"- Pay For Content - Used in Guild Wars, also used in a F2P MMO called Wizard 101 (unfortunately this game also has an item mall and also offers a premium subscription). You make one-time payments for a certain amount of content, in the form of areas, expansions, campaigns, whatever. You are not paying for virtual items as in an item mall, you are directly buying content for you to play. It can be cheap like in Wizard 101, $1~$3 per area, of $50 per campaign like in Guild Wars (however each campaign in Guild Wars means dozens or hundred hours of fun, a very large bulk of content comparable to a retail game)."
A little OT---I greatly suspect Star Wars: The Old Republic will be using this model. It keeps new content profitable, and this game will need a steady stream of new content for the ongoing story.
I really hope they do go with the pay by the content like Guild Wars. If there is an item shop though, sadly I will be skipping this title.
There is nothing about F2P that seems appealing to me. The old saying "you get what you pay for" definitely applies here.
DDO is not true F2P in my opinion...it is basically an elaborate trial for the P2P version. This is the closest F2P will ever get to going mainstream in America, and probably Europe as well.
I will never participate in a game based around an item mall. I just hate those things.
My basic opinion of F2P falls in line with what's already been said against it so I wont repost what others have said. That being said I don't see any big name (AAA) titles being _released_ "in the west" under the F2P/Micro-transaction pay scheme for several more years, if ever. Everything thus far has been as stated, either smaller "B" level games or last ditch effort type things from games going under.
As far as the comments about MMORPG/Richard 'force feeding" F2P... These guys gotta pay the bills. I highly doubt they're deciding to put the majority of their adds to F2P just because they want to. It's likely the F2P guys are just offering more, perhaps way more, for the add space. If it means I get a great site to come read up on the MMO news then I can ignore the adds F2P or otherwise. (Tho RTM adds would prolly make me visit less, tbo). If you dun lije what Richard is posting about don't read it. It's his blog and if he's on a F2P thing then you can just ignore it and wait for something else. Honestly I dun care for the topic either. This is the first one I've bothered reading and frankly I skipped most of it and went right to the thread, heh.
Hmm, interesting thoughts. Good article. Not sure about developers switching to F2P mode as a way to attract more players or just a last straw before the closing of the project. What I am sure about is that F2P games were popular 1-2 years ago on the western market and this year especially. There has been at least 5 new F2P games released and I would say that Jade Dynasty will hold the top and will steadily grow and most likely outgrow Runes of magic and Atlantica Online.
There are people who deeply hate F2P games because of their Item Malls. And there are others who actually like to play those games specifically because of the Item Mall. Some players like to have an upper hand in PvP by spending hundreds of dollars, others like to just enjoy the PvE part of the game while remain casual and not pushing themselves too much thanks to Item Mall again.
What I've noticed is that formula of success for F2P games is reasonable prices on Item Mall and challenging environment for those who play for free. I want to use Jade Dynasty again as an example and I think between the last 4 F2P games I've played JD has reached that golden solution that allows to keep players engaged on the daily basis. A bit steep learning curve that may throw off the balance a regular WoW player who used to be 'taught' everything but game still has a lot of options and things to do. I think that somewhat challenging learning curve actually attracts players in their late teens and leaves behind the main WOW playerbase.
Any of these F2P games I've played for the last 2 years I can tell you without a doubt that there will be more of them and competition will be pretty big. Not all, but some games make really serious steps to make the product attractive and very appealing to the casual players with some extra buck in their wallets. JD is still in "Open Beta" (well they better fix all the bugs and finish the game and finally release it) and there are already tons of people. I mean TONS, on the daily basis. Especially on the weekends all the realms are full. Sometimes game feels a bit too small for all the people and their "vending monkeys" around. Will it continue like this? It depends of course. PWI better work on this game hard if they want people to stay. Maybe after "leveling marathon" is over a lot of kids will leave, but nobody knows anything much about end game content yet. People are getting close to level 90 and devs only now are talking about putting in the content. Thats what rumors are about at least.
There's a certain way of thinking that suggests that no matter what job a person does, they should get paid exactly the same amount as any other person. For example, someone whose sole job is to take out the trash should get paid the same as someone who is operating a space shuttle. On the other hand, another way of thinking suggests that people should be paid according to the perceived value they add to a society. The latter is arguably more characteristic of the West.
As it is, with a subscription based game, the person who plays 400 hours per month pays exactly the same amount as the person who plays 8 hours per month, if you ignore things like electricity and such. Now tell me, which way of thinking is this consistent with?
On the other hand, a microtransaction based game allows a consumer to pay for EXACTLY the amount of entertainment the consumer wishes to. For those of you who have taken an economics course, you understand. For everyone else, well, sorry.
Microtransactions is the preferred way of doing business in Asia. It is successful. There is no arguing this point. And, no matter how you may want to cry about it or detest it, it's not going away. Things change. Deal with it.
Let's say you go to a fast food restaurant, and you want a Double Cheeseburger, but the only way to get one is by buying a Double Cheeseburger Meal for $8 which also includes Fries and a Drink. But you're not thirsty and you don't like fries. You only want a Double Cheeseburger. So what do you do? Well, let's say this is the only restaurant in town that serves Double Cheeseburgers. So you talk to the manager and ask him if you can just buy the Double Cheeseburger for a reduced cost, say $2. What does he do? He points you to the Terms of Use on the wall you agreed to by walking into the restaurant and you buy the Double Cheeseburger meal. Of course this not a realistic situation, but I hope you get the point.
I played World of Warcraft for close to 100 hours a week for nearly a year straight. Why and how? Because I was financially able to. In other words, I had the MONEY to not work and was able to put in the TIME to get 3 level 80's reasonably geared. How is this different than having the disposable income to spend in an item shop to get an advantage in a microtransaction based MMORPG? Time is money folks. Players with an excess of time and/or money will ALWAYS have the advantage in any game you care to play.
Ok, if you can use a burger metaphor, let me use a ... GAME ... metaphor. Maybe my metaphor, having to do with GAMES, is more appropriate? Who knows, just stirring the pot.
I used to be a chess player. When I went to a tournament, everyone paid the same entry fee. Some people practiced a lot more, paid to go to a lot more tournaments for more experience, even perhaps paid a coach. However.
When we got to the table, the rules and the pieces were exactly the same. Nobody got to pay $10 extra and get a super king that could move 2 spaces a turn in addition to its normal turn. Nobody could buy two turns to start to get ahead of his opponent. It came down to who was better at the table that game.
And that's the sense that I think offends people. It ought to be a level playing field --- because otherwise it isn't a game, its something *else*. Maybe people might like something *else* somewhere. Not the point. If my strategy and tactics are better and I am playing a game (according to my definition of course) I ought to win more often. Shall we play holdem and I get an extra card down!? Ok, so in MMOs some people play more and get better stuff....but in a *fair* MMO...everyone will have the same opportunity. Being rich may give you more time but not nuclear weapons.
Course some people like it that the Yankees always get the best free agent players --- if they want. But a LOT don't.
Seems simple to me, tell me what I missed please?!
The problem I see with this genre today is that the publishers are trying so desperately to make money, they've forgotten how to make compelling games. And this is true in both the so-called F2P and P2P models.
I'd have to say that the last game that seriously approached the art of game design is World of Warcraft. It was not designed to make money, it was designed to be a good game. The money came as a result of the goodness of the game.
But I don't think it's possible to design a game to make money and expect a good game as a result, at least in this genre. At least in casino games you have the chance to walk away with something real, but what do you really walk away with when you pay more money into MMO land? Nothing really.
The "value" of MMO entertainment is kind of like the Wizard of Oz. It looks impressive until you pull back the curtain and realize there's nothing there. I used to laugh my ass off when I used to see Stones of Jordan from Diablo II auctioned off on eBay for real cash. I still do. It made me wonder what sort of person would pay the kind of money they do for a figment of the imagination.
When I got into MMOs, I started to understand a little bit better why people would pay so much for SoJs and the like. You see, the only reason why someone would ever pay real money for illusionary things is if they believed the illusions were real. The only way people would delve deeper into the fiction is if the fiction had some meaning for them.
And this is why games that are designed to make money are not going to be as successful as games that are designed well. Because the whole "hook" of these games is believing what you are doing has value. And how can you value what you are doing when the publisher's money making efforts are so transparent?
A game that is designed around a revenue model is like trying to be the Wizard of Oz when the curtain is drawn wide open: there's no reason to play. Because people have to believe that the things they are doing in the game are worth something before they are willing to do something as silly as buying illusionary items...and it really is, in all seriousness, silly to do.
The only reason we had such a huge black market in virtual goods up until now is that the worlds that were designed were so compelling, we bought into the illusion that virtual goods weren't really virtual. But that's when the great designers were in charge of making games...and they made good games that made us want to buy into what was going on in there.
But they aren't in charge anymore. It's the financial and marketing guys that are wearing the pants in game design...and it shows. Nothing that can come from these folks is worth believing in, because all they believe in is market share and revenue generation. Having these folks ask gamers to pay good money for their fantasy is like them expecting us to take the Wizard of Oz seriously with the curtain drawn...it ain't gonna happen. Which is why I think all of this talk over F2P versus P2P by the bigwigs is just empty.
It ain't a matter of F2P or P2P or ways of monetizing a figment of the imagination. It's a matter of making good games, because only then is it a fiction worth playing (and paying) the fool for.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
The problem I see with this genre today is that the publishers are trying so desperately to make money, they've forgotten how to make compelling games. And this is true in both the so-called F2P and P2P models. I'd have to say that the last game that seriously approached the art of game design is World of Warcraft. It was not designed to make money, it was designed to be a good game. The money came as a result of the goodness of the game. But I don't think it's possible to design a game to make money and expect a good game as a result, at least in this genre. At least in casino games you have the chance to walk away with something real, but what do you really walk away with when you pay more money into MMO land? Nothing really. The "value" of MMO entertainment is kind of like the Wizard of Oz. It looks impressive until you pull back the curtain and realize there's nothing there. I used to laugh my ass off when I used to see Stones of Jordan from Diablo II auctioned off on eBay for real cash. I still do. It made me wonder what sort of person would pay the kind of money they do for a figment of the imagination. When I got into MMOs, I started to understand a little bit better why people would pay so much for SoJs and the like. You see, the only reason why someone would ever pay real money for illusionary things is if they believed the illusions were real. The only way people would delve deeper into the fiction is if the fiction had some meaning for them. And this is why games that are designed to make money are not going to be as successful as games that are designed well. Because the whole "hook" of these games is believing what you are doing has value. And how can you value what you are doing when the publisher's money making efforts are so transparent? A game that is designed around a revenue model is like trying to be the Wizard of Oz when the curtain is drawn wide open: there's no reason to play. Because people have to believe that the things they are doing in the game are worth something before they are willing to do something as silly as buying illusionary items...and it really is, in all seriousness, silly to do. The only reason we had such a huge black market in virtual goods up until now is that the worlds that were designed were so compelling, we bought into the illusion that virtual goods weren't really virtual. But that's when the great designers were in charge of making games...and they made good games that made us want to buy into what was going on in there. But they aren't in charge anymore. It's the financial and marketing guys that are wearing the pants in game design...and it shows. Nothing that can come from these folks is worth believing in, because all they believe in is market share and revenue generation. Having these folks asks gamers to pay good money for their fantasy is like them expecting us to take the Wizard of Oz seriously with the curtain drawn...it ain't gonna happen. Which is why I think all of this talk over F2P versus P2P by the bigwigs is just empty. It ain't a matter of F2P or P2P or ways of monetizing a figment of the imagination. It's a matter of making good games, because only then is it a fiction worth playing (and paying) the fool for.
i agre check fopr example guild wars its a fairly old game did you go back latelly if you got newer graphic card you ll see very cool effect ,when you have eotn at the first screen if you turn cam you ll see i fire bin hell the eat effect is even shown,no lag whatsoever lush graphic and insane pvp dam its a 4 year old game ,you like pve no biggy they got a very good story too cg etc
gees no wonder when you check on xfire if always in the top
you love pvp strategie etc this game is like next gen of chess lol it is very hard to win in pvp
wow its the same lol its an old game too but they dont sit on their laurel every expension they add graphic enhencement
last time it was better toon graphic in northrend
but most new game dont bother or if they try they build the game on machine that nobody has
guild wars works because when they dev it they used laptop to build and test if it didnt work they didnt put it in the game
i bet it took em way longer to design this game but dam its still the one of the top game
if they use the same way to build gw2 lol they could charge a monthly fee and still be popular
they got insane competition etc
one that might look promissing come september is rune of magic i saw and heard the video gees if it sound and look like that it will be very popular they might have to add server then lol cause its summer and its already running at high when people dont work
Ok, if you can use a burger metaphor, let me use a ... GAME ... metaphor. Maybe my metaphor, having to do with GAMES, is more appropriate? Who knows, just stirring the pot. I used to be a chess player. When I went to a tournament, everyone paid the same entry fee. Some people practiced a lot more, paid to go to a lot more tournaments for more experience, even perhaps paid a coach. However. When we got to the table, the rules and the pieces were exactly the same. Nobody got to pay $10 extra and get a super king that could move 2 spaces a turn in addition to its normal turn. Nobody could buy two turns to start to get ahead of his opponent. It came down to who was better at the table that game. And that's the sense that I think offends people. It ought to be a level playing field --- because otherwise it isn't a game, its something *else*. Maybe people might like something *else* somewhere. Not the point. If my strategy and tactics are better and I am playing a game (according to my definition of course) I ought to win more often. Shall we play holdem and I get an extra card down!? Ok, so in MMOs some people play more and get better stuff....but in a *fair* MMO...everyone will have the same opportunity. Being rich may give you more time but not nuclear weapons. Course some people like it that the Yankees always get the best free agent players --- if they want. But a LOT don't. Seems simple to me, tell me what I missed please?!
I enjoyed reading your post. It makes a lot more sense than a fast food analogy.
It's pretty obvious that the point I wanted to demonstrate with my fast food analogy didn't quite get across.
I'm not an idealist. I don't believe in what "ought to be a level playing field." As far as I'm concerned there are no level playing fields, in ANY aspect of life, video games included. Are you seriously telling me that the person who had the TIME to study chess or practice it, or the MONEY to purchase guides or tutoring sessions, is NOT going to have an advantage at a chess tournament? The entry fee may be the same, but the players certainly are not. Are you going to tell me also that the person who learned chess the day before the tournament has an equal chance to win the tournament simply because the entry fee was the same?
There's a movie called Pleasantville. You may like it.
My point is simply that microtransactions allow people to spend the exact amount of money for the exact amount of "fun" that they want out of a game.
And are we not talking about MMORPG's here? There is not a single MMORPG that does not give an advantage based on the amount of time or money spent in the game.
I started doing PvP in World of Warcraft towards the end of The Burning Crusade, when nearly everyone had full Season 2 or better PvP gear. There's your "ought to be level playing field" in the most popular subscription based game.
Watch Pleasantville, but I doubt you'd get the point the writers wanted to get across.
It's pretty obvious that the point I wanted to demonstrate with my fast food analogy didn't quite get across. I'm not an idealist. I don't believe in what "ought to be a level playing field." As far as I'm concerned there are no level playing fields, in ANY aspect of life, video games included. Are you seriously telling me that the person who had the TIME to study chess or practice it, or the MONEY to purchase guides or tutoring sessions, is NOT going to have an advantage at a chess tournament? The entry fee may be the same, but the players certainly are not. Are you going to tell me also that the person who learned chess the day before the tournament has an equal chance to win the tournament simply because the entry fee was the same? There's a movie called Pleasantville. You may like it. My point is simply that microtransactions allow people to spend the exact amount of money for the exact amount of "fun" that they want out of a game. And are we not talking about MMORPG's here? There is not a single MMORPG that does not give an advantage based on the amount of time or money spent in the game. I started doing PvP in World of Warcraft towards the end of The Burning Crusade, when nearly everyone had full Season 2 or better PvP gear. There's your "ought to be level playing field" in the most popular subscription based game. Watch Pleasantville, but I doubt you'd get the point the writers wanted to get across.
I'd have to say that the novice has an equal chance to win against a chess master...because there is nothing the master can do that the novice can't.
The difference has nothing to do with what the pieces can do. The difference has to do with the relative experience of the two.
But this whole microtransaction business isn't about differences in the players. It's about differences in the pieces. It's a business model that's all about letting chess novices win over chess masters by buying more pieces. It's about selling the novice the pleasure of saying "I win I win," but what exactly did he win? A person like that isn't a winner...he's a loser. And if he ever rids himself of the delusion that whipping out a credit card for pointless pursuits and insubstantial "internet goods" makes him a hero, he'll realize that he's the loser too. And what he lost is a whole lot of time and money partaking in a fantasy that isn't even all that fantastic. In fact, it's rather pathetic.
Part of the reason so many people here on the boards are so jaded is because we are starting to see how foolish we were for spending so much time and money on something that never really got any better. And the ultimate result of every game is the same: it's going to go dark, and nothing you or I ever did there is going to mean anything. And at that point, buying that ultimate sword of pwnage or that nice set of clothes for $10 is goint to look and seem really stupid. Because you certainly can't talk about how cool it was to anyone but possibly we here at MMORPG.com. And even so, it isn't like we can just join the game to see how cool your toon was once the server goes dark.
I heard a saying about life once that "he with the most toys at the end, wins." There's a different saying in MMO land. Because in MMO land, "he who pays the least at the end, loses the least." Because it never lasts, and paying more only gives you more reasons to pay even more.
And this is true in pay to play as well as micro...but the micro scheme makes losing so much easier.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
I disagree that players can buy their way the top in all F2P games. This is spewed on forums a lot, but is is simply not true. I currently play Atlantica Online and Runes of Magic and in both of those games, it is not possible to buy your way to the top. It is mostly mounts and vanity items. You really should check out some of the higher quality F2P games before you make blanket statements. I personally play several F2P games as well as a subscription game. It does not matter to me what business model they use. Get over it and just play a game that is fun.
before answering i would like to mention that in my opinion the overly used term "free-to-play" should be called by what it is :
MICORTRANSACTIONS !
ok, so here are my 5 cents to the topic:
1. some forum members already stated that many microtransaction-games lack in overall quality and i only can agree to this observation.
2. i tried out runes of magic some weeks ago to see what one of the better judged microtransaction-games was able to provide, and the impression the game made on me was disappointing. if the better microtransaction games look like this i will spare me the time too look at the rest of them.
* runes of magic (RoM) looked very asian to me with many manga like characters and all female chars wearing mini-skirts like in a japanes comic book. as a western player i always found this at best silly nothing to feel really exited about. most of the microtransaction-games swamp over from /korea/asia and are primarily targeted at that audience with it's very special astethic favourites *smiles* (think of the scoolgirl and catgirl fetish market in japan for example). as a european i only can shake my head at this, but at least its funny
* the most dissappointing aspect in technical terms was the graphics quality. at least here i would have expected some quality so that RoM can contest the players in the subscrition market. i like toget involved in the atmosphere of a game and the world it provides but that was so much dispappionting (comparing with WoW as an example) that i felt completely put off.
After these very personal statements my finally very personal conclusion:
1. i pay for subription based games for a reason! => thats quality because it cant be provided on a consistent base without a cosiderable amount of money a company con definitely count on. so there is a real (entertainment) value for my euros and i have no objection to pay for this value.
2. microtransaction games try to achieve greater gains than possible with a ordinary subscription by "tricking" the customers into the mindsets that its "free" and/or "cheap" due to the fact of distributing costs over tiny aka MICRO payments. this can be problematic if players (e.g kids) lose track of the costs involved with it. i am not a fan of this sheme.
I disagree that players can buy their way the top in all F2P games. This is spewed on forums a lot, but is is simply not true. I currently play Atlantica Online and Runes of Magic and in both of those games, it is not possible to buy your way to the top. It is mostly mounts and vanity items. You really should check out some of the higher quality F2P games before you make blanket statements. I personally play several F2P games as well as a subscription game. It does not matter to me what business model they use. Get over it and just play a game that is fun.
before answering i would like to mention that in my opinion the overly used term "free-to-play" should be called by what it is :
MICORTRANSACTIONS !
ok, so here are my 5 cents to the topic:
1. some forum members already stated that many microtransaction-games lack in overall quality and i only can agree to this observation.
2. i tried out runes of magic some weeks ago to see what one of the better judged microtransaction-games was able to provide, and the impression the game made on me was disappointing. if the better microtransaction games look like this i will spare me the time too look at the rest of them.
* runes of magic (RoM) looked very asian to me with many manga like characters and all female chars wearing mini-skirts like in a japanes comic book. as a western player i always found this at best silly nothing to feel really exited about. most of the microtransaction-games swamp over from /korea/asia and are primarily targeted at that audience with it's very special astethic favourites *smiles* (think of the scoolgirl and catgirl fetish market in japan for example). as a european i only can shake my head at this, but at least its funny
* the most dissappointing aspect in technical terms was the graphics quality. at least here i would have expected some quality so that RoM can contest the players in the subscrition market. i like toget involved in the atmosphere of a game and the world it provides but that was so much dispappionting (comparing with WoW as an example) that i felt completely put off.
After these very personal statements my finally very personal conclusion:
1. i pay for subription based games for a reason! => thats quality because it cant be provided on a consistent base without a cosiderable amount of money a company con definitely count on. so there is a real (entertainment) value for my euros and i have no objection to pay for this value.
2. microtransaction games try to achieve greater gains than possible with a ordinary subscription by "tricking" the customers into the mindsets that its "free" and/or "cheap" due to the fact of distributing costs over tiny aka MICRO payments. this can be problematic if players (e.g kids) lose track of the costs involved with it. i am not a fan of this sheme.
So what about fully developed subscription-based AAA ranked game in F2P / Microtransaction / sub model all at once? With your choice over anything? And even developed to be better while preparing for this change (check press)?
That's something that Turbine devs announce for D&D Online (DDO) .
I disagree that players can buy their way the top in all F2P games. This is spewed on forums a lot, but is is simply not true. I currently play Atlantica Online and Runes of Magic and in both of those games, it is not possible to buy your way to the top. It is mostly mounts and vanity items. You really should check out some of the higher quality F2P games before you make blanket statements. I personally play several F2P games as well as a subscription game. It does not matter to me what business model they use. Get over it and just play a game that is fun.
before answering i would like to mention that in my opinion the overly used term "free-to-play" should be called by what it is :
MICORTRANSACTIONS !
ok, so here are my 5 cents to the topic:
1. some forum members already stated that many microtransaction-games lack in overall quality and i only can agree to this observation.
2. i tried out runes of magic some weeks ago to see what one of the better judged microtransaction-games was able to provide, and the impression the game made on me was disappointing. if the better microtransaction games look like this i will spare me the time too look at the rest of them.
* runes of magic (RoM) looked very asian to me with many manga like characters and all female chars wearing mini-skirts like in a japanes comic book. as a western player i always found this at best silly nothing to feel really exited about. most of the microtransaction-games swamp over from /korea/asia and are primarily targeted at that audience with it's very special astethic favourites *smiles* (think of the scoolgirl and catgirl fetish market in japan for example). as a european i only can shake my head at this, but at least its funny
* the most dissappointing aspect in technical terms was the graphics quality. at least here i would have expected some quality so that RoM can contest the players in the subscrition market. i like toget involved in the atmosphere of a game and the world it provides but that was so much dispappionting (comparing with WoW as an example) that i felt completely put off.
After these very personal statements my finally very personal conclusion:
1. i pay for subription based games for a reason! => thats quality because it cant be provided on a consistent base without a cosiderable amount of money a company con definitely count on. so there is a real (entertainment) value for my euros and i have no objection to pay for this value.
2. microtransaction games try to achieve greater gains than possible with a ordinary subscription by "tricking" the customers into the mindsets that its "free" and/or "cheap" due to the fact of distributing costs over tiny aka MICRO payments. this can be problematic if players (e.g kids) lose track of the costs involved with it. i am not a fan of this sheme.
So what about fully developed subscription-based AAA ranked game in F2P / Microtransaction / sub model all at once? With your choice over anything? And even developed to be better while preparing for this change (check press)?
That's something that Turbine devs announce for D&D Online (DDO) .
After looking at the official DDO site the things get even more complex, so the answer is not that simple. i had also a look at sony online entertainments "solution" aka their introduction of real world money transactions via a new store.
How the entire venture fairs semms to largely depend on:
1. How are you able to make it acceptable for your current customers, and very important how to comunicate it to them.
* in the case of Sony i think they really pissed off quite a good part of their customers (behold thats just my impression from what i have read thus far. Please Sony customers comment on what i have stated here!).
* from the Sony solution i got the impression that the real world money store ist just there to get as much money out of the game as possible without thinking of the consequences this might have on the whole player base regarding balance and game expierience. The poll here on mmorpg.com yields a devastating over 60% that this will be bad and have negative impact.
2. How do you combine it with the subscription based player base. if you cannot convince them that enjoing the "whole" (i like this term regarding an mmorpg *smiles*) game is possible without a snowball-like investment of real world money you will probably loose them.
3. The added value of the subscription should be meaningfull and not simply outbuyable from the respective store and on the other hand the store should be evean for the subsribing players hold interresting stuff they might want to own at reasonble price. No SUPER items should be sold in stores as this will start the snowwball roling
Finally:
From my superficial look at the official DDO site i think there are some interresting ideas to combine the two pament styles in to a coherent whole, for example ehanced user support/vip membership i have not seen so far.
BUT if this really works has to be shown and is mainly dependent on some complex balancing and added value marketing tasks.
I've talked to a lot of gamers here in the US and none of them are too thrilled with the free-to-play, pay-for-everything games that are coming out.
I know that personally, I prefer paying a flat rate every month and letting my skill get me the gear/loot I want instead of forking over real dollars to buy it. I think that takes a lot away from the game.
I don't agree with and I don't like free-to-play games and I won't be playing any. I'll stick with my subscription based games, thanks.
Originally posted by Sarr So what about fully developed subscription-based AAA ranked game in F2P / Microtransaction / sub model all at once? With your choice over anything? And even developed to be better while preparing for this change (check press)? That's something that Turbine devs announce for D&D Online (DDO) . If in doubts, check those articles:
After looking at the official DDO site the things get even more complex, so the answer is not that simple. i had also a look at sony online entertainments "solution" aka their introduction of real world money transactions via a new store.
How the entire venture fairs semms to largely depend on:
1. How are you able to make it acceptable for your current customers, and very important how to comunicate it to them.
* in the case of Sony i think they really pissed off quite a good part of their customers (behold thats just my impression from what i have read thus far. Please Sony customers comment on what i have stated here!).
* from the Sony solution i got the impression that the real world money store ist just there to get as much money out of the game as possible without thinking of the consequences this might have on the whole player base regarding balance and game expierience. The poll here on mmorpg.com yields a devastating over 60% that this will be bad and have negative impact.
2. How do you combine it with the subscription based player base. if you cannot convince them that enjoing the "whole" (i like this term regarding an mmorpg *smiles*) game is possible without a snowball-like investment of real world money you will probably loose them.
3. The added value of the subscription should be meaningfull and not simply outbuyable from the respective store and on the other hand the store should be evean for the subsribing players hold interresting stuff they might want to own at reasonble price. No SUPER items should be sold in stores as this will start the snowwball roling
Finally:
From my superficial look at the official DDO site i think there are some interresting ideas to combine the two pament styles in to a coherent whole, for example ehanced user support/vip membership i have not seen so far.
BUT if this really works has to be shown and is mainly dependent on some complex balancing and added value marketing tasks.
I'm playing closed beta, so I won't be able to answer till NDA is lifted, I'm afraid .
Originally posted by Sarr So what about fully developed subscription-based AAA ranked game in F2P / Microtransaction / sub model all at once? With your choice over anything? And even developed to be better while preparing for this change (check press)? That's something that Turbine devs announce for D&D Online (DDO) . If in doubts, check those articles:
After looking at the official DDO site the things get even more complex, so the answer is not that simple. i had also a look at sony online entertainments "solution" aka their introduction of real world money transactions via a new store.
How the entire venture fairs semms to largely depend on:
1. How are you able to make it acceptable for your current customers, and very important how to comunicate it to them.
* in the case of Sony i think they really pissed off quite a good part of their customers (behold thats just my impression from what i have read thus far. Please Sony customers comment on what i have stated here!).
* from the Sony solution i got the impression that the real world money store ist just there to get as much money out of the game as possible without thinking of the consequences this might have on the whole player base regarding balance and game expierience. The poll here on mmorpg.com yields a devastating over 60% that this will be bad and have negative impact.
2. How do you combine it with the subscription based player base. if you cannot convince them that enjoing the "whole" (i like this term regarding an mmorpg *smiles*) game is possible without a snowball-like investment of real world money you will probably loose them.
3. The added value of the subscription should be meaningfull and not simply outbuyable from the respective store and on the other hand the store should be evean for the subsribing players hold interresting stuff they might want to own at reasonble price. No SUPER items should be sold in stores as this will start the snowwball roling
Finally:
From my superficial look at the official DDO site i think there are some interresting ideas to combine the two pament styles in to a coherent whole, for example ehanced user support/vip membership i have not seen so far.
BUT if this really works has to be shown and is mainly dependent on some complex balancing and added value marketing tasks.
I'm playing closed beta, so I won't be able to answer till NDA is lifted, I'm afraid .
Closed beta for an old game? So they have testers testing their new payment systems? Everything has been around for years. Doesn't sound like there is anything exciting to find out.
Originally posted by Sarr I'm playing closed beta, so I won't be able to answer till NDA is lifted, I'm afraid .
Closed beta for an old game? So they have testers testing their new payment systems? Everything has been around for years. Doesn't sound like there is anything exciting to find out.
It's not an old game . It's very experienced and carefully developed "unique D&D style" game, absolutely. It's not DDO: Stormereach, but DDO: Eberron Unlimited, a relaunch and that's going to make a difference. I mean, if you read the press about it already, you may get such impression (I'm not allowed to say anything else).
And beta is a great opportunity to make it much better, as all betas are meant for extensive development. No, it's not just "to test the store", as you can find out too if you delve deeper into it.
If you think it's going to go quiet and without broader notice, remember again that it's a closed beta under NDA. But it's no secret (press release) that Turbine invited thousands of people for this beta to date, and even first week was an unprecedented record of applies for beta / new subs for live game servers (old game).
I like the idea that games ppl play on computer(MMORPG i am mentioning) becoming free..In the real world one would never pay to play a game of tennise or football... But we do put in an initial amount to buy the ball or racket.
So the question is NOT when F2P model or P2P model wil work!
But rather when does F2P come of age to take over 80-100% market share. That depends on the production houses also. But as gaming is a business unlike a game of foot ball in backyard... There wil alaways be market for both...
Westren players wil tend to go to P2P more than asian players(like me):P
I don't know where some of you guys are coming from but you're giving some odd examples. You're not looking at micromanagement as a game developer. If I was F2P game dev I would be interested for players who have money to buy items from my mall. It would allow me to support the game, since I would have money and it would also introduce items from Item Mall into the market. Spending limits would keep in game market from flooding with the item mall items and my account would always have constant income which would make me able to work on the game and make it more fun for players.
Another question if people with money would have advantage. PEOPLE WITH MONEY ALWAYS HAVE ADVANTAGE. No matter how you look at it. Its that simple.
If someone has money to spend in F2P game and get for example higher enchanted armor - similar situation is for people who don't have money to spend but they have time to play the game. I play the game for example for 2 hours a day and refine my armor to +8, the Bob plays the game 10 hours a day and he has enough money from grinding to refine his armor to +8 as well. He just needs to find a person who sells refining charms from the mall. Its just a small example of the balance between time and money.
Comments
I really hope they do go with the pay by the content like Guild Wars. If there is an item shop though, sadly I will be skipping this title.
There is nothing about F2P that seems appealing to me. The old saying "you get what you pay for" definitely applies here.
DDO is not true F2P in my opinion...it is basically an elaborate trial for the P2P version. This is the closest F2P will ever get to going mainstream in America, and probably Europe as well.
I will never participate in a game based around an item mall. I just hate those things.
My basic opinion of F2P falls in line with what's already been said against it so I wont repost what others have said. That being said I don't see any big name (AAA) titles being _released_ "in the west" under the F2P/Micro-transaction pay scheme for several more years, if ever. Everything thus far has been as stated, either smaller "B" level games or last ditch effort type things from games going under.
As far as the comments about MMORPG/Richard 'force feeding" F2P... These guys gotta pay the bills. I highly doubt they're deciding to put the majority of their adds to F2P just because they want to. It's likely the F2P guys are just offering more, perhaps way more, for the add space. If it means I get a great site to come read up on the MMO news then I can ignore the adds F2P or otherwise. (Tho RTM adds would prolly make me visit less, tbo). If you dun lije what Richard is posting about don't read it. It's his blog and if he's on a F2P thing then you can just ignore it and wait for something else. Honestly I dun care for the topic either. This is the first one I've bothered reading and frankly I skipped most of it and went right to the thread, heh.
Hmm, interesting thoughts. Good article. Not sure about developers switching to F2P mode as a way to attract more players or just a last straw before the closing of the project. What I am sure about is that F2P games were popular 1-2 years ago on the western market and this year especially. There has been at least 5 new F2P games released and I would say that Jade Dynasty will hold the top and will steadily grow and most likely outgrow Runes of magic and Atlantica Online.
There are people who deeply hate F2P games because of their Item Malls. And there are others who actually like to play those games specifically because of the Item Mall. Some players like to have an upper hand in PvP by spending hundreds of dollars, others like to just enjoy the PvE part of the game while remain casual and not pushing themselves too much thanks to Item Mall again.
What I've noticed is that formula of success for F2P games is reasonable prices on Item Mall and challenging environment for those who play for free. I want to use Jade Dynasty again as an example and I think between the last 4 F2P games I've played JD has reached that golden solution that allows to keep players engaged on the daily basis. A bit steep learning curve that may throw off the balance a regular WoW player who used to be 'taught' everything but game still has a lot of options and things to do. I think that somewhat challenging learning curve actually attracts players in their late teens and leaves behind the main WOW playerbase.
Any of these F2P games I've played for the last 2 years I can tell you without a doubt that there will be more of them and competition will be pretty big. Not all, but some games make really serious steps to make the product attractive and very appealing to the casual players with some extra buck in their wallets. JD is still in "Open Beta" (well they better fix all the bugs and finish the game and finally release it) and there are already tons of people. I mean TONS, on the daily basis. Especially on the weekends all the realms are full. Sometimes game feels a bit too small for all the people and their "vending monkeys" around. Will it continue like this? It depends of course. PWI better work on this game hard if they want people to stay. Maybe after "leveling marathon" is over a lot of kids will leave, but nobody knows anything much about end game content yet. People are getting close to level 90 and devs only now are talking about putting in the content. Thats what rumors are about at least.
There's a certain way of thinking that suggests that no matter what job a person does, they should get paid exactly the same amount as any other person. For example, someone whose sole job is to take out the trash should get paid the same as someone who is operating a space shuttle. On the other hand, another way of thinking suggests that people should be paid according to the perceived value they add to a society. The latter is arguably more characteristic of the West.
As it is, with a subscription based game, the person who plays 400 hours per month pays exactly the same amount as the person who plays 8 hours per month, if you ignore things like electricity and such. Now tell me, which way of thinking is this consistent with?
On the other hand, a microtransaction based game allows a consumer to pay for EXACTLY the amount of entertainment the consumer wishes to. For those of you who have taken an economics course, you understand. For everyone else, well, sorry.
Microtransactions is the preferred way of doing business in Asia. It is successful. There is no arguing this point. And, no matter how you may want to cry about it or detest it, it's not going away. Things change. Deal with it.
Let's say you go to a fast food restaurant, and you want a Double Cheeseburger, but the only way to get one is by buying a Double Cheeseburger Meal for $8 which also includes Fries and a Drink. But you're not thirsty and you don't like fries. You only want a Double Cheeseburger. So what do you do? Well, let's say this is the only restaurant in town that serves Double Cheeseburgers. So you talk to the manager and ask him if you can just buy the Double Cheeseburger for a reduced cost, say $2. What does he do? He points you to the Terms of Use on the wall you agreed to by walking into the restaurant and you buy the Double Cheeseburger meal. Of course this not a realistic situation, but I hope you get the point.
I played World of Warcraft for close to 100 hours a week for nearly a year straight. Why and how? Because I was financially able to. In other words, I had the MONEY to not work and was able to put in the TIME to get 3 level 80's reasonably geared. How is this different than having the disposable income to spend in an item shop to get an advantage in a microtransaction based MMORPG? Time is money folks. Players with an excess of time and/or money will ALWAYS have the advantage in any game you care to play.
Ok, if you can use a burger metaphor, let me use a ... GAME ... metaphor. Maybe my metaphor, having to do with GAMES, is more appropriate? Who knows, just stirring the pot.
I used to be a chess player. When I went to a tournament, everyone paid the same entry fee. Some people practiced a lot more, paid to go to a lot more tournaments for more experience, even perhaps paid a coach. However.
When we got to the table, the rules and the pieces were exactly the same. Nobody got to pay $10 extra and get a super king that could move 2 spaces a turn in addition to its normal turn. Nobody could buy two turns to start to get ahead of his opponent. It came down to who was better at the table that game.
And that's the sense that I think offends people. It ought to be a level playing field --- because otherwise it isn't a game, its something *else*. Maybe people might like something *else* somewhere. Not the point. If my strategy and tactics are better and I am playing a game (according to my definition of course) I ought to win more often. Shall we play holdem and I get an extra card down!? Ok, so in MMOs some people play more and get better stuff....but in a *fair* MMO...everyone will have the same opportunity. Being rich may give you more time but not nuclear weapons.
Course some people like it that the Yankees always get the best free agent players --- if they want. But a LOT don't.
Seems simple to me, tell me what I missed please?!
---------------------------
Rose-lipped maidens,
Light-foot lads...
The problem I see with this genre today is that the publishers are trying so desperately to make money, they've forgotten how to make compelling games. And this is true in both the so-called F2P and P2P models.
I'd have to say that the last game that seriously approached the art of game design is World of Warcraft. It was not designed to make money, it was designed to be a good game. The money came as a result of the goodness of the game.
But I don't think it's possible to design a game to make money and expect a good game as a result, at least in this genre. At least in casino games you have the chance to walk away with something real, but what do you really walk away with when you pay more money into MMO land? Nothing really.
The "value" of MMO entertainment is kind of like the Wizard of Oz. It looks impressive until you pull back the curtain and realize there's nothing there. I used to laugh my ass off when I used to see Stones of Jordan from Diablo II auctioned off on eBay for real cash. I still do. It made me wonder what sort of person would pay the kind of money they do for a figment of the imagination.
When I got into MMOs, I started to understand a little bit better why people would pay so much for SoJs and the like. You see, the only reason why someone would ever pay real money for illusionary things is if they believed the illusions were real. The only way people would delve deeper into the fiction is if the fiction had some meaning for them.
And this is why games that are designed to make money are not going to be as successful as games that are designed well. Because the whole "hook" of these games is believing what you are doing has value. And how can you value what you are doing when the publisher's money making efforts are so transparent?
A game that is designed around a revenue model is like trying to be the Wizard of Oz when the curtain is drawn wide open: there's no reason to play. Because people have to believe that the things they are doing in the game are worth something before they are willing to do something as silly as buying illusionary items...and it really is, in all seriousness, silly to do.
The only reason we had such a huge black market in virtual goods up until now is that the worlds that were designed were so compelling, we bought into the illusion that virtual goods weren't really virtual. But that's when the great designers were in charge of making games...and they made good games that made us want to buy into what was going on in there.
But they aren't in charge anymore. It's the financial and marketing guys that are wearing the pants in game design...and it shows. Nothing that can come from these folks is worth believing in, because all they believe in is market share and revenue generation. Having these folks ask gamers to pay good money for their fantasy is like them expecting us to take the Wizard of Oz seriously with the curtain drawn...it ain't gonna happen. Which is why I think all of this talk over F2P versus P2P by the bigwigs is just empty.
It ain't a matter of F2P or P2P or ways of monetizing a figment of the imagination. It's a matter of making good games, because only then is it a fiction worth playing (and paying) the fool for.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
i agre check fopr example guild wars its a fairly old game did you go back latelly if you got newer graphic card you ll see very cool effect ,when you have eotn at the first screen if you turn cam you ll see i fire bin hell the eat effect is even shown,no lag whatsoever lush graphic and insane pvp dam its a 4 year old game ,you like pve no biggy they got a very good story too cg etc
gees no wonder when you check on xfire if always in the top
you love pvp strategie etc this game is like next gen of chess lol it is very hard to win in pvp
wow its the same lol its an old game too but they dont sit on their laurel every expension they add graphic enhencement
last time it was better toon graphic in northrend
but most new game dont bother or if they try they build the game on machine that nobody has
guild wars works because when they dev it they used laptop to build and test if it didnt work they didnt put it in the game
i bet it took em way longer to design this game but dam its still the one of the top game
if they use the same way to build gw2 lol they could charge a monthly fee and still be popular
they got insane competition etc
one that might look promissing come september is rune of magic i saw and heard the video gees if it sound and look like that it will be very popular they might have to add server then lol cause its summer and its already running at high when people dont work
I enjoyed reading your post. It makes a lot more sense than a fast food analogy.
It's pretty obvious that the point I wanted to demonstrate with my fast food analogy didn't quite get across.
I'm not an idealist. I don't believe in what "ought to be a level playing field." As far as I'm concerned there are no level playing fields, in ANY aspect of life, video games included. Are you seriously telling me that the person who had the TIME to study chess or practice it, or the MONEY to purchase guides or tutoring sessions, is NOT going to have an advantage at a chess tournament? The entry fee may be the same, but the players certainly are not. Are you going to tell me also that the person who learned chess the day before the tournament has an equal chance to win the tournament simply because the entry fee was the same?
There's a movie called Pleasantville. You may like it.
My point is simply that microtransactions allow people to spend the exact amount of money for the exact amount of "fun" that they want out of a game.
And are we not talking about MMORPG's here? There is not a single MMORPG that does not give an advantage based on the amount of time or money spent in the game.
I started doing PvP in World of Warcraft towards the end of The Burning Crusade, when nearly everyone had full Season 2 or better PvP gear. There's your "ought to be level playing field" in the most popular subscription based game.
Watch Pleasantville, but I doubt you'd get the point the writers wanted to get across.
I'd have to say that the novice has an equal chance to win against a chess master...because there is nothing the master can do that the novice can't.
The difference has nothing to do with what the pieces can do. The difference has to do with the relative experience of the two.
But this whole microtransaction business isn't about differences in the players. It's about differences in the pieces. It's a business model that's all about letting chess novices win over chess masters by buying more pieces. It's about selling the novice the pleasure of saying "I win I win," but what exactly did he win? A person like that isn't a winner...he's a loser. And if he ever rids himself of the delusion that whipping out a credit card for pointless pursuits and insubstantial "internet goods" makes him a hero, he'll realize that he's the loser too. And what he lost is a whole lot of time and money partaking in a fantasy that isn't even all that fantastic. In fact, it's rather pathetic.
Part of the reason so many people here on the boards are so jaded is because we are starting to see how foolish we were for spending so much time and money on something that never really got any better. And the ultimate result of every game is the same: it's going to go dark, and nothing you or I ever did there is going to mean anything. And at that point, buying that ultimate sword of pwnage or that nice set of clothes for $10 is goint to look and seem really stupid. Because you certainly can't talk about how cool it was to anyone but possibly we here at MMORPG.com. And even so, it isn't like we can just join the game to see how cool your toon was once the server goes dark.
I heard a saying about life once that "he with the most toys at the end, wins." There's a different saying in MMO land. Because in MMO land, "he who pays the least at the end, loses the least." Because it never lasts, and paying more only gives you more reasons to pay even more.
And this is true in pay to play as well as micro...but the micro scheme makes losing so much easier.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
To the author, Richard Aihoshi:
Hey, new DDO is already mixing F2P with it's hybrid appraoch, with even more hybrid: you can subscribe as well and get all!
So the innovation you wrote about in the last paragraph of this article is already done - Turbine is absolutely first here to do it.
. Turbine shows their genius once more.
NDA is obove me, so I will only it has potential to compete with the best on the MMO Market
Polish Sword Coast Legends Portal http://www.swordcoast.pl/
SwordCoast.pl Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SwordCoastPL/
SwordCoast.pl Twitter: https://twitter.com/SwordCoastPL
Polish Neverwinter Portal http://www.neverwinter.com.pl/
Polish D&D Online Portal http://www.ddopl.com
DDOpl Twitter: http://twitter.com/DDOpl
Great DDO PodCast by Jerry & co. http://www.ddocast.com
before answering i would like to mention that in my opinion the overly used term "free-to-play" should be called by what it is :
MICORTRANSACTIONS !
ok, so here are my 5 cents to the topic:
1. some forum members already stated that many microtransaction-games lack in overall quality and i only can agree to this observation.
2. i tried out runes of magic some weeks ago to see what one of the better judged microtransaction-games was able to provide, and the impression the game made on me was disappointing. if the better microtransaction games look like this i will spare me the time too look at the rest of them.
* runes of magic (RoM) looked very asian to me with many manga like characters and all female chars wearing mini-skirts like in a japanes comic book. as a western player i always found this at best silly
nothing to feel really exited about. most of the microtransaction-games swamp over from /korea/asia and are primarily targeted at that audience with it's very special astethic favourites *smiles* (think of the scoolgirl and catgirl fetish market in japan for example). as a european i only can shake my head at this, but at least its funny 
* the most dissappointing aspect in technical terms was the graphics quality. at least here i would have expected some quality so that RoM can contest the players in the subscrition market. i like toget involved in the atmosphere of a game and the world it provides but that was so much dispappionting (comparing with WoW as an example) that i felt completely put off.
After these very personal statements my finally very personal conclusion:
1. i pay for subription based games for a reason! => thats quality because it cant be provided on a consistent base without a cosiderable amount of money a company con definitely count on. so there is a real (entertainment) value for my euros and i have no objection to pay for this value.
2. microtransaction games try to achieve greater gains than possible with a ordinary subscription by "tricking" the customers into the mindsets that its "free" and/or "cheap" due to the fact of distributing costs over tiny aka MICRO payments. this can be problematic if players (e.g kids) lose track of the costs involved with it. i am not a fan of this sheme.
before answering i would like to mention that in my opinion the overly used term "free-to-play" should be called by what it is :
MICORTRANSACTIONS !
ok, so here are my 5 cents to the topic:
1. some forum members already stated that many microtransaction-games lack in overall quality and i only can agree to this observation.
2. i tried out runes of magic some weeks ago to see what one of the better judged microtransaction-games was able to provide, and the impression the game made on me was disappointing. if the better microtransaction games look like this i will spare me the time too look at the rest of them.
* runes of magic (RoM) looked very asian to me with many manga like characters and all female chars wearing mini-skirts like in a japanes comic book. as a western player i always found this at best silly
nothing to feel really exited about. most of the microtransaction-games swamp over from /korea/asia and are primarily targeted at that audience with it's very special astethic favourites *smiles* (think of the scoolgirl and catgirl fetish market in japan for example). as a european i only can shake my head at this, but at least its funny 
* the most dissappointing aspect in technical terms was the graphics quality. at least here i would have expected some quality so that RoM can contest the players in the subscrition market. i like toget involved in the atmosphere of a game and the world it provides but that was so much dispappionting (comparing with WoW as an example) that i felt completely put off.
After these very personal statements my finally very personal conclusion:
1. i pay for subription based games for a reason! => thats quality because it cant be provided on a consistent base without a cosiderable amount of money a company con definitely count on. so there is a real (entertainment) value for my euros and i have no objection to pay for this value.
2. microtransaction games try to achieve greater gains than possible with a ordinary subscription by "tricking" the customers into the mindsets that its "free" and/or "cheap" due to the fact of distributing costs over tiny aka MICRO payments. this can be problematic if players (e.g kids) lose track of the costs involved with it. i am not a fan of this sheme.
So what about fully developed subscription-based AAA ranked game in F2P / Microtransaction / sub model all at once? With your choice over anything? And even developed to be better while preparing for this change (check press)?
That's something that Turbine devs announce for D&D Online (DDO)
.
If in doubts, check those articles:
www.tentonhammer.com/ddo
Polish Sword Coast Legends Portal http://www.swordcoast.pl/
SwordCoast.pl Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SwordCoastPL/
SwordCoast.pl Twitter: https://twitter.com/SwordCoastPL
Polish Neverwinter Portal http://www.neverwinter.com.pl/
Polish D&D Online Portal http://www.ddopl.com
DDOpl Twitter: http://twitter.com/DDOpl
Great DDO PodCast by Jerry & co. http://www.ddocast.com
before answering i would like to mention that in my opinion the overly used term "free-to-play" should be called by what it is :
MICORTRANSACTIONS !
ok, so here are my 5 cents to the topic:
1. some forum members already stated that many microtransaction-games lack in overall quality and i only can agree to this observation.
2. i tried out runes of magic some weeks ago to see what one of the better judged microtransaction-games was able to provide, and the impression the game made on me was disappointing. if the better microtransaction games look like this i will spare me the time too look at the rest of them.
* runes of magic (RoM) looked very asian to me with many manga like characters and all female chars wearing mini-skirts like in a japanes comic book. as a western player i always found this at best silly
nothing to feel really exited about. most of the microtransaction-games swamp over from /korea/asia and are primarily targeted at that audience with it's very special astethic favourites *smiles* (think of the scoolgirl and catgirl fetish market in japan for example). as a european i only can shake my head at this, but at least its funny 
* the most dissappointing aspect in technical terms was the graphics quality. at least here i would have expected some quality so that RoM can contest the players in the subscrition market. i like toget involved in the atmosphere of a game and the world it provides but that was so much dispappionting (comparing with WoW as an example) that i felt completely put off.
After these very personal statements my finally very personal conclusion:
1. i pay for subription based games for a reason! => thats quality because it cant be provided on a consistent base without a cosiderable amount of money a company con definitely count on. so there is a real (entertainment) value for my euros and i have no objection to pay for this value.
2. microtransaction games try to achieve greater gains than possible with a ordinary subscription by "tricking" the customers into the mindsets that its "free" and/or "cheap" due to the fact of distributing costs over tiny aka MICRO payments. this can be problematic if players (e.g kids) lose track of the costs involved with it. i am not a fan of this sheme.
So what about fully developed subscription-based AAA ranked game in F2P / Microtransaction / sub model all at once? With your choice over anything? And even developed to be better while preparing for this change (check press)?
That's something that Turbine devs announce for D&D Online (DDO)
.
If in doubts, check those articles:
www.tentonhammer.com/ddo
After looking at the official DDO site the things get even more complex, so the answer is not that simple. i had also a look at sony online entertainments "solution" aka their introduction of real world money transactions via a new store.
How the entire venture fairs semms to largely depend on:
1. How are you able to make it acceptable for your current customers, and very important how to comunicate it to them.
* in the case of Sony i think they really pissed off quite a good part of their customers (behold thats just my impression from what i have read thus far. Please Sony customers comment on what i have stated here!).
* from the Sony solution i got the impression that the real world money store ist just there to get as much money out of the game as possible without thinking of the consequences this might have on the whole player base regarding balance and game expierience. The poll here on mmorpg.com yields a devastating over 60% that this will be bad and have negative impact.
2. How do you combine it with the subscription based player base. if you cannot convince them that enjoing the "whole" (i like this term regarding an mmorpg *smiles*) game is possible without a snowball-like investment of real world money you will probably loose them.
3. The added value of the subscription should be meaningfull and not simply outbuyable from the respective store and on the other hand the store should be evean for the subsribing players hold interresting stuff they might want to own at reasonble price. No SUPER items should be sold in stores as this will start the snowwball roling
Finally:
From my superficial look at the official DDO site i think there are some interresting ideas to combine the two pament styles in to a coherent whole, for example ehanced user support/vip membership i have not seen so far.
BUT if this really works has to be shown and is mainly dependent on some complex balancing and added value marketing tasks.
I've talked to a lot of gamers here in the US and none of them are too thrilled with the free-to-play, pay-for-everything games that are coming out.
I know that personally, I prefer paying a flat rate every month and letting my skill get me the gear/loot I want instead of forking over real dollars to buy it. I think that takes a lot away from the game.
I don't agree with and I don't like free-to-play games and I won't be playing any. I'll stick with my subscription based games, thanks.
After looking at the official DDO site the things get even more complex, so the answer is not that simple. i had also a look at sony online entertainments "solution" aka their introduction of real world money transactions via a new store.
How the entire venture fairs semms to largely depend on:
1. How are you able to make it acceptable for your current customers, and very important how to comunicate it to them.
* in the case of Sony i think they really pissed off quite a good part of their customers (behold thats just my impression from what i have read thus far. Please Sony customers comment on what i have stated here!).
* from the Sony solution i got the impression that the real world money store ist just there to get as much money out of the game as possible without thinking of the consequences this might have on the whole player base regarding balance and game expierience. The poll here on mmorpg.com yields a devastating over 60% that this will be bad and have negative impact.
2. How do you combine it with the subscription based player base. if you cannot convince them that enjoing the "whole" (i like this term regarding an mmorpg *smiles*) game is possible without a snowball-like investment of real world money you will probably loose them.
3. The added value of the subscription should be meaningfull and not simply outbuyable from the respective store and on the other hand the store should be evean for the subsribing players hold interresting stuff they might want to own at reasonble price. No SUPER items should be sold in stores as this will start the snowwball roling
Finally:
From my superficial look at the official DDO site i think there are some interresting ideas to combine the two pament styles in to a coherent whole, for example ehanced user support/vip membership i have not seen so far.
BUT if this really works has to be shown and is mainly dependent on some complex balancing and added value marketing tasks.
I'm playing closed beta, so I won't be able to answer till NDA is lifted, I'm afraid
.
Polish Sword Coast Legends Portal http://www.swordcoast.pl/
SwordCoast.pl Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SwordCoastPL/
SwordCoast.pl Twitter: https://twitter.com/SwordCoastPL
Polish Neverwinter Portal http://www.neverwinter.com.pl/
Polish D&D Online Portal http://www.ddopl.com
DDOpl Twitter: http://twitter.com/DDOpl
Great DDO PodCast by Jerry & co. http://www.ddocast.com
After looking at the official DDO site the things get even more complex, so the answer is not that simple. i had also a look at sony online entertainments "solution" aka their introduction of real world money transactions via a new store.
How the entire venture fairs semms to largely depend on:
1. How are you able to make it acceptable for your current customers, and very important how to comunicate it to them.
* in the case of Sony i think they really pissed off quite a good part of their customers (behold thats just my impression from what i have read thus far. Please Sony customers comment on what i have stated here!).
* from the Sony solution i got the impression that the real world money store ist just there to get as much money out of the game as possible without thinking of the consequences this might have on the whole player base regarding balance and game expierience. The poll here on mmorpg.com yields a devastating over 60% that this will be bad and have negative impact.
2. How do you combine it with the subscription based player base. if you cannot convince them that enjoing the "whole" (i like this term regarding an mmorpg *smiles*) game is possible without a snowball-like investment of real world money you will probably loose them.
3. The added value of the subscription should be meaningfull and not simply outbuyable from the respective store and on the other hand the store should be evean for the subsribing players hold interresting stuff they might want to own at reasonble price. No SUPER items should be sold in stores as this will start the snowwball roling
Finally:
From my superficial look at the official DDO site i think there are some interresting ideas to combine the two pament styles in to a coherent whole, for example ehanced user support/vip membership i have not seen so far.
BUT if this really works has to be shown and is mainly dependent on some complex balancing and added value marketing tasks.
I'm playing closed beta, so I won't be able to answer till NDA is lifted, I'm afraid
.
Closed beta for an old game? So they have testers testing their new payment systems? Everything has been around for years. Doesn't sound like there is anything exciting to find out.
Closed beta for an old game? So they have testers testing their new payment systems? Everything has been around for years. Doesn't sound like there is anything exciting to find out.
It's not an old game
. It's very experienced and carefully developed "unique D&D style" game, absolutely. It's not DDO: Stormereach, but DDO: Eberron Unlimited, a relaunch and that's going to make a difference. I mean, if you read the press about it already, you may get such impression (I'm not allowed to say anything else).
And beta is a great opportunity to make it much better, as all betas are meant for extensive development. No, it's not just "to test the store", as you can find out too if you delve deeper into it.
If you think it's going to go quiet and without broader notice, remember again that it's a closed beta under NDA. But it's no secret (press release) that Turbine invited thousands of people for this beta to date, and even first week was an unprecedented record of applies for beta / new subs for live game servers (old game).
Polish Sword Coast Legends Portal http://www.swordcoast.pl/
SwordCoast.pl Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SwordCoastPL/
SwordCoast.pl Twitter: https://twitter.com/SwordCoastPL
Polish Neverwinter Portal http://www.neverwinter.com.pl/
Polish D&D Online Portal http://www.ddopl.com
DDOpl Twitter: http://twitter.com/DDOpl
Great DDO PodCast by Jerry & co. http://www.ddocast.com
I like the idea that games ppl play on computer(MMORPG i am mentioning) becoming free..In the real world one would never pay to play a game of tennise or football... But we do put in an initial amount to buy the ball or racket.
So the question is NOT when F2P model or P2P model wil work!
But rather when does F2P come of age to take over 80-100% market share. That depends on the production houses also. But as gaming is a business unlike a game of foot ball in backyard... There wil alaways be market for both...
Westren players wil tend to go to P2P more than asian players(like me):P
I don't know where some of you guys are coming from but you're giving some odd examples. You're not looking at micromanagement as a game developer. If I was F2P game dev I would be interested for players who have money to buy items from my mall. It would allow me to support the game, since I would have money and it would also introduce items from Item Mall into the market. Spending limits would keep in game market from flooding with the item mall items and my account would always have constant income which would make me able to work on the game and make it more fun for players.
Another question if people with money would have advantage. PEOPLE WITH MONEY ALWAYS HAVE ADVANTAGE. No matter how you look at it. Its that simple.
If someone has money to spend in F2P game and get for example higher enchanted armor - similar situation is for people who don't have money to spend but they have time to play the game. I play the game for example for 2 hours a day and refine my armor to +8, the Bob plays the game 10 hours a day and he has enough money from grinding to refine his armor to +8 as well. He just needs to find a person who sells refining charms from the mall. Its just a small example of the balance between time and money.