more clear which model is stronger, because post-launch F2P really can't be beat. It's only at launch when you have a B2P component that you have any sort of chance to match F2P because for the right types of games with the right sort of advertising hype you can make a ton of money before the player has ever played your game.
If gameplay advantages which trivialize skill challenges are sold, then that's P2W. But that's a distinct concept from F2P. (Either a sub or F2P game can be P2W if they sell things like a powerful stat buff that only payers have access to.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
So @Axehilt ;the sub option income is so trivial ,well that explains why most companies are opting for F2P. I hated the way Neverwinter Online never offered me a sub, I would still be playing it if it did. Even if it makes them trivial profits as a player I would like that option.
Because they're not WoW. Because WoW has been around for a decade.
So when it comes down to it MMO's thrive more on their playerbase. Essentially you need a playerbase to grow/maintain your playerbase.
Which means you're number one concern is getting/keeping players. So not having a sub at the start means that players find it easier to get into your game. when players start to get bored(which they will, especially with current designs) it means players will cancel their sub, once a sub is cancelled it's harder to get that player back than to get a new player(So better to have no sub).
Like wise WoW has been around so long that they have man centuries(not man hours/decades centuries) invested into content. Which means it sets the bar of what $15 a month and a $20 box gets you for content. Likewise $15 a month is such a low sum that you can't really charge less than that every month, well at least without saying "we know we're an un-superior product"(The only game that really gets away with this is Runescape, and that's a weird case)..
WoW gets no special exception from me; I've made this point elsewhere recently. What places WoW on such a pedestal that it's the only game deserving of this business model?
1) I've been continuously subscribed to a particular game since November 2004
2) It isn't WoW
Speaking from a consumer's perspective, I am a big fan of the free-to-try, subscription model without a box price. I am under no illusions that things last forever, which I think is a subtle psychological lie that F2P entices people with (play for free! You will never have to spend a dime forever!).
I'll never play any game forever, and I'm okay with paying a modest monthly premium to ensure a higher quality experience if it's a game I'm really committed to.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
If a game is free to play, it's F2P. The history of a game doesn't matter. If it's now F2P, it's F2P. And that's also where it becomes a lot more clear which model is stronger, because post-launch F2P really can't be beat. It's only at launch when you have a B2P component that you have any sort of chance to match F2P because for the right types of games with the right sort of advertising hype you can make a ton of money before the player has ever played your game.
We don't even call that B2P in most cases.
"Founders Packs" are the usual option for pre-game sales on F2P titles.
Though this again neglects the explanation of why F2P makes more money. As observed before, it's not through offering a better product which mostly just means the game content has just been broken down and sold alongside an intentional imbalance of content progression to push incentive onto boosters, subs, etc.
Really need to get back to observing ethics in the industry and remembering that the "financially strongest" does not make it the "strongest" choice for the players when it comes to treating them fairly and properly.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
First off let me say I didn't read anything past the first post.
I am all for subscription games myself for this one reason, they have to make it a worthwhile experience to keep players coming back. It can't be a quick cash grab or it fails horribly with a sub model. With that said I am also a big backer in unlimited timed free trial, say letting a person play for 3 or 4 days with no limits on what they can or can't do. This allows players to judge if it is something they are willing to keep playing.
Most of the f2p which is a term I hate as it should really be free to try because sooner or later they put in some pay wall thru a cash shop that if you don't pay you can't stay on equal ground with other players. Example buying mats needed to upgrade weapons and armor, these should never be something you pay real world money for. And it is something you couldn't see in a true sub model because everyone would just quit.
Sub models must give away all content to the subbers, don't care about vanity customs, or vanity pets though. I am all for having some benefit that allows them to make fluff items like costumes for charity and stuff and sell them for extra cash. Kinda the way blizzard started its cash shop, for every item bought, a good portion of the money went to charities. They have kinda gone off the rails the last couple years just with that thought though.
All and all cash shops end up being the bane of f2p MMO's usually. Can't really do that with a true p2p model or your players revolt.
Example buying mats needed to upgrade weapons and armor, these should never be something you pay real world money for. And it is something you couldn't see in a true sub model because everyone would just quit.
In either case you "have" to pay - being it a sub fee or upgrade material. What was your point again...?
Example buying mats needed to upgrade weapons and armor, these should never be something you pay real world money for. And it is something you couldn't see in a true sub model because everyone would just quit.
In either case you "have" to pay - being it a sub fee or upgrade material. What was your point again...?
Are you that jaded that you can't see the difference?
