Seriously having played both the only defining difference i am seeing between "real gamers" and others is the quality of the game.2002 era everquest was "real" gaming...just getting around ingame was a challenge till you developed sense heading skills etc...raids actually took strategies to preform and successfully pull off,and the sense of exploration ,accomplishment etc... was a real thrill...you actually had to know how to play a class well and groups actually needed most classes to work well together.The rare player who could kite a world spawn boss was a true combination of skill and EARNED items.
Let's jump to the present....we will pit a top p2p vs a top f2p.
p2p= Wow (hold the groans going by popularity) now one of my best friends has the i.q. of a dumb turnip (if it was dropped as a young turnip)..and he is totally maxxed out in lvl and sickly geared in wow...no item shop available, just takes no skill to accomplish that in wow.
f2p= Runes of Magic , 1 as it is my current f2p, 2 as it is a rising star in f2p's.I have 2 chars in rom 1 uses diamonds(cash shop purchases) 1 does not..
leveling is the same for both as is all ingame currency required materials.
as far as gear and"uber items"? the cash shop toon pwns the other because contrary to what the fool posting the initial article said "Seriously though, don’t worry about the Über items: they don’t exist.", it is not "UBER items" that off balance it, it is the cash shop ONLY items that allow you to give your regular armor/weapons "UBER" stats that is the sick secret behind the trade.so yeah both can get the same armor ...but the "puri"required to fuse the godlike stats is otherwise unattainable...and that is not even counting things that are cosmetic like permanent mounts,etc....
THIS is the sick problem with "f2p" ....to get the equivalent of a sub game worth of accomplishment you spend avg 20-60 us dollars at a time on the cash shop....most the ppl on my rom server spend 3-4x a sub accnt and still are notable to enjoy all the content.
Bottom line when someone offers an article on how cigarettes are good for you based on his experience as a former doctor and now a cigarette maker (In the spirit of full disclosure, before I begin, I should mention that I work for studio that specializes in F2P games and microtransactions. And, conversely, that I’ve also worked for a studio that made subscription-based MMOs. I’ve designed on both sides of the fence.) read it for what it is a sales pitch for a new boss.
I don't think players are anywhere near as confused about F2P and how it works as you try to make it sound. Those of us who hate it get how it works, we still hate it.
It isn't a matter of needing to relax or anything else. When you prefer subscription MMOs (or in my case that's the only type you'll play) and you see big name MMOs switching over, you realize that your hobby is disappearing. For each big name that switches over and is successful from doing so, more will see that and decide they should try it. The only sub based MMOs that are going to be around in a couple years are going to be Indie games.
I have zero desire to play any game where someone can compensate money for time. This isn't because I have an abundance of free time to play either. These days I really don't and in subscription MMOs I'd tend to always be behind the curve, but I have no issue with someone who puts in more time and effort being ahead of me. However as soon as someone can compensate money for time, I'm out. I don't even like companies having a subscription and then selling cosmetic items. I feel the subscription should allow all players equal access to the same items, no matter how mundane the item is.
So for me, I'm not in a panic or thrashing around wildly. I simply won't play f2p/item mall games. It's no different then the fact I will never lease a car, that option just doesn't make sense to me and seems foolish to get involved with. There are people who love to lease cars and they constantly do, it just isn't something I would do.
My only concern is how this industry copies the hell out of each other. So instead of there leveling out with a good mix of subscription only and f2p games, everyone will switch to the new trend for a few years before switching to something else. That is the part I see happening that I don't like. Look at how many games came out trying to copy WoW because it was the big thing, instead of doing their own unique take on an MMO. Now all the companies want to tap into the f2p/item mall crowd, instead of each finding their own place in the MMO world.
You can hate F2P just for being F2P, but keep your argument consistent.
“I have zero desire to play any game where someone can compensate money for time. This isn't because I have an abundance of free time to play either. These days I really don't and in subscription MMOs I'd tend to always be behind the curve, but I have no issue with someone who puts in more time and effort being ahead of me. However as soon as someone can compensate money for time, I'm out. I don't even like companies having a subscription and then selling cosmetic items. I feel the subscription should allow all players equal access to the same items, no matter how mundane the item is.”
In the first sentence you already tell the audience that you yourself are committing the act you have no desire to take part in.
Via subscription based MMOs it’s not just time, but money that one must also factor. However small a fee 15$ might be to you, it is still a fee that must be paid. I haven’t always had $15 a month to spend on a game, therefore someone with more money than me, gets more access to the game for being able to constantly pay for the game.
There are not a whole lot of F2P games that sell items that make the player better; and if they do, then those items are almost always available for the non-paying player for free, of course at the cost of time.
Which makes sense, since you can probably equate that if person A can’t afford the 2-3$ for a permanent weapon of x caliber, then person A probably isn’t working, or doesn’t view the item as valuable, therefore person A should have no problems in having to spend more time playing to get that item.
DDO’s numbers are a testament to just how satisfying a F2P game can be. Various types of payment options allow the company to be profitable and offer something for everyone.
“So for me, I'm not in a panic or thrashing around wildly. I simply won't play f2p/item mall games. It's no different then the fact I will never lease a car, that option just doesn't make sense to me and seems foolish to get involved with. There are people who love to lease cars and they constantly do, it just isn't something I would do.”
Yet you play subscription based games which is the exact same thing; if not F2P is MORE like owning a car than subscription based games. In a subscription based game you must pay, monthly, set fee for as long as you wish to play that game (same as leasing a car), when you stop paying you no longer have access to those items, your character, what most people would consider their property; however, in most F2P games, you purchase an item and its yours forever (like in LoL, or DDO or many others). So again, I don’t see how this example is at all helpful in your argument.
“My only concern is how this industry copies the hell out of each other. So instead of there leveling out with a good mix of subscription only and f2p games, everyone will switch to the new trend for a few years before switching to something else. That is the part I see happening that I don't like. Look at how many games came out trying to copy WoW because it was the big thing, instead of doing their own unique take on an MMO. Now all the companies want to tap into the f2p/item mall crowd, instead of each finding their own place in the MMO world.”
I don’t see why this is a problem. Of course games copy each other. Of course businesses copy other business models. It doesn’t mean that they are exact copies, or at least the successful ones aren’t. It’s the evolution of the market place. Someone does something good and then others try and top it; not by copying it, but taking its core principles and adding more or making it better.
Take Allods for example, now I haven’t played into late game, in fact I just started playing it only several days ago and my feelings are mixed. However, it is clearly what many people will classify as a WoW clone, since the graphics are similar and it has two warring factions (which, by the way, WoW did not create either the cartoony graphics, or the idea that two factions can be at war).
I have never really liked WoW, for the reasons that it takes too much time to enjoy and the quests are all pretty lame (majority are kill mob X and collect thing X).
However, the first mission of Allods sucks you into the game. You fight huge monsters. If you choose the side of the imperials, then you do battle on an air ship that is being attacked; if you are the league then you apart of an underground resistance that gets ambushed. Over all it was a great and exciting first mission and it gave me high hopes for the game. However after the first mission the game becomes more like WoW: kill mob X, collect thing X, which is boring (However, in the league side there is a part where you storm an air ship and steal back this one magicians relics, which was fun).
Anyways, first off, Allods is an F2P; meaning I don’t have to put forth any more to play this game. And already I have had a better experience than playing WoW. The graphics are better, the characters are more unique and the story (from what I have experienced so far) is better.
That’s not to say the people at Blizzard made a bad game. They made an incredibly great game; however, other game companies are starting to borrow some of their core concepts and make better games. And if those games are successful, we’ll see slight variations, but overall, better games than those, and so.
If you play any NES game and then go play an Xbox 360 or PS3 game you will feel like they are nothing alike; however (this is especially true when playing a series like Zelda); if you go play an NES game, then an SNES game, then a Sega game, then a PS game and slowly work your way up to today; you will see the similarities of each platform before it. The difference between the NES and the SNES were really not that big (huge back in those days, but relative to today’s standards). Same with the 64 and the game cube. Xbox and the Xbox 360.
So my point is, is that it’s nothing to not like. If you don’t like it then you must implicitly hate progress (which would cause me to suggest you do some serious introspection). It’s perfectly acceptable to say that you like older games (its why each system out today has a virtual console and why emulators are so popular); or that you simply hate F2P for being F2P. But to go off and state a bunch of random arguments is pointless and certainly doesn’t help your cause. You should be stating why subscription is better, for instance, it allows for a healthy community since it maintains a community willing to pay X$ a month (which this is arguable, however may be true based on my experience). There’s not as much spam (again not sure if it is true or not but is a much better claim than any of yours).
