Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Some of my takes on F2P
alderdale
Member Posts: 301
I still contend that F2P games are the crutch for developers that doubt whether they can create a game good enough to pull subs. Even decent P2P games LOTRO and now AOC have had to convert not because their core game wasnt good enough, those two games alone have twice the content and quality of the top 10 F2P games combined. But even so games like LOTRO and AOC still miss the mark in so many areas, and things that are obvious to me when I go back and play them. Why has WOW become the only game that was able to pull huge subs up until the point where its just getting old and not because an all around better game has come out? The lead designers of these game are to blame, not listening to player feedback in early game development. as well as later when they focus on the wrong things in an attempt fo figure out what the problem is.
So now the only option for old games that cant get it right and for new games that dont have the know how to hold subs, is to turn to the F2P model to at least have semi populated servers and some sort of revenue stream. Blizzard did managed to get it right because they are brilliant game designers plan and simple. They know what people want and they deliver, they also alienate a small population of people that have money for subs but overall they still win.
In addition the sheer number of MMO's pouring out of the East as F2P games further diluite the market. But in the end there will always be one or two P2P games that can hold subs and those are the games where you will find me. For I refuse to play a "game" where I have to keep a financial calculator by my side or an excel spreadsheet open to see how much fun I can afford.
These are just a hand full of thoughts I have on the subject I could list 10 more but this post is getting long as it is.
Comments
Or it's just that F2P is a different model that appeals to a different crowd. LOTRO, AoC and DDO are more hybrids than full-fledge F2P.
There are many great F2P titles (albeit like anything else, what is great and what is not is entirely subjective) and a new wave of great F2Ps on their way too, so I completly disagree with you when you say that F2P games are a mean for developers who doubt they can create a good game. It's a model that allows a constant stream of players without binding them to a purchase of the box nor a subscription, giving players the freedom to choose to pay or not, and also the amount. The quality of the product is not determined by it's pricing model, there are simply a lot more F2P MMOs so it's normal to see some of lesser quality than others, but the amount is proportional to the P2P market.
The P2P market itself has suffered from waves of half-assed titles over the last 5 years, RIFT being one of the few exception to actually launch a high quality and polished experience, as it has been mentionned several times since launch.
I pretty much disagree with OP entirely.
"I still contend that F2P games are the crutch for developers that doubt whether they can create a game good enough to pull subs."
You can contend that until you are blue in the face. It still doesn't change that it's simply just a different game design and different business model. Your entire argument is based on the false premise that F2P is some magic bullet that saves failing games, but you never say why or how it does this.
I'm very interested in the math and marketing behind your assessment.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I've never played a F2P game for more than a few months. The pure F2P games just seem to be lower quality and some of the better ones tend to get ruined because the model employed by the developers allows you to get too much of an advantage with cash.
I think the real problem is that it requires such a huge investment to make a really good MMO and the potential market is just not that big. Like some other industries (think airlines), there is too much capacity and so companies must keep dropping the price in order to put people in the seats (or players at the screen). F2P is just the MMO industry's version of this.
Unless the game publishers figure out how to drastically increase the overall player community of MMOs the market is probalby only big enought to support a dozen or so (if that) high quality games. The rest will have to go F2P and their quality will suffer because of it.
F2P may have started off as simply an "alternate payment method", particularly in the East where their social and gaming habits are rather different than ours over here. People who've been over there have told me how you can actually go into an internet cafe and order a real-life sandwich and drink with in-game money. It's a whole different scene over there.
However, that's not the case any longer.
From the core design of a typical F2P MMO (I'm talking actual F2P, not the hybrid setup LoTRO or DDO use) the designers focus on deliberately designing limitations, obstructions and restrictions into the game that they can attempt to sell a "solution" for in the cash shop. That aspect alone turns me off to them completely. I don't lump DDO, LoTRO or Anarchy Online into that category because they still offer the option to subscribe and bypass the limitations/restrictions.
For example... In a typical P2P MMO, when a portion of the game feels like too much of a grind and it's turning players off, the devs will take a look at it and make any adjustments necessary to bring it more in line with where it should be. In a F2P MMO, that increased grind is designed into the game deliberately, and the devs' "solution" to it, is to advertise XP potions you can buy in the cash shop. That's just one example, and happens to be one of the more overt ones.
Then you get into how F2P/Cash Shop games utilize human psychology in order to contrive ways to make peole feel they need to spend more money in order to keep up with their friends, or to remain competitive, etc... There is ample evidence and discussion of this right on the 'net.
Here's one brief article summing it up.
As he says in the article..
"... a game built from the ground up to be F2P has different design goals from a subscription game.