Example buying mats needed to upgrade weapons and armor, these should never be something you pay real world money for. And it is something you couldn't see in a true sub model because everyone would just quit.
In either case you "have" to pay - being it a sub fee or upgrade material. What was your point again...?
I'll never play any game forever, and I'm okay with paying a modest monthly premium to ensure a higher quality experience if it's a game I'm really committed to.
The issue is that there are few out there like you. Most will just have some free fun with zero commitment. It is not like i need to commit to a game, since there are always other fun ones. Games are a dime a dozen.
I started paying for subs. back in 99. I don't like paying subs anymore because i feel nothing new has come to the genre. Now they are mixing genres(BDO) and calling it something new. Heck i would gladly pay for a Western themed mmo only because it would be something different.
Comments
i want to play games where you need to get the cool stuff by playing the game, not opening your wallet book. f2p is cool for many of you, a lot of you like it and i get that. there is a huge market for people that are okay with spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars on these games, phone games are like that too.
but there needs to be an alternative or i'm not going to play it, not for any significant amount of time at least.
I'd agree with most of that.
However the definition of F2P is clear: can you play the majority of the game for free? Then it's free to play. Whereas a cash shop is just a cash shop and doesn't make a game F2P on its own.
You're completely correct that players are going to complain about having to spend money regardless of the above distinction. Whether a game is F2P+shop or sub+shop, it's charging money for the content and players hate that.
The Subscription model is also clear: does playing the game require a subscription? Then it's a subscription game.
How is the evidence at hand "pointless conjecture"? These are two games (of maybe 4 total that've posted data) which have shown dramatic revenue increases by switching to F2P. It's strong evidence of what a revenue model's strength is judged by: revenue. They're two games from the same company and while ~11 months isn't a huge length of time, certainly they wouldn't have switched the second game if the first had nosedived during those ~11 months.
So these definitions are clear, and so is the evidence. You shouldn't act as though these concepts are hazy and unknowable. You're smart, you can know these things. If the truth comes out that F2P is the stronger model, you lose nothing by admitting facts about reality. It doesn't force you to like F2P games. It just means you understand it's a stronger model.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Not saying it's not making more money in general, but there is a myriad of reasons, and game quality is in reality one of the least of them.
If we are to take your four games as an example, then if quality truly were a primary determining factor then the conversion to F2P should not have worked for them.
The only thing to be said for the model is it gives roaming gamers an easy in to pull them by that traditionally stops them if they have to pay for a game.
In fact there is the whole thing about "the race to the bottom" that happened in game development because of the bid for F2P sales and the subsequent fallout it has caused in the industry.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Shocker for you : WoW is not the only sub based MMO, nor the first, nor the only one with a subscription alive.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
There is plenty of competition these days and MMORPG companies know it. Customers want to play more than one game and this is what the industry is catering too.
It is up to us as Consumers to show these companies where to set the boundaries. As far as things like P2W goes, were our own worst enemies.
Gamers as a whole are not known for being smart spenders.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Took a ‘short break’ from MMORPGs after the initial excitement about the launch of Ultima Online wore off. Beginning to reacquaint myself with the genre in anticipation of Chronicles of Elyria (friend code E1E266).
I know that's a simplification, but the excuse above is a bit too much of an avoidance of reality. The reason F2P works s because you can lure people in through the use of no immediate cost and then bill a myriad of the content within the game to compensate.
Part of the reason it works better is because in a system where you are heavily dependent on microtransactions for revenue rather than a fixed cost, you can use a variety of means to incentivize players that would otherwise not be open to you. Some of them are ok, but many of them fall into the category of manipulation honestly. Things like reward denial is rather common for drawing a player to desire something regardless of the surrounding user experience.
But point to be made here. "Free to play the majority of the game." is a very subjective and semantic excuse for a business model that is intent on maximizing revenue through a variety of means both standard and morally questionable.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Nari is expanding on what I called the F2P business climate. As in the example I gave, once you have cheap car insurance, who is going to buy expensive car insurance? This is what happened to MMOs and why F2P started to replace subscription. Of course cheap car insurance is like cheap F2P MMOs, don't expect a Rolls Royce service.
Many of us will pay a subscription, but just not enough to keep a genre of subscription MMOs alive. ESO did quite well and I see a space for a new sub MMO every couple of years, but that's it, just one. Which is just as well for the genre, because the top ten revenue MMOs are ex-subscription MMOs, not F2P.
