There's nothing wrong with F2P MMO's other then the fact that they are ALL THE SAME!
If they aren't making much money out of a game it means that they haven't got much time to spend on that game, therefore usually resulting in a bad outcome.
I personally dislike F2P because it offers perverse incentives for devs to make content that is harrowing and frustrating "unless you pick up our new product for only $14.99!" Allods, while one of the most extreme and memorable recent examples, displays this perfectly. When you make a beginner quest that relies on an obscenely low drop rate that can take you several hours to farm (all the while disrupting newbies as the same mob that drops it are also targets for low level quests) for a necessary inventory upgrade, and then charge $20 (now $6) to bypass that mind-numbing drudgery, do you really think they're going to stop there? "Oh no, that rare weapon you got has a chance to break while you enchant it! Why not buy our special item that protects it. Real world money only, of course." "Oh dear, you'll lose a lot of XP if you die in that dungeon. Why not buy our special potion and you can die to your heart's content!" It goes on and on.
By encouraging F2P, players are supporting the rationalization and expectations of a mediocre or poor, not to mention frustrating, player experience once you're past the "hook 'em" newbie levels unless you buy into cash shop items. P2P had it bad enough with time sinks to artificially lengthen content so that players would stay subscribed. At least that encouraged developer's creating content (the current spate of "push 'em out the doors and recoup our losses through box sales" releases notwithstanding). With F2P, we have a bunch of middle management mother****ers that will fulfill the every wish of those willing to pour dozens, hundreds or even thousands of dollars into the game while giving the middle finger to the free player in hopes he gets sick of it, but not sick enough to leave, and starts paying too.
In honesty, I don't "hate" F2P. Everyone should have the choice to pick the type of game that they want. At the same time, though, I despair that for every time a bright-eyed game designer wishes to make a truly interesting player experience that some jackass with an MBA is gonna give it the ax and tell 'em to churn out another Farmville.
The issue with your point of view on it is that YOU want to be competitive, and thats really your (and others who feel the same) problem. You can play the game completely free, and enjoy it for what it is, but choosing to instead insist on being the "best" and trying to compete with others is a personal choice which causes you to spend the money, but it is not forced by the company in any way.
That is a bit of a silly perspective on things. Games are competitive in nature, so expecting that people forgo that aspect in consideration of the game's value is ridiculous. Heck, you can play golf with nothing but a putter and so long as you accept that par is impossible you can have fun, right? Football teams can play with inferior players and can still be entertaining to watch so long as you don't expect them to win anything, right? Games are competitive, even if in the end the real competition is only against the AI - having a design where advantages, even necessities, in that competition are sold is simply fundamentally breaking the integrity of the competition and the game.
Now, all this said - I don't think people really mind selling of niceties and not necessities (cosmetic stuff in other words) and I think people are probably open to the hybrid models like DDO and GW (if you want to count that) where, for the most part, you are selling game content not game advantages or necessities. But selling in game advantages and necessities is fundamentally counter to the integrity an MMO needs to have to be legitimate. And let's be honest, it isn't like the cash shop is designed to get the same $15 a month as a sub would, they are designed to get far, far, far more money so the worst thing overall with the F2P model is that not only does it break the game's integrity and color its development it ends up being a cheesy way for developers to nickel and dime folks for big chunks of change.
I personally dislike F2P because it offers perverse incentives for devs to make content that is harrowing and frustrating "unless you pick up our new product for only $14.99!"
That's how I feel towards the games... I mean, sure, I'll try them, but if I'm not having a substantial amount of fun doing so, I'll leave. I mean, I have plenty of other non-subscription-based games I can play (first person shooters and the like) - I don't need your terribly designed (on purpose) game, and I certainly don't need to pay for it.
The thought lingers in the back of my head... They could have changed the numbers... I could be leveling much faster than this, were someone to permit it. But then their +100% XP potion wouldn't be worth the $2, would it?
I am playing EVE and it's alright... level V skills are a bit much.
Come to think on it further, I truly believe we should embrace the f2p model... f2p devs at least concede the fact they need to appease the player and entice them to stay on longer than the first month in order to retain your business.
Too often the p2p market has been hyping up games for a $70 buy-in price, $15/month fee and the player leaves the game dejected feeling like a sucker, because the devs make no attempt at retention of their customer base.
something to ponder.
Again, you miss the reality of the F2P model. Developers are incentive's not to make a fun game that attracts players but to make a game that steers people to the cash shop - big difference. If I am paying monthly for full game access then they have to make an appealing enough game to warrant gamers subscribing month to month. If they are only making money of the few who use the cash shop then they only have a monetary interest in what interests those few gamers and in what will entice them to spend more money in the cash shop.
No. You are missing the reality. The realty is that players don't have to care about developers incentives. They may be saints who want to give us free fun. They may be demons who want to suck our wallet dry. Who cares.
All we need to care is that whether the free part of the game is fun. If so, play it. If not, don't. If they make it fun enough because of a by-product of the item shop, heck, that is good enough for some free entertainment.
And from what i have seen, the answer is definitely YES for DDO, and may be even ALLOD (and i will never play enough of this game to pay those horrible item shop price).
Again, the exceptions aside if you like dog food then by all means go eat dog food. But you cannot argue that as the rule. F2P games are designed for only a small fraction of their player base and despite whether that is a turn off to all it is a solid reason to not like the model and to avoid it. Who wants to invest time in a game, especially in MMOs where time is the ultimate currency of advancement and achievement, when you are not in the group that pays the developers checks and therefore, ultimately, influences their decisions and development choices? Sure, some may not care (I would argue mainly for reasons of being cheap or otherwise unwilling to pay for a sub game - also a valid choice), but that is not relevant to all people and to people who value the integrity of the basic time as currency basis of the genre.
The fact that most F2P players don't pay proves that you are wrong. If they play, they must have found it fun. So despite a small paying player base, F2P games are FUN for many fold more players.
And you are arguing WHY it may not be fun .. but the bottomline is whether it is fun or not. The 1M players gained in DDO show that it is ... at least as much fun as the other free alternatives like watching TV. All you have are just arguments ... and no data all all. Look up the number of players playing Free Realms, RoMs, DDO and so on .. these millions of players obviously found it fun despite they are not the "target" audience. QED.
You really can't pay attention to the subscription base of F2P games though. How many of them are spammers, previously banned people, or guys making 2+ accounts to have a full range of characters without buying extra slots?
I'm not anti-f2p btw, just preaching sense where I can.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
That is a bit of a silly perspective on things. Games are competitive in nature, so expecting that people forgo that aspect in consideration of the game's value is ridiculous. Heck, you can play golf with nothing but a putter and so long as you accept that par is impossible you can have fun, right? Football teams can play with inferior players and can still be entertaining to watch so long as you don't expect them to win anything, right? Games are competitive, even if in the end the real competition is only against the AI - having a design where advantages, even necessities, in that competition are sold is simply fundamentally breaking the integrity of the competition and the game.
Hmm your view is inconsistent with real data. There are millions of players playing DDO, RoM, maple story, Free Realms ...
and a minority of them are paying. So they are all "forgoing" competitiveness by your definition. So i don't only expect most people are doing it, there is DATA supporting this view.
And millions of these players don't care if it "breaks the integrity of the competition" as long as it is fun. Heck, talking abotu competition in a PvE game such as DDO is silly. Who am I competing with? The priest who is going to heal me? Get real.
You really can't pay attention to the subscription base of F2P games though. How many of them are spammers, previously banned people, or guys making 2+ accounts to have a full range of characters without buying extra slots? I'm not anti-f2p btw, just preaching sense where I can.
This. The stats should be based on the people who are actually playing the game.
Just so I could speak with more authority on F2P, I played PW to level 15 I think it was. No doubt I am still counted as being part of their player base even though I have not played for over a year.
And to the rather obvious DDO fans posting the guy who replied to my post was only agreeing that pretending DDO is a F2P game is not boosting the image of F2P. You can't call a MMO F2P when it has a subcription and players realise that. I do not think he was saying DDO is not working so calm down.
I think that I have actually spent more time downloading, installing and patching these free to play games than actually playing them before being bored out of my mind or pissed off or outright angry about the game mechanics and/or the other players and uninstalling the game.
All those memories will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.
To say PWI is behind Aion...hmmm well PWI has flying combat, and it's light years ahead of what you can do in Aion. Those that pvp on PWI can attest to having real aerial combat in PWI, as opposed to combat until your wing power runs out in Aion, (i.e. may a player lie in wait far above in the skies for unsuspecting prey, and many people fly around hunting those ambushers, etc.. this kind of pvp cannot be done in Aion). PWI's engine can handle the mass amount of people and graphics better than Aions. To say PWI is behind or archaic is a pretty flawed statement. The only engine I would say that is more detailed than PWI is AoC, but AoC is in a league of itself, Aion is definitely not in AoC's league. But I digress, this isn't about PWI, it's about why folks are afraid and from what I am seeing here make up ridiculous arguements to support p2p and out f2p. I believe it's more 'protectionism' than anything else, and the basic unwillingness to change. In other words, some will evolve, the rest will remain gelatinous cubes. most p2p models are already bringing cash shops into their games, like DDO, just not yet to DDO's level of f2p. You spout the greatness of Aion in defense of p2p, yet they are releasing their very own cash shop as you do so, something they said from release they were going to do. Were you unaware of the hypocrisy? All of SOE is now on a cash shop model, in the future their content is going to be paid by the hour as well. These are the once kings of p2p mmos, and they see the change coming, amazing you do not. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the f2p model...it's free, if you don't like it, don't play it. Though if you want to stand in the corner stamping your feet on how wrong they are, no one can stop you from doing that either....don't forget to hold you breath too, I hear that is a real deal-maker.
This thread is not about PWI or Aion but I have to respond to some of your statements. The difference in flying combat is that in PWI flying time is unlimited whereas in Aion it is limited but can be extended with potions, which leads to more tactical combat. Easy mode might be considered more fun for some but not for me. If unlimited equals high quality why not have unlimited hp and mana too? Fights could go on forever then!
About the graphics and engine you are either kidding or making things up. PWI has awful graphics and terrible lag. Aion has great graphics (one of few great things with Aion in my opinion) and bad lag only in fortress attacks/zergs. I also wrote that Aion is a terrible grind and that there are way better games out there. I'm Swedish and I honestly don't understand what "spout the greatness" means. Just to clarify: for me terrible grind is the opposite of greatness. Still Aion is way better than PWI in my honest opinion. I chose Aion as an example because it is a P2P game in a fantasy setting with flying combat and some pvp. I quit Aion months ago and I have absolutely no respect for the people running that game. If they include a cash shop it doesn't surprise me at all. Both PWI and Aion are asian grinders developed by greedy companies. I had some good PvP in Aion and in Territorial Wars in PWI (except for the lag and the OP cash shop only attack pets). I also met some nice people both in PWI and Aion, thats what made me stay in those game a couple of months.
I agree that F2P can be profitable and that there will be many financially successful F2P games in the future. I also think that it is a shoddy business model, which tend to draw people into a game with the illusion it is free to play and then successively include more and more important items in cash shop (i.e., smart business by the devs but bad for players who wants to stay in the game a while). Since I have no problems paying monthly subs I don't have to regress and play F2P games. If someone wants to play a F2P game it's their problem.
That is a bit of a silly perspective on things. Games are competitive in nature, so expecting that people forgo that aspect in consideration of the game's value is ridiculous. Heck, you can play golf with nothing but a putter and so long as you accept that par is impossible you can have fun, right? Football teams can play with inferior players and can still be entertaining to watch so long as you don't expect them to win anything, right? Games are competitive, even if in the end the real competition is only against the AI - having a design where advantages, even necessities, in that competition are sold is simply fundamentally breaking the integrity of the competition and the game. Hmm your view is inconsistent with real data. There are millions of players playing DDO, RoM, maple story, Free Realms ...
and a minority of them are paying. So they are all "forgoing" competitiveness by your definition. So i don't only expect most people are doing it, there is DATA supporting this view.
I keep seeing this statement come up. Is this the latest meme for the pro-F2P crowd? "The majority of F2P players don't pay anything"? Strange thing is, I've yet to see one single source cited that proves this out; just the "because I said so" of various forum warriors. I'd like to know how much this "minority" of people using the item shops are paying individually, then, if it's enough to fund the on-going support and development of some of these MMOs allowing for the "majority" who don't pay anything to continue playing for free.
I'd also like to know how long many of those who claim to not use the Item Mall actually stick around before moving on... You can count someone who played the game for, say, a week, before moving on as one of those who played without paying. However, they really did nothing more than a trial, and I wouldn't count them as someone "playing the game". It would be no different and no less disingenuous than a P2P publisher including trial accounts in their sub numbers for the purpose of marketing.
And again.. using DDO - a game originally designed as P2P and which was floundering as such - has suddenly picked up a lot more new players due to becoming F2P... What is that *really* saying? That the game wasn't good enough for enough people to subscribe to to keep it going. If it's free, however? Sure, why not? I wouldn't be too proud of that, personally... but boy are some F2P folk jumping on that bandwagon in a hurry and going into full-on spin mode.
Amazing how vehemently some of the people around here will spin the DDO situation, propping it up as some "Champion Among F2P", and completely ignore *why* it's F2P in the first place. Do you really believe that if DDO were doing well enough as a P2P they would have ever made that move?
Here's a question to help answer that: Has LoTRO gone F2P? Nope.
A F2P/P2P hybrid was the better solution to keep DDO afloat... It wasn't their originally intended payment model. For months and months and months before the F2P move, fans of the game were lamenting its drop in population, how the game wasn't going anywhere, etc. etc.
"Don't fix it if it isn't broken". DDO was "breaking", so they attempted to "fix" it.
No matter how many times some of you F2P fanatics want to try to force that on us like it's some kind of "checkmate" move, the facts about DDO's "journey" to F2P remain.
The fact also remains that the successful MMOs with a subscription set up remain subscription MMOs. They're not all dropping their sub fees and going F2P in response to Turbine's "brilliant move" with DDO... again.. including Turbine with another of their own titles, LoTRO.
The lesson learned seems to be this:
- If your game is fun enough for enough people to subscribe to consistently month after month, then a subscription fee will work just fine.
- If your game is not fun enough for enough people to subscribe to, it's better to start stocking the Item Mall and start putting the word "FREE!" on all your marketing.
And millions of these players don't care if it "breaks the integrity of the competition" as long as it is fun. Heck, talking abotu competition in a PvE game such as DDO is silly. Who am I competing with? The priest who is going to heal me? Get real.
So now you're speaking for millions of people? Yeahh..... okay.
And if you believe there's no sense of competition in PvE MMOs, then you're either being extremely disingenuous, or you haven't been paying attention. Gear, rate of progress, DPS, XP-per hour, and various other areas are all things that people compete over in PvE MMOs - all the time. I've seen it play out in every single MMO I've played, without exception.
Also, your "the guy healing me" example is *extremely* dishonest. Of course a player of one class isn't going to be competing with the player of another class (except perhaps in the "rate of progress" category). However, one healer competing with other healers, to be "better" than they are? You better believe it.
"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
That is a bit of a silly perspective on things. Games are competitive in nature, so expecting that people forgo that aspect in consideration of the game's value is ridiculous. Heck, you can play golf with nothing but a putter and so long as you accept that par is impossible you can have fun, right? Football teams can play with inferior players and can still be entertaining to watch so long as you don't expect them to win anything, right? Games are competitive, even if in the end the real competition is only against the AI - having a design where advantages, even necessities, in that competition are sold is simply fundamentally breaking the integrity of the competition and the game. Hmm your view is inconsistent with real data. There are millions of players playing DDO, RoM, maple story, Free Realms ...
and a minority of them are paying. So they are all "forgoing" competitiveness by your definition. So i don't only expect most people are doing it, there is DATA supporting this view.
I keep seeing this statement come up. Is this the latest meme for the pro-F2P crowd? "The majority of F2P players don't pay anything"? Strange thing is, I've yet to see one single source cited that proves this out; just the "because I said so" of various forum warriors. I'd like to know how much this "minority" of people using the item shops are paying individually, then, if it's enough to fund the on-going support and development of some of these MMOs.
I'd also like to know how long many of those who claim to not use the Item Mall actually stick around before moving on... You can count someone who played the game for, say, a week, before moving on as one of those who played without paying. However, they really did nothing more than a trial, and I wouldn't count them as someone "playing the game". It would be no different and no less disingenuous than a P2P publisher including trial accounts in their sub numbers for the purpose of marketing.
And again.. using DDO - a game originally designed as P2P and which was floundering as such - has suddenly picked up a lot more new players due to becoming F2P... What is that *really* saying? That the game wasn't good enough for enough people to subscribe to to keep it going. If it's free, however? Sure, why not? I wouldn't be too proud of that, personally... but boy are some F2P folk jumping on that bandwagon in a hurry and going into full-on spin mode.
Amazing how vehemently some of the people around here will spin the DDO situation, propping it up as some "Champion Among F2P", and completely ignore *why* it's F2P in the first place. Do you really believe that if DDO were doing well enough as a P2P they would have ever made that move?
Here's a question to help answer that: Has LoTRO gone F2P? Nope.
"Don't fix it if it isn't broken". DDO was "broken", so they attempted to "fix" it.
A F2P/P2P hybrid was the better solution to keep DDO afloat... It wasn't their originally intended payment model.
No matter how many times some of you F2P fanatics want to try to force that on us like it's some kind of "checkmate" move, the facts about DDO's "journey" to F2P remain.
The fact also remains that the successful MMOs with a subscription set up remain subscription MMOs. They're not all dropping their sub fees and going F2P in response to Turbine's "brilliant move" with DDO... again.. including Turbine with another of their own titles, LoTRO.
The lesson learned seems to be this:
- If your game is fun enough for enough people to subscribe to consistently month after month, then a subscription fee will work just fine.
- If your game is not fun enough for enough people to subscribe to, it's better to start stocking the Item Mall and start putting the word "FREE!" on all your marketing.
And millions of these players don't care if it "breaks the integrity of the competition" as long as it is fun. Heck, talking abotu competition in a PvE game such as DDO is silly. Who am I competing with? The priest who is going to heal me? Get real.
So now you're speaking for millions of people? Yeahh..... okay.
And if you don't believe there's no sense of competition in PvE MMOs, then you're either being extremely disingenuous, or you haven't been paying attention. Gear, rate of progress, DPS, XP-per hour, and various other areas are all things that people compete over in PvE MMOs - all the time. I've seen it play out in every single MMO I've played, without exception.
Also, your "the guy healing me" example is *extremely* dishonest. Of course a player of one class isn't going to be competing with the player of another class (except perhaps in the "rate of progress" category). However, one healer competing with other healers, to be "better" than they are? You better believe it.
I will add some green to all of this quotation disaster :P
Dungeons & Dragons Online sold 100k boxes... taste the words... 100k boxes... that's really some dismal figures there considering how big the IP is.
I have tried to get into and enjoying the game but this thing about running the same instances just isn't for me.
Killing ten thousand kobolds in the sewers anyone?
Anyone?
*sigh*
I'm sorry Dungeons & Dragons Online but I really tried to like you... really I did.
All those memories will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.
Lot of hatred towards F2P mmorpgs sprung from the mmorpg community. But I believe this hatred is really linked to fear. Why do you fear F2P mmorpg games? Why,,,,,,
Here is my issue with F2P games: nothing is for free. The makers of the game can't survive without making money in some manner. They have to turn a profit from their product or they can't pay employees, keep servers running, eat food, etc. So, IMO, when they say F2P they are really misleading you to a certain extent. Most of the F2P companies design their games so you have to use a cash shop to actually enjoy the game or be competetive in the game. I prefer a company to just come out and say "you can play this game for $xx.xx a month" period. Nothing under the table, no hidden agenda, just good ole "pay for a service, get a service". To me, saying a game is F2P is akin to the late night infomercials where the seller offers a "free" widget worth $xx.xx with every purchase of a set of highly overpriced Encyclopedia Britannica. It's not an exact comparison but you get my drift. I don't feel like they are being completely honest.
The issue with your point of view on it is that YOU want to be competitive, and thats really your (and others who feel the same) problem. You can play the game completely free, and enjoy it for what it is, but choosing to instead insist on being the "best" and trying to compete with others is a personal choice which causes you to spend the money, but it is not forced by the company in any way. I understand your view, cause i like to be competetive too and love pvp, and sure you will usually get owned in a lot of F2Ps (poorly designed ones at least) if you dont spend a lot of money, but i dont go into these games assuming i can be the best without spending the money. Thats like deciding to be a pro boxer, and expecting to just be able to get up off your ass after months of gaming and no exercise, step in the ring and KO everyone without putting in a lot of training. Youve got to invest SOMETHING to be competetive, wether its time or money. P2P requires you invest lots and lots of time, F2P gives you the option of time or money. Some people have time to spare, some people have money to spare instead of time. Does that make it wrong either way? Theyre just offering 2 alternetives to the same goal, rather than forcing you to have no life outside of the game in order to stay on top.
They may be offering two alternatives but they advertise as "free" don't they? Then they play on "most" people's competetive nature to get them to pay. The "free" is to suck you into playing. It is a deliberate attempt to manipulate people and I prefer not to play them because of that. Therefore, IMO, that makes it wrong and makes me suspect of these F2P companies and games.
They may be offering two alternatives but they advertise as "free" don't they? Then they play on "most" people's competetive nature to get them to pay. The "free" is to suck you into playing. It is a deliberate attempt to manipulate people and I prefer not to play them because of that. Therefore, IMO, that makes it wrong and makes me suspect of these F2P companies and games.
So if I am handed a "free demo" of say, FF13, do I look at it like they are trying to manipulate me into buying the full game?
No. If you playing it, and like it, pay for it. If it ends up being mediocre, be happy you're getting a free taste, and quit your bitchin.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
I keep seeing this statement come up. Is this the latest meme for the pro-F2P crowd? "The majority of F2P players don't pay anything"? Strange thing is, I've yet to see one single source cited that proves this out; just the "because I said so" of various forum warriors. I'd like to know how much this "minority" of people using the item shops are paying individually, then, if it's enough to fund the on-going support and development of some of these MMOs allowing for the "majority" who don't pay anything to continue playing for free.
Because you are not paying attention and may be even ignoring all the evidence. I have already posted ONE article earlier showing evidence. Here are two articles. You can find more online.
Originally posted by nariusseldon "Finally, Jagex’s Runescape claimed 1m players paying $5/mth in May 2007 and 6m players per month in October 2007."
I can just imagine one response...
"Uhh, umm, maybe their business picked up a bit in those few months?"
---
Anyway, I'm not afraid of Free2Play MMOs, I just generally don't like them. Windslayer almost drew me in with its action-based gameplay, but the latency issues threw me off. Oh well, EVE for now, where my Australian internet doesn't matter so much... *cries*
I am playing EVE and it's alright... level V skills are a bit much.
The fact that most F2P players don't pay proves that you are wrong. If they play, they must have found it fun. So despite a small paying player base, F2P games are FUN for many fold more players. And you are arguing WHY it may not be fun .. but the bottomline is whether it is fun or not. The 1M players gained in DDO show that it is ... at least as much fun as the other free alternatives like watching TV. All you have are just arguments ... and no data all all. Look up the number of players playing Free Realms, RoMs, DDO and so on .. these millions of players obviously found it fun despite they are not the "target" audience. QED.
But how many of these players, if we accept the non specific claims of the devs, would disappear tomorrow if they had to pay one red cent for access? I think you are discounting, no pun intended, how much of a factor the 'it is free' part of the equation plays in things. Not to say F2P games wouldn't find an audience if they required all player to pay something but I have little to no doubt that they would attract far, far, far less than they do without fees and I am certain the way the game works would have to change as well. As for DDO specifically, I have acknowledged DDOs unique hybrid model as more legitimate than the traditional F2P model, and don't forget that it is still a subscription game too so many of the pitfalls of the typical F2P model do not apply because the devs are kept honest by those who are paying a sub for full access. That said, the 'success' of F2P is nearly entirely in the 'free' part and not the cash shop part - cheap people are just willing to overlook the flaws that result from the F2P model (lack of integrity, cheap overall game, etc) because it is free to access.
I will add some green to all of this quotation disaster :P Dungeons & Dragons Online sold 100k boxes... taste the words... 100k boxes... that's really some dismal figures there considering how big the IP is. I have tried to get into and enjoying the game but this thing about running the same instances just isn't for me. Killing ten thousand kobolds in the sewers anyone? Anyone? *sigh* I'm sorry Dungeons & Dragons Online but I really tried to like you... really I did.
Besides showing your support for the Rainbow Coalition which I can fully support; what does any of this have to do with the price of cabbage in China?
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
The fact that most F2P players don't pay proves that you are wrong. If they play, they must have found it fun. So despite a small paying player base, F2P games are FUN for many fold more players. And you are arguing WHY it may not be fun .. but the bottomline is whether it is fun or not. The 1M players gained in DDO show that it is ... at least as much fun as the other free alternatives like watching TV. All you have are just arguments ... and no data all all. Look up the number of players playing Free Realms, RoMs, DDO and so on .. these millions of players obviously found it fun despite they are not the "target" audience. QED.
But how many of these players, if we accept the non specific claims of the devs, would disappear tomorrow if they had to pay one red cent for access? I think you are discounting, no pun intended, how much of a factor the 'it is free' part of the equation plays in things. Not to say F2P games wouldn't find an audience if they required all player to pay something but I have little to no doubt that they would attract far, far, far less than they do without fees and I am certain the way the game works would have to change as well. As for DDO specifically, I have acknowledged DDOs unique hybrid model as more legitimate than the traditional F2P model, and don't forget that it is still a subscription game too so many of the pitfalls of the typical F2P model do not apply because the devs are kept honest by those who are paying a sub for full access. That said, the 'success' of F2P is nearly entirely in the 'free' part and not the cash shop part - cheap people are just willing to overlook the flaws that result from the F2P model (lack of integrity, cheap overall game, etc) because it is free to access.
Nothing you said contradicts the fact that F2P games are fun enough to play. DDO is not the only F2P game with 1M players. Free Realms, maple story, RoM all have more than 1M players.
If you argument is that F2P game may not be as much fun as P2P ..then it boils down to a comparison of specific games. I would argue that many F2P games are better than say STO, which I think a lot of people may agree.
DDO is a unique case study because it is the only major P2P turn F2P games. (Alganon does not count since it wasn't truly out). Note that DDO increases both playership (by 1M no less) and revenue (by 500% no less) once it changes its model. This clearly shows that given the same game (DDO hasn't changed that much), a F2P model can be much more successful in both the number of players, as well as amount of revenue.
I made no argument based on fun at all, that said 'fun enough' is hardly a rousing defense. I suggested that the reason that many people avoid them is because they are lacking integrity in gameplay, since in a traditional F2P model you buy in game advantages and necessities rather than earn them, and that the drive of revenue to developers to steer development on this path breaks the integrity and playability of the game in the long run. Sure, some people ignore these issues and play anyways because they are free, I never said that is not the case. But to say that means the games do not have those issues is silly, as they clearly do have those issues.
I guess it is like this, consider fast food. McDonalds and the like are cheap and convenient and while many would argue they love the taste I think it is a fair statement that fast food restaurants do not in anyway represent high quality food, by any standard. So while billions may buy Big Macs that is not evidence that McDonalds food is superior to Outback or other traditional restaurants, it is just cheap and accessible and tastes good enough. Take away the low cost or high convenience and the patronage would tank. Same with F2P MMOs, sure they have their merits but the top of the lists are typically cost related and the day they start charging everyone to play is the day they fall to the level of obscurity their gameplay gimped by the integrity and development issues outlined above would warrant.
They may be offering two alternatives but they advertise as "free" don't they? Then they play on "most" people's competetive nature to get them to pay. The "free" is to suck you into playing. It is a deliberate attempt to manipulate people and I prefer not to play them because of that. Therefore, IMO, that makes it wrong and makes me suspect of these F2P companies and games.
So if I am handed a "free demo" of say, FF13, do I look at it like they are trying to manipulate me into buying the full game?
No, it's not the same.
You're only being given a "demo" of the game... which in the case of a single-player console game, which you chose as your example, is only part of the game. They're not promising you the entire game for free.
"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
Comments
I fear the money I will end up spending will be way way way way way more than 15 a month.
that's exactly what is happening with FP2 MMO games and it's a great way to companies raise their incomes
players spent more money with that and imo your gameplay will not depends on how good u r but how much money u have
LOTRO player
There's nothing wrong with F2P MMO's other then the fact that they are ALL THE SAME!
If they aren't making much money out of a game it means that they haven't got much time to spend on that game, therefore usually resulting in a bad outcome.
I personally dislike F2P because it offers perverse incentives for devs to make content that is harrowing and frustrating "unless you pick up our new product for only $14.99!" Allods, while one of the most extreme and memorable recent examples, displays this perfectly. When you make a beginner quest that relies on an obscenely low drop rate that can take you several hours to farm (all the while disrupting newbies as the same mob that drops it are also targets for low level quests) for a necessary inventory upgrade, and then charge $20 (now $6) to bypass that mind-numbing drudgery, do you really think they're going to stop there? "Oh no, that rare weapon you got has a chance to break while you enchant it! Why not buy our special item that protects it. Real world money only, of course." "Oh dear, you'll lose a lot of XP if you die in that dungeon. Why not buy our special potion and you can die to your heart's content!" It goes on and on.
By encouraging F2P, players are supporting the rationalization and expectations of a mediocre or poor, not to mention frustrating, player experience once you're past the "hook 'em" newbie levels unless you buy into cash shop items. P2P had it bad enough with time sinks to artificially lengthen content so that players would stay subscribed. At least that encouraged developer's creating content (the current spate of "push 'em out the doors and recoup our losses through box sales" releases notwithstanding). With F2P, we have a bunch of middle management mother****ers that will fulfill the every wish of those willing to pour dozens, hundreds or even thousands of dollars into the game while giving the middle finger to the free player in hopes he gets sick of it, but not sick enough to leave, and starts paying too.
In honesty, I don't "hate" F2P. Everyone should have the choice to pick the type of game that they want. At the same time, though, I despair that for every time a bright-eyed game designer wishes to make a truly interesting player experience that some jackass with an MBA is gonna give it the ax and tell 'em to churn out another Farmville.
The issue with your point of view on it is that YOU want to be competitive, and thats really your (and others who feel the same) problem. You can play the game completely free, and enjoy it for what it is, but choosing to instead insist on being the "best" and trying to compete with others is a personal choice which causes you to spend the money, but it is not forced by the company in any way.
That is a bit of a silly perspective on things. Games are competitive in nature, so expecting that people forgo that aspect in consideration of the game's value is ridiculous. Heck, you can play golf with nothing but a putter and so long as you accept that par is impossible you can have fun, right? Football teams can play with inferior players and can still be entertaining to watch so long as you don't expect them to win anything, right? Games are competitive, even if in the end the real competition is only against the AI - having a design where advantages, even necessities, in that competition are sold is simply fundamentally breaking the integrity of the competition and the game.
Now, all this said - I don't think people really mind selling of niceties and not necessities (cosmetic stuff in other words) and I think people are probably open to the hybrid models like DDO and GW (if you want to count that) where, for the most part, you are selling game content not game advantages or necessities. But selling in game advantages and necessities is fundamentally counter to the integrity an MMO needs to have to be legitimate. And let's be honest, it isn't like the cash shop is designed to get the same $15 a month as a sub would, they are designed to get far, far, far more money so the worst thing overall with the F2P model is that not only does it break the game's integrity and color its development it ends up being a cheesy way for developers to nickel and dime folks for big chunks of change.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
That's how I feel towards the games... I mean, sure, I'll try them, but if I'm not having a substantial amount of fun doing so, I'll leave. I mean, I have plenty of other non-subscription-based games I can play (first person shooters and the like) - I don't need your terribly designed (on purpose) game, and I certainly don't need to pay for it.
The thought lingers in the back of my head... They could have changed the numbers... I could be leveling much faster than this, were someone to permit it. But then their +100% XP potion wouldn't be worth the $2, would it?
I am playing EVE and it's alright... level V skills are a bit much.
You all need to learn to spell.
Again, you miss the reality of the F2P model. Developers are incentive's not to make a fun game that attracts players but to make a game that steers people to the cash shop - big difference. If I am paying monthly for full game access then they have to make an appealing enough game to warrant gamers subscribing month to month. If they are only making money of the few who use the cash shop then they only have a monetary interest in what interests those few gamers and in what will entice them to spend more money in the cash shop.
No. You are missing the reality. The realty is that players don't have to care about developers incentives. They may be saints who want to give us free fun. They may be demons who want to suck our wallet dry. Who cares.
All we need to care is that whether the free part of the game is fun. If so, play it. If not, don't. If they make it fun enough because of a by-product of the item shop, heck, that is good enough for some free entertainment.
And from what i have seen, the answer is definitely YES for DDO, and may be even ALLOD (and i will never play enough of this game to pay those horrible item shop price).
Again, the exceptions aside if you like dog food then by all means go eat dog food. But you cannot argue that as the rule. F2P games are designed for only a small fraction of their player base and despite whether that is a turn off to all it is a solid reason to not like the model and to avoid it. Who wants to invest time in a game, especially in MMOs where time is the ultimate currency of advancement and achievement, when you are not in the group that pays the developers checks and therefore, ultimately, influences their decisions and development choices? Sure, some may not care (I would argue mainly for reasons of being cheap or otherwise unwilling to pay for a sub game - also a valid choice), but that is not relevant to all people and to people who value the integrity of the basic time as currency basis of the genre.
The fact that most F2P players don't pay proves that you are wrong. If they play, they must have found it fun. So despite a small paying player base, F2P games are FUN for many fold more players.
And you are arguing WHY it may not be fun .. but the bottomline is whether it is fun or not. The 1M players gained in DDO show that it is ... at least as much fun as the other free alternatives like watching TV. All you have are just arguments ... and no data all all. Look up the number of players playing Free Realms, RoMs, DDO and so on .. these millions of players obviously found it fun despite they are not the "target" audience. QED.
