Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
General: GDC: The Future of MMOs - F2P vs. Sub.
Stradden
Managing EditorMember CommonPosts: 6,696
The third question that Managing Editor Jon Wood asked of the GDC Panel discussing "The Future of MMOs" revolved around MMORPG business models and whether or not Free to Play and microtransaction games were going to take over the more traditional subscription fees.
As those of you who have been kindly following the series know, I recently moderated a panel at the Game Developer’s Conference. The panel was titled, “The Future of MMOs” and consisted of some of the biggest names in the MMO industry: Jack Emmert from Cryptic Studios, Matt Miller from NCsoft, Ray Muzyka from Bioware, Min Kim from Nexon and Rob Pardo from Blizzard.
So far, we’ve talked about 3rd party IPs and we’ve talked about the console question. That brings us to the half way point of questions that I was able to ask of the group. My third question revolved around the business model. While there are a significant number of people out there who totally discount item shop, or free to play based games, there is no arguing that this business model is expanding. As a result, my question to the developers was simple: With the North American MMOs of the future be paid for using an item mall and micropayments, or will they continue to use the subscription model.
Read it all here.
Cheers,
Jon Wood
Managing Editor
MMORPG.com
Comments
One thought that I am surprised did not come out during the free vs. subscription debate was one that I found during a tenure as a 'sysop' on Microsoft's MSN Gaming Zone. Subscriptions (and thus fully registered game accounts with real-world details) appear to take a bit of the 'anonymity' out of the Internet gaming experience. I believe this enables game hosting management to more effectively police their player base. It appears to also encourage better behaviour in the players. When there is something at stake (that is: an account that the person has years of subscription fees invested in), I feel this provides a bigger incentive to "play by the rules" and observe the community standards.
I know there was a huge difference in the conduct of players in our subscription-based game, the WWII Combat Flight Sim, Fighter Ace, for which players paid a $9.95 subscription fee, as opposed to the dreaded "free rooms", as the some of us referred to the 'non-subscription' free to play games. A free account + bad behaviour (spamming, profanity, trolling for arguments) = disciplinary action usually starting with a small 'time out' boot or gag, and escalating to a full account ban results in mostly zero consequence to the user. A new account can be easily created, and a new IP address, or even a new ISP can be easily obtained. But a subscription account + bad behaviour results in the ability to immediately personally contact the offending user, and much more easily enforce a ban by simply banning the account details themselves, which are a fixed asset - unlike the basic identifying properties of any 'free' account: a 'throwaway' nickname and an IP address, which can easily be forged or changed.
I played Fighter Ace for many years, including time spent as a volunteer sysop. I now play City of Heroes (in between semesters of nursing school). My main account has been active over 33 months. I personally think subscriptions are much easier models of game purchase.
I also dabble occasionally in Yohoho! Puzzle Pirates, which has both models available. They have a subscription model, on servers where you pay a monthly fee, and a microsystem model, on servers where you buy 'doubloons' for a real-world fee, which are then used within the game's 'economy' to buy certain aspects of the game. Guess which server I play on? Yep. The subscription one. It is much simpler to pay one fee than it is to have to deal with the hassles of running off to buy in-game currency every time I need something new. This is, of course, my own personal preference, and is based solely on the fact that I prefer the simplicity of having a subscription to a game where I can simply log in, play, have fun, and not have to worry about having to stop my gameplay to log into a website and make a purchase.
Just my .01 female opinion...
I think one big thing is going to come and bite the F2P/Microtransaction crowd on the rear faster than the subscription model.
As Min Kim himself pointed out, he spent more on downloading music singly than he would have if he had bought CD's. This, to me, is a sign of a person who can't plan ahead, control their spending, and keep themselves afloat for long periods of time. And Microtransaction games aim their sights right at these people. And they'll fleece them for a while.
But if you look at the credit card debt crisis, especially among younger people, today, you'll see all those people who are the target of these games suddenly lose their credit cards, lose their credit rating, and go into bankruptcy far sooner and far more often than ever before. And the microtransaction people will probably be the last creditors paid off, because 'virtual goods' don't exactly win the hearts and minds of judges vs say, the store that sold the guy his TV...
Interesting topic and writeup. Thanks for posting it.
What was missed here is the casual gamer/more serious gamer dichotomy. For most casual gamers, a subscription setup is, frankly, a waste of money. Moreover, for players (like me) who want to play online with their kids but do not want to pay for multiple accounts, subscriptions are, once again, a bad deal.
The only way a subscription-based game is going to work is if it's really, REALLY good and, frankly, most such MMOs aren't. I also expect that a number of the much-hyped up-and-coming MMOs are going to fail for that reason: they might be good, but not good enough to justify $15/month (or whatever). I found it funny that some of these developers used a monthly gas bill/cable bill/phone bill model. A better model would be a grocery store. Some of us don't want to rent the entire store when all we really want and use are a few items.
The micropayment approach probably has more appeal for casual gamers, gamers who want multiple accounts, and/or gamers who want to pay only for what they really are going to use. The confidence many of these developers have in subscriptions is mystifying -- but good news for upcoming subscription-free games such as Guild Wars 2 and others.
I think subscription-based MMOs are going to be increasingly hard-pressed in the next few years ... and may end up being the dinosaurs of the MMO industry.
Good points. I can understand someone not wanting to have to subscribe everyone in their family just to play together. (Of course, I had, at one time, four CoH accounts... often playing two, and sometimes playing three simultaneously. Two monitor screens and a laptop and VERY fast fingers... The really funny part is having conversations with yourself between two characters, and having others think there are actually two people there.
)
Rather than use the analogy of a grocery store, I think a more apt one is the one presented by Three Rings Design, the creators of Yohoho! Puzzle Pirates. They compare their choices of microsystem of payment (doubloons) to "ala carte" and their subscription model to "all you can eat".
I think perhaps having both types of models available is the optimal way to attract the maximum amount of customers. You have customers like myself who remain dedicated to a game and the friends they have made there (which is truly what keeps people in MMOs) and customers like yourself who want the casual gaming experience without making the financial commitment to a recurring monthly fee.
I think the company that outlasts them all will be one that recognizes all facets of this equation, and finds a way to please the most types of customers simultaneously.
Addictive nature of mmo's + microtransaction = holy grail for the business suits who I believe are directly responsible for the latest round of mmo mediocrity.
They want to target kids with impulse control problems. But who will end up paying the kids big bill, but the parents. And aren't contracts with minors voidable? And doesn't this kind of business model encourage credit card fraud and other problems. For instance, it is no longer about who has the best skill or who has invested the most time. The game suddenly becomes who has the most money or who is willing to max out their credit cards.
If we go to microtransaction based system, I am pretty sure the government will step in because they will definitely want a piece of that pie, which sets a very dangerous precedent. And if it starts causing financial hardship, well then it will be ranked right up there with gambling and the medical community will have no qualms about actually qualifying it as a legitimate addiction. This would also spur government intervention, most likely in the form of a sin tax and/or regulation.
Honestly, I can not think of one upside. I think this system is basically for companies that want to scam people.
Since i dont see either model die tmr819 i dont think you have to worrie.
But you gave me a good idea. Thay could have multiple account access accounts. Or famly accounts so to say for a slightly higher costs say 20$ a month but gave you multiple access. Sure it could be misused But it would still only be one master account with full access to all accoutnts witin the account. ( To controll overplaying children och stopping them from playing when thay have homework to do. )
As long as micropayments only are for non gameplay items i dont mind. But when thay start meddeling with the gameplay it gets seriusly ill fast. Why should the player with the most money always win in pvp or so? It ruins the gameplay.
On major reason i dont like F2P is becouse i dont see the benefits of it in anyway.
Say its only for non gameplay stuff like name, clothing and such.
Then it ruins the gameplay. I might go out and search for gandalf only to find out hours of searching later that he now is a she and is named therese. And again only the ritchest players would afford the fancy clothing and assesories.
If it effects gameplay say like armors , weapons, veichles and such then again richets players will have an advantage over the other players. And even more so when imbalanced classes and carriers.
Also as someone else mentiond the people dont have anything to lose. And behave a lot worse.
And F2P games are more unsure enviroments then revenue games since you cant really predict income and have to have a lesser man force .Meaning less good updates and less content to begin with. Since there are not revenues on the sale.
Anyway i hope the furture of mmo discussions goes more towards the gameplay / static worlds that is.
I am one of thouse who dislike static worlds epecially since you can do so much with presistant worlds that mmos use. As well as most mmorpg today are not RPG any more. More Action Adventure games. Give me a good rule base were you begin as nobody and strive to become somebody rather then just have have some good armor or play though the newst expantion to become first to "endgame"
starting to fall beside topic.
just my 2 kronor
Signed
Zeusbas Swedish Game Programmer
F2P Micro-transactions may look appealing on the surface for casual gamers but they are based on making money by exploiting 3 common faults of people - addiction, impatience and impulsiveness.
Just something to think about also with Micro-transactions, look at MOST F2P sites without creating an account/login find the real money costs of the transactions/items, every wonder why?
Micro-transaction games are for suckers, and free-to-play games are not worthy of my time.
Good discussion. For many MMOs, I would tend to agree with your personal opinion. However, there are all kinds of player styles, and being an indie MMO developer - my job is to appeal to as many various styles as plausible. Plus everyone must eat and pay their bills, therefore I'm vested into a "Selective Subscription Service plus Free Play Zone." Of course some may be staring into another zone they wish they could enter, but one gets what they pay for these days.
I think f2p is better than pay because if you don't have a steady income , you can just buy what you can afford.
I guess I should add that when I consider "microtransaction" I think in these terms.
A microtransaction ought to be optional (but cool) content and/or items that can be purchased for real money but that is not strictly necessary for enjoyable gameplay, such as, for example...
--Additional character slots
--Additional classes/races, etc.
--Mounts
--Armor sets/weapons
--Minipets
--Extra large inventories/bank storage
--Expansions
That sort of thing. In other words, a good F2P game should be completely accessible and reasonably playable without purchasing anything, but goodies should be available for a real-money price.
From what I can tell, Mythos (still in beta), comes (or rather will come) close to what I consider to be an ideal F2P-type game.
What I think makes even more business sense and would generate more revenue for developers is a hybrid between subscription-based gaming and F2P, which is basically the GW model. Buy the game and play it with no monthly fee but charge for periodic expansions/additions/bonus missions, etc.
I'm increasingly becoming a fan of the hybrid model, which would see a minimal sub fee backed up by an internal RMT channel. Everything would be available through that channel (all items, powerlvling services, respecs, etc) but at the same time everything is also available through normal gameplay. I know that a lot of players are fans of the pure sub model, but it tends to be a binary system in that you are either paying and playing or you aren't. At $15 a month, few players keep paying the fee if they aren't playing regularly enough to justify that charge (I know it happens, but I don't think people forget as often as they did in EQ days, especially since they know the company is unlikely to delete their character if they don't pay).
The hybrid model lets players choose if they want to play or pay their way to their goals. For player who don't care about anything but the end game, they can go straight there in exchange for some RL cash.
The other thing I like about this idea is that it could kill external RMT companies from coming in and making their home in-game - something that pure sub games have to deal with a lot. Given that external RMT companies are huge fraud risks, getting them out of the game is beneficial in the short and long run.
"Microtransactions" is a Corporate Business Model (aka Scam), not a game feature.
It was devised by parasites who Do Not Give a DAMN about Gaming, but only care about new ways to rip-off money from customers.
Having worked as a commercial game programmer I'm absolutley serious: these people would sell their grandmother into prostitution if they thought they could get a nickel in commission off her, they are utterly amoral.
and to quote Douglas Adams - should be the first ones up against the wall when The Revolution comes.
------------
Imo the future of MMO : F2P + some payments for items/microtransactions etc. We can see most of cies can't keep subscribers after 1st month (sometimes more: 1 to 6 months no more)
I say this in few words:
Buy items, vehicles, clothes, etc. by microtransactions will destroy any decent crafting system in a MMO, if the best or most desired items ara buyed with real money, what sense have craft and sell in game then? In SWG the best vehicles are buyed with expansions, that ruined the in game market for vehicles.
Also microtransactions limit the devs possibilitys, with microtransactions item decay is imposible, if you buy a item with real money the last thing that you want is see that item decayed or broken, a game how EVE is impossible with item microtransactions, spend real money in a ship that can be destroyed and losed forever? No thanks... Without decay or items losed a useful in game economy have a very difficult implementation. A "world" MMO cant be designed with microtransactions in the plan, and in the end selling map zones or instaces divide in game comunity, if I dont buy a zone map and all your friends go to a dungeon placed there the game is ended for me that day.
Any form of microtransactions disrupts gameplay, perhaps an hybrid system can be acceptable, but that will be mainly good for business, is a movement for attract the market actually in the gold sellers hands. For me the effects on games can be very sad.
Normally I am a strong proponent of subscription based games. I am very much the "hard core player" and have lately been very disturbed by the introduction of items into EQ that can only be obtained via cash purchases through the Legends of Norrath card game.
I devote huge amounts of time and effort to get close to the top, and it takes dedication and a fair amount of skill to do so, having sucess being based on your heal team having purchased mana refresh clickies does not belong on the game.
The microtransaction model on the other hand seems to be targeted at a younger market, one that does not have the patience or the dedication to work their way to the top. They want to be uber, and they want it now. This tends to be a much younger market that is also more susceptible to impulse spending and less likely to track long term spending. Not to my personal taste but it is a viable market.
The past few days I've been playing Poxnora, it's not an MMO but it does have free to play, microtransactions, and long term susbcriptions. It reminds me of playing Mageknight, a tabletop game, and the microtransactions follow the same model, i.e. you buy "booster packs" of figures, and from there on out own them and can use them to build your armies. The subscription option gives you the ability to buy individual figures and a "free" booster pack every 30 days. The free option only has access to baseline, preconfigured armies and you are not eligable for ranking. The free option is, however, a good way to test the game, learn the rules, and see if you enjoy the gameplay.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
I will never play a microtransaction game, item shop game, etc. and I know there are many who feel as I do, so if developers neglect us and our segment of the market by not offering a quality flat subscription MMOG because of their greed, then we will just stop playing MMOGs.
Part of why I enjoy MMOGs is the healthy competitive aspect and I don't enjoy competing with my wallet.
personally i prefer subscription based games cause if you play them you know how much money it will cost you. When i see the webpage of one of these itemshop games i allways keep asking how much of these things do i have to buy monthly if i want to play in a guild that wants to do some endgame content.
But i can see some hybrid games beeing successfull in future if they go with lower subscription fees and addition micropayments that don't disrupt with the game economy and balance. Things that could be handled effectivley by micropayments without being disrupting would be additional character slots, cosmetic things, (makeover of char, special clothings). But i don't agree with items that have a real effect on gameplay (like xp, heal or mana potions) these things can easy lead to situations where you have to buy these to be competitive and then especialyl kids will start spending more and more money on them without their parents having direct controll over that in most cases.
Interesting discussion. Personally, I remain a very big fan of Guild Wars because of the lack of subscription fees. Yes, ArenaNet does require me to go buy expansions - but on the plus side I get to choose when I pay for new content. Also, I'm guaranteed new content that I will actually use. I cancelled my WOW account soon after BC came out when it became obvious that I'm not one of the 5 percent of power gamers who will ever see Black Temple, yet I was being charged $15/month for "new" content nonetheless.
Now, I'm not saying the GW model is perfect. The game is certainly limited compared to more robust MMOs, and the community can be extremely bad at times. But on the whole I'd rather be able to pay for content when I want it, rather than pay a constant subscription fee for features I'll never use.
What surprises me is nobody talks about a tiered subscription service where casuals could pay $5 for say 50 hours/month and hardcore players could pay the full $15 for "all you can play." You could also switch to the hour limit plan if you were going on vacation, had a rough few months coming up at work, etc.
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
Hard to say how microtransactions will affect future MMO's. It is rather evident that the vast majority of the existing microtransaction games have a problem with short term play. Players soon get tired of paying for everything and leave or give up because it becomes too expensive to advance further. Either way 2 months is about the longest people play them.
Personally, I don't see myself playing them very much. The subscription games offer so much more content at present and I would not play a game where you could buy things that effect gameplay because it makes no sense trying to develop your character when others can just buy their way, takes the point of playing out of the game.
For Western Countries yes, but for us in the Eastern World, no. Cable, Internet, Cell Phone, etc. are all paid by pre-paid cards not subscription. Microtransactions and "free" promos is 2/3 of companies' source of revenue than those who are subscribers. In fact, even those people who can subscribe much preferred pre-paids and microtransactions than a post-paid/subscription model.
If you want to know more about it, live here in the Philippines. The Philippines is currently the testing bed and hotbed for Online Games business model experiments. If I am not mistaken, the first hybrid model was launch here in the Philippines. The market here is very diverse and mixed.
Umm, I'm an old timer but it isn't foreign to me
I think you should have said instead that "for us Westerners, it is a foreign concept", coz that's what it is. I'm as hardcore as anyone here, I'm as an old timer as anyone here. But microtransactions, or as officially called in the East, the microtransaction region - "Virtual Asset Sales (VAS)" model (for online stuff of course) is part of our respective cultures.
We have subscription models on the right, we have microtransactions to the left. Nexon is right that this model has grown and subscription-followers do not give proper credits to its growth. At least for that interview, he did not mention the real figures, when I met with Nexon, they showed the real figures of microtransactions-vs-subscription (I don't have the liberty to tell the figures tho). 'Was able to confirm those figures after meeting with other game developers (by now you should have figured out my line-of-work).
VAS (Hybrid is VAS type 2) caters to a different market, a market where there are people who think short-term, a market where there are people who use 'feeling' instead of 'logic'. Here in the Philippines alone, more than two-thirds of the market are in-favor of VAS, generally VAS type 1 (free-to-play + item mall). These gamers "think" that they can save more this way, when in reality, they are spending more than if it's purely subscription. For businesses, they care less, VAS is quick money. If you are lucky and your game becomes a huge hit, then its life will be longer, for example, SilkRoad, Gunbound, and MapleStory. If you are not lucky, then time to get a new VAS type game before the other dies out.
Companies in Korea were able to generate huge revenue because of VAS, many experts and think tanks never believed this model because they think differently. These people were proven wrong and are now joining the bandwagon. For VAS type games, it all comes down to your game. Unlike for subscription type games, the game itself is not that important but that community. As long as there are subscribers, you have the money. For VAS games, you have to keep the game interesting, you have to make ways for them to spend that money, you can not just sit and do nothing. The community is only secondary, to some even tertiary.
Microtransactions are here to stay. The non-believers are testing the waters. Huge companies are seeing its potential. They are joining and creating their own VAS games.
My personal opinion? If I want to play with my family and relatives, I will play a VAS type 1 online game, a game where being a 'casual' player will not put you to the losing side. But if I will play a serious game, like World of Warcraft, Ultima Online, and Tabula Rasa to mention a few, then I will choose a subscription-based game, where my being hardcore will put me to the advantage.
For casual players, free-to-play microtransactions (VAS-1) is the right model for them. For hardcore players, subscription is the model (with the exception of Guild Wars of course).
Take it to the next level, it really is about the difference between the West and the East. RPG-vs-PvP. Time-consuming vs Get-famouse-and-strong-quick. Enjoyment through community building-vs-Enjoyment through competition. Read Richard Garriott's comparison of the West and the East. That's the root of all these.
Hybrid deserves another discussion
It is VAS-2, subscription-based with item mall (items that doesn't affect the game to the point of making it chaotic and unenjoyable).