The irony here is that F2P started a few years ago to adopt "subscriptions" as part of their Cash Shop package. Now I don't regard every "subscription" option you can find as a real subscription but some are. The effect long term of this is hard to predicate, but at least it means the player base will remain familiar with the concept of a subscription in MMOs.
Is anyone saying that changing to a hybrid Sub/F2P MMO did not give those games a boost? There is the strength of F2P for you. I question the strength of F2P as a starting option if you want to make the big league, though there must be exceptions.
Comparing the two as a business strategy is also tricky, if you just add up all itemised purchases and compare that to all subscriptions, then I would not be surprised if itemised purchase wins out. If this is going to be your dividing line: F2P means you can play without a sub, Subscription means you need to have a sub then F2P generates more. And that's because you are no doubt lumping in ex-sub games as F2P games. That's where I think it gets tricky, are games that launched as subs but now generate money as F2P, truly F2P? The way the game was built factors into how well it is doing as a re-launched "F2P" game.
Not only that, but with the Sub option now appearing in nearly all(?) F2P MMOs makes me question how F2P there are. We know not being a cash shop user effects your gameplay in a F2P game, be it not being able to do raids or making you 2nd class in PvP. If you start offering subs is that dividing line not being deepened? But you may well say, you can be F2P up to level 30 and you can't do PvP or raids before then, so does it matter? There I would accept that it does not.
No it isn't. F2P = no access fee, and that model still remains in place.
Again, nothing to be confused about...very clear case there.
And yeah in F2P itemized purchases almost certainly beat non-mandatory subscriptions. I've seen the revenue breakdown for at least a couple F2P games which offered a non-mandatory subscription and the revenue gained from subs was very trivial. Granted I think a non-mandatory subscription like ESO's is vastly more appealing to players than the subs from those other two games, but even if it was 2-3x as profitable it'd still be a relatively small source of income. (Although the relation shifts even more than 2-3x, since ESO's recurring shop items weren't as compelling as the other two.)
If a game is free to play, it's F2P. The history of a game doesn't matter. If it's now F2P, it's F2P. And that's also where it becomes a lot more clear which model is stronger, because post-launch F2P really can't be beat. It's only at launch when you have a B2P component that you have any sort of chance to match F2P because for the right types of games with the right sort of advertising hype you can make a ton of money before the player has ever played your game.
If gameplay advantages which trivialize skill challenges are sold, then that's P2W. But that's a distinct concept from F2P. (Either a sub or F2P game can be P2W if they sell things like a powerful stat buff that only payers have access to.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
1) I've been continuously subscribed to a particular game since November 2004
2) It isn't WoW
Speaking from a consumer's perspective, I am a big fan of the free-to-try, subscription model without a box price. I am under no illusions that things last forever, which I think is a subtle psychological lie that F2P entices people with (play for free! You will never have to spend a dime forever!).
I'll never play any game forever, and I'm okay with paying a modest monthly premium to ensure a higher quality experience if it's a game I'm really committed to.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
"Founders Packs" are the usual option for pre-game sales on F2P titles.
Though this again neglects the explanation of why F2P makes more money. As observed before, it's not through offering a better product which mostly just means the game content has just been broken down and sold alongside an intentional imbalance of content progression to push incentive onto boosters, subs, etc.
Really need to get back to observing ethics in the industry and remembering that the "financially strongest" does not make it the "strongest" choice for the players when it comes to treating them fairly and properly.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I am all for subscription games myself for this one reason, they have to make it a worthwhile experience to keep players coming back. It can't be a quick cash grab or it fails horribly with a sub model. With that said I am also a big backer in unlimited timed free trial, say letting a person play for 3 or 4 days with no limits on what they can or can't do. This allows players to judge if it is something they are willing to keep playing.
Most of the f2p which is a term I hate as it should really be free to try because sooner or later they put in some pay wall thru a cash shop that if you don't pay you can't stay on equal ground with other players. Example buying mats needed to upgrade weapons and armor, these should never be something you pay real world money for. And it is something you couldn't see in a true sub model because everyone would just quit.
Sub models must give away all content to the subbers, don't care about vanity customs, or vanity pets though. I am all for having some benefit that allows them to make fluff items like costumes for charity and stuff and sell them for extra cash. Kinda the way blizzard started its cash shop, for every item bought, a good portion of the money went to charities. They have kinda gone off the rails the last couple years just with that thought though.
All and all cash shops end up being the bane of f2p MMO's usually. Can't really do that with a true p2p model or your players revolt.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Oh well...
Paying cash in cash shop for gear progression vs Paying cash in cash shop for a weapon skin and playing the game for gear progression.
Still see no difference?
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee