I'm looking forward to being able to drop a couple hundo into LOTRO. I'll buy most everything they put out, that I can actually use. Bring it frick'n on!
Comstrike ************************** Founder, Leader, www.SonsOfNumenor.com LOTRO - SW.ToR (Yes, we are recruiting)
Call it intution, call it a hunch, or maybe its simply because they've never bothered to publish how many paying subs they really have, but I think the game has far less than 300K subs (more likely 100-150K) and I think this move was done strictly to bring in new players to the game.
Not saying its a bad idea, and from what I've read, you will have to buy something in order to see everything the game has to offer, so its not truely free to play in the traditional sense. (but then, what F2P game really is free?)
I do agree, we're going to see more of these hybrid models and we'll have a choice, accept them or don't play.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
As stated in the 2 articles preceding this, this marks the end of mine and many of my guild's time in Middle Earth. If this assinine f2p BS item mall pay to win crap is the future of MMOs more the better I suppose. More time to do other things when I quit the hobby entirely.
It surprises me how some people are so closed minded on F2P and especially with Turbine's hybrid model where you can choose just about any combo of free and paid play that you want. Giving people a CHOICE is almost always better than restricting them to a single model. I've enjoyed the change with DDO and look forward to the change on LOTRO.
I subscribed to LOTRO for the better part of a year when it first came out, but got tired of it and moved on. I come back and play on their free visits and bought their $10 upgrade+month of play to try out the new classes and had fun doing it. However, its not something that I want to play all the time, so for me, the new F2P option will be great. It means that I'll be able to go back and play for a while whenever I'm in the mood without worrying about any financial commitment.
For those that claim that people playing F2P games end up spending more than P2P, it certainly doesn't apply to me. In the 3+ years that I've been playing F2P games, I doubt that I've spent more than $5 total in an item shop. Someone that would spend up to $100/month on an item shop must have money to burn and would probably spend a similar amount in an evening going out to eat and drink with friends.
I have to be frugal with my expenditures, so I welcome any F2P game. If it doesn't meet my play style, then I can move on without wasting any money on it.
I just knew we would hear Richard gloating about this announcement.
Yes... Shocking that the guy who gets paid to write about the F2P industry would write about the biggest piece of F2P news in recent memory.
Also, I wouldn't see it as gloating. You DO understand that Mr. Aihoshi has no personal stake in the F2P industry other than the fact that he writes about it, right?
Lol, I try to mention this fact every time I see someone rant about Richard being a F2P schill and crying about how that's all he seems to write about....
I just knew we would hear Richard gloating about this announcement.
Yes... Shocking that the guy who gets paid to write about the F2P industry would write about the biggest piece of F2P news in recent memory.
Also, I wouldn't see it as gloating. You DO understand that Mr. Aihoshi has no personal stake in the F2P industry other than the fact that he writes about it, right?
You got me, used the wrong word. Should have used the word "excited" as it definitely is a change in his realm of his discussions.
ROFL !!! The most quotes winner comes in ( so far) with 14 quotes...hint...no one will read them all silly !
How about playing a game with good ratings and making up your own mind instead of going with a mindless refusal to play anything FATP? There have been good ones...GW comes to mind. It had an item shop but one that didn't affect game play and GW2 which I personaly thing is one of the reasons LOTR is changing its business model. GW2 has a large and faithful following and recently was the most mentioned game in a recent poll at MMORPG for the most anticipated game on the horizon. LOTR is smart to try to attract as many players as possible before GW2 hits the stores.
For those complaining about Richard and his writing about FTP, not to mention a very spot on pred This is, after all, their flagship MMOG - and there's no heir apparent in sight. iction I think the following quote says it best. Thanks Stradden!
I am amazed at the number of misquotes and blind refusal to accept this is going to happen and maybe give it a look-see to know for themselves weather or not its worthwhile.
For those that refuse to look at things objectivly:
1. The earth is not flat
2. the planets revolve around the sun...not the earth.
Like a previous poster mentioned F2P terminology needs to be renamed to FTPIS. " Free To Play Item Shop "
So while the game is still free to play, you still have to pay money to progress.
I'll never play an item shop game, never ever ever. FTPIS can be popular all they want, but I'll not buy into them.
That's not what I meant. You are still seeing the FTP in this and not the fact that the P2P options are still there. You can still subscribe as usual and get what you got before. Think about it. Terminology does need to be changed but not to something like FTPIS which are basically item shops at their core. Lotro isn't going to be an itemshop at its core any more than EQ2 or WoW is.
Above posts are all proving my point. Knee jerk reactions to the FTP terminology. Amazing.
I am curious. How would you name this new model ?
F2P means free to play.
The game is free to play with no additional costs and when ever you want.
But then not everything in the game itself is free.
Its like if resturant will advertise free meal. And in fact pasta and salads are free but meats cost money. Its still free meal , but not all offered is free.
Its pointless. Lets just agree its called F2P its easier that way
Ah, but there are drastically different flavors of f2p games. A few you can play forever without spending a dime, others, once you get into the serious business of leveling in the upper levels you just can't avoid the item shop. Others, which are pvp based can be really hard to play if you don't spend some in the item shop.
I find very very few of these games actually free to play, the more common experience is free to try, pay to play.
The biggest difference is that Guild Wars is a quality game and ArenaNet chose the right business model from the start. Lotro on the other hand is a failed game that is trying to be saved from the f2p model.
Source? You make a lot of really odd claims and I'd like to know what bizarre site is feeding you this stuff.
"MT: That's right, Dungeons & Dragons Online right now is about eight percent of the market, LOTRO is number eight in the marketplace with five percent."
LotRO, a so-called AAA mmo is 5% of the market and at 8th place ( according to them anyway, I myself am betting they're inflating their numbers as much as they can and would love to see their source ). Does that sound like a successful game to you?
[Mod Edit]
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.- -And on the 8th day, man created God.-
"While it's possible to take position (a), doing so appears to require making assumptions that are more of a stretch. For example, Turbine might believe the market is small, but that LOTRO will cause it to spike, or that the game will capture a huge share as current players switch over in droves.
It's seems both far simpler and more believable to assume (b). The truly adamant naysayers will remain in denial no matter what. I've never expected them to change their minds. What I do hope is that LOTRO's impending shift will help others who aren't so obstinate to accept that F2P is a significant factor in our western market."
I think most people are coming to the conclusion that it would be stupid to disagree with the potential for this model. You are right in saying that it is a significant factor in the western market. My issue stems from whether or not this is a good thing for the customers, which I firmly believe it is not. We're talking about a business model that was made to section off and lock content from players as so to receive as many premiums as possible during their online game time. It's bottom-line-dollar-chasing, and it's going to hurt the genre more than help it, especially as far as innovation, creativity, and player freedoms are concerned. Again: great for the companies and developers, bad for the players.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
I have no problem with F2P, I have played plenty of them, but none of them "held" me. My biggest gripe ? It might sound silly, but having to pay $$$ for a "megaphone" so I can be heard, really destroyed any sense of community I might have found.
The biggest difference is that Guild Wars is a quality game and ArenaNet chose the right business model from the start. Lotro on the other hand is a failed game that is trying to be saved from the f2p model.
Source? You make a lot of really odd claims and I'd like to know what bizarre site is feeding you this stuff.
"MT: That's right, Dungeons & Dragons Online right now is about eight percent of the market, LOTRO is number eight in the marketplace with five percent."
LotRO, a so-called AAA mmo is 5% of the market and at 8th place ( according to them anyway, I myself am betting they're inflating their numbers as much as they can and would love to see their source ). Does that sound like a successful game to you?
[Mod Edit]
Does 5% of the market sound successful? Are you seriously asking that question? Is it that you saw a single digit number and automatically figured that meant failure? WOW, at ~10 million was 58% of the market. Five percent is far from unsuccessful.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
"While it's possible to take position (a), doing so appears to require making assumptions that are more of a stretch. For example, Turbine might believe the market is small, but that LOTRO will cause it to spike, or that the game will capture a huge share as current players switch over in droves.
It's seems both far simpler and more believable to assume (b). The truly adamant naysayers will remain in denial no matter what. I've never expected them to change their minds. What I do hope is that LOTRO's impending shift will help others who aren't so obstinate to accept that F2P is a significant factor in our western market."
I think most people are coming to the conclusion that it would be stupid to disagree with the potential for this model. You are right in saying that it is a significant factor in the western market. My issue stems from whether or not this is a good thing for the customers, which I firmly believe it is not. We're talking about a business model that was made to section off and lock content from players as so to receive as many premiums as possible during their online game time. It's bottom-line-dollar-chasing, and it's going to hurt the genre more than help it, especially as far as innovation, creativity, and player freedoms are concerned. Again: great for the companies and developers, bad for the players.
I've got this horrible feeling that in the not so distant future people are going to be telling their kids: "yup it's true, we used to pay just 15 bucks a month and we got the whole shebang."
"But why do people wanna pay so much money when they could of just done that monthly thing that you guys used to do?" The likely reply.
"My child, if you could find the answer to that question, the human race itself would be that much better off."
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I will accept the validity of the "F2P" business model when someone funds, develops and launches a AAA-quality title that is up to the standards of successful "P2P" games in terms options, content, gameplay and graphics from the start.
All this latest move by Turbine shows is that it is potentially profitable to take a game which has already written off all their start up costs in dev time and hardware into a "F2P" model in order to rake in more income after the subscription numbers have started to drop off.
This is a shining example of why I consider your writing intellectually empty and little more than cheerleading for the "F2P" industry; because you don't actually bother doing any comparative analysis or in depth consideration of the actual situation.
"While it's possible to take position (a), doing so appears to require making assumptions that are more of a stretch. For example, Turbine might believe the market is small, but that LOTRO will cause it to spike, or that the game will capture a huge share as current players switch over in droves.
It's seems both far simpler and more believable to assume (b). The truly adamant naysayers will remain in denial no matter what. I've never expected them to change their minds. What I do hope is that LOTRO's impending shift will help others who aren't so obstinate to accept that F2P is a significant factor in our western market."
I think most people are coming to the conclusion that it would be stupid to disagree with the potential for this model. You are right in saying that it is a significant factor in the western market. My issue stems from whether or not this is a good thing for the customers, which I firmly believe it is not. We're talking about a business model that was made to section off and lock content from players as so to receive as many premiums as possible during their online game time. It's bottom-line-dollar-chasing, and it's going to hurt the genre more than help it, especially as far as innovation, creativity, and player freedoms are concerned. Again: great for the companies and developers, bad for the players.
I've got this horrible feeling that in the not so distant future people are going to be telling their kids: "yup it's true, we used to pay just 15 bucks a month and we got the whole shebang."
"But why do people wanna pay so much money when they could of just done that monthly thing that you guys used to do?" The likely reply.
"My child, if you could find the answer to that question, the human race itself would be that much better off."
Money aside, I'm worried what it's going to do to our games. Rather than having to work for our payments, developers will be able to slack significantly due to an addage I see thrown around quite frequently when talking about F2P: the games are not expected to be of high quality. That's one of the biggest difference between the two. When I'm paying fifteen dollars a month and the quality of content is bad, or an addition to the game ruined something, I can complain within full right to expect reaction from the company. I'm sure you can complain about a poorly made F2P game to their developers as well, but chances are they're not going to care, because they've already got so many people running the monetized mouse wheel to lose you, as a customer, makes absolutely no difference.
All of these P2P vs. F2P discussions are leaving a bad taste in my mouth. I'm both shocked and saddened, largely because I remember a day when I was complaining about paying ten bucks a month for Ultima Online. If I had known what the alternative was, I would have kept my mouth shut.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
When the devs are occupied with 'how do I trick the customers out of more money?' rather than 'how do I make the game more fun so players stay subbed?' - that can only produce bad games.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
"While it's possible to take position (a), doing so appears to require making assumptions that are more of a stretch. For example, Turbine might believe the market is small, but that LOTRO will cause it to spike, or that the game will capture a huge share as current players switch over in droves.
It's seems both far simpler and more believable to assume (b). The truly adamant naysayers will remain in denial no matter what. I've never expected them to change their minds. What I do hope is that LOTRO's impending shift will help others who aren't so obstinate to accept that F2P is a significant factor in our western market."
I think most people are coming to the conclusion that it would be stupid to disagree with the potential for this model. You are right in saying that it is a significant factor in the western market. My issue stems from whether or not this is a good thing for the customers, which I firmly believe it is not. We're talking about a business model that was made to section off and lock content from players as so to receive as many premiums as possible during their online game time. It's bottom-line-dollar-chasing, and it's going to hurt the genre more than help it, especially as far as innovation, creativity, and player freedoms are concerned. Again: great for the companies and developers, bad for the players.
I've got this horrible feeling that in the not so distant future people are going to be telling their kids: "yup it's true, we used to pay just 15 bucks a month and we got the whole shebang."
"But why do people wanna pay so much money when they could of just done that monthly thing that you guys used to do?" The likely reply.
"My child, if you could find the answer to that question, the human race itself would be that much better off."
Money aside, I'm worried what it's going to do to our games. Rather than having to work for our payments, developers will be able to slack significantly due to an addage I see thrown around quite frequently when talking about F2P: the games are not expected to be of high quality. That's one of the biggest difference between the two. When I'm paying fifteen dollars a month and the quality of content is bad, or an addition to the game ruined something, I can complain within full right to expect reaction from the company. I'm sure you can complain about a poorly made F2P game to their developers as well, but chances are they're not going to care, because they've already got so many people running the monetized mouse wheel to lose you, as a customer, makes absolutely no difference.
All of these P2P vs. F2P discussions are leaving a bad taste in my mouth. I'm both shocked and saddened, largely because I remember a day when I was complaining about paying ten bucks a month for Ultima Online. If I had known what the alternative was, I would have kept my mouth shut.
Yeah, well how's that been working out for you lately? Have you even played anything since UO? Very few companies care what you have to say wether its P2P or F2P, just look at the piles of crap with horrible ingame support and horrible customer service to go with them released in the past few years. How can you seriously argue that a subscription will somehow make the devs listen to you more than it will in an F2P? Ive seen better support and more active GMs helping players and actually listening to feedback in several F2Ps than in the majority of P2Ps particularly because if they dont please players they could potentially be missing out on hundreds/thousands of dollars vs a flat $15 a month sub.
"While it's possible to take position (a), doing so appears to require making assumptions that are more of a stretch. For example, Turbine might believe the market is small, but that LOTRO will cause it to spike, or that the game will capture a huge share as current players switch over in droves.
It's seems both far simpler and more believable to assume (b). The truly adamant naysayers will remain in denial no matter what. I've never expected them to change their minds. What I do hope is that LOTRO's impending shift will help others who aren't so obstinate to accept that F2P is a significant factor in our western market."
I think most people are coming to the conclusion that it would be stupid to disagree with the potential for this model. You are right in saying that it is a significant factor in the western market. My issue stems from whether or not this is a good thing for the customers, which I firmly believe it is not. We're talking about a business model that was made to section off and lock content from players as so to receive as many premiums as possible during their online game time. It's bottom-line-dollar-chasing, and it's going to hurt the genre more than help it, especially as far as innovation, creativity, and player freedoms are concerned. Again: great for the companies and developers, bad for the players.
I've got this horrible feeling that in the not so distant future people are going to be telling their kids: "yup it's true, we used to pay just 15 bucks a month and we got the whole shebang."
"But why do people wanna pay so much money when they could of just done that monthly thing that you guys used to do?" The likely reply.
"My child, if you could find the answer to that question, the human race itself would be that much better off."
Money aside, I'm worried what it's going to do to our games. Rather than having to work for our payments, developers will be able to slack significantly due to an addage I see thrown around quite frequently when talking about F2P: the games are not expected to be of high quality. That's one of the biggest difference between the two. When I'm paying fifteen dollars a month and the quality of content is bad, or an addition to the game ruined something, I can complain within full right to expect reaction from the company. I'm sure you can complain about a poorly made F2P game to their developers as well, but chances are they're not going to care, because they've already got so many people running the monetized mouse wheel to lose you, as a customer, makes absolutely no difference.
All of these P2P vs. F2P discussions are leaving a bad taste in my mouth. I'm both shocked and saddened, largely because I remember a day when I was complaining about paying ten bucks a month for Ultima Online. If I had known what the alternative was, I would have kept my mouth shut.
Yeah, well how's that been working out for you lately? Have you even played anything since UO? Very few companies care what you have to say wether its P2P or F2P, just look at the piles of crap with horrible ingame support and horrible customer service to go with them released in the past few years. How can you seriously argue that a subscription will somehow make the devs listen to you more than it will in an F2P? Ive seen better support and more active GMs helping players and actually listening to feedback in several F2Ps than in the majority of P2Ps particularly because if they dont please players they could potentially be missing out on hundreds/thousands of dollars vs a flat $15 a month sub.
Heh, I'd like to know how that's working out for him also.
Maybe the reaction he was expecting was "silence".
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. -Winston Churchill
"While it's possible to take position (a), doing so appears to require making assumptions that are more of a stretch. For example, Turbine might believe the market is small, but that LOTRO will cause it to spike, or that the game will capture a huge share as current players switch over in droves.
It's seems both far simpler and more believable to assume (b). The truly adamant naysayers will remain in denial no matter what. I've never expected them to change their minds. What I do hope is that LOTRO's impending shift will help others who aren't so obstinate to accept that F2P is a significant factor in our western market."
I think most people are coming to the conclusion that it would be stupid to disagree with the potential for this model. You are right in saying that it is a significant factor in the western market. My issue stems from whether or not this is a good thing for the customers, which I firmly believe it is not. We're talking about a business model that was made to section off and lock content from players as so to receive as many premiums as possible during their online game time. It's bottom-line-dollar-chasing, and it's going to hurt the genre more than help it, especially as far as innovation, creativity, and player freedoms are concerned. Again: great for the companies and developers, bad for the players.
I've got this horrible feeling that in the not so distant future people are going to be telling their kids: "yup it's true, we used to pay just 15 bucks a month and we got the whole shebang."
"But why do people wanna pay so much money when they could of just done that monthly thing that you guys used to do?" The likely reply.
"My child, if you could find the answer to that question, the human race itself would be that much better off."
Money aside, I'm worried what it's going to do to our games. Rather than having to work for our payments, developers will be able to slack significantly due to an addage I see thrown around quite frequently when talking about F2P: the games are not expected to be of high quality. That's one of the biggest difference between the two. When I'm paying fifteen dollars a month and the quality of content is bad, or an addition to the game ruined something, I can complain within full right to expect reaction from the company. I'm sure you can complain about a poorly made F2P game to their developers as well, but chances are they're not going to care, because they've already got so many people running the monetized mouse wheel to lose you, as a customer, makes absolutely no difference.
All of these P2P vs. F2P discussions are leaving a bad taste in my mouth. I'm both shocked and saddened, largely because I remember a day when I was complaining about paying ten bucks a month for Ultima Online. If I had known what the alternative was, I would have kept my mouth shut.
Yeah, well how's that been working out for you lately? Have you even played anything since UO? Very few companies care what you have to say wether its P2P or F2P, just look at the piles of crap with horrible ingame support and horrible customer service to go with them released in the past few years. How can you seriously argue that a subscription will somehow make the devs listen to you more than it will in an F2P? Ive seen better support and more active GMs helping players and actually listening to feedback in several F2Ps than in the majority of P2Ps particularly because if they dont please players they could potentially be missing out on hundreds/thousands of dollars vs a flat $15 a month sub.
Heh, I'd like to know how that's working out for him also.
Maybe the reaction he was expecting was "silence".
Silence? Do you think I'd be posting on a public forum if I didn't want to discuss things?
You're right about everything, but you both missed a very key, very important word for what I'm relating to as customer service with a subscription fee, and that is reaction. I can expect a reaction. It doesn't have to be anything other than, "Hey, we heard what you're saying," but I can expect it. With a F2P game, they have absolutely no vested interest in their customers, because they don't need a certain number of subscribers anymore: they just need a few dolts that'll shell out a few hundred bucks more than everyone else to make up for their losses. It's about knowing that when I pay a subscription, there are certain standards of quality that come with the product, and one of those standards is reliable customer service. I used another key word there, before you start hamering away another post: reliable. I don't play games without reliable customer service, and we can argue how many of those exist.
We can go back to your derogatory and slightly demeaning statement, "Have you even played anything since UO?" and I can refer back to the multiple alpha's and beta's, closed or open, subscribed or free to play. Can you guess what my experience with customer service was like, between subscription and free to play models?
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
"While it's possible to take position (a), doing so appears to require making assumptions that are more of a stretch. For example, Turbine might believe the market is small, but that LOTRO will cause it to spike, or that the game will capture a huge share as current players switch over in droves.
It's seems both far simpler and more believable to assume (b). The truly adamant naysayers will remain in denial no matter what. I've never expected them to change their minds. What I do hope is that LOTRO's impending shift will help others who aren't so obstinate to accept that F2P is a significant factor in our western market."
I think most people are coming to the conclusion that it would be stupid to disagree with the potential for this model. You are right in saying that it is a significant factor in the western market. My issue stems from whether or not this is a good thing for the customers, which I firmly believe it is not. We're talking about a business model that was made to section off and lock content from players as so to receive as many premiums as possible during their online game time. It's bottom-line-dollar-chasing, and it's going to hurt the genre more than help it, especially as far as innovation, creativity, and player freedoms are concerned. Again: great for the companies and developers, bad for the players.
I've got this horrible feeling that in the not so distant future people are going to be telling their kids: "yup it's true, we used to pay just 15 bucks a month and we got the whole shebang."
"But why do people wanna pay so much money when they could of just done that monthly thing that you guys used to do?" The likely reply.
"My child, if you could find the answer to that question, the human race itself would be that much better off."
Money aside, I'm worried what it's going to do to our games. Rather than having to work for our payments, developers will be able to slack significantly due to an addage I see thrown around quite frequently when talking about F2P: the games are not expected to be of high quality. That's one of the biggest difference between the two. When I'm paying fifteen dollars a month and the quality of content is bad, or an addition to the game ruined something, I can complain within full right to expect reaction from the company. I'm sure you can complain about a poorly made F2P game to their developers as well, but chances are they're not going to care, because they've already got so many people running the monetized mouse wheel to lose you, as a customer, makes absolutely no difference.
All of these P2P vs. F2P discussions are leaving a bad taste in my mouth. I'm both shocked and saddened, largely because I remember a day when I was complaining about paying ten bucks a month for Ultima Online. If I had known what the alternative was, I would have kept my mouth shut.
Yeah, well how's that been working out for you lately? Have you even played anything since UO? Very few companies care what you have to say wether its P2P or F2P, just look at the piles of crap with horrible ingame support and horrible customer service to go with them released in the past few years. How can you seriously argue that a subscription will somehow make the devs listen to you more than it will in an F2P? Ive seen better support and more active GMs helping players and actually listening to feedback in several F2Ps than in the majority of P2Ps particularly because if they dont please players they could potentially be missing out on hundreds/thousands of dollars vs a flat $15 a month sub.
Heh, I'd like to know how that's working out for him also.
Maybe the reaction he was expecting was "silence".
Silence? Do you think I'd be posting on a public forum if I didn't want to discuss things?
You're right about everything, but you both missed a very key, very important word for what I'm relating to as customer service with a subscription fee, and that is reaction. I can expect a reaction. It doesn't have to be anything other than, "Hey, we heard what you're saying," but I can expect it. With a F2P game, they have absolutely no vested interest in their customers, because they don't need a certain number of subscribers anymore: they just need a few dolts that'll shell out a few hundred bucks more than everyone else to make up for their losses. It's about knowing that when I pay a subscription, there are certain standards of quality that come with the product, and one of those standards is reliable customer service. I used another key word there, before you start hamering away another post: reliable. I don't play games without reliable customer service, and we can argue how many of those exist.
We can go back to your derogatory and slightly demeaning statement, "Have you even played anything since UO?" and I can refer back to the multiple alpha's and beta's, closed or open, subscribed or free to play. Can you guess what my experience with customer service was like, between subscription and free to play models?
"Silence? Do you think I'd be posting on a public forum if I didn't want to discuss things?"
Maybe I need to make my response clearer since you obviously misunderstood it. I'll try again:
Maybe the reaction he was expecting (from the company) was "silence."
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. -Winston Churchill
"While it's possible to take position (a), doing so appears to require making assumptions that are more of a stretch. For example, Turbine might believe the market is small, but that LOTRO will cause it to spike, or that the game will capture a huge share as current players switch over in droves.
It's seems both far simpler and more believable to assume (b). The truly adamant naysayers will remain in denial no matter what. I've never expected them to change their minds. What I do hope is that LOTRO's impending shift will help others who aren't so obstinate to accept that F2P is a significant factor in our western market."
I think most people are coming to the conclusion that it would be stupid to disagree with the potential for this model. You are right in saying that it is a significant factor in the western market. My issue stems from whether or not this is a good thing for the customers, which I firmly believe it is not. We're talking about a business model that was made to section off and lock content from players as so to receive as many premiums as possible during their online game time. It's bottom-line-dollar-chasing, and it's going to hurt the genre more than help it, especially as far as innovation, creativity, and player freedoms are concerned. Again: great for the companies and developers, bad for the players.
I've got this horrible feeling that in the not so distant future people are going to be telling their kids: "yup it's true, we used to pay just 15 bucks a month and we got the whole shebang."
"But why do people wanna pay so much money when they could of just done that monthly thing that you guys used to do?" The likely reply.
"My child, if you could find the answer to that question, the human race itself would be that much better off."
Money aside, I'm worried what it's going to do to our games. Rather than having to work for our payments, developers will be able to slack significantly due to an addage I see thrown around quite frequently when talking about F2P: the games are not expected to be of high quality. That's one of the biggest difference between the two. When I'm paying fifteen dollars a month and the quality of content is bad, or an addition to the game ruined something, I can complain within full right to expect reaction from the company. I'm sure you can complain about a poorly made F2P game to their developers as well, but chances are they're not going to care, because they've already got so many people running the monetized mouse wheel to lose you, as a customer, makes absolutely no difference.
All of these P2P vs. F2P discussions are leaving a bad taste in my mouth. I'm both shocked and saddened, largely because I remember a day when I was complaining about paying ten bucks a month for Ultima Online. If I had known what the alternative was, I would have kept my mouth shut.
Yeah, well how's that been working out for you lately? Have you even played anything since UO? Very few companies care what you have to say wether its P2P or F2P, just look at the piles of crap with horrible ingame support and horrible customer service to go with them released in the past few years. How can you seriously argue that a subscription will somehow make the devs listen to you more than it will in an F2P? Ive seen better support and more active GMs helping players and actually listening to feedback in several F2Ps than in the majority of P2Ps particularly because if they dont please players they could potentially be missing out on hundreds/thousands of dollars vs a flat $15 a month sub.
Heh, I'd like to know how that's working out for him also.
Maybe the reaction he was expecting was "silence".
Silence? Do you think I'd be posting on a public forum if I didn't want to discuss things?
You're right about everything, but you both missed a very key, very important word for what I'm relating to as customer service with a subscription fee, and that is reaction. I can expect a reaction. It doesn't have to be anything other than, "Hey, we heard what you're saying," but I can expect it. With a F2P game, they have absolutely no vested interest in their customers, because they don't need a certain number of subscribers anymore: they just need a few dolts that'll shell out a few hundred bucks more than everyone else to make up for their losses. It's about knowing that when I pay a subscription, there are certain standards of quality that come with the product, and one of those standards is reliable customer service. I used another key word there, before you start hamering away another post: reliable. I don't play games without reliable customer service, and we can argue how many of those exist.
We can go back to your derogatory and slightly demeaning statement, "Have you even played anything since UO?" and I can refer back to the multiple alpha's and beta's, closed or open, subscribed or free to play. Can you guess what my experience with customer service was like, between subscription and free to play models?
"Silence? Do you think I'd be posting on a public forum if I didn't want to discuss things?"
Maybe I need to make my response clearer since you obviously misunderstood it. I'll try again:
Maybe the reaction he was expecting (from the company) was "silence."
It's funny you should say that, because I've got two open tickets with gPotato that have yet to receive response, after e-mail follow-ups and over a weeks time to respond. Yeah, silence is pretty fitting, I'd say.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
Then, let's ask ourselves what this decision likely indicates about the western free to play market. Which of these scenarios seems to make more sense?
(a) The F2P market is small and unimportant, just like its detractors make it out to be.
(b) The F2P market is considerably larger and more important than they think it is.
Huh?
There are many people who prefer subscription MMOs and don't like microtransactions. Lots really, and the subscription MMO market is very alive and kicking.
Those players rightly express that they don't like item malls.
But this notion that f2p detractors claim that the f2p market is "small and unimportant" - I think you've pulled that out of your..... dark and stinky place.
No-one in their right mind could claim that there's no market for f2p MMOs. This site is literally covered top-to-bottom in f2p MMO ads. They're pretty hard to miss. But it's also perfectly fair to say "I don't like item malls and I particularly don't want to see them in subscription MMOs".
For a while last year mmorpg.com was aggressively pushing the idea that everyone should love item malls. It was absurd. It still seems like that bias is in play.
My own take on LOTRO going to free to play.... In a subscription MMO market showing enormous growth even during the GFC, Turbine couldn't make profitable games using arguably the two biggest fantasy IPs on the planet.
I think that says a lot more about Turbine than it does the MMO market.
"The truly adamant naysayers will remain in denial no matter what. I've never expected them to change their minds. What I do hope is that LOTRO's impending shift will help others who aren't so obstinate to accept that F2P is a significant factor in our western market. "
I'm not in denial that F2P is becoming a more popular business model in Western MMO's. However that doesn't mean that I'm going to stop being critical of that model and welcome it with open arms. For me it's not just about the P2Win scenario, although that is a problem and for the most part I simply don't trust that companies who are so far avoiding that will continue to do so. For me buying any items outside of the game world shatters the illusion of the game world. It simply ruins the MMO experience for me and if all games eventually go to that model I won't be playing true MMO's anymore. If anything I'll play something more casual, like Global Agenda maybe.
Yes companies are switching to free to play Richard, and yes we all knew they would despite the fact many of us hate the model and won't play it. The reason is simple by going "Free" to play, your profits increase dramatically, simply because there's so many people out there who love to spend hundreds of dollars in one month on pixels. One guy spending 200 bucks in a month and 10 subscribers quitting over the f2p move = more profit to the company.
This doesn't mean the model is better, or even more enjoyable for gamers. All it means is there are enough crazy people out there that will spend a fortune each month on your game if you provide a way for them to do it.
I'll still stick to much subscriber only MMOs, and when there's none left I will simply be done with MMOs. I haven't bought a console game in a long time because I know every game will have a few hours of content and then will release DLC and make you pay several times over for what you should of got in the first place.
I might be in the minority, but I will stick to my principles and not do an item shop game (even if it has a sub option, and even if most of the items are cosmetic). And I will not buy games that have little content but have DLC packs to make up for it. Perhaps one day I will simply be done with gaming, at that point I'll be older and have more important things to worry about so it probably won't matter much anyways.
I highly doubt one person would be spending $200 a month (I know you didn't say this, but it is implied; if he didn't spend 200$ a month it would be infinitely more profitable for turbine to keep the subscribers). Also, for most good F2P games you don't have to spend a dime to enjoy the content (LoL, DDO, etc), it just requires you to play more in order to experience the better content you could access earlier if you paid.
And for most subscription based games you would have to spend around 200$ a year, "on pixels"
The reason why the F2P model works is because it the core of the game is free. It allows more players access to the game. And if you could make the equivalent of $3 a person via cash shop or Premiums then you make a much greater profit then making $15 a month off of a significantly smaller crowd.
Playing video games is a hobby in which you pay people to make games that entertain you. It should never be free; and people shouldn't get made at game companies for making money; they make money in order to make products that you enjoy.
You do have the right stance though: if you don't like it, don't play it.
I hear the "pay to win" scenario being thrown around alot. This in NOT what lotro's model about, you can buy helpful items and stuff to make adventuring less, let's say, tedious, but the gear, weapons, items you need to be successful in game will still come from drops and questing.
I like what Turbine is doing and I'm SOOOO keeping my founders subscription! Party on!
Comments
I'm looking forward to being able to drop a couple hundo into LOTRO. I'll buy most everything they put out, that I can actually use. Bring it frick'n on!
Comstrike
**************************
Founder, Leader, www.SonsOfNumenor.com LOTRO - SW.ToR (Yes, we are recruiting)
Call it intution, call it a hunch, or maybe its simply because they've never bothered to publish how many paying subs they really have, but I think the game has far less than 300K subs (more likely 100-150K) and I think this move was done strictly to bring in new players to the game.
Not saying its a bad idea, and from what I've read, you will have to buy something in order to see everything the game has to offer, so its not truely free to play in the traditional sense. (but then, what F2P game really is free?)
I do agree, we're going to see more of these hybrid models and we'll have a choice, accept them or don't play.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
As stated in the 2 articles preceding this, this marks the end of mine and many of my guild's time in Middle Earth. If this assinine f2p BS item mall pay to win crap is the future of MMOs more the better I suppose. More time to do other things when I quit the hobby entirely.
It surprises me how some people are so closed minded on F2P and especially with Turbine's hybrid model where you can choose just about any combo of free and paid play that you want. Giving people a CHOICE is almost always better than restricting them to a single model. I've enjoyed the change with DDO and look forward to the change on LOTRO.
I subscribed to LOTRO for the better part of a year when it first came out, but got tired of it and moved on. I come back and play on their free visits and bought their $10 upgrade+month of play to try out the new classes and had fun doing it. However, its not something that I want to play all the time, so for me, the new F2P option will be great. It means that I'll be able to go back and play for a while whenever I'm in the mood without worrying about any financial commitment.
For those that claim that people playing F2P games end up spending more than P2P, it certainly doesn't apply to me. In the 3+ years that I've been playing F2P games, I doubt that I've spent more than $5 total in an item shop. Someone that would spend up to $100/month on an item shop must have money to burn and would probably spend a similar amount in an evening going out to eat and drink with friends.
I have to be frugal with my expenditures, so I welcome any F2P game. If it doesn't meet my play style, then I can move on without wasting any money on it.
Lol, I try to mention this fact every time I see someone rant about Richard being a F2P schill and crying about how that's all he seems to write about....
You got me, used the wrong word. Should have used the word "excited" as it definitely is a change in his realm of his discussions.
Thanks for pointing that out..
ROFL !!! The most quotes winner comes in ( so far) with 14 quotes...hint...no one will read them all silly !
How about playing a game with good ratings and making up your own mind instead of going with a mindless refusal to play anything FATP? There have been good ones...GW comes to mind. It had an item shop but one that didn't affect game play and GW2 which I personaly thing is one of the reasons LOTR is changing its business model. GW2 has a large and faithful following and recently was the most mentioned game in a recent poll at MMORPG for the most anticipated game on the horizon. LOTR is smart to try to attract as many players as possible before GW2 hits the stores.
For those complaining about Richard and his writing about FTP, not to mention a very spot on pred This is, after all, their flagship MMOG - and there's no heir apparent in sight. iction I think the following quote says it best. Thanks Stradden!
I am amazed at the number of misquotes and blind refusal to accept this is going to happen and maybe give it a look-see to know for themselves weather or not its worthwhile.
For those that refuse to look at things objectivly:
1. The earth is not flat
2. the planets revolve around the sun...not the earth.
Ah, but there are drastically different flavors of f2p games. A few you can play forever without spending a dime, others, once you get into the serious business of leveling in the upper levels you just can't avoid the item shop. Others, which are pvp based can be really hard to play if you don't spend some in the item shop.
I find very very few of these games actually free to play, the more common experience is free to try, pay to play.
http://www.gamepro.com/article/features/215346/turbines-lord-of-the-rings-online-goes-free-to-play/
Straight from WB and Turbine execs mouths:
"MT: That's right, Dungeons & Dragons Online right now is about eight percent of the market, LOTRO is number eight in the marketplace with five percent."
LotRO, a so-called AAA mmo is 5% of the market and at 8th place ( according to them anyway, I myself am betting they're inflating their numbers as much as they can and would love to see their source ). Does that sound like a successful game to you?
[Mod Edit]
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.-
-And on the 8th day, man created God.-
From Richard:
"While it's possible to take position (a), doing so appears to require making assumptions that are more of a stretch. For example, Turbine might believe the market is small, but that LOTRO will cause it to spike, or that the game will capture a huge share as current players switch over in droves.
It's seems both far simpler and more believable to assume (b). The truly adamant naysayers will remain in denial no matter what. I've never expected them to change their minds. What I do hope is that LOTRO's impending shift will help others who aren't so obstinate to accept that F2P is a significant factor in our western market."
I think most people are coming to the conclusion that it would be stupid to disagree with the potential for this model. You are right in saying that it is a significant factor in the western market. My issue stems from whether or not this is a good thing for the customers, which I firmly believe it is not. We're talking about a business model that was made to section off and lock content from players as so to receive as many premiums as possible during their online game time. It's bottom-line-dollar-chasing, and it's going to hurt the genre more than help it, especially as far as innovation, creativity, and player freedoms are concerned. Again: great for the companies and developers, bad for the players.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
I have no problem with F2P, I have played plenty of them, but none of them "held" me. My biggest gripe ? It might sound silly, but having to pay $$$ for a "megaphone" so I can be heard, really destroyed any sense of community I might have found.
Does 5% of the market sound successful? Are you seriously asking that question? Is it that you saw a single digit number and automatically figured that meant failure? WOW, at ~10 million was 58% of the market. Five percent is far from unsuccessful.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I've got this horrible feeling that in the not so distant future people are going to be telling their kids: "yup it's true, we used to pay just 15 bucks a month and we got the whole shebang."
"But why do people wanna pay so much money when they could of just done that monthly thing that you guys used to do?" The likely reply.
"My child, if you could find the answer to that question, the human race itself would be that much better off."
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Dear Mr Aihoshi,
I will accept the validity of the "F2P" business model when someone funds, develops and launches a AAA-quality title that is up to the standards of successful "P2P" games in terms options, content, gameplay and graphics from the start.
All this latest move by Turbine shows is that it is potentially profitable to take a game which has already written off all their start up costs in dev time and hardware into a "F2P" model in order to rake in more income after the subscription numbers have started to drop off.
This is a shining example of why I consider your writing intellectually empty and little more than cheerleading for the "F2P" industry; because you don't actually bother doing any comparative analysis or in depth consideration of the actual situation.
Money aside, I'm worried what it's going to do to our games. Rather than having to work for our payments, developers will be able to slack significantly due to an addage I see thrown around quite frequently when talking about F2P: the games are not expected to be of high quality. That's one of the biggest difference between the two. When I'm paying fifteen dollars a month and the quality of content is bad, or an addition to the game ruined something, I can complain within full right to expect reaction from the company. I'm sure you can complain about a poorly made F2P game to their developers as well, but chances are they're not going to care, because they've already got so many people running the monetized mouse wheel to lose you, as a customer, makes absolutely no difference.
All of these P2P vs. F2P discussions are leaving a bad taste in my mouth. I'm both shocked and saddened, largely because I remember a day when I was complaining about paying ten bucks a month for Ultima Online. If I had known what the alternative was, I would have kept my mouth shut.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
When the devs are occupied with 'how do I trick the customers out of more money?' rather than 'how do I make the game more fun so players stay subbed?' - that can only produce bad games.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Yeah, well how's that been working out for you lately? Have you even played anything since UO? Very few companies care what you have to say wether its P2P or F2P, just look at the piles of crap with horrible ingame support and horrible customer service to go with them released in the past few years. How can you seriously argue that a subscription will somehow make the devs listen to you more than it will in an F2P? Ive seen better support and more active GMs helping players and actually listening to feedback in several F2Ps than in the majority of P2Ps particularly because if they dont please players they could potentially be missing out on hundreds/thousands of dollars vs a flat $15 a month sub.
Heh, I'd like to know how that's working out for him also.
Maybe the reaction he was expecting was "silence".
Silence? Do you think I'd be posting on a public forum if I didn't want to discuss things?
You're right about everything, but you both missed a very key, very important word for what I'm relating to as customer service with a subscription fee, and that is reaction. I can expect a reaction. It doesn't have to be anything other than, "Hey, we heard what you're saying," but I can expect it. With a F2P game, they have absolutely no vested interest in their customers, because they don't need a certain number of subscribers anymore: they just need a few dolts that'll shell out a few hundred bucks more than everyone else to make up for their losses. It's about knowing that when I pay a subscription, there are certain standards of quality that come with the product, and one of those standards is reliable customer service. I used another key word there, before you start hamering away another post: reliable. I don't play games without reliable customer service, and we can argue how many of those exist.
We can go back to your derogatory and slightly demeaning statement, "Have you even played anything since UO?" and I can refer back to the multiple alpha's and beta's, closed or open, subscribed or free to play. Can you guess what my experience with customer service was like, between subscription and free to play models?
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
"Silence? Do you think I'd be posting on a public forum if I didn't want to discuss things?"
Maybe I need to make my response clearer since you obviously misunderstood it. I'll try again:
Maybe the reaction he was expecting (from the company) was "silence."
It's funny you should say that, because I've got two open tickets with gPotato that have yet to receive response, after e-mail follow-ups and over a weeks time to respond. Yeah, silence is pretty fitting, I'd say.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
Then, let's ask ourselves what this decision likely indicates about the western free to play market. Which of these scenarios seems to make more sense?
(a) The F2P market is small and unimportant, just like its detractors make it out to be.
(b) The F2P market is considerably larger and more important than they think it is.
Huh?
There are many people who prefer subscription MMOs and don't like microtransactions. Lots really, and the subscription MMO market is very alive and kicking.
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=23003
Those players rightly express that they don't like item malls.
But this notion that f2p detractors claim that the f2p market is "small and unimportant" - I think you've pulled that out of your..... dark and stinky place.
No-one in their right mind could claim that there's no market for f2p MMOs. This site is literally covered top-to-bottom in f2p MMO ads. They're pretty hard to miss. But it's also perfectly fair to say "I don't like item malls and I particularly don't want to see them in subscription MMOs".
For a while last year mmorpg.com was aggressively pushing the idea that everyone should love item malls. It was absurd. It still seems like that bias is in play.
My own take on LOTRO going to free to play.... In a subscription MMO market showing enormous growth even during the GFC, Turbine couldn't make profitable games using arguably the two biggest fantasy IPs on the planet.
I think that says a lot more about Turbine than it does the MMO market.
"The truly adamant naysayers will remain in denial no matter what. I've never expected them to change their minds. What I do hope is that LOTRO's impending shift will help others who aren't so obstinate to accept that F2P is a significant factor in our western market. "
I'm not in denial that F2P is becoming a more popular business model in Western MMO's. However that doesn't mean that I'm going to stop being critical of that model and welcome it with open arms. For me it's not just about the P2Win scenario, although that is a problem and for the most part I simply don't trust that companies who are so far avoiding that will continue to do so. For me buying any items outside of the game world shatters the illusion of the game world. It simply ruins the MMO experience for me and if all games eventually go to that model I won't be playing true MMO's anymore. If anything I'll play something more casual, like Global Agenda maybe.
I highly doubt one person would be spending $200 a month (I know you didn't say this, but it is implied; if he didn't spend 200$ a month it would be infinitely more profitable for turbine to keep the subscribers). Also, for most good F2P games you don't have to spend a dime to enjoy the content (LoL, DDO, etc), it just requires you to play more in order to experience the better content you could access earlier if you paid.
And for most subscription based games you would have to spend around 200$ a year, "on pixels"
The reason why the F2P model works is because it the core of the game is free. It allows more players access to the game. And if you could make the equivalent of $3 a person via cash shop or Premiums then you make a much greater profit then making $15 a month off of a significantly smaller crowd.
Playing video games is a hobby in which you pay people to make games that entertain you. It should never be free; and people shouldn't get made at game companies for making money; they make money in order to make products that you enjoy.
You do have the right stance though: if you don't like it, don't play it.
I hear the "pay to win" scenario being thrown around alot. This in NOT what lotro's model about, you can buy helpful items and stuff to make adventuring less, let's say, tedious, but the gear, weapons, items you need to be successful in game will still come from drops and questing.
I like what Turbine is doing and I'm SOOOO keeping my founders subscription! Party on!