Initially, I love the idea of playing new F2P games from 'The Cloud'. I know there are a lot of games out there that my clunky old E-Machine just can't handle, and letting The Cloud handle the processing and send me the results in a browser is an appealing idea. However, I've heard on the other side of the argument that browsers just aren't built to handle things like full games inside their framework. So perhaps some of these companies can collaborate in building a specialized browser designed for Cloud computing?
Cloud computing may be good if you have a unlimited cap. Streaming a game would be the same as streaming a FHD movie and will use a lot of cap... plus you will need a fast enough internet connection to do it.
f2p games aren't my thing only because I don't want to have to think about spending real money while playing a game. Let me pay my sub, know that all the players are on the same footing and I'm happy.
Still I think they should change the name from f2p (free-to-play) to ygwypf2p (you-get-what-you-pay-for-to-play) because despite the misleading name of the model which would lead one to think that the games require no money to play, supported perhaps by ad revenue, the games while technically free-to-play, are actually geared to get you to spend as much money as possible, with many spending more than 15 a month.
And its that basic underhandedness that also keeps me away.
I want to thank castorhos for his posts on this thread you totally took the words out of my mouth with what you wrote. If I see another article about these asian game developers patting themselves on the back for nickel and diming their playerbase to death and postulating how they will take over the total gaming market I am going to hurl.
If you like the microtransaction games go right ahead and play them but give it a break how that model is the only way to go moving forward. I have yet to play a microtansaction game that I thought wasn't total garbage but I know others feel that way about the sub based games that I play so I guess we're even then.
I enjoy F2P games. And I don't pay a dime for the cash shop items. Sure, if there's some celebration and the company gives players a few bits of item mall currency as a "Thank You", I'll use it. But I won't be opening up my wallet for that little Christmas-themed costume.
The notion that F2Ps are somehow cheating, or scamming, people is laughable. No one is putting a gun to the players' head and telling them they have to buy those things. And its not as if the game is unplayable without those items. Will you lvl as fast as the guy who shells out for those XP boost potions? No. But you'll still reach the same lvl as him. And hell, who's to say that the non-paying player won't put more time into the game and catch up, or pass, the CS junkie? Hardcore gamers will, naturally, shell out for any boost they can. Bully for them. Not every gamer is psyched to be the best of the best. Some just want to enjoy the ride to lvl cap.
Additionally, there's nothing wrong with the model of F2P. it's the games and the developers that really need to be looked at. A bad game is a bad game, at the end of the day. Whether you're paying $14.99 a month or $6 for that tuxedo. Until there's more quality games in the F2P market, the stigma is always going to be there, for most gamers. And that will be its biggest hurdle in 2010, or any year.
Hey, IMO the biggest problem with MMORPGs isn't the business model. It's the concept. An MMO is supposed to be about a large number of players doing stuff together, interacting in various ways. But since the launch of WoW the trend of nearly all MMOs is toward a solo experience. No problem at all going 1-80 solo in WoW. Lots more trouble trying to group. But a solo based game isn't an MMO, IMO.
I played Atlantica Online for a couple of months. Very nice game, enjoyed the novel turn based combat. Lots of tactics in planning your minions and so forth. I spent a couple bucks the whole time just to get some extra inventory space. Otherwise nothing. I paid a lot less than a box plus sub game and enjoyed it just as much; more than some. Excuse me if I am too ignorant to realize how unmercifully I was being scammed! What an idiot I was!
So why did I stop playing? Was it because the item mall was looming? Nope. Despite finding a nice Guild with helpful people I kept running into the problem of not being able to do the group content. And I didn't want to pass it over like I did in WoW for the most part. I got tired of it and quit, as I have in many other games. Early in the game at low levels you can do some of the group stuff because there are so many people around but as you level up people spread out and its tough.
It's a conundrum that I think threatens the whole field of MMOs. The thing is that if nobody really needs to group, it won't happen much. In EQ there was a ton of grouping, because if you didn't you had a tough job. Course, a lot of people didn't like that. So the MMOs have moved to worlds where hundreds of people play alongside each other, not with each other. Because they make more money that way. Think WoW would have 10m subs if there was limited solo content?
They should rename them to MSORPG..... massive solo online rpg. And it can be fun, but it's not an MMO.
No, I am not afraid of FTP (or subs) or bad games or bad game companies. The junk will die of its own weight. But I am afraid that money says that no one can make a business case to make a game that requires cooperative play, so that most crucial component of the quintessential MMO experience is rapidly becoming a fading memory.
(I apologize. I can't help adding that it is a bit insulting to hear that I just don't "understand" what FTP really means, I am either stupid or duped I guess, neither very flattering. I can't imagine ANYONE posting in this forum doesn't know about FTPs. Really.)
I tried out the whole micro transaction deal with EA and it didn't go so well. End result is that I'd probably much rather pay a subscription fee then any shitty F2P balance issue piece of shit, low graphic, low budge, B rated horse diarrhea of a game ever again.
Oh did I mention EA was the company that turned me off ?
F2P isn't F2P. I could get a pirated game that's more F2P with better graphic and balance and player interaction then these low budget so called F2P games.
When I read F2P I expect more problems then when I'm a actual subscriber to a game.
Lesson from 2009 is, never play a F2P game ever again.
It will be helpful for anyone thinking about trying the game to have an understanding of what has gone before. The story line was good, especialy Prophesies ( first GW).
I think that if they stay, as promised, with the same game flavor it will be hugely successful.
There are some that would never play FtP because they feel support/content/ qualiyty will suffer. Ohers feel they have paid and want the game and all that entails, free.
Either way, the game ....any game, must be profitable. For a FTP this means microtransactions. If these micros degenerate to buying items that give a huge in-game advantage it will ultimatly fail? Dunno but I'm gone at that point.
Gw micros didn't give any items not available in game. I played from early on and had already gotten most of what was available but would have no problem dropping a few more dollars. When compared with a P2P@ $15/month X 12 months=$180/year its was a bargain.
Playing AIon and tried Wow, LoTR to name a few recent ones and don't give a flip if its PtP or FtP as long as I enjoy the game.
I can name at least one game where you don't have to spend 1 cent from beginning to end and that is Runes Of Magic, most of the stuff they sell are fluff items, and nothing that would giver a an edge over another, heck the xp pots you get for free in game are better than the ones you can buy in the item shop.
and in theory you can play all of DDO for free, but not without an metric ton of grinding
although I will agree with you on the fact you can spend more money on a f2p game with a item shop, then you would in subscription fees I know I have done it . however that is the appeal of some of the f2p games, you can decide how much, when or if you want to spend any money on the game.
I wish more games gave you a choice between subscription or f2p like DDO dose, I like the fact , if I am going to have a lot of time I can spend in game and have the extra 15 buck a month I can subscribe, and on the months I am strapped for cash or have only a little time for the game, I can go f2p and still be able to play .
Basically, if I really like the game, I don't mind giving the developers of said game my money, weather it be through an item shop, subscription fee, or buying an expansion pack.
Frankly I wish I could be surprised by some of the responses here. I get why many people don't like F2P games, but I don't understand why so many seem to HATE them. If 2009 has taught us anything it's not that F2P models are crap, it's that the business model of an MMO does not, in ANY way, determine quality. How many times does the subscription model have to strike out before people stop assuming it's the only way to ensure a quality game. It's not.
If a F2P game lets you down, you wasted your time. If a P2P game lets you down, you wasted your time and money. How is that better?
If anything, I'd think the recent upset of 2009 will have given people more of a reason to try some of the F2P games. Hell, games like Spellborne and Allods are incredibly well made games, but were never really given a chance. There's also GW and (hopefully soon) GW2 coming out. I have seen nothing from a P2P, that I haven't been able to find a good replica of in the F2P model. Sure, there may be a done of crappy F2P games, but there are also a ton of crappy P2P games atm as well. It's not business model dependent. They both make money.
I have said it before and will say it again....The free to play no item shop that was Guild Wars before the store is the model that will work and will profit from (not that the store is bad i enjoy it for what it is)....50-60$ dollars for the game, gives box sales to the devs and helps them push out the first expansion (players feel great as they are getting a good online experience with no monthly fee. The Company behind the game then must push out expansions for around 30-40$ a box (this however to cut costs to the company may be done all online). Cheaper then a 15$ a month sub fee but players are happy and the company doesn't lose when someone quits for a while. Expansion always have a tendency to bring a few players back and new content keeps those around who have stayed with the game. this allows flexabiliy for the player who opts to not buy the expansion but puts limits on them when they do not (giving them a push t buy it anyway). Example is the Nightfall expansion/standalone game from (yeah you know it.) Arena Net for Guild Wars. it introdunceda new story and a new mechanic to help those who prefer to solo through the game. Player don't need the skills to compete in PvP and can still play through the games they already own but the population will shify and groups will be harder to find thus causing more soloing which would be easier if you had the Heroes Given buy NF.
In the end i believe this model will do better then the box sale plus 15 a month and will destroy the Item mall model (In the West of course)
I dont know why many people still claims that F2P games are not free. I have played Runes of Magic, DDO, Atlantica, Dekaron and never used any money in those games. Yes im a casual player so I dont need the stuff that makes me competetive. But I guess its not easy to get competetive in most P2P without spending a lot of time or real money besides the subscription fee. Please also refer to this www.mmorpg.com/blogs/staffblog/122009/5494
Because 90% of MMORPG population are diehard P2P fanbois and are scared that F2P is getting better than there beloved subscription based Crap. So they belittle it to make themselves feel better and more elitist i guess.All the while never playing any F2P games or have played 1 or 2 bad ones and Stereotype the rest.
That said F2P have come miles compared to the old models and Sub games have stagnated.
Games i've played where you can be awesome and never need to spend 1 dollar in game.
Perfect World, Runes of Magic, Ether Saga Online etc
I'm currently trialing Allods Online at the moment and its really a step up from most gpotatoes games (i have played nearly all of them) its fresh and actually fun has a few bugs but its in beta.
P2P people can keep bashing these games all they want but sooner or later they'll see there game for what it is... a waste of money.
P.s. Guildwars (while a awesome game i have all of the games+ Expansions) isn't a F2P game its B2P model Buy to Play.
F2P is the same as P2P or even purchase through initial box sale to me. Recycled slowly homogenizing mainstay, with the aberrant novelty design in a game that pushes the boundaries just enough to generally seem creative and make people wonder 'what if' without actually achieving much of anything and inevitably falling by the wayside due to lack of popularity, lack of budget, and lack of any real innovation due to the speed of innovations being slow enough that any other game type likely released a game with the same mechanics at least a year prior to any MMO ever could.
In the conversations I've had in general and the developers corner as well as some of my PM's, I feel secure in making the assertion that MMOs will never and can never be innovative. On top of that, most developers simply aren't capable of actually being innovative.
We've seen procedurally made worlds, creatures that mutate and evolve physically/visually and in terms of AI, player built towns, cities, and civilizations, player driven economies, physics based environmental chaos and destruction, dynamic quests, etc. We've seen them in single player games for many years now. We've seen them in some multi player games. We've seen them mashed up in MMOs.
What we have seen from the MMO market, is a proliferation of the same ideas that the rest of the gaming world struck upon on the upscale of ten years ago, finally making it's way into the design of MMO games. What we are seeing is a market that is too slow at producing anything, matching the efforts and designs of things that for all extensive purposes can most readily be described as 'old hat'.
The only thing the MMO market can possibly claim as innovation is the F2P and P2P business model. This is only because of the condition that MMOs generate as an intended long term revenue stream, and even that fails more often than not as offering after offering of game releases, regardless of where they come from in the world, is all based on the same fundamental methods of game design as it was when DOOM was first made.
Bit of a generalization, as I'm aware of a few neat mechanics and engines that have been done/made before and are creeping up, but that just goes back to my remark on popularity, funding, and speed of implementation/innovation.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Meanwhile, Lee envisages another factor already evident in the market gaining more momentum, namely increased participation by major publishers. "I think we will see some of the large industry players get more involved in the F2P sector in 2010," he states. To support this prediction, he points to recent history including EA's purchase of major social game developer Playfish, its release of Battlefield Heroes, and SOE's launch of Free Realms. While not offering any reasons, he mentions Ubisoft as a possible new entrant.
I wouldn't point at SOE's Free Realms as an indicator of growth in the F2P market.
They launched, cried "success" but refused to give any evidence of it (i.e. profit, number of subscribers) and then laid off 5% of their staff.
DDO is less of a free to play game than most, it still has a strong subscription element to it. Besides, it wasn't very good as a subscription game, it still isn't very good as a free to play game, if anything it is worse because of the dumbing down of it over the years. Looking at true micro transaction games, they are already very strong and profitable in the North American market, and for example I would point you towards Second Life and Project Entropia. They may not be true MMO games, but they are using the business model many here don't like. As for real MMO games coming out in 2010, there are only two that are looking to show any real promise. The first is Allod, developed by a Russian company and essentially taking many of the good qualities from World of Warcraft and implementing them in a free to play game, and ultimately it stands a very good chance of remaining free as at this time there is nothing in the shop that can adversely affect gameplay and therefore require you to purchase from it. The second is Earth Eternal, developed by an American company it takes everything you love about traditional MMOs and squeezes it into the smallest client possible, whilst keeping it 3D. Sure it looks a little childish, but the game requires more thought and skill to play than WOW, WAR or LOTRO! What concerns me though is that you have Facebook games that have tens of millions of users, I really hope that these games don't detract from real MMOs. I have nothing against them, but I'd hate for a developer to cancel an MMO and start working on some mindless Facebook application instead.
That seemed to be a very opinionated reply, Don't agree 100%.
Guild Wars has to be the Best F2P game I have seen. DDO may not have started as a F2P, but their version of F2P should set a standard. As far as it being good or bad, thats opinionated once again. I personaly think that the way its set up confuses some and drives them away befor they actualy tried it. As far as Devs leaving to make Facebook games, I have no Idea were that came from.
F2P with the Option of Sub, is the way it should go. Buy the content you wish to add. Subs get it for free. Great concept. don't need it to play the game or advance as high as any one else, but added content makes it more fun.
Guild Wars isn't free to play. I know it doesn't have a monthly fee, but it's still an initial purchase - for the game, and each expansion pack. F2P MMO doesn't require an initial purchase *and* it has no monthly sub. The only money spent is via an Item Mall which the player has the choice of spending money in or not.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
A moderately interesting read. Naturally, if you are asking the developers/sellers of the F2P segment you will get a brightly painted future laid out for said retail model. It's just the nature of the beast. If they didn't believe they could make a buck with this, they wouldn't be in the business. Stands to reason, doesn't it?
It remains to be seen if they can really deliver a worthwhile gaming experience. I have yet to find a F2P which I would consider fun to play. And while that doesn't mean that it's not possible to be, I remain skeptical.
But then again, the current situation may be just the right environment for F2P. Maybe even the only time where such a model can prosper at all. With the established P2P big players being as averse new concepts, ideas or quality control as they are these days, why not try to cash in on that? It's not particular hard to come up with a generic whack-the-mob multiplayer game these days apparently. Add PvP for added value. Quite a few players are more than happy just to bash each others heads in, if you just put them in a virtual room and give them some virtual weapons to do so. No AI scripting, gameplay, 'Story' or 'Adventure' beyond that necessary. Though providing some flimsy excuse or reward for all this bashing is considered proper courtesy.
Wielding the phrase: 'it will be like UO (pre-Trammel of course)' is heralded as the mark of the innovative nowadays. I for one fail to see the innovation in rehashing 20 years old, discredited ideas. Nowadays i like to think of gamers as the social inept mushrooms of the species. We are kept in the dark and are fed with shit, we thrive on it and scream for more.
We should all remember that we should not spend time or money on a game until we have received full approval from the Poltically Correct Gaming Commission. It's not our choice to make, how silly to let that slip.
I take all my comments back and will give myself a time out for violating the most fundamental of gaming rules. Mea Culpa.
I just dont get the f2p stuff. yes F2P unless you want all the extra and get nickled and dimed to death.
1. Well, I am not being nickled and dimed to death, and there are several other posters who claim the same thing in this forum. I have played a lot of them, a few for some time, and have a total outlay of less than one months sub to WoW. Why do you insist that that has to be the case?
2...if by some miracle the game play and community of some yet to be produced ftp game was really great, I would argue it is my business to be allowed to spend, say, $100 a month of my money, if that is what it took, to enjoy what I want to do. Which is less than going to dinner a couple of times.
In the halcyon days of EQ, I would have paid a lot more than $15 a month. But haven't had that experience since, sub or ftp.
You know, it's not about "hating" the F2P model....it's about not liking it and not wanting to see it take over a market where many of us are already happy with the subscription model.
It's about being able to have that opinion without blowhards like the OP constantly screaming that we are either anti-asian bigots or mental cases in "serious denial".
It's about wondering why someone writing a column everytime a F2P company breaks wind is getting headliner treatment at the same time this site is overrun with F2P advertisement.
If you like F2P games, fine; enjoy them; just drop the jihad to convert the rest of us.
I feel bad every time GW is called a F2P MMO. First it isn't a MMO (the original Guild Wars), second it isn't F2P, otherwise you could call every single-player game out there F2P, which I guess you could with some concept stretching as it is already done with item mall based MMOs.
Originally posted by Giddian That seemed to be a very opinionated reply, Don't agree 100%. Guild Wars has to be the Best F2P game I have seen. DDO may not have started as a F2P, but their version of F2P should set a standard. As far as it being good or bad, thats opinionated once again. I personaly think that the way its set up confuses some and drives them away befor they actualy tried it. As far as Devs leaving to make Facebook games, I have no Idea were that came from. F2P with the Option of Sub, is the way it should go. Buy the content you wish to add. Subs get it for free. Great concept. don't need it to play the game or advance as high as any one else, but added content makes it more fun.
It seems that people have very funny concepts about F2P.
It could easily be stated the WAR, AOC or even to a limited extend WoW are F2P... but that Guild Wars is P2P.
F2P or P2P only comes into effect at the initial point of sale. If you can get the game (and an account to play it with ) for Free, then you have met the requirements for F2P. Guild Wars is the EXACT OPPOSITE of this, where you HAVE to pay upfront.
Once you get past the initial purchase, you have many options. This includes monthly fees, microtransactions, advertisement, limited acess, etc... but all of these can apply to a F2P or P2P game, because they are just the way money is made after the 'free'. Most new games are offering hybrid payment options, that include multiple of these, so that they can get the advantages of each.
I dont know why many people still claims that F2P games are not free. I have played Runes of Magic, DDO, Atlantica, Dekaron and never used any money in those games. Yes im a casual player so I dont need the stuff that makes me competetive. But I guess its not easy to get competetive in most P2P without spending a lot of time or real money besides the subscription fee. Please also refer to this www.mmorpg.com/blogs/staffblog/122009/5494
Because 90% of MMORPG population are diehard P2P fanbois and are scared that F2P is getting better than there beloved subscription based Crap. So they belittle it to make themselves feel better and more elitist i guess.All the while never playing any F2P games or have played 1 or 2 bad ones and Stereotype the rest.
That said F2P have come miles compared to the old models and Sub games have stagnated.
Games i've played where you can be awesome and never need to spend 1 dollar in game.
Perfect World, Runes of Magic, Ether Saga Online etc
I'm currently trialing Allods Online at the moment and its really a step up from most gpotatoes games (i have played nearly all of them) its fresh and actually fun has a few bugs but its in beta.
P2P people can keep bashing these games all they want but sooner or later they'll see there game for what it is... a waste of money.
P.s. Guildwars (while a awesome game i have all of the games+ Expansions) isn't a F2P game its B2P model Buy to Play.
i was very much into f2p mmos for a good amount of time, nowadays i still get my fair of it. but seriously.. in the end you will open your eyes and see that 95% of those mmos are of bad to mediocre quality and to make matters worse a good amount of those games offer an item mall thats a pay2win machine. I played Perfect World and Runes of Magic, and unless you are into PvE hardcore grinding the games offer nothing if you dont want to use the item mall. If you REALLY like a game you want to accomplish something, but you wont achieve anything in PvP if you dont use the item mall.
How can you call P2P a waste of money? You havent mentioned anything to support this.
PS: column started with stating that "Except for anyone who is stuck in denial or a hermit" you would agree that 2009 was a good year for f2p. Really is this even necessary? I agree with 2009 being a good year but i would only use that sentence in a blog to give the finger to a certain group of members on this site.
Wow, while I find Aihoshi's endless praise of F2P games obnoxious, some of the negative posts in here are stupid. "I would never play a f2p game" "You cannot find a single F2P game where you can be competitive without paying money."
1)It's not always about being directly competitive.
2)Yeah you can. I'm playing Dungeon Fighter Online right now, and most of the stuff you can buy is supplementary PVE stuff. More revive tokens or HP items. The only thing that affects pvp are the avatar items that have stats on them, but those are sold in the trade channel for rather large quantities of gold. It's not very hard to get some of those items through doing end game dungeons.
And simply put, Dungeon Fighter Online is more fun than WoW. Why? Because it is a beatemup with a good degree of depth, so leveling via PvE is vastly more enjoyable than "Kill 10 x" quests on WoW because combat is more than just "Get a jump on the enemy and hammer cooldowns." Normal leveling combat is simply a lot more stimulating. WoW could perhaps catch up with 10-18 DFO or 25+ DFO when you are in outlands and level 60+, but it still ends up being much, much more boring of an actual game.
You can easily get to level 10 within 3 hours, where you will have a satisfying # of abilities and the game is fun. After you advance to your subclass(level 18) and restart your build, it is definitely superior to WoW for most classes by 25. Northrend has some good quests, but I would much rather play the last 10 levels(30-40) in PvE on DFO.
The American version used to have terrible grind, actually 3 times worse than the korean version at max level.(The korean version was actually quite reasonable for..well, a korean game). Level 39-40 was 12 million in the old american version, 4 million in the korean version, and now 2.9 million. So if you've heard bad things about the grind, it is a lot more reasonable now, so getting from 18(When you have to reset your build for the long-term and usually end up with less abilities than before) to 25(When most subclasses will be quite entertaining again) is less than 10 hours, much better than WoW's "Hi, you have to spend dozens of hours before leveling combat is largely entertaining."
While I hate the random avatar token BS and nexon in general, there is no arbitrary requirement that F2P games are inherently worse than ones with subscription fees, and no, the rather obnoxious money model does not really prevent you from enjoying the game thoroughly, or even being competitive in PvP. Avatar buffs help a lot, but knowing how to play will win you quite a few matches over the better equipped. The game is similar to a fighting game in that proper spacing, combos, mind games etc will matter a lot more than oh no my character has 800 health and his has 1000. And again, people will sell avatar items for gold.
Most Asian F2P games are utter trash, but it's hardly a rule despite what some bull-headed people think.
Comments
Cloud computing may be good if you have a unlimited cap. Streaming a game would be the same as streaming a FHD movie and will use a lot of cap... plus you will need a fast enough internet connection to do it.
f2p games aren't my thing only because I don't want to have to think about spending real money while playing a game. Let me pay my sub, know that all the players are on the same footing and I'm happy.
Still I think they should change the name from f2p (free-to-play) to ygwypf2p (you-get-what-you-pay-for-to-play) because despite the misleading name of the model which would lead one to think that the games require no money to play, supported perhaps by ad revenue, the games while technically free-to-play, are actually geared to get you to spend as much money as possible, with many spending more than 15 a month.
And its that basic underhandedness that also keeps me away.
I want to thank castorhos for his posts on this thread you totally took the words out of my mouth with what you wrote. If I see another article about these asian game developers patting themselves on the back for nickel and diming their playerbase to death and postulating how they will take over the total gaming market I am going to hurl.
If you like the microtransaction games go right ahead and play them but give it a break how that model is the only way to go moving forward. I have yet to play a microtansaction game that I thought wasn't total garbage but I know others feel that way about the sub based games that I play so I guess we're even then.
Hey, IMO the biggest problem with MMORPGs isn't the business model. It's the concept. An MMO is supposed to be about a large number of players doing stuff together, interacting in various ways. But since the launch of WoW the trend of nearly all MMOs is toward a solo experience. No problem at all going 1-80 solo in WoW. Lots more trouble trying to group. But a solo based game isn't an MMO, IMO.
I played Atlantica Online for a couple of months. Very nice game, enjoyed the novel turn based combat. Lots of tactics in planning your minions and so forth. I spent a couple bucks the whole time just to get some extra inventory space. Otherwise nothing. I paid a lot less than a box plus sub game and enjoyed it just as much; more than some. Excuse me if I am too ignorant to realize how unmercifully I was being scammed! What an idiot I was!
So why did I stop playing? Was it because the item mall was looming? Nope. Despite finding a nice Guild with helpful people I kept running into the problem of not being able to do the group content. And I didn't want to pass it over like I did in WoW for the most part. I got tired of it and quit, as I have in many other games. Early in the game at low levels you can do some of the group stuff because there are so many people around but as you level up people spread out and its tough.
It's a conundrum that I think threatens the whole field of MMOs. The thing is that if nobody really needs to group, it won't happen much. In EQ there was a ton of grouping, because if you didn't you had a tough job. Course, a lot of people didn't like that. So the MMOs have moved to worlds where hundreds of people play alongside each other, not with each other. Because they make more money that way. Think WoW would have 10m subs if there was limited solo content?
They should rename them to MSORPG..... massive solo online rpg. And it can be fun, but it's not an MMO.
No, I am not afraid of FTP (or subs) or bad games or bad game companies. The junk will die of its own weight. But I am afraid that money says that no one can make a business case to make a game that requires cooperative play, so that most crucial component of the quintessential MMO experience is rapidly becoming a fading memory.
(I apologize. I can't help adding that it is a bit insulting to hear that I just don't "understand" what FTP really means, I am either stupid or duped I guess, neither very flattering. I can't imagine ANYONE posting in this forum doesn't know about FTPs. Really.)
---------------------------
Rose-lipped maidens,
Light-foot lads...
I tried out the whole micro transaction deal with EA and it didn't go so well. End result is that I'd probably much rather pay a subscription fee then any shitty F2P balance issue piece of shit, low graphic, low budge, B rated horse diarrhea of a game ever again.
Oh did I mention EA was the company that turned me off ?
F2P isn't F2P. I could get a pirated game that's more F2P with better graphic and balance and player interaction then these low budget so called F2P games.
When I read F2P I expect more problems then when I'm a actual subscriber to a game.
Lesson from 2009 is, never play a F2P game ever again.
FUCK FREE 2 PLAY !
Let the flames begin
My 2 cents worth.
Actually, no.
The new GW takes place 250 years in the future. The dragons are awake now!! Its also a persistant world with 5 playable races.
http://www.guildwars2.com/en/
It will be helpful for anyone thinking about trying the game to have an understanding of what has gone before. The story line was good, especialy Prophesies ( first GW).
I think that if they stay, as promised, with the same game flavor it will be hugely successful.
There are some that would never play FtP because they feel support/content/ qualiyty will suffer. Ohers feel they have paid and want the game and all that entails, free.
Either way, the game ....any game, must be profitable. For a FTP this means microtransactions. If these micros degenerate to buying items that give a huge in-game advantage it will ultimatly fail? Dunno but I'm gone at that point.
Gw micros didn't give any items not available in game. I played from early on and had already gotten most of what was available but would have no problem dropping a few more dollars. When compared with a P2P@ $15/month X 12 months=$180/year its was a bargain.
Playing AIon and tried Wow, LoTR to name a few recent ones and don't give a flip if its PtP or FtP as long as I enjoy the game.
I can name at least one game where you don't have to spend 1 cent from beginning to end and that is Runes Of Magic, most of the stuff they sell are fluff items, and nothing that would giver a an edge over another, heck the xp pots you get for free in game are better than the ones you can buy in the item shop.
and in theory you can play all of DDO for free, but not without an metric ton of grinding
although I will agree with you on the fact you can spend more money on a f2p game with a item shop, then you would in subscription fees I know I have done it . however that is the appeal of some of the f2p games, you can decide how much, when or if you want to spend any money on the game.
I wish more games gave you a choice between subscription or f2p like DDO dose, I like the fact , if I am going to have a lot of time I can spend in game and have the extra 15 buck a month I can subscribe, and on the months I am strapped for cash or have only a little time for the game, I can go f2p and still be able to play .
Basically, if I really like the game, I don't mind giving the developers of said game my money, weather it be through an item shop, subscription fee, or buying an expansion pack.
Frankly I wish I could be surprised by some of the responses here. I get why many people don't like F2P games, but I don't understand why so many seem to HATE them. If 2009 has taught us anything it's not that F2P models are crap, it's that the business model of an MMO does not, in ANY way, determine quality. How many times does the subscription model have to strike out before people stop assuming it's the only way to ensure a quality game. It's not.
If a F2P game lets you down, you wasted your time. If a P2P game lets you down, you wasted your time and money. How is that better?
If anything, I'd think the recent upset of 2009 will have given people more of a reason to try some of the F2P games. Hell, games like Spellborne and Allods are incredibly well made games, but were never really given a chance. There's also GW and (hopefully soon) GW2 coming out. I have seen nothing from a P2P, that I haven't been able to find a good replica of in the F2P model. Sure, there may be a done of crappy F2P games, but there are also a ton of crappy P2P games atm as well. It's not business model dependent. They both make money.
I have said it before and will say it again....The free to play no item shop that was Guild Wars before the store is the model that will work and will profit from (not that the store is bad i enjoy it for what it is)....50-60$ dollars for the game, gives box sales to the devs and helps them push out the first expansion (players feel great as they are getting a good online experience with no monthly fee. The Company behind the game then must push out expansions for around 30-40$ a box (this however to cut costs to the company may be done all online). Cheaper then a 15$ a month sub fee but players are happy and the company doesn't lose when someone quits for a while. Expansion always have a tendency to bring a few players back and new content keeps those around who have stayed with the game. this allows flexabiliy for the player who opts to not buy the expansion but puts limits on them when they do not (giving them a push t buy it anyway). Example is the Nightfall expansion/standalone game from (yeah you know it.) Arena Net for Guild Wars. it introdunceda new story and a new mechanic to help those who prefer to solo through the game. Player don't need the skills to compete in PvP and can still play through the games they already own but the population will shify and groups will be harder to find thus causing more soloing which would be easier if you had the Heroes Given buy NF.
In the end i believe this model will do better then the box sale plus 15 a month and will destroy the Item mall model (In the West of course)
Because 90% of MMORPG population are diehard P2P fanbois and are scared that F2P is getting better than there beloved subscription based Crap. So they belittle it to make themselves feel better and more elitist i guess.All the while never playing any F2P games or have played 1 or 2 bad ones and Stereotype the rest.
That said F2P have come miles compared to the old models and Sub games have stagnated.
Games i've played where you can be awesome and never need to spend 1 dollar in game.
Perfect World, Runes of Magic, Ether Saga Online etc
I'm currently trialing Allods Online at the moment and its really a step up from most gpotatoes games (i have played nearly all of them) its fresh and actually fun has a few bugs but its in beta.
P2P people can keep bashing these games all they want but sooner or later they'll see there game for what it is... a waste of money.
P.s. Guildwars (while a awesome game i have all of the games+ Expansions) isn't a F2P game its B2P model Buy to Play.
F2P is not a genre of MMO's, it is a revenue model, which produces poor quality games not worthy of this site.
F2P is the same as P2P or even purchase through initial box sale to me. Recycled slowly homogenizing mainstay, with the aberrant novelty design in a game that pushes the boundaries just enough to generally seem creative and make people wonder 'what if' without actually achieving much of anything and inevitably falling by the wayside due to lack of popularity, lack of budget, and lack of any real innovation due to the speed of innovations being slow enough that any other game type likely released a game with the same mechanics at least a year prior to any MMO ever could.
In the conversations I've had in general and the developers corner as well as some of my PM's, I feel secure in making the assertion that MMOs will never and can never be innovative. On top of that, most developers simply aren't capable of actually being innovative.
We've seen procedurally made worlds, creatures that mutate and evolve physically/visually and in terms of AI, player built towns, cities, and civilizations, player driven economies, physics based environmental chaos and destruction, dynamic quests, etc. We've seen them in single player games for many years now. We've seen them in some multi player games. We've seen them mashed up in MMOs.
What we have seen from the MMO market, is a proliferation of the same ideas that the rest of the gaming world struck upon on the upscale of ten years ago, finally making it's way into the design of MMO games. What we are seeing is a market that is too slow at producing anything, matching the efforts and designs of things that for all extensive purposes can most readily be described as 'old hat'.
The only thing the MMO market can possibly claim as innovation is the F2P and P2P business model. This is only because of the condition that MMOs generate as an intended long term revenue stream, and even that fails more often than not as offering after offering of game releases, regardless of where they come from in the world, is all based on the same fundamental methods of game design as it was when DOOM was first made.
Bit of a generalization, as I'm aware of a few neat mechanics and engines that have been done/made before and are creeping up, but that just goes back to my remark on popularity, funding, and speed of implementation/innovation.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
By Richard Aihoshi on January 04, 2010
Meanwhile, Lee envisages another factor already evident in the market gaining more momentum, namely increased participation by major publishers. "I think we will see some of the large industry players get more involved in the F2P sector in 2010," he states. To support this prediction, he points to recent history including EA's purchase of major social game developer Playfish, its release of Battlefield Heroes, and SOE's launch of Free Realms. While not offering any reasons, he mentions Ubisoft as a possible new entrant.
I wouldn't point at SOE's Free Realms as an indicator of growth in the F2P market.
They launched, cried "success" but refused to give any evidence of it (i.e. profit, number of subscribers) and then laid off 5% of their staff.
Yeah, that's super positive...
That seemed to be a very opinionated reply, Don't agree 100%.
Guild Wars has to be the Best F2P game I have seen. DDO may not have started as a F2P, but their version of F2P should set a standard. As far as it being good or bad, thats opinionated once again. I personaly think that the way its set up confuses some and drives them away befor they actualy tried it. As far as Devs leaving to make Facebook games, I have no Idea were that came from.
F2P with the Option of Sub, is the way it should go. Buy the content you wish to add. Subs get it for free. Great concept. don't need it to play the game or advance as high as any one else, but added content makes it more fun.
Guild Wars isn't free to play. I know it doesn't have a monthly fee, but it's still an initial purchase - for the game, and each expansion pack. F2P MMO doesn't require an initial purchase *and* it has no monthly sub. The only money spent is via an Item Mall which the player has the choice of spending money in or not.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
A moderately interesting read. Naturally, if you are asking the developers/sellers of the F2P segment you will get a brightly painted future laid out for said retail model. It's just the nature of the beast. If they didn't believe they could make a buck with this, they wouldn't be in the business. Stands to reason, doesn't it?
It remains to be seen if they can really deliver a worthwhile gaming experience. I have yet to find a F2P which I would consider fun to play. And while that doesn't mean that it's not possible to be, I remain skeptical.
But then again, the current situation may be just the right environment for F2P. Maybe even the only time where such a model can prosper at all. With the established P2P big players being as averse new concepts, ideas or quality control as they are these days, why not try to cash in on that? It's not particular hard to come up with a generic whack-the-mob multiplayer game these days apparently. Add PvP for added value. Quite a few players are more than happy just to bash each others heads in, if you just put them in a virtual room and give them some virtual weapons to do so. No AI scripting, gameplay, 'Story' or 'Adventure' beyond that necessary. Though providing some flimsy excuse or reward for all this bashing is considered proper courtesy.
Wielding the phrase: 'it will be like UO (pre-Trammel of course)' is heralded as the mark of the innovative nowadays. I for one fail to see the innovation in rehashing 20 years old, discredited ideas. Nowadays i like to think of gamers as the social inept mushrooms of the species. We are kept in the dark and are fed with shit, we thrive on it and scream for more.
I have been forgetting myself.
We should all remember that we should not spend time or money on a game until we have received full approval from the Poltically Correct Gaming Commission. It's not our choice to make, how silly to let that slip.
I take all my comments back and will give myself a time out for violating the most fundamental of gaming rules. Mea Culpa.
---------------------------
Rose-lipped maidens,
Light-foot lads...
I just dont get the f2p stuff. yes F2P unless you want all the extra and get nickled and dimed to death.
1. Well, I am not being nickled and dimed to death, and there are several other posters who claim the same thing in this forum. I have played a lot of them, a few for some time, and have a total outlay of less than one months sub to WoW. Why do you insist that that has to be the case?
2...if by some miracle the game play and community of some yet to be produced ftp game was really great, I would argue it is my business to be allowed to spend, say, $100 a month of my money, if that is what it took, to enjoy what I want to do. Which is less than going to dinner a couple of times.
In the halcyon days of EQ, I would have paid a lot more than $15 a month. But haven't had that experience since, sub or ftp.
---------------------------
Rose-lipped maidens,
Light-foot lads...
You know, it's not about "hating" the F2P model....it's about not liking it and not wanting to see it take over a market where many of us are already happy with the subscription model.
It's about being able to have that opinion without blowhards like the OP constantly screaming that we are either anti-asian bigots or mental cases in "serious denial".
It's about wondering why someone writing a column everytime a F2P company breaks wind is getting headliner treatment at the same time this site is overrun with F2P advertisement.
If you like F2P games, fine; enjoy them; just drop the jihad to convert the rest of us.
I feel bad every time GW is called a F2P MMO. First it isn't a MMO (the original Guild Wars), second it isn't F2P, otherwise you could call every single-player game out there F2P, which I guess you could with some concept stretching as it is already done with item mall based MMOs.
It seems that people have very funny concepts about F2P.
It could easily be stated the WAR, AOC or even to a limited extend WoW are F2P... but that Guild Wars is P2P.
F2P or P2P only comes into effect at the initial point of sale. If you can get the game (and an account to play it with ) for Free, then you have met the requirements for F2P. Guild Wars is the EXACT OPPOSITE of this, where you HAVE to pay upfront.
Once you get past the initial purchase, you have many options. This includes monthly fees, microtransactions, advertisement, limited acess, etc... but all of these can apply to a F2P or P2P game, because they are just the way money is made after the 'free'. Most new games are offering hybrid payment options, that include multiple of these, so that they can get the advantages of each.
Because 90% of MMORPG population are diehard P2P fanbois and are scared that F2P is getting better than there beloved subscription based Crap. So they belittle it to make themselves feel better and more elitist i guess.All the while never playing any F2P games or have played 1 or 2 bad ones and Stereotype the rest.
That said F2P have come miles compared to the old models and Sub games have stagnated.
Games i've played where you can be awesome and never need to spend 1 dollar in game.
Perfect World, Runes of Magic, Ether Saga Online etc
I'm currently trialing Allods Online at the moment and its really a step up from most gpotatoes games (i have played nearly all of them) its fresh and actually fun has a few bugs but its in beta.
P2P people can keep bashing these games all they want but sooner or later they'll see there game for what it is... a waste of money.
P.s. Guildwars (while a awesome game i have all of the games+ Expansions) isn't a F2P game its B2P model Buy to Play.
i was very much into f2p mmos for a good amount of time, nowadays i still get my fair of it. but seriously.. in the end you will open your eyes and see that 95% of those mmos are of bad to mediocre quality and to make matters worse a good amount of those games offer an item mall thats a pay2win machine. I played Perfect World and Runes of Magic, and unless you are into PvE hardcore grinding the games offer nothing if you dont want to use the item mall. If you REALLY like a game you want to accomplish something, but you wont achieve anything in PvP if you dont use the item mall.
How can you call P2P a waste of money? You havent mentioned anything to support this.
PS: column started with stating that "Except for anyone who is stuck in denial or a hermit" you would agree that 2009 was a good year for f2p. Really is this even necessary? I agree with 2009 being a good year but i would only use that sentence in a blog to give the finger to a certain group of members on this site.
Wow, while I find Aihoshi's endless praise of F2P games obnoxious, some of the negative posts in here are stupid. "I would never play a f2p game" "You cannot find a single F2P game where you can be competitive without paying money."
1)It's not always about being directly competitive.
2)Yeah you can. I'm playing Dungeon Fighter Online right now, and most of the stuff you can buy is supplementary PVE stuff. More revive tokens or HP items. The only thing that affects pvp are the avatar items that have stats on them, but those are sold in the trade channel for rather large quantities of gold. It's not very hard to get some of those items through doing end game dungeons.
And simply put, Dungeon Fighter Online is more fun than WoW. Why? Because it is a beatemup with a good degree of depth, so leveling via PvE is vastly more enjoyable than "Kill 10 x" quests on WoW because combat is more than just "Get a jump on the enemy and hammer cooldowns." Normal leveling combat is simply a lot more stimulating. WoW could perhaps catch up with 10-18 DFO or 25+ DFO when you are in outlands and level 60+, but it still ends up being much, much more boring of an actual game.
You can easily get to level 10 within 3 hours, where you will have a satisfying # of abilities and the game is fun. After you advance to your subclass(level 18) and restart your build, it is definitely superior to WoW for most classes by 25. Northrend has some good quests, but I would much rather play the last 10 levels(30-40) in PvE on DFO.
The American version used to have terrible grind, actually 3 times worse than the korean version at max level.(The korean version was actually quite reasonable for..well, a korean game). Level 39-40 was 12 million in the old american version, 4 million in the korean version, and now 2.9 million. So if you've heard bad things about the grind, it is a lot more reasonable now, so getting from 18(When you have to reset your build for the long-term and usually end up with less abilities than before) to 25(When most subclasses will be quite entertaining again) is less than 10 hours, much better than WoW's "Hi, you have to spend dozens of hours before leveling combat is largely entertaining."
While I hate the random avatar token BS and nexon in general, there is no arbitrary requirement that F2P games are inherently worse than ones with subscription fees, and no, the rather obnoxious money model does not really prevent you from enjoying the game thoroughly, or even being competitive in PvP. Avatar buffs help a lot, but knowing how to play will win you quite a few matches over the better equipped. The game is similar to a fighting game in that proper spacing, combos, mind games etc will matter a lot more than oh no my character has 800 health and his has 1000. And again, people will sell avatar items for gold.
Most Asian F2P games are utter trash, but it's hardly a rule despite what some bull-headed people think.
all i see are some opinions from some self announced mmo market analytics...
now listen:
NOBODY can tell how succesfull a game will become!!
its like playing lottery for the developers/publishers.
just look at gpotato or blizzard.
p2p vs f2p.
both dooing very very well!