Then scroll down to GDC 2010, a lecture by Ernest Adams
Once the video starts, the second half of his lecture actually goes into the guy you mention. The quotes you hear will make anyone become fearful.
Amazing design lecture for anyone interested in player centric design as well as the f2p mentality.
good find, thanks!
If you're reading this thread and haven't viewed this video, you're doiong yourself a disservice. Hearing someone from inside the industry mention some of the same points that have been going through my head the past few days felt very, very reassuring, for some reason. Maybe it's just knowing that not everyone in the "biz" feels that F2P is a good idea.
To be honest, when he starts off by saying he knows almost nothing about F2P or MMOGs... it kind of takes away from anything he says. Wait, he did pick a few things up in the days before the conference. While some of his comments were witty, in general it was fluff - sportsmanship, not fighting other players? Give me a break, is he looking for a job with Hello Kitty?
It was a mixed bag, where it really did not feel like he contributed anything to the discussion other than to come off as crying about F2P, PvP, and hoping somebody in the audience would give him a hug...in all fairness.
To be honest, it doesnt sound like you didnt actually watch all of the video. He takes his experience as a respected designer and breaks down what the f2p world's own designers present. It is hard to say that designers, even though they are not well experienced with f2p, are unqualified to discuss the design flaws within the business model, especially when he references Zu.
Anyways here are the details of both lecturer and lecture at the game developers conference
***
Ernest is a freelance game designer, writer, and teacher, working with the International Hobo Design Group. He has been in the game industry since 1989, and is the author of three books, including the university-level textbook "Fundamentals of Game Design" with Andrew Rollings. Ernest was most recently employed as a lead designer at Bullfrog Productions on the DUNGEON KEEPER series, and for several years before that was the audio/video producer on the MADDEN NFL FOOTBALL line for Electronic Arts. He has developed online, computer, and console games for everything from the IBM 360 mainframe to the PS2. Ernest is also the founder and first chairman of the International Game Developers' Association and a popular speaker at conferences and arts festivals around the world. His website is at http://www.designersnotebook.com.
Session Description
This lecture explores the profound differences among game design for single-player, multiplayer, MMOG, and free-to-play games. These differences extend beyond the obvious considerations (types of challenges, fairness, balance, synchronous and asynchronous play, etc.) to questions about how the designer relates to the players, and how his or her own role changes with each type: artist, engineer, sociologist, economist. The experience of the single-player game arises from minute details of interaction, while the multiplayer game is much more about competition and mechanics. The lecture ends with suggestions to help guide the designer's thinking and avoid mistakes caused by assuming that all game design is the same.
Intended Audience
This lecture is intended for moderately experienced game designers. It assumes that the audience already knows the fundamental principles of game design.
Takeaway
I plan to explain my theory of player-centric game design, and then show how it diverges in four variants: for MMOGs, community design; for multiplayer games, competition design; for single-player games, interaction design; for free-to-play games, revenue design. Attendees will go away with specific, concrete suggestions about how to create concept designs for new games based on this understanding.
Justin I would like to thank you again for a well written article,especially delving into this ever so tumultuous subjuct. I for one am a fan of a good game ,F2P or any other model out there or yet to come. Generlay speaking change is good. Alas there is always an exception to the rule and I hope as more games may chose to take the F2P revenue model that the stigma associated with the F2P genre will fade as the quality of the games will increase.
Going to follow up to my previous post (and many of the dozens of others in here)
1) That Chinese powerpoint embodied everything I hate about Asian games. Sorry to say it, but it's true. I have attempted to play several games of that type, and they just lose me immediately. That's not a business model that will succeed here unless our culture takes a massive shift.
2) I played DDO for the first time today. Wow, they really shove that "buy now" stick in your face. I couldn't believe it. It was like trying to read an article crammed between huge loud flash ads and popups. The game may be good, but the excessive commercialism of it is so crass, I'll be unlikely to stay.
3) Sorry, LOTRO is *not* giving lifers/subs free access to all classes. Right there in the FAQ: "Premium Classes: Purchasable" ( http://www.lotro.com/betasignup/vipchart.html ). So no, they don't come with the content expansion from Mirkwood (which pretty much everyone has by now anyways).
4) This crassness is why people are seeing such a split in the gamer culture. I'll generalize and say that older gamers want something they *own*. A CD, a console, a book, a cloth map, whatever. It's theirs, they bought it, and they'll still be playing it in 20 years (like Warcraft, Diablo, Ultima, Zork, Monkey Island, etc). Younger gamers seem to be more accepting of the ephemeral 'rented' games. It's all digital and vapor, and if the server is down, oh well.
I could be wrong, but I can tell you that I have very little patience for the way DDO plays out, and if LOTRO goes that way, I will definitely be putting Turbine on my blacklist next to NCSoft and Sony. I know nobody cares about older gamers, but guess what - we have money. We spend money. If enough older gamers get frustrated and simply stop gaming (and I know several who are getting to that point), the industry will start to notice.
Going to follow up to my previous post (and many of the dozens of others in here)
1) That Chinese powerpoint embodied everything I hate about Asian games. Sorry to say it, but it's true. I have attempted to play several games of that type, and they just lose me immediately. That's not a business model that will succeed here unless our culture takes a massive shift.
2) I played DDO for the first time today. Wow, they really shove that "buy now" stick in your face. I couldn't believe it. It was like trying to read an article crammed between huge loud flash ads and popups. The game may be good, but the excessive commercialism of it is so crass, I'll be unlikely to stay.
3) Sorry, LOTRO is *not* giving lifers/subs free access to all classes. Right there in the FAQ: "Premium Classes: Purchasable" ( http://www.lotro.com/betasignup/vipchart.html ). So no, they don't come with the content expansion from Mirkwood (which pretty much everyone has by now anyways).
4) This crassness is why people are seeing such a split in the gamer culture. I'll generalize and say that older gamers want something they *own*. A CD, a console, a book, a cloth map, whatever. It's theirs, they bought it, and they'll still be playing it in 20 years (like Warcraft, Diablo, Ultima, Zork, Monkey Island, etc). Younger gamers seem to be more accepting of the ephemeral 'rented' games. It's all digital and vapor, and if the server is down, oh well.
I could be wrong, but I can tell you that I have very little patience for the way DDO plays out, and if LOTRO goes that way, I will definitely be putting Turbine on my blacklist next to NCSoft and Sony. I know nobody cares about older gamers, but guess what - we have money. We spend money. If enough older gamers get frustrated and simply stop gaming (and I know several who are getting to that point), the industry will start to notice.
I think your DDO experience has been skewed by your own personal hyperbole.
If you're looking for the cash shop it is easy to find, but until you're a good 6 to 8 levels into the game does the price tag truly appear. Even then it's optional, but the content is there to buy. The prices aren't that unreasonable. If you're an older gamer with a job or a career then you might like the fact that you pay to unlock an area and you can get to it when you can get to it. That's the freedom of the model.
Now NCSoft and Sony think they can have both. The steady sub and a lil' cha-ching with some perks. Over all I think DDO is a more fair deal than that. If you really crunch the math, like old people can do ~ I do it all of the time. You can take an affordable (And might I mention FUN) route through DDO at a good quarter of the cost of your typical 14.99 a month subscription based game in a year's time.
Also wouldn't forever free to access be more like having a product in your hand than having a WoW disk and an unpaid account? You got your disk, but it's more useless a boar's teat unless you're paid up.
I think the BREATHE part of this article is too complicated for most MMO players.
I kill other players because they're smarter than AI, sometimes.
All of your arguments werre valid, though they miss the point that annoys me most regarding f2p-MMO's... a horrbile community. If you let everybody play for free you get tons of imbeciles ruining everybodys day... because they do not have to fear the almighty banhammer.
In short:
A) If you seriously troll, flame and get banned in a p2p MMO you've just thrown some money out of the window.
If you do so in an f2p model you haven't lost anything, you get another (free) account and reroll "Phuxurmotha" who continues to flame and troll.
Take a look at GW - I used to see all kinds of verbal garbage flooding my screen when you got to a hub - not much better when you grouped. Talking about immersion, eh?
So, even though you have very good theoretical arguments, the practical argument of bad community beats them in my book. Still a nice article though, very informative.
All of your arguments werre valid, though they miss the point that annoys me most regarding f2p-MMO's... a horrbile community. If you let everybody play for free you get tons of imbeciles ruining everybodys day... because they do not have to fear the almighty banhammer.
In short:
A) If you seriously troll, flame and get banned in a p2p MMO you've just thrown some money out of the window.
If you do so in an f2p model you haven't lost anything, you get another (free) account and reroll "Phuxurmotha" who continues to flame and troll.
Take a look at GW - I used to see all kinds of verbal garbage flooding my screen when you got to a hub - not much better when you grouped. Talking about immersion, eh?
So, even though you have very good theoretical arguments, the practical argument of bad community beats them in my book. Still a nice article though, very informative.
Cheers
I've gotten that since UO, EQ, Shadowbane, FFXI, WoW.. Any online.. ANYTHING has that. To blame the F2P model is baseless.
I kill other players because they're smarter than AI, sometimes.
"What Im really excited about is the next step. Imagine a game where monsters dont drop silver, and training/repairing doesnt cost anything. Instead all trade interactions are conducted using gold only. Type-2 players can buy gold with real money. There is a harvested commodity in the game that ALL players need, but it takes a while to accumulate. Type-1 players can auction their extra commodity to type-2 players in exchange for gold. This way, type-1 players can earn gold to buy their fancy mounts while type-2 players get the commodity they need without having to do the grind. Using this system, the only currency that exists in the game was bought using real money by type-2 players. At this point you have a real economy, with type-1 and type-2 players existing symbiotically. That would be awesome. Nolan Bushnell has been banging on about this for years."
Literally had the hairs on the back of my neck standing up after reading it. As an admitted F2P and Item store hater, but one who is at least trying to be openminded, this has me instantly feeling afraid of the mere thoughts of this model. I've yet to figure out why, just a gut reaction to it is way beyond negative. I seriously do not like the sounds of it at all, the strange thing ? I'm really not sure why.
This scares me as well, this is the last thing I would want to see. In the early MMORPGs you gain your rewards (gear) directly as part of playing the game and there was excitement when you did so. Now the trend seems to be more on playing the auction game to get upgrades on gear, something that I have no interest in at all. At least in most games I can still get my kicks getting upgrades the old way, with Justin's idea above this won't be a option. I play games to play the game, not to buy and sell ingame items (be it by ingame auction houses or otherwise). Maybe I'm just getting old but I can not see how I could enjoy any game using such a model (be it F2P or otherwise).
Well as always it is a question on what your expectations are and how you see your gaming. Personally I am fed up with paying $ 15 a onth for EQ 2 where I feel I pay way to much for the time I spend in game and I am also barred from a lot of the content because i am casual, and yes I can soloquest, and soloquest some more and after that I may get groups (but unlikely as my gear will not be good enough). Everybody in this thread is obviously not going to feel happy about the new pay oprions for games but I am definetly one that is very interested in them.
The big issue is how many people like me will disappear from the big subscription games?
Anything that is acceptable to a large enough number of people will be marketed and we will have to see what the MMO market impications will be. Maybe the % of hardcore gamers is not enough to keep a AAA P2P title up and runining. I still would like to see a good market survey on what kind of players pay the largest amount of the subscription fees for a major title, I still have the nagging suspicion that most of the subscribers do not get what they pay for, the actions of all major developers seems to be done in that context (the famous dumbing down that people hate so much).
Maybe the answer is pay per minute instead, I am totally for that option.
Uber items is not the only issue with F2P games. MMORPGs, unlike FPS, measure a characters "power" with not only the skills if the player behind the screen but also the skills of the virtual character. And those skills are usually gained be spending time advancing your character in different ways.
Now what F2P games does is to allow for, people with money and willing to spend it on a game, to advance much faster than other people and thus, in competetive MMORPGs, outrun other players without enough money or will to spend it. F2P games in essence allows you to cheat just like doping allows athletes to cheat by increasing their advancement pace above and beyond "clean" athletes.
Now the only reason F2P games exist is for companies to make money, I really dont think the customer base asked for the existance of them but rather companies who wants to make more money. So the best thing for us gamers not to accept these games that allows you to cheat is to boycott them.
I don't like "F2P" because they are money grabs. It's a strategic predatory business model preying on the fact that the micro-transactions are small enough for the player not to pay attention too until the player realizes they are spending more a month than a subscription game. By the time that happens the developer is betting they are too invested to give up and even if they do quit, they have made the equivalent of two or three subscription players. It is a win/win for the developer most times.
If it was a win for the players as a whole in some way, then it would be fine, but that isn't happening for the most part. We players are getting many clones with flashy graphics, worlds of little depth, and most importantly no innovation. We want games to get more sophisticated to keep our hobby interesting and fun.
And how good is Monato Espirit doing anyways? Nolan Bushnell's Metatix has only been used in a couple of crappy games that have sunk without a trace. That should show you how good the idea of player bought gold is doing.
I can think of many that still use what you call predatory pricing and that should by your rights be gone but instead are even more popular than others: Mabinogi for one sells rebirths which directly increase player power, and even sells the predatory lottery items in the form of gachapon. Is it dying?
F2P is a bad payment model. We aren't China, we don't pirate games on that large scale. F2P increases the grind and penalties of a game to make money way beyond the grindiest sub game. If it's the wave of the future, you are going to kill off the hobby for those of us who like to play games seriously.
I dont know why you even bothered to try and explain it to them Justin.They think F2P player saren't real gamers/
:rolls eyes:
You can play F2P and be a real gamer - just don't buy anything.
But subscribers are paying to play, are they real gamers? And they get points every month from turbine to spend in the item shop. if they start using their points in the item shop does that stop them from being a real gamer?
I find the whole "gamer/non-gamer" issue to be silly and will not even entertain it...
However, that first line I colored blue is a disingenuous retort and you know it. Had the perspective from those who don't like the F2P/Cash Shop setup not been well discussed and well detailed many times, by a number of people, on these very forums, I could give you that. But that's not the case.
We're not against paying to play a game. We're against being nickeled and dimed to access content that we currently get full access to for one flat fee. Furthermore - and I will reiterate it again - the *reasoning* behind the so-called "Free To Play" approach is to make *more* money off the players for the same or even *less* content than they would get for a subscription.
"Free to Play" is nothing but convenient marketing spin that benefits from being "technically" true... It's a Marketing/PR type's wet dream. It's disingenuous, nonetheless.
I won't even go into the whole "paying for uber items that give an advantage" because
1: I've never seen such a thing myself (yet)
2: I don't have to. Frankly, arguing the "paying to win by buying uber gear" is nothing but a distraction from the bigger issue, which is the way F2P/Microtransactions MMOs are set up to begin with. Everything after that is just a symptom of the main problem.
Let's just take LoTRO for example. Now, it's a hybrid setup which, presumably, means you can still pay a sub fee and get access to everything. However, that is by far not the norm of how F2Ps are set up. I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it.
So, for example's sake, let's just pretend for a moment, for the sake of illustration, that LoTRO was to follow the typical F2P/Microtransaction model common to the genre; subscriptions would not be an option.
You would have to purchase the quests on a zone-by-zone basis from around level 20, as I understand it. Now, I realize the core book quests will be included... However, I like to do the core quests as well as pick and choose which of the "regular" ones I do. Since the epic story quests really don't take that long to get through and typically leave me with several more levels to go before I'm ready to move on to the next batch, I need content to fill in those levels. Completing normal quests in the given area does the trick. Thing is, I have to *pay* to access them.
So... in order for me to do the quests in Lone Lands, for example... I would have to pay a fee to unlock that. However, I also like to hop between areas for a change of scenery, or because I know of good quest rewards in another area that would be an upgrade for me. So, say I'd like to spend some time doing quests in the North Downs... I now have to pay for two full zones worth of content, so I can play the game the way I normally would.
Now, what if I've completed the content I want to do in those areas and have gotten to level 30 inside of a week and am ready to move on to areas like Trollshaws? I have to purchase the content for that zone as well. And what if, for a change of scenery or, again, for specific rewards, I decide I want to mix it up and bounce back and forth between Esteldin and Trollshaws? Well now that's Trollshaws and Esteldin I have to unlock... Only about 2 weeks has gone by based on how I pace myself; and I'm going pretty slowly compared to many players out there. Oh, but wait, at around 35 there's a couple specific quest lines I enjoy doing in Evendim... Yep... another purchase to unlock that content...
And so on... Unless I'm playing more slowly than I normally do, I'm tacking on a good amount of fees there.
I'm not sure how much Turbine is going to charge to unlock each area's batch of quests; I don't think they've revealed their pricing yet. But, for the sake of example, even if unlocking each zone is something like $5 each - which seems cheap individually (which is precisely how they package it to seem) - you're talking $20-$25 after only about 2 weeks out of a month. Half a normal subscription period, and I've already paid almost twice a standard sub fee... just to play the way I want, at my own normal pace.
That's not including other purchases required, such as the hard limit on gold that I've seen discussed.. What if I'm at that cap and need or want to carry more? That's another purchase... Other incidentals that I decide are important but aren't included in the game? Gotta shell out for those, too...
And thus, the cost of playing a "Free!" game keeps adding up.
And that is how the entire F2P/Microtransaction system is set up to work. Be it for quests, potions, items.. what-have-you... It's all designed - from the gameplay, to the way the cash shop is stocked and priced - to get more money from the players for the same amount of content, or less.
Conversely, if I pay a standard $15 subscription... I get all that content, and more... every zone, every quest, every item, as much gold as I can earn, no restrictions... all the way up to end-game... for the same flat monthly cost.
Many people, I find, are so caught up in and dazzled by all the "It's Free!" spin, that they never stop and think of how quickly it could add up for them to play the way they normally would in any other circumstances. And, for many people out there, it would cost them *a lot* more to keep up the same pace they're used to. And, no, I'm not just referring to those who race to end game. My own example is a fairly casual pace (~15 levels in 2 weeks is *not* fast in LoTRO), and I would still be paying potentially far more than a flat $15 per month.
That is why the so-called "Free To Play" model is a sham, and a subscription model is far more sane, honest and reasonable, in my opinion. Regardless of how it's spun by PR folks, by and large, microtransactions are intended to benefit only one thing: the company.
The whole F2P setup is dishonestly marketed, it's dishonestly represented and it's designed entirely to nickel-and-dime players for as much as the developers can get away with. It changes the fundamental design of the game from one about providing endless on-going adventures that keep players engaged and interested in playing for the long term, into one that's geared toward getting the players to pull out their credit card as much as possible. It changes a MMO from an immersive experience where each character leads something of a virtual existence, surviving and progressing entirely and seamlessly on what's available in the world around them into a virtual shopping mall where immersion is broken every time you realize, "oops.. time to pull out the credit card again".
Frankly, at least from this gamer's point-of-view, there's *a lot* wrong with the F2P/MT setup.
"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
I'm currently playing DDO with the subscription route.
What I LIKE:
I could trial the game for long enough (at my own pace) to know whether I wanted to continue or not. This IS in the player's interests and a PLUS for the hybrid model.
What I HATE:
Despite subscribing, the item shop is CONTINUALLY and ANNOYINGLY shoved at me. They could keep their stupid Turbine points and I'd be much happier.
Game MECHANICS are clearly tampered with to point you to the item shop.
This is why I will jump from DDO to a P2P (that does NOT have a cash shop) if I could find one I really wanted to play. I don't want to mix shopping and playing, which is what happens in DDO even though I subscribe. I play computer games partly as an escape from real life to role playing and adventuring.
Ultimately I think players will be WORSE off as payment systems are mixed so I think LOTRO going the hybrid route is grim news.
And AGAIN I say to mmorpg.com, why are you not more of an advocate for us gamers?? You seem to advocate whatever the developers feel like doing and you rarely take a critical look at what is going on. One example was the positive articles on STO. This is another example, i.e. not taking a more critical look at what Turbine is doing.
And AGAIN I say to mmorpg.com, why are you not more of an advocate for us gamers?? You seem to advocate whatever the developers feel like doing and you rarely take a critical look at what is going on. One example was the positive articles on STO. This is another example, i.e. not taking a more critical look at what Turbine is doing.
I won't try to speak for anyone else at MMORPG.com, as I don't know what they do outside of this site. But as for the author of this article, his perspective seems clear... Per his own say so, MikeB works for a developer who "specializes in F2P and microtransactions". That immediately places his entire article under bias.
Who is going to go out and shoot themselves in the foot by nay-saying something their own employer is doing?
Call it cynical... I call it being realistic.
A sports-car salesman is not going to go out publically speaking on the down-sides of owning a sports car, for example. They're going to keep it as positive as possible.
Kudos to MikeB for the full disclosure, and no disrespect intended... but it is what it is.
That said, it does seem the consensus among the mmorpg.com staff (at least those who write about it) is rather one-sided on the issue of F2P/Microtransactions. I haven't seen any staff members speaking out on behalf of those who aren't a fan of it. Seems they're all on the same bandwagon.
As for this part...
Despite subscribing, the item shop is CONTINUALLY and ANNOYINGLY shoved at me. They could keep their stupid Turbine points and I'd be much happier.
Bingo. I've noticed the same thing. Despite paying a subscription, they're still going to try and squeeze every penny they can out of you, to get "a little more". That's what F2P/Microtransactions are all about: milking the players for all they can. If I've opted to pay a subscription, I don't want to even *see* the cash shop, much less be reminded of 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
And AGAIN I say to mmorpg.com, why are you not more of an advocate for us gamers?? You seem to advocate whatever the developers feel like doing and you rarely take a critical look at what is going on. One example was the positive articles on STO. This is another example, i.e. not taking a more critical look at what Turbine is doing.
I won't try to speak for anyone else at MMORPG.com, as I don't know what they do outside of this site. But as for the author of this article, his perspective seems clear... Per his own say so, MikeB works for a developer who "specializes in F2P and microtransactions". That immediately places his entire article under bias.
Who is going to go out and shoot themselves in the foot by nay-saying something their own employer is doing?
Call it cynical... I call it being realistic.
A sports-car salesman is not going to go out publically speaking on the down-sides of owning a sports car, for example. They're going to keep it as positive as possible.
Kudos to MikeB for the full disclosure, and no disrespect intended... but it is what it is.
That said, it does seem the consensus among the mmorpg.com staff (at least those who write about it) is rather one-sided on the issue of F2P/Microtransactions. I haven't seen any staff members speaking out on behalf of those who aren't a fan of it. Seems they're all on the same bandwagon.
As for this part...
Despite subscribing, the item shop is CONTINUALLY and ANNOYINGLY shoved at me. They could keep their stupid Turbine points and I'd be much happier.
Bingo. I've noticed the same thing. Despite paying a subscription, they're still going to try and squeeze every penny they can out of you, to get "a little more". That's what F2P/Microtransactions are all about: milking the players for all they can. If I've opted to pay a subscription, I don't want to even *see* the cash shop, much less be reminded of it.
I have to agree it is what it is. I know they will push the item shop on us lifers. After all the article on lotro forums read something like this "We want our lifetime member to enjoy spending the 500 points they have eaned in the item shop" To me that speeks there giving you just enough to barly get something and want you to spend more.
One would have thought there would be pushback on the gaming sites, after the sh**-storm that happened in the lotro forums. But those too were heavly moderated, locked and a bunch pruned. Now all the lotro appologist are once again out in full force going oh its going to be great, and kissing up to lotro as if nothing is wrong with this new model.
I will justhave to wait and see what really happens, however its already a lame duck for me no content for the past 6 months no content for at least another 3 months.
Everything described in this article is the exact reason i do not like F2P games. My basic dislike stems from the description of how to design the game, you design the game to maximize profit instead of putting player. This quote from your article is exactly what i see as being wrong with F2P:
"F2P games employ the following simple design to make type-2 players feel like they are progressing too slowly:
They make them progress too slowly.
In the beginning of a F2P game, the “power curve” of a low-level player is higher that the power curve of the PvE environment. What does this mean? Well, at low levels, killing stuff is easy. As the game progresses, the time-to-level per level increases dramatically AND the power curve of the PvE environment becomes steeper, approaching (and ultimately crossing) the power curve of the player. What does that mean? It means that monsters become much tougher to kill and it takes waaaay longer to level up. Type-1 players can ride this out because they do lots of instances and have more opportunities to earn phat lewt. However, this results in type-2 players feeling left behind and makes them much more prone to buy “leg-up” items in the cash shop. That’s it. That’s how F2P games work. "
Design of the game revolves around squeezing money out of the player instead of concentrating on enjoyment and immersion which is why i do not play F2P games. Granted there are some P2P games that drag things out to the point of being obvious that they want a monthly sub and thats about it but it is seen a lot less even though it is the goal.
Did anyone assume that perhaps Turbine's sub model isn't working for LOTRO. Blizzard is doing fine, they don't have to change anything but as for other companies, they are hurting bad as they are losing subs everyday. If all of you LOVE p2p games, then go out on a p2p shopping spree and buy subs for all your favorite games... We know that won't happen.
A while back I made some topics about free to play games and how it could prove to be the demise of mmorpgs all together. I still believe that the current f2p model is killing the industry not helping it. The F2P model is for companies who want to stay in business, not companies who want to make a lot of money. As more F2P games come out, the more companies are forced to "give away" their product, features and even prizes just to keep unloyal players from leaving to another F2P game. Players win, companies fail, companies do jacked up things to players such as close down company, players fail.
It is sad, but currently no one wants to have more than one sub at a time either. I would prefer a buy to play game with a way to pay for unlocking more content or worlds or buy to play with sub model for end game instances only. F2P is indeed the worse choice. A lot of active players do not mean a lot of active buyers. Players eventually leave for a competitor if they didn't have to pay a price to play in the first place. I'm sure Dungeons and Dragons is feeling the pinch in competition right about now, LOTRO is preserving their gains, for now...
Did anyone assume that perhaps Turbine's sub model isn't working for LOTRO. Blizzard is doing fine, they don't have to change anything but as for other companies, they are hurting bad as they are losing subs everyday. If all of you LOVE p2p games, then go out on a p2p shopping spree and buy subs for all your favorite games... We know that won't happen.
A while back I made some topics about free to play games and how it could prove to be the demise of mmorpgs all together. I still believe that the current f2p model is killing the industry not helping it. The F2P model is for companies who want to stay in business, not companies who want to make a lot of money. As more F2P games come out, the more companies are forced to "give away" their product, features and even prizes just to keep unloyal players from leaving to another F2P game. Players win, companies fail, companies do jacked up things to players such as close down company, players fail.
It is sad, but currently no one wants to have more than one sub at a time either. I would prefer a buy to play game with a way to pay for unlocking more content or worlds or buy to play with sub model for end game instances only. F2P is indeed the worse choice. A lot of active players do not mean a lot of active buyers. Players eventually leave for a competitor if they didn't have to pay a price to play in the first place. I'm sure Dungeons and Dragons is feeling the pinch in competition right about now, LOTRO is preserving their gains, for now...
Yes thats the sad thing. Most anybody with half a brian could tell that Turbine was in deep trouble. The worlds smallest xpac, being sold out to wb for 180 mill when other games half there status wen for 300 and 400 mill. Then this. Yes Lotro is going to try what Turbine did for ddo, as it was the only way to save the game. Instead of trying to fix the mistakes that drave away a huge chunk of their player base. Oh well only time will tell, but I want be playing with the other lifers. I de-instaled lotro from all the computers in the house.
I'm currently playing DDO with the subscription route. What I LIKE: I could trial the game for long enough (at my own pace) to know whether I wanted to continue or not. This IS in the player's interests and a PLUS for the hybrid model. What I HATE: Despite subscribing, the item shop is CONTINUALLY and ANNOYINGLY shoved at me. They could keep their stupid Turbine points and I'd be much happier. Game MECHANICS are clearly tampered with to point you to the item shop. This is why I will jump from DDO to a P2P (that does NOT have a cash shop) if I could find one I really wanted to play. I don't want to mix shopping and playing, which is what happens in DDO even though I subscribe. I play computer games partly as an escape from real life to role playing and adventuring.
Ultimately I think players will be WORSE off as payment systems are mixed so I think LOTRO going the hybrid route is grim news. And AGAIN I say to mmorpg.com, why are you not more of an advocate for us gamers?? You seem to advocate whatever the developers feel like doing and you rarely take a critical look at what is going on. One example was the positive articles on STO. This is another example, i.e. not taking a more critical look at what Turbine is doing.
This is what I noticed too, despite the replies to the contrary. The buy buttons are actually obnoxiously large, even at 1280x800.
3) Sorry, LOTRO is *not* giving lifers/subs free access to all classes. Right there in the FAQ: "Premium Classes: Purchasable" ( http://www.lotro.com/betasignup/vipchart.html ). So no, they don't come with the content expansion from Mirkwood (which pretty much everyone has by now anyways).
I think you missed the "*" by "Premium classes"
* Purchasers of the Mines of Moria™ expansion get access to the Mines of Moria region and content, premium classes (Rune-Keeper and Warden), legendary items feature, Tier 6 crafting feature, 2 extra character slots and a level cap of 60. Purchasers of the Siege of Mirkwood™ expansion get access to the Siege of Mirkwood region and content, a level cap of 65 and the Siege of Mirkwood skirmishes.
So yes, they do have to be purchased but that purchase comes with the expansion which is the way it was. Or I imagine they might let you purchase them if you didn't want the expansion.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Comments
Seriously having played both the only defining difference i am seeing between "real gamers" and others is the quality of the game.2002 era everquest was "real" gaming...just getting around ingame was a challenge till you developed sense heading skills etc...raids actually took strategies to preform and successfully pull off,and the sense of exploration ,accomplishment etc... was a real thrill...you actually had to know how to play a class well and groups actually needed most classes to work well together.The rare player who could kite a world spawn boss was a true combination of skill and EARNED items.
Let's jump to the present....we will pit a top p2p vs a top f2p.
p2p= Wow (hold the groans going by popularity) now one of my best friends has the i.q. of a dumb turnip (if it was dropped as a young turnip)..and he is totally maxxed out in lvl and sickly geared in wow...no item shop available, just takes no skill to accomplish that in wow.
f2p= Runes of Magic , 1 as it is my current f2p, 2 as it is a rising star in f2p's.I have 2 chars in rom 1 uses diamonds(cash shop purchases) 1 does not..
leveling is the same for both as is all ingame currency required materials.
as far as gear and"uber items"? the cash shop toon pwns the other because contrary to what the fool posting the initial article said "Seriously though, don’t worry about the Über items: they don’t exist.", it is not "UBER items" that off balance it, it is the cash shop ONLY items that allow you to give your regular armor/weapons "UBER" stats that is the sick secret behind the trade.so yeah both can get the same armor ...but the "puri"required to fuse the godlike stats is otherwise unattainable...and that is not even counting things that are cosmetic like permanent mounts,etc....
THIS is the sick problem with "f2p" ....to get the equivalent of a sub game worth of accomplishment you spend avg 20-60 us dollars at a time on the cash shop....most the ppl on my rom server spend 3-4x a sub accnt and still are notable to enjoy all the content.
Bottom line when someone offers an article on how cigarettes are good for you based on his experience as a former doctor and now a cigarette maker (In the spirit of full disclosure, before I begin, I should mention that I work for studio that specializes in F2P games and microtransactions. And, conversely, that I’ve also worked for a studio that made subscription-based MMOs. I’ve designed on both sides of the fence.) read it for what it is a sales pitch for a new boss.
You can hate F2P just for being F2P, but keep your argument consistent.
“I have zero desire to play any game where someone can compensate money for time. This isn't because I have an abundance of free time to play either. These days I really don't and in subscription MMOs I'd tend to always be behind the curve, but I have no issue with someone who puts in more time and effort being ahead of me. However as soon as someone can compensate money for time, I'm out. I don't even like companies having a subscription and then selling cosmetic items. I feel the subscription should allow all players equal access to the same items, no matter how mundane the item is.”
In the first sentence you already tell the audience that you yourself are committing the act you have no desire to take part in.
Via subscription based MMOs it’s not just time, but money that one must also factor. However small a fee 15$ might be to you, it is still a fee that must be paid. I haven’t always had $15 a month to spend on a game, therefore someone with more money than me, gets more access to the game for being able to constantly pay for the game.
There are not a whole lot of F2P games that sell items that make the player better; and if they do, then those items are almost always available for the non-paying player for free, of course at the cost of time.
Which makes sense, since you can probably equate that if person A can’t afford the 2-3$ for a permanent weapon of x caliber, then person A probably isn’t working, or doesn’t view the item as valuable, therefore person A should have no problems in having to spend more time playing to get that item.
DDO’s numbers are a testament to just how satisfying a F2P game can be. Various types of payment options allow the company to be profitable and offer something for everyone.
“So for me, I'm not in a panic or thrashing around wildly. I simply won't play f2p/item mall games. It's no different then the fact I will never lease a car, that option just doesn't make sense to me and seems foolish to get involved with. There are people who love to lease cars and they constantly do, it just isn't something I would do.”
Yet you play subscription based games which is the exact same thing; if not F2P is MORE like owning a car than subscription based games. In a subscription based game you must pay, monthly, set fee for as long as you wish to play that game (same as leasing a car), when you stop paying you no longer have access to those items, your character, what most people would consider their property; however, in most F2P games, you purchase an item and its yours forever (like in LoL, or DDO or many others). So again, I don’t see how this example is at all helpful in your argument.
“My only concern is how this industry copies the hell out of each other. So instead of there leveling out with a good mix of subscription only and f2p games, everyone will switch to the new trend for a few years before switching to something else. That is the part I see happening that I don't like. Look at how many games came out trying to copy WoW because it was the big thing, instead of doing their own unique take on an MMO. Now all the companies want to tap into the f2p/item mall crowd, instead of each finding their own place in the MMO world.”
I don’t see why this is a problem. Of course games copy each other. Of course businesses copy other business models. It doesn’t mean that they are exact copies, or at least the successful ones aren’t. It’s the evolution of the market place. Someone does something good and then others try and top it; not by copying it, but taking its core principles and adding more or making it better.
Take Allods for example, now I haven’t played into late game, in fact I just started playing it only several days ago and my feelings are mixed. However, it is clearly what many people will classify as a WoW clone, since the graphics are similar and it has two warring factions (which, by the way, WoW did not create either the cartoony graphics, or the idea that two factions can be at war).
I have never really liked WoW, for the reasons that it takes too much time to enjoy and the quests are all pretty lame (majority are kill mob X and collect thing X).
However, the first mission of Allods sucks you into the game. You fight huge monsters. If you choose the side of the imperials, then you do battle on an air ship that is being attacked; if you are the league then you apart of an underground resistance that gets ambushed. Over all it was a great and exciting first mission and it gave me high hopes for the game. However after the first mission the game becomes more like WoW: kill mob X, collect thing X, which is boring (However, in the league side there is a part where you storm an air ship and steal back this one magicians relics, which was fun).
Anyways, first off, Allods is an F2P; meaning I don’t have to put forth any more to play this game. And already I have had a better experience than playing WoW. The graphics are better, the characters are more unique and the story (from what I have experienced so far) is better.
That’s not to say the people at Blizzard made a bad game. They made an incredibly great game; however, other game companies are starting to borrow some of their core concepts and make better games. And if those games are successful, we’ll see slight variations, but overall, better games than those, and so.
If you play any NES game and then go play an Xbox 360 or PS3 game you will feel like they are nothing alike; however (this is especially true when playing a series like Zelda); if you go play an NES game, then an SNES game, then a Sega game, then a PS game and slowly work your way up to today; you will see the similarities of each platform before it. The difference between the NES and the SNES were really not that big (huge back in those days, but relative to today’s standards). Same with the 64 and the game cube. Xbox and the Xbox 360.
So my point is, is that it’s nothing to not like. If you don’t like it then you must implicitly hate progress (which would cause me to suggest you do some serious introspection). It’s perfectly acceptable to say that you like older games (its why each system out today has a virtual console and why emulators are so popular); or that you simply hate F2P for being F2P. But to go off and state a bunch of random arguments is pointless and certainly doesn’t help your cause. You should be stating why subscription is better, for instance, it allows for a healthy community since it maintains a community willing to pay X$ a month (which this is arguable, however may be true based on my experience). There’s not as much spam (again not sure if it is true or not but is a much better claim than any of yours).
To be honest, it doesnt sound like you didnt actually watch all of the video. He takes his experience as a respected designer and breaks down what the f2p world's own designers present. It is hard to say that designers, even though they are not well experienced with f2p, are unqualified to discuss the design flaws within the business model, especially when he references Zu.
Anyways here are the details of both lecturer and lecture at the game developers conference
***
Ernest is a freelance game designer, writer, and teacher, working with the International Hobo Design Group. He has been in the game industry since 1989, and is the author of three books, including the university-level textbook "Fundamentals of Game Design" with Andrew Rollings. Ernest was most recently employed as a lead designer at Bullfrog Productions on the DUNGEON KEEPER series, and for several years before that was the audio/video producer on the MADDEN NFL FOOTBALL line for Electronic Arts. He has developed online, computer, and console games for everything from the IBM 360 mainframe to the PS2. Ernest is also the founder and first chairman of the International Game Developers' Association and a popular speaker at conferences and arts festivals around the world. His website is at http://www.designersnotebook.com.
Session Description
This lecture explores the profound differences among game design for single-player, multiplayer, MMOG, and free-to-play games. These differences extend beyond the obvious considerations (types of challenges, fairness, balance, synchronous and asynchronous play, etc.) to questions about how the designer relates to the players, and how his or her own role changes with each type: artist, engineer, sociologist, economist. The experience of the single-player game arises from minute details of interaction, while the multiplayer game is much more about competition and mechanics. The lecture ends with suggestions to help guide the designer's thinking and avoid mistakes caused by assuming that all game design is the same.
Intended Audience
This lecture is intended for moderately experienced game designers. It assumes that the audience already knows the fundamental principles of game design.
Takeaway
I plan to explain my theory of player-centric game design, and then show how it diverges in four variants: for MMOGs, community design; for multiplayer games, competition design; for single-player games, interaction design; for free-to-play games, revenue design. Attendees will go away with specific, concrete suggestions about how to create concept designs for new games based on this understanding.
Justin I would like to thank you again for a well written article,especially delving into this ever so tumultuous subjuct. I for one am a fan of a good game ,F2P or any other model out there or yet to come. Generlay speaking change is good. Alas there is always an exception to the rule and I hope as more games may chose to take the F2P revenue model that the stigma associated with the F2P genre will fade as the quality of the games will increase.
Good article. I, however, do not agree with taking "Silver" out of a "Silver and Gold" economy.
Going to follow up to my previous post (and many of the dozens of others in here)
1) That Chinese powerpoint embodied everything I hate about Asian games. Sorry to say it, but it's true. I have attempted to play several games of that type, and they just lose me immediately. That's not a business model that will succeed here unless our culture takes a massive shift.
2) I played DDO for the first time today. Wow, they really shove that "buy now" stick in your face. I couldn't believe it. It was like trying to read an article crammed between huge loud flash ads and popups. The game may be good, but the excessive commercialism of it is so crass, I'll be unlikely to stay.
3) Sorry, LOTRO is *not* giving lifers/subs free access to all classes. Right there in the FAQ: "Premium Classes: Purchasable" ( http://www.lotro.com/betasignup/vipchart.html ). So no, they don't come with the content expansion from Mirkwood (which pretty much everyone has by now anyways).
4) This crassness is why people are seeing such a split in the gamer culture. I'll generalize and say that older gamers want something they *own*. A CD, a console, a book, a cloth map, whatever. It's theirs, they bought it, and they'll still be playing it in 20 years (like Warcraft, Diablo, Ultima, Zork, Monkey Island, etc). Younger gamers seem to be more accepting of the ephemeral 'rented' games. It's all digital and vapor, and if the server is down, oh well.
I could be wrong, but I can tell you that I have very little patience for the way DDO plays out, and if LOTRO goes that way, I will definitely be putting Turbine on my blacklist next to NCSoft and Sony. I know nobody cares about older gamers, but guess what - we have money. We spend money. If enough older gamers get frustrated and simply stop gaming (and I know several who are getting to that point), the industry will start to notice.
I think your DDO experience has been skewed by your own personal hyperbole.
If you're looking for the cash shop it is easy to find, but until you're a good 6 to 8 levels into the game does the price tag truly appear. Even then it's optional, but the content is there to buy. The prices aren't that unreasonable. If you're an older gamer with a job or a career then you might like the fact that you pay to unlock an area and you can get to it when you can get to it. That's the freedom of the model.
Now NCSoft and Sony think they can have both. The steady sub and a lil' cha-ching with some perks. Over all I think DDO is a more fair deal than that. If you really crunch the math, like old people can do ~ I do it all of the time. You can take an affordable (And might I mention FUN) route through DDO at a good quarter of the cost of your typical 14.99 a month subscription based game in a year's time.
Also wouldn't forever free to access be more like having a product in your hand than having a WoW disk and an unpaid account? You got your disk, but it's more useless a boar's teat unless you're paid up.
I think the BREATHE part of this article is too complicated for most MMO players.
I kill other players because they're smarter than AI, sometimes.
All of your arguments werre valid, though they miss the point that annoys me most regarding f2p-MMO's... a horrbile community. If you let everybody play for free you get tons of imbeciles ruining everybodys day... because they do not have to fear the almighty banhammer.
In short:
A) If you seriously troll, flame and get banned in a p2p MMO you've just thrown some money out of the window.
Take a look at GW - I used to see all kinds of verbal garbage flooding my screen when you got to a hub - not much better when you grouped. Talking about immersion, eh?
So, even though you have very good theoretical arguments, the practical argument of bad community beats them in my book. Still a nice article though, very informative.
Cheers
I've gotten that since UO, EQ, Shadowbane, FFXI, WoW.. Any online.. ANYTHING has that. To blame the F2P model is baseless.
I kill other players because they're smarter than AI, sometimes.
This scares me as well, this is the last thing I would want to see. In the early MMORPGs you gain your rewards (gear) directly as part of playing the game and there was excitement when you did so. Now the trend seems to be more on playing the auction game to get upgrades on gear, something that I have no interest in at all. At least in most games I can still get my kicks getting upgrades the old way, with Justin's idea above this won't be a option. I play games to play the game, not to buy and sell ingame items (be it by ingame auction houses or otherwise). Maybe I'm just getting old but I can not see how I could enjoy any game using such a model (be it F2P or otherwise).
I am sick of all this pro F2P propaganda. I will never play a "pay to win" game. End of story.
All this recent pro F2P promoted on this site is really causing me to find a new MMO site.
Enough pushing the F2P market scam.
Well as always it is a question on what your expectations are and how you see your gaming. Personally I am fed up with paying $ 15 a onth for EQ 2 where I feel I pay way to much for the time I spend in game and I am also barred from a lot of the content because i am casual, and yes I can soloquest, and soloquest some more and after that I may get groups (but unlikely as my gear will not be good enough). Everybody in this thread is obviously not going to feel happy about the new pay oprions for games but I am definetly one that is very interested in them.
The big issue is how many people like me will disappear from the big subscription games?
Anything that is acceptable to a large enough number of people will be marketed and we will have to see what the MMO market impications will be. Maybe the % of hardcore gamers is not enough to keep a AAA P2P title up and runining. I still would like to see a good market survey on what kind of players pay the largest amount of the subscription fees for a major title, I still have the nagging suspicion that most of the subscribers do not get what they pay for, the actions of all major developers seems to be done in that context (the famous dumbing down that people hate so much).
Maybe the answer is pay per minute instead, I am totally for that option.
Chi puo dir com'egli arde é in picciol fuoco.
He who can describe the flame does not burn.
Petrarch
Uber items is not the only issue with F2P games. MMORPGs, unlike FPS, measure a characters "power" with not only the skills if the player behind the screen but also the skills of the virtual character. And those skills are usually gained be spending time advancing your character in different ways.
Now what F2P games does is to allow for, people with money and willing to spend it on a game, to advance much faster than other people and thus, in competetive MMORPGs, outrun other players without enough money or will to spend it. F2P games in essence allows you to cheat just like doping allows athletes to cheat by increasing their advancement pace above and beyond "clean" athletes.
Now the only reason F2P games exist is for companies to make money, I really dont think the customer base asked for the existance of them but rather companies who wants to make more money. So the best thing for us gamers not to accept these games that allows you to cheat is to boycott them.
My gaming blog
I don't like "F2P" because they are money grabs. It's a strategic predatory business model preying on the fact that the micro-transactions are small enough for the player not to pay attention too until the player realizes they are spending more a month than a subscription game. By the time that happens the developer is betting they are too invested to give up and even if they do quit, they have made the equivalent of two or three subscription players. It is a win/win for the developer most times.
If it was a win for the players as a whole in some way, then it would be fine, but that isn't happening for the most part. We players are getting many clones with flashy graphics, worlds of little depth, and most importantly no innovation. We want games to get more sophisticated to keep our hobby interesting and fun.
And how good is Monato Espirit doing anyways? Nolan Bushnell's Metatix has only been used in a couple of crappy games that have sunk without a trace. That should show you how good the idea of player bought gold is doing.
I can think of many that still use what you call predatory pricing and that should by your rights be gone but instead are even more popular than others: Mabinogi for one sells rebirths which directly increase player power, and even sells the predatory lottery items in the form of gachapon. Is it dying?
F2P is a bad payment model. We aren't China, we don't pirate games on that large scale. F2P increases the grind and penalties of a game to make money way beyond the grindiest sub game. If it's the wave of the future, you are going to kill off the hobby for those of us who like to play games seriously.
I find the whole "gamer/non-gamer" issue to be silly and will not even entertain it...
However, that first line I colored blue is a disingenuous retort and you know it. Had the perspective from those who don't like the F2P/Cash Shop setup not been well discussed and well detailed many times, by a number of people, on these very forums, I could give you that. But that's not the case.
We're not against paying to play a game. We're against being nickeled and dimed to access content that we currently get full access to for one flat fee. Furthermore - and I will reiterate it again - the *reasoning* behind the so-called "Free To Play" approach is to make *more* money off the players for the same or even *less* content than they would get for a subscription.
"Free to Play" is nothing but convenient marketing spin that benefits from being "technically" true... It's a Marketing/PR type's wet dream. It's disingenuous, nonetheless.
I won't even go into the whole "paying for uber items that give an advantage" because
1: I've never seen such a thing myself (yet)
2: I don't have to. Frankly, arguing the "paying to win by buying uber gear" is nothing but a distraction from the bigger issue, which is the way F2P/Microtransactions MMOs are set up to begin with. Everything after that is just a symptom of the main problem.
Let's just take LoTRO for example. Now, it's a hybrid setup which, presumably, means you can still pay a sub fee and get access to everything. However, that is by far not the norm of how F2Ps are set up. I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it.
So, for example's sake, let's just pretend for a moment, for the sake of illustration, that LoTRO was to follow the typical F2P/Microtransaction model common to the genre; subscriptions would not be an option.
You would have to purchase the quests on a zone-by-zone basis from around level 20, as I understand it. Now, I realize the core book quests will be included... However, I like to do the core quests as well as pick and choose which of the "regular" ones I do. Since the epic story quests really don't take that long to get through and typically leave me with several more levels to go before I'm ready to move on to the next batch, I need content to fill in those levels. Completing normal quests in the given area does the trick. Thing is, I have to *pay* to access them.
So... in order for me to do the quests in Lone Lands, for example... I would have to pay a fee to unlock that. However, I also like to hop between areas for a change of scenery, or because I know of good quest rewards in another area that would be an upgrade for me. So, say I'd like to spend some time doing quests in the North Downs... I now have to pay for two full zones worth of content, so I can play the game the way I normally would.
Now, what if I've completed the content I want to do in those areas and have gotten to level 30 inside of a week and am ready to move on to areas like Trollshaws? I have to purchase the content for that zone as well. And what if, for a change of scenery or, again, for specific rewards, I decide I want to mix it up and bounce back and forth between Esteldin and Trollshaws? Well now that's Trollshaws and Esteldin I have to unlock... Only about 2 weeks has gone by based on how I pace myself; and I'm going pretty slowly compared to many players out there. Oh, but wait, at around 35 there's a couple specific quest lines I enjoy doing in Evendim... Yep... another purchase to unlock that content...
And so on... Unless I'm playing more slowly than I normally do, I'm tacking on a good amount of fees there.
I'm not sure how much Turbine is going to charge to unlock each area's batch of quests; I don't think they've revealed their pricing yet. But, for the sake of example, even if unlocking each zone is something like $5 each - which seems cheap individually (which is precisely how they package it to seem) - you're talking $20-$25 after only about 2 weeks out of a month. Half a normal subscription period, and I've already paid almost twice a standard sub fee... just to play the way I want, at my own normal pace.
That's not including other purchases required, such as the hard limit on gold that I've seen discussed.. What if I'm at that cap and need or want to carry more? That's another purchase... Other incidentals that I decide are important but aren't included in the game? Gotta shell out for those, too...
And thus, the cost of playing a "Free!" game keeps adding up.
And that is how the entire F2P/Microtransaction system is set up to work. Be it for quests, potions, items.. what-have-you... It's all designed - from the gameplay, to the way the cash shop is stocked and priced - to get more money from the players for the same amount of content, or less.
Conversely, if I pay a standard $15 subscription... I get all that content, and more... every zone, every quest, every item, as much gold as I can earn, no restrictions... all the way up to end-game... for the same flat monthly cost.
Many people, I find, are so caught up in and dazzled by all the "It's Free!" spin, that they never stop and think of how quickly it could add up for them to play the way they normally would in any other circumstances. And, for many people out there, it would cost them *a lot* more to keep up the same pace they're used to. And, no, I'm not just referring to those who race to end game. My own example is a fairly casual pace (~15 levels in 2 weeks is *not* fast in LoTRO), and I would still be paying potentially far more than a flat $15 per month.
That is why the so-called "Free To Play" model is a sham, and a subscription model is far more sane, honest and reasonable, in my opinion. Regardless of how it's spun by PR folks, by and large, microtransactions are intended to benefit only one thing: the company.
The whole F2P setup is dishonestly marketed, it's dishonestly represented and it's designed entirely to nickel-and-dime players for as much as the developers can get away with. It changes the fundamental design of the game from one about providing endless on-going adventures that keep players engaged and interested in playing for the long term, into one that's geared toward getting the players to pull out their credit card as much as possible. It changes a MMO from an immersive experience where each character leads something of a virtual existence, surviving and progressing entirely and seamlessly on what's available in the world around them into a virtual shopping mall where immersion is broken every time you realize, "oops.. time to pull out the credit card again".
Frankly, at least from this gamer's point-of-view, there's *a lot* wrong with the F2P/MT setup.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
I'm currently playing DDO with the subscription route.
What I LIKE:
I could trial the game for long enough (at my own pace) to know whether I wanted to continue or not. This IS in the player's interests and a PLUS for the hybrid model.
What I HATE:
Despite subscribing, the item shop is CONTINUALLY and ANNOYINGLY shoved at me. They could keep their stupid Turbine points and I'd be much happier.
Game MECHANICS are clearly tampered with to point you to the item shop.
This is why I will jump from DDO to a P2P (that does NOT have a cash shop) if I could find one I really wanted to play. I don't want to mix shopping and playing, which is what happens in DDO even though I subscribe. I play computer games partly as an escape from real life to role playing and adventuring.
Ultimately I think players will be WORSE off as payment systems are mixed so I think LOTRO going the hybrid route is grim news.
And AGAIN I say to mmorpg.com, why are you not more of an advocate for us gamers?? You seem to advocate whatever the developers feel like doing and you rarely take a critical look at what is going on. One example was the positive articles on STO. This is another example, i.e. not taking a more critical look at what Turbine is doing.
I won't try to speak for anyone else at MMORPG.com, as I don't know what they do outside of this site. But as for the author of this article, his perspective seems clear... Per his own say so, MikeB works for a developer who "specializes in F2P and microtransactions". That immediately places his entire article under bias.
Who is going to go out and shoot themselves in the foot by nay-saying something their own employer is doing?
Call it cynical... I call it being realistic.
A sports-car salesman is not going to go out publically speaking on the down-sides of owning a sports car, for example. They're going to keep it as positive as possible.
Kudos to MikeB for the full disclosure, and no disrespect intended... but it is what it is.
That said, it does seem the consensus among the mmorpg.com staff (at least those who write about it) is rather one-sided on the issue of F2P/Microtransactions. I haven't seen any staff members speaking out on behalf of those who aren't a fan of it. Seems they're all on the same bandwagon.
As for this part...
Despite subscribing, the item shop is CONTINUALLY and ANNOYINGLY shoved at me. They could keep their stupid Turbine points and I'd be much happier.
Bingo. I've noticed the same thing. Despite paying a subscription, they're still going to try and squeeze every penny they can out of you, to get "a little more". That's what F2P/Microtransactions are all about: milking the players for all they can. If I've opted to pay a subscription, I don't want to even *see* the cash shop, much less be reminded of it.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
I have to agree it is what it is. I know they will push the item shop on us lifers. After all the article on lotro forums read something like this "We want our lifetime member to enjoy spending the 500 points they have eaned in the item shop" To me that speeks there giving you just enough to barly get something and want you to spend more.
One would have thought there would be pushback on the gaming sites, after the sh**-storm that happened in the lotro forums. But those too were heavly moderated, locked and a bunch pruned. Now all the lotro appologist are once again out in full force going oh its going to be great, and kissing up to lotro as if nothing is wrong with this new model.
I will justhave to wait and see what really happens, however its already a lame duck for me no content for the past 6 months no content for at least another 3 months.
Everything described in this article is the exact reason i do not like F2P games. My basic dislike stems from the description of how to design the game, you design the game to maximize profit instead of putting player. This quote from your article is exactly what i see as being wrong with F2P:
"F2P games employ the following simple design to make type-2 players feel like they are progressing too slowly:
They make them progress too slowly.
In the beginning of a F2P game, the “power curve” of a low-level player is higher that the power curve of the PvE environment. What does this mean? Well, at low levels, killing stuff is easy. As the game progresses, the time-to-level per level increases dramatically AND the power curve of the PvE environment becomes steeper, approaching (and ultimately crossing) the power curve of the player. What does that mean? It means that monsters become much tougher to kill and it takes waaaay longer to level up. Type-1 players can ride this out because they do lots of instances and have more opportunities to earn phat lewt. However, this results in type-2 players feeling left behind and makes them much more prone to buy “leg-up” items in the cash shop. That’s it. That’s how F2P games work. "
Design of the game revolves around squeezing money out of the player instead of concentrating on enjoyment and immersion which is why i do not play F2P games. Granted there are some P2P games that drag things out to the point of being obvious that they want a monthly sub and thats about it but it is seen a lot less even though it is the goal.
Did anyone assume that perhaps Turbine's sub model isn't working for LOTRO. Blizzard is doing fine, they don't have to change anything but as for other companies, they are hurting bad as they are losing subs everyday. If all of you LOVE p2p games, then go out on a p2p shopping spree and buy subs for all your favorite games... We know that won't happen.
A while back I made some topics about free to play games and how it could prove to be the demise of mmorpgs all together. I still believe that the current f2p model is killing the industry not helping it. The F2P model is for companies who want to stay in business, not companies who want to make a lot of money. As more F2P games come out, the more companies are forced to "give away" their product, features and even prizes just to keep unloyal players from leaving to another F2P game. Players win, companies fail, companies do jacked up things to players such as close down company, players fail.
It is sad, but currently no one wants to have more than one sub at a time either. I would prefer a buy to play game with a way to pay for unlocking more content or worlds or buy to play with sub model for end game instances only. F2P is indeed the worse choice. A lot of active players do not mean a lot of active buyers. Players eventually leave for a competitor if they didn't have to pay a price to play in the first place. I'm sure Dungeons and Dragons is feeling the pinch in competition right about now, LOTRO is preserving their gains, for now...
I have the right to like what I want!
Yes thats the sad thing. Most anybody with half a brian could tell that Turbine was in deep trouble. The worlds smallest xpac, being sold out to wb for 180 mill when other games half there status wen for 300 and 400 mill. Then this. Yes Lotro is going to try what Turbine did for ddo, as it was the only way to save the game. Instead of trying to fix the mistakes that drave away a huge chunk of their player base. Oh well only time will tell, but I want be playing with the other lifers. I de-instaled lotro from all the computers in the house.
This is what I noticed too, despite the replies to the contrary. The buy buttons are actually obnoxiously large, even at 1280x800.
I think you missed the "*" by "Premium classes"
* Purchasers of the Mines of Moria™ expansion get access to the Mines of Moria region and content, premium classes (Rune-Keeper and Warden), legendary items feature, Tier 6 crafting feature, 2 extra character slots and a level cap of 60. Purchasers of the Siege of Mirkwood™ expansion get access to the Siege of Mirkwood region and content, a level cap of 65 and the Siege of Mirkwood skirmishes.
So yes, they do have to be purchased but that purchase comes with the expansion which is the way it was. Or I imagine they might let you purchase them if you didn't want the expansion.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
*I'll just delete this as it wasn't a very good post on my part*
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo