Right now there are just to many games that think because some mmos successfully charge $15 a month that all mmos are entitld to charge that same fee.
Some games are going to be strong enough to charge a box + subscription fee.
Some games are not and will have to resort to other methods to generate money.
It looks like games are setting up to be primary or secondary type games.
Exactly, and half those charging won't even be good enough to be charging. In short everything stays the same for those who want quality P2P MMO's. This new approach just allows those not cutting it today, to follow a new model with a totally different player mindset.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
You know what I find funny? I play Eve and I play GW when the money needed to play both are combined its like I'm paying for just one MMO... and I don't even use real money to pay for Eve lolololololol.
Ye that's how I meassure how fun and well made a game is too, by how many I can play and how little I have to pay for em...
Anyways, anyone with half a clue could tell quite some time ago that f2p wasnt going anywhere and that cash shops would sneak their way into sub games aswell. I personally would prefer if subscription meant you had access to the entire game, but as long as its only cosmetic I dont really care that much. Pay-to-win is ofc a huge deal breaker. Its a system for scrubs.
edit: unless you have some serious armor fetish and a general dislike for awesome fantasy, how can anyone (whoever it was) think world of tanks is a better game then lotro?
I think the nature of subscription based game development. DDO, Lotro, and hopefully Age of Conan will show developers that you can charge a sub for a while and then make the switch to a hybrid model. Perhaps publishers will take this into account with future titles.
I'd also hope it would encourage companies to rescue games that need more love. I'd love it if SOE would change the model of Vanguard to increase its population. It might also get a little attention content wise. After all, if you want the new players to stay, you'd better start generating content for them. If Turbine's lesson had come sooner, we might still be connected to the Matrix Online.
After the hacking scandal at Sony i'm thinking a game where you don't have to hand over credit card details will be a winner.
I'm a fan of GW's B2P model. It means i can take a month off here and there and don't have to worry about cancelling or resubbing just to play.
It also means they better do a good job with their expansions or i won't pay for it rather than hoping my sub money goes towards an expansion but since they already have my money it doesn't matter if i like it or not i have paid for it.
Guild wars & Guild wars 2 is buy to play not Free to Play and there is a big difference so hopefully future articles will not confuse the two
I Expect GW2 to have faster content updates in the form of perhaps quarterly DLC instead of the previous yearly expansion packs so as to keep up a better cash flow and of course keep people playing longer.
The tricks will be making all the DLC a lot of fun, without making all the DLC a must have to even play the base game. You want people to buy the DLC on the merits of the fact they want what is on offer in that content but you dont want to force people to buy DLC they may not want just so they can keep playing the base game they already paid for.
I probably wont get GW2 just because I am burnt out on the whole fantasy genre nowdays but I will probably have a look at it if one of my friends gets it.
You know what I find funny? I play Eve and I play GW when the money needed to play both are combined its like I'm paying for just one MMO... and I don't even use real money to pay for Eve lolololololol.
Ye that's how I meassure how fun and well made a game is too, by how many I can play and how little I have to pay for em...
Anyways, anyone with half a clue could tell quite some time ago that f2p wasnt going anywhere and that cash shops would sneak their way into sub games aswell. I personally would prefer if subscription meant you had access to the entire game, but as long as its only cosmetic I dont really care that much. Pay-to-win is ofc a huge deal breaker. Its a system for scrubs.
edit: unless you have some serious armor fetish and a general dislike for awesome fantasy, how can anyone (whoever it was) think world of tanks is a better game then lotro?
I'm sorry, I didn't know I said anything about those games being fun or well made.
I don't think I'd call Guild Wars a Free to Play game exactly, which may honestly be the reason that it experienced a more successful run then many Free to Plays.
The issue is the barrier to entry and the investment to the game.
free to plays are typically bounded by zero barriers to entry or exit. You sign up and jump in and if you want to buy something then you start breaking out the credit card and other info. You can jump into any free to Play with next to no requirements and because of that, at the first sign a game looks to be not what you're looking for, you leave and try another game.
Guild Wars gave you a box which you bought and that you could play for as long as you wanted afterwards. If you bought it, there was no reason to drop it if it started looking wrong because you bought it and you might as well get your money's worth. There's an investment that you want to maximize, so its easier to not give up on it.
I really wouldn't call Guild wars a F2P, its a Buy to Play, it requires the player invest a certain amount of money into it so that they are far less likely to stop playing.
guild wars 1 has aleady shown us that their bussiness model works. But the game, play for free forevr without any limited BS that LoTR and DDO etc has. Those are just money sinks, while Guild Wars just a game. And their cash shop is great, you dont buy armor or anything but cosmetic stuff and stuff that lets you jump into pvp without any advantages over others.
guild wars 1 has aleady shown us that their bussiness model works. But the game, play for free forevr without any limited BS that LoTR and DDO etc has. Those are just money sinks, while Guild Wars just a game. And their cash shop is great, you dont buy armor or anything but cosmetic stuff and stuff that lets you jump into pvp without any advantages over others.
With GW you pay a sum and then play as much as you want, and you only need to cough up new money for expansions.
DDO and similar games don't get that fee from all players and therefore more or less forces people to buy stuff as they play.
Both methods have their advantages, DDO get more people actually trying it but GW don't get balance issues and all players get the same.
I hope that B2P will be more common as well, but games like LOTRO and AoC can't change into B2P later since many people already owns a box. A B2P game needs to have that model from launch already.
I also think that P2P games with itemshops will be the big losers here. There are room for F2P games, B2P for people who don't want itemshop that affect the playing and P2P for people who hate RMT shops.
P2P with itemshops is just a rip off invented by SOE for EQ2, and it is the biggest threat to the P2P option out there.
If every gaming company that tries this pricing model has Anets careful attention to detail and a tight rein on their own greed when it comes to their cash shop, then sure, such a future could be rosy. However I see the odds of most gaming companies being that dillegent and restrained as a long shot indeed.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
This is great and all, but GW is a lobby game, not exactly "massive multiplayer," so it makes for an unfair comparison.
DDO had no business charging a subscription, it should've been a lobby B2P game as well from the start. By all means it is a great game for what it does.
I guess in the end MMORPGs are just extremely expensive to develop, and companies will need to recoup some of their initial outlay. I had the privilege of going over the financial statements of an overseas development company in order to underwrite their IPO. As an investment banker this is a process my staff and I are quite well versed in, but we have never had the opportunity to work with a game development company. I was in shock when I saw their overall expenses pre-launch. The overhead and expenses just keep piling up and they still are about a year from their product offering.
Needless to say the firm I work with has passed up on underwriting for the development company due the high level of risk. We offered a "best efforts" deal and the development company has denied. It was too risky, as we would have to buy the initial offerings as a whole, then re-sell to a private market.
MMORPGs have a short shelf life, shorter than back in the days of UO/EQ. Unfortunately the days of massive worlds and exciting dynamic content delivered on a timely basis are over. MMOs are served up now similar to fast food, "quick & dirty" and for a cheap buck. It's hard to point fingers and blame, only time will tell.
This is great and all, but GW is a lobby game, not exactly "massive multiplayer," so it makes for an unfair comparison.
DDO had no business charging a subscription, it should've been a lobby B2P game as well from the start. By all means it is a great game for what it does.
I guess in the end MMORPGs are just extremely expensive to develop, and companies will need to recoup some of their initial outlay. I had the privilege of going over the financial statements of an overseas development company in order to underwrite their IPO. As an investment banker this is a process my staff and I are quite well versed in, but we have never had the opportunity to work with a game development company. I was in shock when I saw their overall expenses pre-launch. The overhead and expenses just keep piling up and they still are about a year from their product offering.
Needless to say the firm I work with has passed up on underwriting for the development company due the high level of risk. We offered a "best efforts" deal and the development company has denied. It was too risky, as we would have to buy the initial offerings as a whole, then re-sell to a private market.
MMORPGs have a short shelf life, shorter than back in the days of UO/EQ. Unfortunately the days of massive worlds and exciting dynamic content delivered on a timely basis are over. MMOs are served up now similar to fast food, "quick & dirty" and for a cheap buck. It's hard to point fingers and blame, only time will tell.
Guildwars is a low budget CORPG, yes. The coding was done by 3 guys, all quests written by 4. But it have gotten in many times the nvestment and that is the reason ANET and NC soft is daring to launch a full blown MMO with the same method, and that ANETs old founder (and Blizzards former lead designer) Jeff Strain is doing the same for his Zombie labs.
The good and bad part of a MMO B2P game is that you need to sell several million copies instead of keeping 100K players for 5 years. Wow could have been B2P and still made money, probably not as much as you several times as many players as B2P.
Guildwars sold about 7 million boxes or 3,5 million accounts if you prefer that. It was enough to get in many times the development cost. I don't think GW2 can get in as much money for each dollar invested but I think it still can make the investors really rich.
My point anyways is that B2P games might be even riskier than P2P (but not really than F2P since they at least get box sales money fast) but B2P have advantages. People can buy 4 B2P games a year and play them on and off, most players buy 2 P2P games a year, play them for a while and then shelf them for good.
Many people bought GW, played it for 6 months and came back when a new campaign came out. There is a lot potential in that as well.
I guess we have to see how GW2 does before we can be sure, it will be the first full budget B2P MMO and we still can only guess how that will work, even if I really hope that it does.
I will not pay Again!. Lotro Convinced me even Eve Online have a way to play and pay for subs althow not an FTP you can still make the "Plex" payment fairly easy with some grinding.
Your old man Lied, there is always a price!
Vidi, vici, veni (pronounced ['wi?di? 'wi?ki? 'we?ni?]) I Saw, I Conquered, I Came
Disgusting trend ... but I can immagine only 3 to 5 games worth subbing at all. For sure not at current "wow" price. You can not charge some ammount of money for trash car like for a Mercedes. Period.
Another shill piece for the F2P industry. Wasnt the regular column you run enough to promote it as 'good for us' and 'inevitable'? (when in truth it is neither).
I think, when looking back with the clarity of hindsight, gamers will realise that not only was cash shop the very worst thing to happen to actual real gaming, but it was also an outright scam and only was pushed by the companies involved (and their 'sponsored' opinion forming website mouthpieces) because it was in the corporate best interest (ie, to make more money out of the gullible and lazy consumer for less and less investment).
I hope governments are watching the social engineering that has taken place here on these various gaming sites, that are so happy for the F2P dollar. It has been amazing to watch happen... how pretty much an entire user base has been convinced of something that they once hated the idea of (and rightly so).
I think looking back we will be ashamed at how easily the majority went along with it, how gullible we all were repeating the mantras so pushed and repeated constantly by the 'journalists', and how easily and cheaply we were all bought.
By that time though, when there is no where left to run, i will obviously be done with computer gaming and will have gladly left the smoking ruins of what games used to mean to the next wave. I hope everyone is happy with their virtual knitting simulators and chat rooms and pretend malls selling pretend stuff, for real money.
Social engineering? in Shill pieces? Normal people have a nice quality about them it's called self control. Who is swayed by an opinion piece or two on one (in a million) gaming oriented websites?
You don't seem to be able to see whats actually happening here, and you also seem unaware of how false realities and zeitgeists are created in order to change opinion and sell product on a massive scale. You seem unaware of the practises and techniques of selling on the internet.
I didnt invent the term 'shill'. It's a proven and effective way to form opinion across opinion forming (a term I didnt invent either) websites. Your acting like there is no such thing as marketing, as advertising, as opinion forming... that a payment model cannot be sold in the same way was a product (which in this case it actually is and has been).
You over estimate your and others awareness of how this, and other, messages are pushed, and thats why they work. You think you are in control, while they change the entire landscape of gaming and what it means to play around you, while they piss on your head and tell you it's rain. Your naivety about how easily people have been manipulated into following a specific thought speaks volumes. In fact, what you posted here is actually scary.
Who is swayed? Everyone. Otherwise game developers would be so eager to control games sites and their content. If you think society is full of objective, independant, free thinking, situationally aware seekers of truth then that is, again, worrying.
You need to become educated as to what is actually going on and how much money there is at stake here for the corperations, and how much effort and money they are prepared to spend to bring people into line (which is actually very little when the 'independant' web sites are controlled by access to product and advertising revenue tbh).
Or do you still believe that this payment model is being pushed simply because it is better for games and the gamer?
You're acting as though every single game to come from here forth will carry a cash shop or "pay to win" model. It just isn't going to happen.
I never mentioned pay to win. I always talk about Play to Achieve vs Pay to Achieve.
You don't seem to get how adding a cash shop for in game rewards changes the very core of what makes a game a game. You don't seem to be looking at the true motivation of the companies that take this route.
Ask yourself, WHY are these companies so eager to change your spending habits, to change your very perception of games and what they are?
LOTRO just added some really powerful items to their store, so... eh.. definitely not F2P anymore.
That is the problem with free to play gams. Eventually players have all the convenience items they can use. There are only so many vanity items that players that can be added to a store before it loses it charm and appeal to players to get something that is special. The time will come when each game runs out of things to entice players to the cash shops that do not affect gameplay.
The free to play revenue model is built on the practice of getting players to spend money in cash shops. The trouble begins when those non-game affecting items start to lose their appeal to players and revenues decline, which they will. When that happens what alternatives does the developer have? Content and progression are the two strongest desires for most players, so that really is the only avanue left.
Im my mind that is the critical flaw in free to play cash shop games. They are destined to end up in this situation just by the nature of what they are doing. Furthermore I think that once the newness of the free to play craze subsides and people catch on to this trend there will start to be some backlash.
Hopefully someone comes along and solves this dilema, but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.
PC Gamer: Are you just totally sold on that [free-to-play] model now?
Chris Taylor: I am so sold on that model! I am so ready to tell you that this is the future. Games will never be the same again now that we’re onto this way of approaching it.
And it changes, believe it or not, the way we design from the beginning. Not just the way we think about the game after, it changes the way we build the game to start with.
... I don’t want to play a game and set the game down and have nothing to show for it. I have to have accumulated something for all that investment of time.
So, Bill Murphy, I see you've hopped on the bandwagon of dishonestly using DDO and LoTRO as examples of "quality F2P titles".
To start, both of those MMOs still offer the option to subscribe if you want. That sets them apart from the typical F2P that do not offer that option. I really wish people would stop using LoTRO, DDO, EQ2 and such to prop up and validate true F2P MMOs that were designed that way and don't offer a subscription option. They are two different setups.
I'll say it yet again...
DDO was designed as a AAA sub-based MMO. LoTRO was designed as a P2P MMO. EQ2 was designed as a P2P MMO. *That* explains why their designs are a step above the typical F2P MMO.
And even at that, DDO was failing as a sub-based game because not enough people found it worth paying for. It simply wasn't perceived as a very good game. Turbine got lucky and going F2P helped keep DDO afloat so they wouldn't have to cancel it.
As I've said before, when a game that was failing as a P2P MMO is being used as a highlight for "the success for F2P", it's a pretty damn sad state of affairs. LoTRO, from what I've gathered, had been losing steam before its move to F2P as well. So, Turbine went ahead and made the change with that one, too. EQ2's been a schizophrenic mess for years now; its design is seemingly driven and changed solely on whatever Smed thinks will make them more money that year. It's absolutely no surprise that SOE added a F2P/Cash Shop into EQ2... even though Smed said a while ago that it would never happen with their current games; not that honesty is a trait he's known for to begin with.
In a nutshell, it's telling that the MMOs most often propped up as "heroes" of the F2P scene started out as sub-based MMOs. Meanwhile, more often than not, true F2P MMOs are criticized for being shallow, grind-tastic affairs.
So, anyway, I wish people would stop shoveling out the BS spin about F2P already.... Not everyone is falling for it and plenty of us know better.
As for the interview snippet in your post, MumboJumbo...
Of course it changes the way they design the game from the start. Anyone who's played both P2P MMOs and F2P MMOs and paid attention to their fundamental design can see that. One is designed (when done well) to pull you into the game and entertain you enough to keep paying a monthly sub. The other is designed to draw out your wallet and keep buying stuff in their cash shop by designing restrictions, limitations and speed-bumps into the game for which the "fixes" are sold in the cash shop. It's completely transparent.
Traditionally, they're designing a game with the intention of providing engaging long-term content that keeps the player wanting to continue playing month after month, year after year. The devs have to earn that monthly sub fee by providing an expansive quality game experience where everything is obtainable by playing the game... or at least they had to.
Now, with everyone going nuts over the so-called "F2P" model, the design is changed from one that seeks to earn the players' monthly sub fee by providing a deep and engaging MMO experience, to one that's set up to try and direct players to their cash shop as often as possible, to spend as much as possible.
Instead of striving to keep players interested for the long-term to make their money, now they put more effort into simply trying to milk as much as they can in the short term.
The sad thing is that the truth about F2P and the formulas used in their design is out there. It's not even like it's some super-secret hush-hush thing that only devs know. There are videos and articles out there that explain and demonstrate in plain English and pictures of how these games are set up to take advantage of human psychology to get them to want to spend more money. I find it pretty sickening, to be honest.
I have said it before, I still say it and I will continue to say it... Getting people to spend money on your game over the long-term by providing them a deep and engaging gaming experience is the honest way to go about it. Designing your game with deliberately placed barriers, speed bumps and limitations so you can then go and sell potions, charms and trinkets to players to get around them is disgusting. Designing your game with exclusive items only available in a cash shop that give a clear benefit to the players that isn't available by playing the game is disgusting.
F2P MMOs are not about providing solid and immersive game experiences. They're about nickel-and-diming players as often as possible.
With all the very public shenanigans some F2P MMOs have pulled with their cash shops - demonstrating their greed for all to see - it amazes me that there are still people who think it's an "honest" approach to MMO design. It's damn sad.
"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
The sad thing is that the truth about F2P and the formulas used in their design is out there. It's not even like it's some super-secret hush-hush thing that only devs know. There are videos and articles out there that explain and demonstrate in plain English and pictures of how these games are set up to take advantage of human psychology to get them to want to spend more money. I find it pretty sickening, to be honest.
I have said it before, I still say it and I will continue to say it... Getting people to spend money on your game over the long-term by providing them a deep and engaging gaming experience is the honest way to go about it. Designing your game with deliberately placed barriers, speed bumps and limitations so you can then go and sell potions, charms and trinkets to players to get around them is disgusting. Designing your game with exclusive items only available in a cash shop that give a clear benefit to the players that isn't available by playing the game is disgusting.
F2P MMOs are not about providing solid and immersive game experiences. They're about nickel-and-diming players as often as possible.
With all the very public shenanigans some F2P MMOs have pulled with their cash shops - demonstrating their greed for all to see - it amazes me that there are still people who think it's an "honest" approach to MMO design. It's damn sad.
I don't get why you think that F2P = Bad quality/design.
Most F2P MMO's ARE terrible Buy2Win trash, but this has nothing to do with the business model. It has everything to do with lazy developers hoping to make a quick buck with a cheap, disposable product.
You CAN make a longlasting, quality product that can not only survive from microtransactions but can be just as profitable as subscription games, if not more. DDO and LOTRO have proved this, even if they do still fall for some of the same pitfalls as Asiangrind shovelware.
I know it's hard to believe but a quality AAA subscription-less MMO is completely feasible, it's jsut that nobody has tried yet. Wait until GW2 comes out and you'll see that subscriptionless =/= Pay2Win or gameplay barriers.
What's the difference of a long-term, engaing gaming experience that requires a monthly fee and a long-term, engaging gaming experience that let's you pay and access what you see fit?
I always think of F2P games as ways for new developers to hone their skills. Ive personally still never spent a dime in the 100s of F2P titles ive played but thats simply because none of them have been worth it, OR that its such a great game the items you buy in the cash shop are also available in game if youre willing to spend more time on it.
I totally agree with WSIMike on most of what he said.
The quality of F2P games is definitely lower, but that was before. With games like WoW, Aion and Lineage using cash shops amongst their subscription i can only see quality getting worse as these companies start to care less and less about their product and more about their retarded micro-transactions.
To me it makes much more sense for a F2P game to have cash shops than it does for a P2P game, it just outrages me that these P2P games have cash shops/micro-transactions at all.
I definitely miss the old days (Diablo 2 for example), but times change ya know.
Jeremiah 8:21 I weep for the hurt of my people; I stand amazed, silent, dumb with grief. Join me on TwitchFacebook Twitter
The sad thing is that the truth about F2P and the formulas used in their design is out there. It's not even like it's some super-secret hush-hush thing that only devs know. There are videos and articles out there that explain and demonstrate in plain English and pictures of how these games are set up to take advantage of human psychology to get them to want to spend more money. I find it pretty sickening, to be honest.
I have said it before, I still say it and I will continue to say it... Getting people to spend money on your game over the long-term by providing them a deep and engaging gaming experience is the honest way to go about it. Designing your game with deliberately placed barriers, speed bumps and limitations so you can then go and sell potions, charms and trinkets to players to get around them is disgusting. Designing your game with exclusive items only available in a cash shop that give a clear benefit to the players that isn't available by playing the game is disgusting.
F2P MMOs are not about providing solid and immersive game experiences. They're about nickel-and-diming players as often as possible.
With all the very public shenanigans some F2P MMOs have pulled with their cash shops - demonstrating their greed for all to see - it amazes me that there are still people who think it's an "honest" approach to MMO design. It's damn sad.
I don't get why you think that F2P = Bad quality/design.
Most F2P MMO's ARE terrible Buy2Win trash, but this has nothing to do with the business model. It has everything to do with lazy developers hoping to make a quick buck with a cheap, disposable product.
You CAN make a longlasting, quality product that can not only survive from microtransactions but can be just as profitable as subscription games, if not more. DDO and LOTRO have proved this, even if they do still fall for some of the same pitfalls as Asiangrind shovelware.
I know it's hard to believe but a quality AAA subscription-less MMO is completely feasible, it's jsut that nobody has tried yet. Wait until GW2 comes out and you'll see that subscriptionless =/= Pay2Win or gameplay barriers.
What's the difference of a long-term, engaing gaming experience that requires a monthly fee and a long-term, engaging gaming experience that let's you pay and access what you see fit?
Ok, prove it. Give me one high quality f2p game that wasn't p2p to begin with.
I always think of F2P games as ways for new developers to hone their skills. Ive personally still never spent a dime in the 100s of F2P titles ive played but thats simply because none of them have been worth it, OR that its such a great game the items you buy in the cash shop are also available in game if youre willing to spend more time on it.
I totally agree with WSIMike on most of what he said.
The quality of F2P games is definitely lower, but that was before. With games like WoW, Aion and Lineage using cash shops amongst their subscription i can only see quality getting worse as these companies start to care less and less about their product and more about their retarded micro-transactions.
To me it makes much more sense for a F2P game to have cash shops than it does for a P2P game, it just outrages me that these P2P games have cash shops/micro-transactions at all.
I definitely miss the old days (Diablo 2 for example), but times change ya know.
What skills would that be exactly? They make it f2p and they get lazy. Just look at what LOTRO is claiming is such advancement with their upcoming update. They don't further the story AT ALL, don't give better housing, nothing. No... what they do is give more instances. And they think thats worth it. They aren't stretching their skills, they're doing as little as possible in the hopes they'll siphon more money off you because they hope you're dumb.
Comments
Right now there are just to many games that think because some mmos successfully charge $15 a month that all mmos are entitld to charge that same fee.
Some games are going to be strong enough to charge a box + subscription fee.
Some games are not and will have to resort to other methods to generate money.
It looks like games are setting up to be primary or secondary type games.
Exactly, and half those charging won't even be good enough to be charging. In short everything stays the same for those who want quality P2P MMO's. This new approach just allows those not cutting it today, to follow a new model with a totally different player mindset.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Ye that's how I meassure how fun and well made a game is too, by how many I can play and how little I have to pay for em...
Anyways, anyone with half a clue could tell quite some time ago that f2p wasnt going anywhere and that cash shops would sneak their way into sub games aswell. I personally would prefer if subscription meant you had access to the entire game, but as long as its only cosmetic I dont really care that much. Pay-to-win is ofc a huge deal breaker. Its a system for scrubs.
edit: unless you have some serious armor fetish and a general dislike for awesome fantasy, how can anyone (whoever it was) think world of tanks is a better game then lotro?
I think the nature of subscription based game development. DDO, Lotro, and hopefully Age of Conan will show developers that you can charge a sub for a while and then make the switch to a hybrid model. Perhaps publishers will take this into account with future titles.
I'd also hope it would encourage companies to rescue games that need more love. I'd love it if SOE would change the model of Vanguard to increase its population. It might also get a little attention content wise. After all, if you want the new players to stay, you'd better start generating content for them. If Turbine's lesson had come sooner, we might still be connected to the Matrix Online.
After the hacking scandal at Sony i'm thinking a game where you don't have to hand over credit card details will be a winner.
I'm a fan of GW's B2P model. It means i can take a month off here and there and don't have to worry about cancelling or resubbing just to play.
It also means they better do a good job with their expansions or i won't pay for it rather than hoping my sub money goes towards an expansion but since they already have my money it doesn't matter if i like it or not i have paid for it.
i can't wait for more free to play games, which I can try out before i buy that way I know if the game I'm investing in is worth it.
Guild wars & Guild wars 2 is buy to play not Free to Play and there is a big difference so hopefully future articles will not confuse the two
I Expect GW2 to have faster content updates in the form of perhaps quarterly DLC instead of the previous yearly expansion packs so as to keep up a better cash flow and of course keep people playing longer.
The tricks will be making all the DLC a lot of fun, without making all the DLC a must have to even play the base game. You want people to buy the DLC on the merits of the fact they want what is on offer in that content but you dont want to force people to buy DLC they may not want just so they can keep playing the base game they already paid for.
I probably wont get GW2 just because I am burnt out on the whole fantasy genre nowdays but I will probably have a look at it if one of my friends gets it.
I'm sorry, I didn't know I said anything about those games being fun or well made.
This is not a game.
I don't think I'd call Guild Wars a Free to Play game exactly, which may honestly be the reason that it experienced a more successful run then many Free to Plays.
The issue is the barrier to entry and the investment to the game.
free to plays are typically bounded by zero barriers to entry or exit. You sign up and jump in and if you want to buy something then you start breaking out the credit card and other info. You can jump into any free to Play with next to no requirements and because of that, at the first sign a game looks to be not what you're looking for, you leave and try another game.
Guild Wars gave you a box which you bought and that you could play for as long as you wanted afterwards. If you bought it, there was no reason to drop it if it started looking wrong because you bought it and you might as well get your money's worth. There's an investment that you want to maximize, so its easier to not give up on it.
I really wouldn't call Guild wars a F2P, its a Buy to Play, it requires the player invest a certain amount of money into it so that they are far less likely to stop playing.
guild wars 1 has aleady shown us that their bussiness model works. But the game, play for free forevr without any limited BS that LoTR and DDO etc has. Those are just money sinks, while Guild Wars just a game. And their cash shop is great, you dont buy armor or anything but cosmetic stuff and stuff that lets you jump into pvp without any advantages over others.
With GW you pay a sum and then play as much as you want, and you only need to cough up new money for expansions.
DDO and similar games don't get that fee from all players and therefore more or less forces people to buy stuff as they play.
Both methods have their advantages, DDO get more people actually trying it but GW don't get balance issues and all players get the same.
I hope that B2P will be more common as well, but games like LOTRO and AoC can't change into B2P later since many people already owns a box. A B2P game needs to have that model from launch already.
I also think that P2P games with itemshops will be the big losers here. There are room for F2P games, B2P for people who don't want itemshop that affect the playing and P2P for people who hate RMT shops.
P2P with itemshops is just a rip off invented by SOE for EQ2, and it is the biggest threat to the P2P option out there.
If every gaming company that tries this pricing model has Anets careful attention to detail and a tight rein on their own greed when it comes to their cash shop, then sure, such a future could be rosy. However I see the odds of most gaming companies being that dillegent and restrained as a long shot indeed.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
This is great and all, but GW is a lobby game, not exactly "massive multiplayer," so it makes for an unfair comparison.
DDO had no business charging a subscription, it should've been a lobby B2P game as well from the start. By all means it is a great game for what it does.
I guess in the end MMORPGs are just extremely expensive to develop, and companies will need to recoup some of their initial outlay. I had the privilege of going over the financial statements of an overseas development company in order to underwrite their IPO. As an investment banker this is a process my staff and I are quite well versed in, but we have never had the opportunity to work with a game development company. I was in shock when I saw their overall expenses pre-launch. The overhead and expenses just keep piling up and they still are about a year from their product offering.
Needless to say the firm I work with has passed up on underwriting for the development company due the high level of risk. We offered a "best efforts" deal and the development company has denied. It was too risky, as we would have to buy the initial offerings as a whole, then re-sell to a private market.
MMORPGs have a short shelf life, shorter than back in the days of UO/EQ. Unfortunately the days of massive worlds and exciting dynamic content delivered on a timely basis are over. MMOs are served up now similar to fast food, "quick & dirty" and for a cheap buck. It's hard to point fingers and blame, only time will tell.
Guildwars is a low budget CORPG, yes. The coding was done by 3 guys, all quests written by 4. But it have gotten in many times the nvestment and that is the reason ANET and NC soft is daring to launch a full blown MMO with the same method, and that ANETs old founder (and Blizzards former lead designer) Jeff Strain is doing the same for his Zombie labs.
The good and bad part of a MMO B2P game is that you need to sell several million copies instead of keeping 100K players for 5 years. Wow could have been B2P and still made money, probably not as much as you several times as many players as B2P.
Guildwars sold about 7 million boxes or 3,5 million accounts if you prefer that. It was enough to get in many times the development cost. I don't think GW2 can get in as much money for each dollar invested but I think it still can make the investors really rich.
My point anyways is that B2P games might be even riskier than P2P (but not really than F2P since they at least get box sales money fast) but B2P have advantages. People can buy 4 B2P games a year and play them on and off, most players buy 2 P2P games a year, play them for a while and then shelf them for good.
Many people bought GW, played it for 6 months and came back when a new campaign came out. There is a lot potential in that as well.
I guess we have to see how GW2 does before we can be sure, it will be the first full budget B2P MMO and we still can only guess how that will work, even if I really hope that it does.
I will not pay Again!. Lotro Convinced me even Eve Online have a way to play and pay for subs althow not an FTP you can still make the "Plex" payment fairly easy with some grinding.
Your old man Lied, there is always a price!
Vidi, vici, veni (pronounced ['wi?di? 'wi?ki? 'we?ni?])
I Saw, I Conquered, I Came
LOTRO just added some really powerful items to their store, so... eh.. definitely not F2P anymore.
Disgusting trend ... but I can immagine only 3 to 5 games worth subbing at all. For sure not at current "wow" price. You can not charge some ammount of money for trash car like for a Mercedes. Period.
That is the problem with free to play gams. Eventually players have all the convenience items they can use. There are only so many vanity items that players that can be added to a store before it loses it charm and appeal to players to get something that is special. The time will come when each game runs out of things to entice players to the cash shops that do not affect gameplay.
The free to play revenue model is built on the practice of getting players to spend money in cash shops. The trouble begins when those non-game affecting items start to lose their appeal to players and revenues decline, which they will. When that happens what alternatives does the developer have? Content and progression are the two strongest desires for most players, so that really is the only avanue left.
Im my mind that is the critical flaw in free to play cash shop games. They are destined to end up in this situation just by the nature of what they are doing. Furthermore I think that once the newness of the free to play craze subsides and people catch on to this trend there will start to be some backlash.
Hopefully someone comes along and solves this dilema, but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.
So, Bill Murphy, I see you've hopped on the bandwagon of dishonestly using DDO and LoTRO as examples of "quality F2P titles".
To start, both of those MMOs still offer the option to subscribe if you want. That sets them apart from the typical F2P that do not offer that option. I really wish people would stop using LoTRO, DDO, EQ2 and such to prop up and validate true F2P MMOs that were designed that way and don't offer a subscription option. They are two different setups.
I'll say it yet again...
DDO was designed as a AAA sub-based MMO. LoTRO was designed as a P2P MMO. EQ2 was designed as a P2P MMO. *That* explains why their designs are a step above the typical F2P MMO.
And even at that, DDO was failing as a sub-based game because not enough people found it worth paying for. It simply wasn't perceived as a very good game. Turbine got lucky and going F2P helped keep DDO afloat so they wouldn't have to cancel it.
As I've said before, when a game that was failing as a P2P MMO is being used as a highlight for "the success for F2P", it's a pretty damn sad state of affairs. LoTRO, from what I've gathered, had been losing steam before its move to F2P as well. So, Turbine went ahead and made the change with that one, too. EQ2's been a schizophrenic mess for years now; its design is seemingly driven and changed solely on whatever Smed thinks will make them more money that year. It's absolutely no surprise that SOE added a F2P/Cash Shop into EQ2... even though Smed said a while ago that it would never happen with their current games; not that honesty is a trait he's known for to begin with.
In a nutshell, it's telling that the MMOs most often propped up as "heroes" of the F2P scene started out as sub-based MMOs. Meanwhile, more often than not, true F2P MMOs are criticized for being shallow, grind-tastic affairs.
So, anyway, I wish people would stop shoveling out the BS spin about F2P already.... Not everyone is falling for it and plenty of us know better.
As for the interview snippet in your post, MumboJumbo...
Of course it changes the way they design the game from the start. Anyone who's played both P2P MMOs and F2P MMOs and paid attention to their fundamental design can see that. One is designed (when done well) to pull you into the game and entertain you enough to keep paying a monthly sub. The other is designed to draw out your wallet and keep buying stuff in their cash shop by designing restrictions, limitations and speed-bumps into the game for which the "fixes" are sold in the cash shop. It's completely transparent.
Traditionally, they're designing a game with the intention of providing engaging long-term content that keeps the player wanting to continue playing month after month, year after year. The devs have to earn that monthly sub fee by providing an expansive quality game experience where everything is obtainable by playing the game... or at least they had to.
Now, with everyone going nuts over the so-called "F2P" model, the design is changed from one that seeks to earn the players' monthly sub fee by providing a deep and engaging MMO experience, to one that's set up to try and direct players to their cash shop as often as possible, to spend as much as possible.
Instead of striving to keep players interested for the long-term to make their money, now they put more effort into simply trying to milk as much as they can in the short term.
The sad thing is that the truth about F2P and the formulas used in their design is out there. It's not even like it's some super-secret hush-hush thing that only devs know. There are videos and articles out there that explain and demonstrate in plain English and pictures of how these games are set up to take advantage of human psychology to get them to want to spend more money. I find it pretty sickening, to be honest.
I have said it before, I still say it and I will continue to say it... Getting people to spend money on your game over the long-term by providing them a deep and engaging gaming experience is the honest way to go about it. Designing your game with deliberately placed barriers, speed bumps and limitations so you can then go and sell potions, charms and trinkets to players to get around them is disgusting. Designing your game with exclusive items only available in a cash shop that give a clear benefit to the players that isn't available by playing the game is disgusting.
F2P MMOs are not about providing solid and immersive game experiences. They're about nickel-and-diming players as often as possible.
With all the very public shenanigans some F2P MMOs have pulled with their cash shops - demonstrating their greed for all to see - it amazes me that there are still people who think it's an "honest" approach to MMO design. It's damn sad.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
WSIMike, you're my hero.
I don't get why you think that F2P = Bad quality/design.
Most F2P MMO's ARE terrible Buy2Win trash, but this has nothing to do with the business model. It has everything to do with lazy developers hoping to make a quick buck with a cheap, disposable product.
You CAN make a longlasting, quality product that can not only survive from microtransactions but can be just as profitable as subscription games, if not more. DDO and LOTRO have proved this, even if they do still fall for some of the same pitfalls as Asiangrind shovelware.
I know it's hard to believe but a quality AAA subscription-less MMO is completely feasible, it's jsut that nobody has tried yet. Wait until GW2 comes out and you'll see that subscriptionless =/= Pay2Win or gameplay barriers.
What's the difference of a long-term, engaing gaming experience that requires a monthly fee and a long-term, engaging gaming experience that let's you pay and access what you see fit?
I always think of F2P games as ways for new developers to hone their skills. Ive personally still never spent a dime in the 100s of F2P titles ive played but thats simply because none of them have been worth it, OR that its such a great game the items you buy in the cash shop are also available in game if youre willing to spend more time on it.
I totally agree with WSIMike on most of what he said.
The quality of F2P games is definitely lower, but that was before. With games like WoW, Aion and Lineage using cash shops amongst their subscription i can only see quality getting worse as these companies start to care less and less about their product and more about their retarded micro-transactions.
To me it makes much more sense for a F2P game to have cash shops than it does for a P2P game, it just outrages me that these P2P games have cash shops/micro-transactions at all.
I definitely miss the old days (Diablo 2 for example), but times change ya know.
Jeremiah 8:21 I weep for the hurt of my people; I stand amazed, silent, dumb with grief.
Join me on Twitch Facebook Twitter
Ok, prove it. Give me one high quality f2p game that wasn't p2p to begin with.
What skills would that be exactly? They make it f2p and they get lazy. Just look at what LOTRO is claiming is such advancement with their upcoming update. They don't further the story AT ALL, don't give better housing, nothing. No... what they do is give more instances. And they think thats worth it. They aren't stretching their skills, they're doing as little as possible in the hopes they'll siphon more money off you because they hope you're dumb.