Expect to see developers using ever more sophisticated tools that track your playing and spending habits, with the game design tweaked accordingly. This iterative metric driven approach to design is part of what makes companies like Zynga so successful."
Be sure to check out the link included in that quote, as it discusses the type of metric tools he's referring to. Here's a particularly poignant quote from that linked article:
"We've developed a series of tools, dashboards and analysis engines to automate the study of large volumes of data. Our coolest tool by far is one that measures social influence and places a dollar value on it."
So there you have it, in plain English, designers/developers are not interested in creating content based on how much more enjoyment or value it would bring to the players' gaming experience, but rather on how much more $$$ they could make off of it based on their gathered "player metrics". Yeah, that's a great design ethic to root for, let me tell ya.
And there's many more resources out there that go into more detail about how the so-called F2P/Cash Shop system is set up.
I find it rather disturbing and more than a little irritating that, instead of focusing on a better quality gaming experience that will make players willingly pay money to experience, more and more developers are focusing on tracking people's own gameplay habits and then using that info to figure out how to underhandedly get even more money from them... while plastering the word "FREE!" all over their ads and PR.
We're nothing but labratory rats for their "research" on how to get us to open our wallets a little more... and then a little more...
It's saddening how many people fall for it and continue to argue that it's totally benign, even when so much evidence is out there showing, in detail, how these people are trying to manipulate. I guess it's true that, for some, it's cozier to not know.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Let me tell you a story...
Once upon a time, at the dawn of the internet, there were companies that started bundling services, and offering a monthly fee. Companies like CompuCom were crushed by AOL, which offered a monthly fee, and opened up the internet for the masses.
Years later, the internet changed again. Companies like Yahoo started offering the same content and services that AOL offered... but for free. People decryed that this was a cheap imitation, and that this was just for people that we too cheap to pay for real services. Over time, things began to change, with more free services like HotMail, then GMail. AOL, which had once been so big, that it could dictate HOW the internet worked, had been slowly eaten up by the 'free' services. How did these 'free' services survive? They found ways to make money, by offering additional services for a fee, by selling their customers data, by slowly improving to become better than the paid services.
This process (from start to finish) took about 10 years. World of Warcraft was released in 2004, and changed the gaming market. It is not unreasonable to think that a similar process will occur here, and that in the next few years we will see 'free' starting to become predominant in the market.
The market does not change just because someone woke up one morning, and decided to do something different. It changes due to necessity. Gaming is growing, and as it expands, the offernings need to meet the demands of the customer. 'Free' does that in a way that P2P or subscription never did. This is just the way of the world.
That's a beautifully written endorsement of F2P/Cash Shops.
However, like so many such endorsements, it completely ignores the underhanded methods used in developing and maintaining said games... such as what I cited and quoted in my post.
In my decade+ playing online sub-based MMOs, I can not recall a single person ever really complaining about subscriptions. People complained of the crappy quality of some of the games and that they didn't find them worth the purchase, but that was the extent of it. That is, until F2P came along and started plastering the word "FREE!" on everything; or all the PR mouthpieces started speaking out against subscriptions while hyping up their own F2P/Cash shop model.
Likewise, more and more people are spinning subs as this big, bad and outdated thing, while simultaneously championing F2P/Cash Shops.
It's ridiculous and completely transparent.
Again, I guess for some it's more comfortable to ignore the ugly facts and only focus on the attractive ones.
F2P is what it is. The way it's set up, the methods and strategies used in creating them and in the ways they try to get people to spend ever-more money is out there and well-documented. It's not some well-guarded secret. Trying to ignore or gloss-over the ugly truth of the matter only makes one look dishonest.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Funnily enough over half the players of WOW don't pay a sub. They pay by the hour with time cards because they are from Asia and the micro transaction model is about the only way alot of people in Asia can afford to play an MMO. This is why alot of F2P games come from the Asian region. It's also why alot of Western MMO companies are starting to go for more F2P/B2P/Freemium business models because they want to get into the Asian market which is so much larger than the Western one.
Out of the options available personnally I like the B2P and the Freemium models. B2P because well thats how I've always bought my games buy the game play it if I like it pick up any expansions that come out ot also puts a financial barrier to entry. Freemium because it gives me options on how I pay for the game either pay out 1 time for content as it is released or if I think it's worth a long time commitment pay a sub but basicly because it gives me options on how and what I pay so if things get tight one month I can just not pay anything but still enjoy what I have already paid for.
I really think the sub based payment for MMO's is pretty close to it's limits with most sub payers bouncing around from sub to sub and not drawing in any newer players to the MMO genre. I guess TOR will prove or disprove that particular theory but I have a feeling that evan if TOR hits it's numbers there will be a corresponding drop in sub numbers for other games.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
There is nothing more dangerous than a true believer.
You do know that your post also applies to P2P titles right? It's called the Skinner Box (cracked.com article on this). There is nothing wrong with the F2P model in itself, it provides an alternative to the P2P model which does not often always justify it's cost.
Developers and Publishers of P2P titles are becoming more and more unrealistic with their prices, often giving less for more money. Expansions nowadays are rather small and may only provide a week or 2 of content at max, unlike the full game which provides entertainment for months, yet they still charge the full retail price of $40 to 60 per Expac. They offer additional services of Name Change, Character Transfer, etc at a Fee. They are also beginning to introduce Cash Shops in P2P titles (WoW or STO are great exemple).
The F2P model on the other hand, offers the whole game for free, but will sell vanity items, Pets, bonuses to XP or Drop Rate, additional bags, and sometimes Gear and Equips that are stronger than normal weapons. Saves for the latter, most items are not necessary at all for one's success, and luckily not all F2Ps will sell stronger Gear/Equips. Of course there are those that will, but I don't think I'm wrong to say that they are not the majority. Which leaves F2P titles that offers non game-breaking items, thus not necessary to one's success in the game. At this point, if the player so choose to spend money on those items, well good for him. Ain't going to change anything for the rest of the playerbase. Are the developers/publishers cash grabbing? Maybe. But if the player, who has been playing for free decides that he wants to spend on the cash shop and finds that the prices are fine, that's his decision and good for him. Again, it doesn't affect anyone else.
I do understand gamers concern with cash shop that sells gears and equips though, but unlike P2Ps, you likely have not spent any money on it, so nothing should be stopping you from leaving the game and looking for another. I'm a strong proponent of voting with our wallets, as such I will not play nor pay for a game that has a Cash Shop to which I do not agree with, I'll look for a different game instead. Nothing is stopping you, me or anyone else from moving to another game. There is no feeling of entitlement because we, the players, did not have to spent a single buck to try out the game; no retail box, no subscription, nothing.
But this is not a P2P vs. F2P issue. Both offers a different model that appeals to a different crowd or different needs. For some, paying for a P2P when they perhaps only have a few hours a week to play, it simply does not seem as a viable solution, for others it's perfectly fine. Some would rather pay a subscription fee and be done with it, others would rather play for free and sometimes buy from the cash shop should they so choose. Others play P2Ps but sometimes F2P during downtimes.
To claim that F2P developers are the only one using "mindtricks" to trick users into buying is ludicrous, when P2Ps are just as guilty, if not more. The only difference is the form it takes. To use your own expression:" I guess for some it's more comfortable to ignore the ugly facts and only focus on the attractive ones."
It is possible for P2Ps in the western market to be F2P in Asia without changing the western business model. So I'd have to disagree with you when you say that western companies are moving to F2P to get into the asian market. I'd say that the F2P model is increasing in popularity here in North America and Europe, and since the recent change of DDO and LOTRO to F2P, it has given a lot more weight to the F2P model, which would explain the change in the western game developer's perception of the business model.
Of course they all have skinner boxes in them. However, that doesn't really address the issue I'm talking about.
What I'm against is the means by which F2P attempt to get more money out of people... which goes way beyond using skinner box techniques.
In a P2P MMO, no matter what a player is doing... whether it be doing the same activity over and over to get its rewards, or mixing their time up across a variety of different activities... They are only paying $15 a month.
However much content the game offers, they have access to... 100%... for the same $15 a month as everyone else is paying.
If they enjoy questing, they can quest to their heart's content, have everything they could want or need available by playing the game, and not pay a penny more than others to do so. If they enjoy grinding mobs, they can grind to their heart's content and have everything they could need to do so available to them by playing the game, and never have to pay a penny more. If someone wants to spend all their time in PvP activities, then they can PvP to their heart's content and have everything they could need available to them by playing the game. Crafting... same thing. Harvesting... same thing. They can play as aggressively as they want or as casually as they want... same thing.
There are no hidden costs, no built-in obstructions, limitations or restrictions for which the only solution is "spend more money in a cash shop". Everything in a P2P/Sub-based MMO is done by playing the game and paying the same monthly fee as everyone else.
That is really the beginning and end of it right there.
P2P MMOs are designed to keep people interested and engaged in the game enough to make that $15 a month seem worthwhile. If developers fail to provide an experience that people can enjoy for 30 days at a stretch, then they lose customers. At the end of the day, P2P MMOs are designed to be experienced, with goal achieve and every item obtained by playing the game.
F2P, however, are designed from the ground up to funnel people toward the cash shop, with design decisions made on the sole purpose of getting people to spend as much money as they can as often as they can. F2P's are not designed around a long-term concept of "keeping people engaged and entertained enough to keep playing for 30 days at a stretch". They're designed around the concept of "present enough inconveniences into the game design so gamers will feel compelled to spend the money on what we're selling".
And further, there's no limit on how much a person can spend in a cash shop. Depending on the person, how impulsive or perhaps compulsive they are, or depending on how competitive they may be, they can find themselves spending quite a lot more than a mere $15 just to play at their desired pace, and be getting no more content than they would be in a P2P MMO without having to spend a penny more than the sub fee.
The difference between the two is night and day. Again, none of this is "top secret".
Also, you mention how newer P2P MMOs have been becoming more and more shallow and "not worth the money". You're arguing a very subjective thing, and generalizing it to boot.
To you, those games may not be worthit. To others those games may not be worth it. But to others who are playing those games and who are enjoying them - even though you and others don't - it's well worth the money.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
It is also well-documented that MOST MMO players play F2P (70%+) and a MAJORITY of them do NOT pay. Try to ignore or gross over the inconvenience truth only makes one look dishonest.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
You're forgetting about Expansions for P2P titles. This is an additional cost that will prevent players to continue from playing and working on their characters with their friends, unless they buy the expac (often at the same price of a full game of $40 to $60, even though it only offers a week of 2 of content at most). So it's not entirely true that you get 100% access to a game with only a subscription fee.
To claim that only P2P MMOs are designed to keep people interested is just ridiculous. This is even more true for F2Ps as they have the most unstable source of income. Unlike P2Ps, F2P does not benefits from the huge push that box sales offers at launch, nor do they benefit from the stable source of monthly subs. Not to mention the much larger amount of competition in the F2P market. F2P MMOs HAVE to be interesting and keep people playing, because only a small minority actually pays large amount of money, a slightly larger minority will pay a small amount here and there, while the majority of the playerbase will never spend a buck. That's the reality of the F2P model. But even though the majority doesn't spend a buck, it populates the game on all levels and areas so you can always find other people to play with (unlike older P2P titles which suffers from a very low stream of new players like FFXI, as good as FFXI is it's just way too hard for new players to start nowadays).
Are F2P game developers/publishers going to try to encourage players to spend on the cash shop? Of course they will. They'll use the grind, traveling distances, limit the amount of dungeons or missions they can run per day, make the new player taste the cash shop features for free for a short period of time, sell vanity items to make you look "way cooler" then other players, etc. Of course they are going to do that, they have to make money somehow, but again, only a small minority of the playerbase will spend a lot of money often on items that does not imbalance the game (as I mentionned, the majority of F2Ps do not offer game-breaking items such as equips and weapons, or if they do, some will allow players to trade those items to other players using in-game currency), and a slightly larger minority will spend every now and then a small amount of money.
And do you really think only F2Ps do that? Are you lost so deep into the Skinner Box that you can't even see that P2Ps are using similar strategies to keep players subbed (farming gear and repeating the same instances over and over and over again in WoW anyone? ... or any other themepark for that matter). Might take a month or so to cap in a P2P, but you have 2 more months of farming gears and grinding instances, and much longer for achievements. Then you'll make an alt and repeat the same cycle. Again, P2Ps are using very similar strategies so players continue to pay. Only difference is that you don't have to pay in a F2P to do all of that, you can buy cash shop items or potions to increase the speed, but that's about it, you still have access to everything even if you don't pay a buck.
I also do not believe to be generalizing when I say that P2Ps have become more shallows. Saves for RIFTs which has without a doubt won the award for the most polished and stable product to release in years, how many P2P titles have released in the recent years that could be considered as success? They've all led to MAJOR disappointment, creating huge outcries from the playerbase, those P2Ps have lost a lot of revenues. AoC going F2P, Champion Online also going F2P, APB went down and now going F2P, STO not doing really great and Atari jumping off the boat, Warhammer Online not doing great either, DarkFall and Mortal Online also major disappointments losing the majority of their playerbase, FFXIV went entirely free for unknown duration, WoW's latest Expac Cataclyst also leading to a lot of disappointment, and I'm probably forgetting a few extra P2Ps.
"To you, those games may not be worthit. To others those games may not be worth it. But to others who are playing those games and who are enjoying them - even though you and others don't - it's well worth the money."
You say this but the minute after you turn around and say that F2P players are being tricked and all that, not very consistant with your own posts if you ask me.