I personally like the F2P format... it lets you try the game out and see if it is something you want to invest in, then you can invest as much or as little as you want to play. The hardcore types are going to be willing to pay for all the bells and whistles, and the casual players can pay for only the things they want. How is this a bad thing?
Because if you take it to the extremes, like games such as Entropia, the difference between those that spend some money and those that spend alot of money, is huge. So much that it is deciding factor if you win an encounter or not.
If pay to win takes the market over then I will simply find another hobby outside of MMOs. I do wish the standard subscription fee for an MMO would drop from fifteen dollars a month and I keep hoping the free to play craze will make it happen. That said, I do not mind free to play, buy to play, cash shops or subscriptions, if the game is fun.
As Alakram says, it really depends on what the model entails. If done right, F2P can be excellent. I also like the GW model of buy the box, pay no sub. Maybe it'll gain traction, so long as GW2's shop doesn't screw the pooch.
Please give us examples of this 'excellence'? Just so we have a idea of your measure.
Please do not include any of the previously sub model AAA games that have converted, for the reasons I mention above.
Or are you still insisting on lumping them under the same banner?
Trying to seperate the two is arbitrary and rediculous. Regardless of how they ended up as f2p, they're still all f2p and are competing in the same markets.
They're really not. They overlap, but they are not the same. There are very distinct and significant differences extending all the way down to the fundamental design of each type of game.
With the "hybrid" model that Turbine adopted and Funcom has had for a while now with Anarchy Online, you have options of how you want to spend your money. And even beyond that, Funcom's approach is a bit different from Turbine's.
In both cases you have these options:
You can do the a la carte method of buying the content as you wish, instead of having to buy it all up-front.
You can pay a flat monthly subscription fee and play it as you would normally play a sub-based game; have access to all the content in the game, and never have to pay another dime to "unlock" individual quest packs. Of course, this still requires you to purchase expansion content you don't already have... but in that way, it's just like your typical P2P MMO.
In both cases, there is optional content for sale in the cash shop. You can purchase it as a F2P or as a Subscription player.
In Funcom's case it's a bit different as they also off-set their costs by having in-game advertising mandatory on all F2P accounts. When you subscribe, there's the option to disable them.
In the hybrid model, it comes down to how batches of content are acquired, rather than nickel-and-dime purchases of individual items. Having those multiple options for income also allows Turbine and Funcom to maintain the gameplay as-is, instead of having to implement typical arbitrary, F2P-type restrictions, obstacles and speed-bumps intended to funnel people to the cash shop as often as possible.
By contrast, in a true F2P/Cash Shop game, there is only one stream of income for the developer... That is, to sell stuff in the cash shop. There is no subscription option. No a la carte "buy content as you go" option. There's only cash shop purchases of various "conveniences" sold to counter inconveniences deliberately designed into the game. That difference results in a game that is designed very differently from the ground up than LoTRO, DDO or AO were designed.
To be sure, the effect of a purely cash shop system, compared to a hybrid system extends beyond just "how they sell stuff". It goes right down to the roots of how the game is designed from the ground-up. Though, the design aspect is one that is seldom discussed as most people focus only on the cash shop/cost aspect.
In my experience playing standard P2P/Sub MMOs, true Cash Shop MMOs (Perfect World, RoM, Shaiya, etc), and hybrid MMOs (DDO/LoTRO/Anarchy Online), the difference in how the gameplay is designed is very distinct. When I'm playing a sub-based or hybrid MMO (even on a F2P account, though to a lesser degree), the experience feels more like the designers are trying to immerse me in a virtual world and keep me engaged.
In a true Cash Shop/F2P MMO, I feel like I'm participating in a virtual shopping mall, where the designers are consistently throwing reminders in front of me to "Use The Cash Shop!", through obvious means such as special ads flashing across the screen while I'm playing, or through somewhat more subtle means, such as implementing obvious speed-bumps or restrictions which they just happen to sell something for in the cash shop.
I'm dead-set against pure F2P/Cash shop MMOs, but am perfectly supportive of a hybrid setup because I see the differences in the two.
To that end, I would have to say Vesavius is spot-on in their assessment of the two models not being the same. It drives me nuts, too, when I see them all being lumped together. It undermines the hybrid model, and lends true F2P/Cash Shop MMOs a sense of "integrity" that they don't deserve.
"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 differnce is Asian vs Western and not if it was implemented at release or not.
Most people hate the asian way of doing f2p so western companies have developed models that fit better for our markets. The differnce is that so far no big game has released with that model since they have just started trying it out. But I doubt big games will release without a box price since that makes alot of money at release, so the GW model and then drop the box price is the future.
But LoL is a pretty good example of how to do f2p here.
If WoW = The Beatles and WAR = Led Zeppelin Then LotrO = Pink Floyd
Originally posted by dageeza Most cash shop items are insanely overpriced and a player can easily spend way more than a traditional sub game per month if not careful..
That is the crux of it all. If F2P was less of a payoff for businesses, they would get out of it. More and more games are switching BECAUSE it is more lucrative to them to do so.
I don't like F2P. Never will. I won't play a game that uses that system. Give me the system where I pay a monthly fee and get the whole game each month.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
as long as there's no cash shop and P2P-quality then I have no problem with f2p.
for example if WoW starting next week removes the subscription model but doesnt change anything else and doesnt add anything to its cash shop I'd still play it.
Obviously that's not going to happen. A game will always require revenue just to keep the servers up, not to mention recouping development cost and earning a profit.
If WoW were f2p, I'd have no problem if they sold XP potions. What do I care if someone levels up faster than me?
You see, this where you demonstrate that you don not understand how a game is designed from the bottom up according to it's original revenue model.
You see, this is where you demonstrate that you do not understand how easy it is to alter the programming behind a game in order to suit whatever revenue model you're currently following. It's a nifty little thing about programming code in a computer, rather than using an old punch card machine
What are you telling me here? That the Freemium games have been recoded and increased their XP curve to to a hideous level to 'encourage' the use of XP pots after the first 20 or so (to give you the time to get invested)? That the drop rates have been reduced to sell 'gold passes' to increase them again them? Something else?
If so you need to show me examples of this being the case, of where the Freemium games have had their core game changed to becaome the same as 'F2Ps'.
and, simply, lol @ your 'clever' repeating back to me what I say.
I was against it for a long time, but since lotro went f2p and I tried it I have changed my mind. As long as they dont turn it into pay2win (which is ofc tempting for them) then I dont see the problem. I still prefer subs tho.
Edit: I dont choose a game based on payment model. If its a good game, I'll play it regardless. If it sucks for whatever reason, I wont.
I quit lotro a few months after pay2win was implemented. Stat tomes for the loss.
Like many I think the GWs model is the best for the consumer, unfortunetly it looks like that will be ruined with a cash shop as well.
I wish some game would try an advertising based model. The game would have to be responsive to the customer base to keep the eyeballs on the screen to drive the ad revenue and that would be great for once.
F2P is fast becoming a popular Industry standard, and for good reason too...
To this day, word of mouth is still the best marketing any game could hope for, especially in this age of facebook, twitter, and other social outlets.
If a Developer makes their game F2P they are increasing their potential market by a massive amount, and for every person that enjoys their game, chances are they will tell other people about it and bring in more customers.
There is a very negative Stigma around the F2P model though because until recently Item Malls / Cash Shops were thought to be reserved for people wanting to Pay2Win because they usually sold the best weapons, armor and upgrades. Of course that ruins the balance of the game for some folks and they leave the game in disgust. Now though Developers are focusing their Item Malls to sell mainly Cosmetic and Vanity items such as hairstyles, pets, clothes, etc.
I used to think P2P were the way to go, but I am now an advocate of the F2P model and think it will be the future market... as long as its done right.
"The problem with quotes from the Internet is that it's almost impossible to validate their authenticity." - Abraham Lincoln
There is a very negative Stigma around the F2P model though because until recently Item Malls / Cash Shops were thought to be reserved for people wanting to Pay2Win because they usually sold the best weapons, armor and upgrades. Of course that ruins the balance of the game for some folks and they leave the game in disgust. Now though Developers are focusing their Item Malls to sell mainly Cosmetic and Vanity items such as hairstyles, pets, clothes, etc.
What game has a cash shop that is mainly cosmetic and vanity? I would be willing to play that game, but I haven't seen one.
Granted It's not released yet, but Firefall is going for the Cosmetic Only Item Mall option.
We will have to see how that works out for them, and to be honest its in their best interest to keep it that way since theyve already stated they are hoping to make the game into an eSport.
And lets be honest, games such as League of Legends and Bloodline Champions sell Characters for people wanting that extra edge or different gameplay style, In that way people can still play a game for FREE but if they want to explore the games options further they can pay for a new character. Its not so differrent from paying a subscription fee to slowly build up your character.
"The problem with quotes from the Internet is that it's almost impossible to validate their authenticity." - Abraham Lincoln
Well looks like this is an ongoing trend just noticed my last subbed Mo Fallen earth is going F2P along with Conan i'm expecting Rift to follow suite prob 2012,as the glut of quality AAA Mo's will hit them really hard.
Seems like any P2P as really got to stand out or it will no doubt follow F2P or maybe B2P will be the next trend with GW2 setting the precident.
as long as there's no cash shop and P2P-quality then I have no problem with f2p.
for example if WoW starting next week removes the subscription model but doesnt change anything else and doesnt add anything to its cash shop I'd still play it.
Obviously that's not going to happen. A game will always require revenue just to keep the servers up, not to mention recouping development cost and earning a profit.
If WoW were f2p, I'd have no problem if they sold XP potions. What do I care if someone levels up faster than me?
You see, this where you demonstrate that you don not understand how a game is designed from the bottom up according to it's original revenue model.
You see, this is where you demonstrate that you do not understand how easy it is to alter the programming behind a game in order to suit whatever revenue model you're currently following. It's a nifty little thing about programming code in a computer, rather than using an old punch card machine
Ahh... No, actually it isn't that easy.
I've worked for a software developer who produced and published a single piece of software that was maybe 1/50th the overall size and complexity of a typical MMO with even fewer "moving" or interconnected parts. It could take them a month of planning, design, implementation, testing and tweaking just to get a single, seemingly "simple" change made to the software. Reason being that any one piece of code can - and often does - affect many other pieces of code, even if indirectly.
I've always liked the analogy of software being like a large mesh of interlocking gears, one gear affects another, which affects another, which affects another... even if ever-so-slightly. So, when you change one gear (or one piece of code) you have to account and prepare for how that change will affect every other gear (piece of code) related to or affected by it. A MMO is, basically, a collection of individual systems that can affect and influence other systems. Each of those systems is like an "island" of moving gears unto itself, with "land bridges" connecting to other islands of gears...
The entire way loot works, mob balancing, content balancing... every aspect of the game's design is potentially affected, has to be revised, re-balanced and re-tested to make sure it's getting the desired result. Making a single change to how xp is rewarded (just an arbitrary example) could open up myriad loopholes or glitches elsewhere. This is why you so often see patches intended to fix previous issues introducing new ones. It's why no piece of software (MMO or otherwise) is ever 100% bug or issue free.
Because it's not that easy.
I know it's common for many players to think that making a change or addition to code is as simple as opening up an editor, typing it in, compiling it and 'voila'... It's far from that.
"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 disagree. There is no difference between the hybrid model and pure P2W payment model. They are both designed with the philosphy that game mechanics should push players to purchase items from the item mall. However, the hybrid model is hit with a restriction on what can monetized, since the monthly payment option needs to have some sort of advantage over the item mall.
You see, this where you demonstrate that you don not understand how a game is designed from the bottom up according to it's original revenue model.
You see, this is where you demonstrate that you do not understand how easy it is to alter the programming behind a game in order to suit whatever revenue model you're currently following. It's a nifty little thing about programming code in a computer, rather than using an old punch card machine
What are you telling me here? That the Freemium games have been recoded and increased their XP curve to to a hideous level to 'encourage' the use of XP pots after the first 20 or so (to give you the time to get invested)? That the drop rates have been reduced to sell 'gold passes' to increase them again them? Something else?
If so you need to show me examples of this being the case, of where the Freemium games have had their core game changed to becaome the same as 'F2Ps'.
and, simply, lol @ your 'clever' repeating back to me what I say.
Bingo. Again, spot on.
That's just one very good and specific example of what I mention in my post about how the game design is fundamentally different from the ground-up. And that's just one of the more obvious ones.
"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 disagree. There is no difference between the hybrid model and pure P2W payment model. They are both designed with the philosphy that game mechanics should push players to purchase items from the item mall. However, the hybrid model is hit with a restriction on what can monetized, since the monthly payment option needs to have some sort of advantage over the item mall.
You're free to disagree.
However, please give me some specific, relevant and verifiable examples of how a game like LoTRO or DDO has had its basic gameplay altered to get you to buy things from the cash shop as blatantly and deliberately as a true F2P/Cash Shop game.
To be sure, I'm not talking about having to purchase additional content or "quest packs" or dungeons. That's essentially an a la carte method of getting content you could otherwise purchase outright.
I'm talking about changes to fundamental game design that affect how you play the game. I'm talking about things like slowing the leveling rate to intolerably low levels to try and push more xp potions. Things along those lines.
I've played LoTRO as a freemium player.. I've played DDO as a freemium player. I've played Anarchy Online as a "froob" (their version of "freemium"). Never once in any of those games did I ever encounter anything close to what I've seen and experienced in a true F2P MMO.
In fact, beyond the restriction on what content/areas I could access or how much money I could carry, there was no difference between playing any of those games as a subscribing player and playing as a freemium/froob player. And I've played all 3 of them as both.
"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
No it is not what we want, it is what the industry wants us to want so they can make more money.
It's not what YOU want, but apparantly it's what the consumer wants, as more people play f2p than p2p.
But do more people spend more money on F2P than they do on P2P? I think not.
Obviously if you get something for free more people will try it, but that does not mean that the sub-genre is more successful.
That is where F2P is failing. They got more people, but not more money.
Sadly, it does seem like some games can get more money from F2P than P2P...they get more people paying less money per person, but overall it is more money in the company coffers.
I still think they could have acomplished the same result with LOTRO buy dropping the subscription rate to $4.99...but companies just don't seem to understand that type of math.
People seem to forget that although there are of course those who choose not to pay anything in F2P games there are plenty that spend hundreds and thousands of dollars in those cash shops.
Gold farmer sites are a clear indication that there is a whole lot of money out there getting spent on RMT, which is effectively what cash shops are. F2P games are merely tapping into that very same billion dollar market. People are willing to spend small fortunes on buying gold to then buy in game items to gain an advantage, it's only common sense that people are more than willing to do the same thing legally via F2P cutting out the middle man with no chance of being banned.
Anyone who thinks 'Free' games aren't raking it in needs to re-evaluate their thinking.
Who is "we"? I certainly do not want F2P, not as much because it is not free at all, but rather because the quality of these games are mostly quite low.
More casual players want exactly that, they are not going to invest alot in purchasing a game and certainly not a monthly fee. They want an easy game, that gives entertainment from the first minute, and best of all free. They are not interested in a long term relationship but they want one night stands (you get the point).
What makes me wonder, is how these "free" to play games get funded, as I don't see the casual players ever pay anything, and the hardcore gamers will not stay in a shallow game. I have no interest in economy, so I might be wrong.
To me a monthly fee is a quality stamp, that besides working as a filter for those who are not dedicated to the game, it also makes it more likely that the game I have invested time in can keep running and improving (in general).
However, please give me some specific, relevant and verifiable examples of how a game like LoTRO or DDO has had its basic gameplay altered to get you to buy things from the cash shop as blatantly and deliberately as a true F2P/Cash Shop game.
To be sure, I'm not talking about having to purchase additional content or "quest packs" or dungeons. That's essentially an a la carte method of getting content you could otherwise purchase outright.
I'm talking about changes to fundamental game design that affect how you play the game. I'm talking about things like slowing the leveling rate to intolerably low levels to try and push more xp potions. Things along those lines.
I've played LoTRO as a freemium player.. I've played DDO as a freemium player. I've played Anarchy Online as a "froob" (their version of "freemium"). Never once in any of those games did I ever encounter anything close to what I've seen and experienced in a true F2P MMO.
In fact, beyond the restriction on what content/areas I could access or how much money I could carry, there was no difference between playing any of those games as a subscribing player and playing as a freemium/froob player. And I've played all 3 of them as both.
I've read from various sources that the monthly subscription numbers for both DDO and LotRO have gone up since their foray into the hybrid model. The 'free' aspect gets people playing and many then subscribe.
One fact that should be stressed again is that in the hybrid model you can gain points (store cash) as you play and accomplish a range of achievements. So, I've found that for a casual player you can spend about $5/month for pretty much the entire game. Hit various sales for big ticket additions like zones, vault space or extra character slots and you still have cash for fluff.
The players with a subscription are also given a number of points per month on their account. Fluff/potions are no real added cost and many players actually wonder what to do with all of their extra points.
I see no evil conspiracy here. Just choices on how to spend your gaming dollar and a liberal use of the word 'free'.
So I assume you know how much money these f2p games are bringing in? Oh, right, you don't, you're just making things up.
LOTRO devs have said they're making more money now that it's f2p... but what do they know about it, right?
F2P is only failing for those who hate it. It's working for everyone else.
LOTRO devs stated back in January after the conversion that revenue increased. There hasn't been any recent announcement that they are still doing great. Would yout expect the P2W payment model release to be any different than a newly released game? Shouldn't there be an initial spike in sales, then followed by a sharp decline?
Comments
Because if you take it to the extremes, like games such as Entropia, the difference between those that spend some money and those that spend alot of money, is huge. So much that it is deciding factor if you win an encounter or not.
My gaming blog
If pay to win takes the market over then I will simply find another hobby outside of MMOs. I do wish the standard subscription fee for an MMO would drop from fifteen dollars a month and I keep hoping the free to play craze will make it happen. That said, I do not mind free to play, buy to play, cash shops or subscriptions, if the game is fun.
They're really not. They overlap, but they are not the same. There are very distinct and significant differences extending all the way down to the fundamental design of each type of game.
With the "hybrid" model that Turbine adopted and Funcom has had for a while now with Anarchy Online, you have options of how you want to spend your money. And even beyond that, Funcom's approach is a bit different from Turbine's.
In both cases you have these options:
You can do the a la carte method of buying the content as you wish, instead of having to buy it all up-front.
You can pay a flat monthly subscription fee and play it as you would normally play a sub-based game; have access to all the content in the game, and never have to pay another dime to "unlock" individual quest packs. Of course, this still requires you to purchase expansion content you don't already have... but in that way, it's just like your typical P2P MMO.
In both cases, there is optional content for sale in the cash shop. You can purchase it as a F2P or as a Subscription player.
In Funcom's case it's a bit different as they also off-set their costs by having in-game advertising mandatory on all F2P accounts. When you subscribe, there's the option to disable them.
In the hybrid model, it comes down to how batches of content are acquired, rather than nickel-and-dime purchases of individual items. Having those multiple options for income also allows Turbine and Funcom to maintain the gameplay as-is, instead of having to implement typical arbitrary, F2P-type restrictions, obstacles and speed-bumps intended to funnel people to the cash shop as often as possible.
By contrast, in a true F2P/Cash Shop game, there is only one stream of income for the developer... That is, to sell stuff in the cash shop. There is no subscription option. No a la carte "buy content as you go" option. There's only cash shop purchases of various "conveniences" sold to counter inconveniences deliberately designed into the game. That difference results in a game that is designed very differently from the ground up than LoTRO, DDO or AO were designed.
To be sure, the effect of a purely cash shop system, compared to a hybrid system extends beyond just "how they sell stuff". It goes right down to the roots of how the game is designed from the ground-up. Though, the design aspect is one that is seldom discussed as most people focus only on the cash shop/cost aspect.
In my experience playing standard P2P/Sub MMOs, true Cash Shop MMOs (Perfect World, RoM, Shaiya, etc), and hybrid MMOs (DDO/LoTRO/Anarchy Online), the difference in how the gameplay is designed is very distinct. When I'm playing a sub-based or hybrid MMO (even on a F2P account, though to a lesser degree), the experience feels more like the designers are trying to immerse me in a virtual world and keep me engaged.
In a true Cash Shop/F2P MMO, I feel like I'm participating in a virtual shopping mall, where the designers are consistently throwing reminders in front of me to "Use The Cash Shop!", through obvious means such as special ads flashing across the screen while I'm playing, or through somewhat more subtle means, such as implementing obvious speed-bumps or restrictions which they just happen to sell something for in the cash shop.
I'm dead-set against pure F2P/Cash shop MMOs, but am perfectly supportive of a hybrid setup because I see the differences in the two.
To that end, I would have to say Vesavius is spot-on in their assessment of the two models not being the same. It drives me nuts, too, when I see them all being lumped together. It undermines the hybrid model, and lends true F2P/Cash Shop MMOs a sense of "integrity" that they don't deserve.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
The differnce is Asian vs Western and not if it was implemented at release or not.
Most people hate the asian way of doing f2p so western companies have developed models that fit better for our markets. The differnce is that so far no big game has released with that model since they have just started trying it out. But I doubt big games will release without a box price since that makes alot of money at release, so the GW model and then drop the box price is the future.
But LoL is a pretty good example of how to do f2p here.
If WoW = The Beatles
and WAR = Led Zeppelin
Then LotrO = Pink Floyd
I don't like F2P. Never will. I won't play a game that uses that system. Give me the system where I pay a monthly fee and get the whole game each month.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
What are you telling me here? That the Freemium games have been recoded and increased their XP curve to to a hideous level to 'encourage' the use of XP pots after the first 20 or so (to give you the time to get invested)? That the drop rates have been reduced to sell 'gold passes' to increase them again them? Something else?
If so you need to show me examples of this being the case, of where the Freemium games have had their core game changed to becaome the same as 'F2Ps'.
and, simply, lol @ your 'clever' repeating back to me what I say.
I quit lotro a few months after pay2win was implemented. Stat tomes for the loss.
Like many I think the GWs model is the best for the consumer, unfortunetly it looks like that will be ruined with a cash shop as well.
I wish some game would try an advertising based model. The game would have to be responsive to the customer base to keep the eyeballs on the screen to drive the ad revenue and that would be great for once.
F2P is fast becoming a popular Industry standard, and for good reason too...
To this day, word of mouth is still the best marketing any game could hope for, especially in this age of facebook, twitter, and other social outlets.
If a Developer makes their game F2P they are increasing their potential market by a massive amount, and for every person that enjoys their game, chances are they will tell other people about it and bring in more customers.
There is a very negative Stigma around the F2P model though because until recently Item Malls / Cash Shops were thought to be reserved for people wanting to Pay2Win because they usually sold the best weapons, armor and upgrades. Of course that ruins the balance of the game for some folks and they leave the game in disgust. Now though Developers are focusing their Item Malls to sell mainly Cosmetic and Vanity items such as hairstyles, pets, clothes, etc.
I used to think P2P were the way to go, but I am now an advocate of the F2P model and think it will be the future market... as long as its done right.
"The problem with quotes from the Internet is that it's almost impossible to validate their authenticity." - Abraham Lincoln
What game has a cash shop that is mainly cosmetic and vanity? I would be willing to play that game, but I haven't seen one.
Granted It's not released yet, but Firefall is going for the Cosmetic Only Item Mall option.
We will have to see how that works out for them, and to be honest its in their best interest to keep it that way since theyve already stated they are hoping to make the game into an eSport.
And lets be honest, games such as League of Legends and Bloodline Champions sell Characters for people wanting that extra edge or different gameplay style, In that way people can still play a game for FREE but if they want to explore the games options further they can pay for a new character. Its not so differrent from paying a subscription fee to slowly build up your character.
"The problem with quotes from the Internet is that it's almost impossible to validate their authenticity." - Abraham Lincoln
Well looks like this is an ongoing trend just noticed my last subbed Mo Fallen earth is going F2P along with Conan i'm expecting Rift to follow suite prob 2012,as the glut of quality AAA Mo's will hit them really hard.
Seems like any P2P as really got to stand out or it will no doubt follow F2P or maybe B2P will be the next trend with GW2 setting the precident.
Ahh... No, actually it isn't that easy.
I've worked for a software developer who produced and published a single piece of software that was maybe 1/50th the overall size and complexity of a typical MMO with even fewer "moving" or interconnected parts. It could take them a month of planning, design, implementation, testing and tweaking just to get a single, seemingly "simple" change made to the software. Reason being that any one piece of code can - and often does - affect many other pieces of code, even if indirectly.
I've always liked the analogy of software being like a large mesh of interlocking gears, one gear affects another, which affects another, which affects another... even if ever-so-slightly. So, when you change one gear (or one piece of code) you have to account and prepare for how that change will affect every other gear (piece of code) related to or affected by it. A MMO is, basically, a collection of individual systems that can affect and influence other systems. Each of those systems is like an "island" of moving gears unto itself, with "land bridges" connecting to other islands of gears...
The entire way loot works, mob balancing, content balancing... every aspect of the game's design is potentially affected, has to be revised, re-balanced and re-tested to make sure it's getting the desired result. Making a single change to how xp is rewarded (just an arbitrary example) could open up myriad loopholes or glitches elsewhere. This is why you so often see patches intended to fix previous issues introducing new ones. It's why no piece of software (MMO or otherwise) is ever 100% bug or issue free.
Because it's not that easy.
I know it's common for many players to think that making a change or addition to code is as simple as opening up an editor, typing it in, compiling it and 'voila'... It's far from that.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
I disagree. There is no difference between the hybrid model and pure P2W payment model. They are both designed with the philosphy that game mechanics should push players to purchase items from the item mall. However, the hybrid model is hit with a restriction on what can monetized, since the monthly payment option needs to have some sort of advantage over the item mall.
Bingo. Again, spot on.
That's just one very good and specific example of what I mention in my post about how the game design is fundamentally different from the ground-up. And that's just one of the more obvious ones.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
But do more people spend more money on F2P than they do on P2P? I think not.
Obviously if you get something for free more people will try it, but that does not mean that the sub-genre is more successful.
That is where F2P is failing. They got more people, but not more money.
My gaming blog
You're free to disagree.
However, please give me some specific, relevant and verifiable examples of how a game like LoTRO or DDO has had its basic gameplay altered to get you to buy things from the cash shop as blatantly and deliberately as a true F2P/Cash Shop game.
To be sure, I'm not talking about having to purchase additional content or "quest packs" or dungeons. That's essentially an a la carte method of getting content you could otherwise purchase outright.
I'm talking about changes to fundamental game design that affect how you play the game. I'm talking about things like slowing the leveling rate to intolerably low levels to try and push more xp potions. Things along those lines.
I've played LoTRO as a freemium player.. I've played DDO as a freemium player. I've played Anarchy Online as a "froob" (their version of "freemium"). Never once in any of those games did I ever encounter anything close to what I've seen and experienced in a true F2P MMO.
In fact, beyond the restriction on what content/areas I could access or how much money I could carry, there was no difference between playing any of those games as a subscribing player and playing as a freemium/froob player. And I've played all 3 of them as both.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Sadly, it does seem like some games can get more money from F2P than P2P...they get more people paying less money per person, but overall it is more money in the company coffers.
I still think they could have acomplished the same result with LOTRO buy dropping the subscription rate to $4.99...but companies just don't seem to understand that type of math.
So I assume you know how much money these f2p games are bringing in? Oh, right, you don't, you're just making things up.
LOTRO devs have said they're making more money now that it's f2p... but what do they know about it, right?
F2P is only failing for those who hate it. It's working for everyone else.
People seem to forget that although there are of course those who choose not to pay anything in F2P games there are plenty that spend hundreds and thousands of dollars in those cash shops.
Gold farmer sites are a clear indication that there is a whole lot of money out there getting spent on RMT, which is effectively what cash shops are. F2P games are merely tapping into that very same billion dollar market. People are willing to spend small fortunes on buying gold to then buy in game items to gain an advantage, it's only common sense that people are more than willing to do the same thing legally via F2P cutting out the middle man with no chance of being banned.
Anyone who thinks 'Free' games aren't raking it in needs to re-evaluate their thinking.
If their f2p model is like Lotro...yes.
Who is "we"? I certainly do not want F2P, not as much because it is not free at all, but rather because the quality of these games are mostly quite low.
More casual players want exactly that, they are not going to invest alot in purchasing a game and certainly not a monthly fee. They want an easy game, that gives entertainment from the first minute, and best of all free. They are not interested in a long term relationship but they want one night stands (you get the point).
What makes me wonder, is how these "free" to play games get funded, as I don't see the casual players ever pay anything, and the hardcore gamers will not stay in a shallow game. I have no interest in economy, so I might be wrong.
To me a monthly fee is a quality stamp, that besides working as a filter for those who are not dedicated to the game, it also makes it more likely that the game I have invested time in can keep running and improving (in general).
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
Woot for cash items to lessen the grind!
I've read from various sources that the monthly subscription numbers for both DDO and LotRO have gone up since their foray into the hybrid model. The 'free' aspect gets people playing and many then subscribe.
One fact that should be stressed again is that in the hybrid model you can gain points (store cash) as you play and accomplish a range of achievements. So, I've found that for a casual player you can spend about $5/month for pretty much the entire game. Hit various sales for big ticket additions like zones, vault space or extra character slots and you still have cash for fluff.
The players with a subscription are also given a number of points per month on their account. Fluff/potions are no real added cost and many players actually wonder what to do with all of their extra points.
I see no evil conspiracy here. Just choices on how to spend your gaming dollar and a liberal use of the word 'free'.
The Guildwars Model is my favorite one.
LOTRO devs stated back in January after the conversion that revenue increased. There hasn't been any recent announcement that they are still doing great. Would yout expect the P2W payment model release to be any different than a newly released game? Shouldn't there be an initial spike in sales, then followed by a sharp decline?