You really can't pay attention to the subscription base of F2P games though. How many of them are spammers, previously banned people, or guys making 2+ accounts to have a full range of characters without buying extra slots?
I'm not anti-f2p btw, just preaching sense where I can.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
That is a bit of a silly perspective on things. Games are competitive in nature, so expecting that people forgo that aspect in consideration of the game's value is ridiculous. Heck, you can play golf with nothing but a putter and so long as you accept that par is impossible you can have fun, right? Football teams can play with inferior players and can still be entertaining to watch so long as you don't expect them to win anything, right? Games are competitive, even if in the end the real competition is only against the AI - having a design where advantages, even necessities, in that competition are sold is simply fundamentally breaking the integrity of the competition and the game.
Hmm your view is inconsistent with real data. There are millions of players playing DDO, RoM, maple story, Free Realms ...
and a minority of them are paying. So they are all "forgoing" competitiveness by your definition. So i don't only expect most people are doing it, there is DATA supporting this view.
And millions of these players don't care if it "breaks the integrity of the competition" as long as it is fun. Heck, talking abotu competition in a PvE game such as DDO is silly. Who am I competing with? The priest who is going to heal me? Get real.
The DPS parsers and any 1v1 PvP that the player must simply come out on top in.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
This. The stats should be based on the people who are actually playing the game.
Just so I could speak with more authority on F2P, I played PW to level 15 I think it was. No doubt I am still counted as being part of their player base even though I have not played for over a year.
And to the rather obvious DDO fans posting the guy who replied to my post was only agreeing that pretending DDO is a F2P game is not boosting the image of F2P. You can't call a MMO F2P when it has a subcription and players realise that. I do not think he was saying DDO is not working so calm down.
I think that I have actually spent more time downloading, installing and patching these free to play games than actually playing them before being bored out of my mind or pissed off or outright angry about the game mechanics and/or the other players and uninstalling the game.
All those memories will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.
This thread is not about PWI or Aion but I have to respond to some of your statements. The difference in flying combat is that in PWI flying time is unlimited whereas in Aion it is limited but can be extended with potions, which leads to more tactical combat. Easy mode might be considered more fun for some but not for me. If unlimited equals high quality why not have unlimited hp and mana too? Fights could go on forever then!
About the graphics and engine you are either kidding or making things up. PWI has awful graphics and terrible lag. Aion has great graphics (one of few great things with Aion in my opinion) and bad lag only in fortress attacks/zergs. I also wrote that Aion is a terrible grind and that there are way better games out there. I'm Swedish and I honestly don't understand what "spout the greatness" means. Just to clarify: for me terrible grind is the opposite of greatness. Still Aion is way better than PWI in my honest opinion. I chose Aion as an example because it is a P2P game in a fantasy setting with flying combat and some pvp. I quit Aion months ago and I have absolutely no respect for the people running that game. If they include a cash shop it doesn't surprise me at all. Both PWI and Aion are asian grinders developed by greedy companies. I had some good PvP in Aion and in Territorial Wars in PWI (except for the lag and the OP cash shop only attack pets). I also met some nice people both in PWI and Aion, thats what made me stay in those game a couple of months.
I agree that F2P can be profitable and that there will be many financially successful F2P games in the future. I also think that it is a shoddy business model, which tend to draw people into a game with the illusion it is free to play and then successively include more and more important items in cash shop (i.e., smart business by the devs but bad for players who wants to stay in the game a while). Since I have no problems paying monthly subs I don't have to regress and play F2P games. If someone wants to play a F2P game it's their problem.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
I will add some green to all of this quotation disaster :P
Dungeons & Dragons Online sold 100k boxes... taste the words... 100k boxes... that's really some dismal figures there considering how big the IP is.
I have tried to get into and enjoying the game but this thing about running the same instances just isn't for me.
Killing ten thousand kobolds in the sewers anyone?
Anyone?
*sigh*
I'm sorry Dungeons & Dragons Online but I really tried to like you... really I did.
All those memories will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.
Here is my issue with F2P games: nothing is for free. The makers of the game can't survive without making money in some manner. They have to turn a profit from their product or they can't pay employees, keep servers running, eat food, etc. So, IMO, when they say F2P they are really misleading you to a certain extent. Most of the F2P companies design their games so you have to use a cash shop to actually enjoy the game or be competetive in the game. I prefer a company to just come out and say "you can play this game for $xx.xx a month" period. Nothing under the table, no hidden agenda, just good ole "pay for a service, get a service". To me, saying a game is F2P is akin to the late night infomercials where the seller offers a "free" widget worth $xx.xx with every purchase of a set of highly overpriced Encyclopedia Britannica. It's not an exact comparison but you get my drift. I don't feel like they are being completely honest.
The issue with your point of view on it is that YOU want to be competitive, and thats really your (and others who feel the same) problem. You can play the game completely free, and enjoy it for what it is, but choosing to instead insist on being the "best" and trying to compete with others is a personal choice which causes you to spend the money, but it is not forced by the company in any way. I understand your view, cause i like to be competetive too and love pvp, and sure you will usually get owned in a lot of F2Ps (poorly designed ones at least) if you dont spend a lot of money, but i dont go into these games assuming i can be the best without spending the money. Thats like deciding to be a pro boxer, and expecting to just be able to get up off your ass after months of gaming and no exercise, step in the ring and KO everyone without putting in a lot of training. Youve got to invest SOMETHING to be competetive, wether its time or money. P2P requires you invest lots and lots of time, F2P gives you the option of time or money. Some people have time to spare, some people have money to spare instead of time. Does that make it wrong either way? Theyre just offering 2 alternetives to the same goal, rather than forcing you to have no life outside of the game in order to stay on top.
They may be offering two alternatives but they advertise as "free" don't they? Then they play on "most" people's competetive nature to get them to pay. The "free" is to suck you into playing. It is a deliberate attempt to manipulate people and I prefer not to play them because of that. Therefore, IMO, that makes it wrong and makes me suspect of these F2P companies and games.
So if I am handed a "free demo" of say, FF13, do I look at it like they are trying to manipulate me into buying the full game?
No. If you playing it, and like it, pay for it. If it ends up being mediocre, be happy you're getting a free taste, and quit your bitchin.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
I keep seeing this statement come up. Is this the latest meme for the pro-F2P crowd? "The majority of F2P players don't pay anything"? Strange thing is, I've yet to see one single source cited that proves this out; just the "because I said so" of various forum warriors. I'd like to know how much this "minority" of people using the item shops are paying individually, then, if it's enough to fund the on-going support and development of some of these MMOs allowing for the "majority" who don't pay anything to continue playing for free.
Because you are not paying attention and may be even ignoring all the evidence. I have already posted ONE article earlier showing evidence. Here are two articles. You can find more online.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4046/what_are_the_rewards_of_.php
And I quote "but only about 10% of his player base has ever paid him anything"
http://lsvp.wordpress.com/2008/06/09/successful-mmogs-can-see-1-2-in-monthly-arpu/
And I quote "When Club Penguin was bought by Disney in August 2007, it was reported to have 12m registered users and 700k pay"
"Finally, Jagex’s Runescape claimed 1m players paying $5/mth in May 2007 and 6m players per month in October 2007."
I can just imagine one response...
"Uhh, umm, maybe their business picked up a bit in those few months?"
---
Anyway, I'm not afraid of Free2Play MMOs, I just generally don't like them. Windslayer almost drew me in with its action-based gameplay, but the latency issues threw me off. Oh well, EVE for now, where my Australian internet doesn't matter so much... *cries*
I am playing EVE and it's alright... level V skills are a bit much.
You all need to learn to spell.
But how many of these players, if we accept the non specific claims of the devs, would disappear tomorrow if they had to pay one red cent for access? I think you are discounting, no pun intended, how much of a factor the 'it is free' part of the equation plays in things. Not to say F2P games wouldn't find an audience if they required all player to pay something but I have little to no doubt that they would attract far, far, far less than they do without fees and I am certain the way the game works would have to change as well. As for DDO specifically, I have acknowledged DDOs unique hybrid model as more legitimate than the traditional F2P model, and don't forget that it is still a subscription game too so many of the pitfalls of the typical F2P model do not apply because the devs are kept honest by those who are paying a sub for full access. That said, the 'success' of F2P is nearly entirely in the 'free' part and not the cash shop part - cheap people are just willing to overlook the flaws that result from the F2P model (lack of integrity, cheap overall game, etc) because it is free to access.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
Besides showing your support for the Rainbow Coalition which I can fully support; what does any of this have to do with the price of cabbage in China?
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
But how many of these players, if we accept the non specific claims of the devs, would disappear tomorrow if they had to pay one red cent for access? I think you are discounting, no pun intended, how much of a factor the 'it is free' part of the equation plays in things. Not to say F2P games wouldn't find an audience if they required all player to pay something but I have little to no doubt that they would attract far, far, far less than they do without fees and I am certain the way the game works would have to change as well. As for DDO specifically, I have acknowledged DDOs unique hybrid model as more legitimate than the traditional F2P model, and don't forget that it is still a subscription game too so many of the pitfalls of the typical F2P model do not apply because the devs are kept honest by those who are paying a sub for full access. That said, the 'success' of F2P is nearly entirely in the 'free' part and not the cash shop part - cheap people are just willing to overlook the flaws that result from the F2P model (lack of integrity, cheap overall game, etc) because it is free to access.
Nothing you said contradicts the fact that F2P games are fun enough to play. DDO is not the only F2P game with 1M players. Free Realms, maple story, RoM all have more than 1M players.
If you argument is that F2P game may not be as much fun as P2P ..then it boils down to a comparison of specific games. I would argue that many F2P games are better than say STO, which I think a lot of people may agree.
DDO is a unique case study because it is the only major P2P turn F2P games. (Alganon does not count since it wasn't truly out). Note that DDO increases both playership (by 1M no less) and revenue (by 500% no less) once it changes its model. This clearly shows that given the same game (DDO hasn't changed that much), a F2P model can be much more successful in both the number of players, as well as amount of revenue.
I made no argument based on fun at all, that said 'fun enough' is hardly a rousing defense. I suggested that the reason that many people avoid them is because they are lacking integrity in gameplay, since in a traditional F2P model you buy in game advantages and necessities rather than earn them, and that the drive of revenue to developers to steer development on this path breaks the integrity and playability of the game in the long run. Sure, some people ignore these issues and play anyways because they are free, I never said that is not the case. But to say that means the games do not have those issues is silly, as they clearly do have those issues.
I guess it is like this, consider fast food. McDonalds and the like are cheap and convenient and while many would argue they love the taste I think it is a fair statement that fast food restaurants do not in anyway represent high quality food, by any standard. So while billions may buy Big Macs that is not evidence that McDonalds food is superior to Outback or other traditional restaurants, it is just cheap and accessible and tastes good enough. Take away the low cost or high convenience and the patronage would tank. Same with F2P MMOs, sure they have their merits but the top of the lists are typically cost related and the day they start charging everyone to play is the day they fall to the level of obscurity their gameplay gimped by the integrity and development issues outlined above would warrant.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
So if I am handed a "free demo" of say, FF13, do I look at it like they are trying to manipulate me into buying the full game?
No, it's not the same.
You're only being given a "demo" of the game... which in the case of a single-player console game, which you chose as your example, is only part of the game. They're not promising you the entire game for free.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops