They are not going to give you a free cheese pizza, day after day after day after day - in the hopes that one day you will add pepperoni.
They do a promotion - akin to a trial, open beta, or a demo.
The F2P business model is based off of separating fools and their money.
I have to go to work, so I'll make this simple. My problem with your arguments is that you're arguing theft is involved.
Theft has a meaning. You changing it around isn't going to change anything except inside your head, where I'm not going to go.
Yes. The companies want you to spend money. No, you're not thieving by participating in what they offer for free in hopes to bait you into paying.
All your arguments hinge on 'Free players in F2P are committing theft', which is completely false.
You cannot prove such a thing, because it's wrong. F2P companies perform a lot of trickery and such to try and get people to pay. Players are not stealing by declining to take the bait.
(Oh, and they're not offering you a turd on a stick, they're offering you a cheese pizza without other toppings. You use the weirdest analogies that don't relate at all. Strawman arguments based off of really stupid analogies like 'F2P players are like people stealing jewelry' make you look silly.)
Im not sure what the problem is, there is room in the market place for each model & ultimately the players (the target market in this case) will decide where they will and will not spend their money & publishers will adapt accordingly.
I think a lot of games end up on the F2P shelf because they think they are going to somehow out WoW, WoW itself which is never going to work.
(Oh, and they're not offering you a turd on a stick, they're offering you a cheese pizza without other toppings. You use the weirdest analogies that don't relate at all. Strawman arguments based off of really stupid analogies like 'F2P players are like people stealing jewelry' make you look silly.)
I've been heavily influenced by Zhan Ye's presentation and what I've seen in F2P games.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Im not sure what the problem is, there is room in the market place for each model & ultimately the players (the target market in this case) will decide where they will and will not spend their money & publishers will adapt accordingly.
I think a lot of games end up on the F2P shelf because they think they are going to somehow out WoW, WoW itself which is never going to work.
The majority will determine for the minority...
...this works when the majority considers the desires of the minority.
I don't feel like waiting a couple hundred years for the majority to come around on that.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
I'm a subscription fan through and through because it keeps everybody on the same playing field. I make plenty of money and could buy my way to the top of any cash shop game but its a tainted climb and when you look back down theres no feeling of triumph or accomplishment.
I'm a subscription fan through and through because it keeps everybody on the same playing field. I make plenty of money and could buy my way to the top of any cash shop game but its a tainted climb and when you look back down theres no feeling of triumph or accomplishment.
A-freakin'-men.
And that should be the /thread.
But we already know that is not the case.
There is the "cash" advantage and there is the "time" advantage.
Some people are fine with one and disparage the other.
In the end, one cannot really say that either is right - though, there is a tendency to feel better about the latter than the former. You pay your dues . . . you do not pay to avoid your dues.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
I'm a subscription fan through and through because it keeps everybody on the same playing field. I make plenty of money and could buy my way to the top of any cash shop game but its a tainted climb and when you look back down theres no feeling of triumph or accomplishment.
A-freakin'-men.
And that should be the /thread.
But we already know that is not the case.
There is the "cash" advantage and there is the "time" advantage.
Some people are fine with one and disparage the other.
In the end, one cannot really say that either is right - though, there is a tendency to feel better about the latter than the former. You pay your dues . . . you do not pay to avoid your dues.
Yes, yes we do. A "time" advantage is simply a measure of hard work. A "cash" advantage is literally paying for an advantage.
I can't believe I have to explain this to someone.
I'm a subscription fan through and through because it keeps everybody on the same playing field. I make plenty of money and could buy my way to the top of any cash shop game but its a tainted climb and when you look back down theres no feeling of triumph or accomplishment.
A-freakin'-men.
And that should be the /thread.
But we already know that is not the case.
There is the "cash" advantage and there is the "time" advantage.
Some people are fine with one and disparage the other.
In the end, one cannot really say that either is right - though, there is a tendency to feel better about the latter than the former. You pay your dues . . . you do not pay to avoid your dues.
Yes, yes we do. A "time" advantage is simply a measure of hard work. A "cash" advantage is literally paying for an advantage.
I can't believe I have to explain this to someone.
You did not explain anything. You did completely miss the point.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
I'm a subscription fan through and through because it keeps everybody on the same playing field. I make plenty of money and could buy my way to the top of any cash shop game but its a tainted climb and when you look back down theres no feeling of triumph or accomplishment.
A-freakin'-men.
And that should be the /thread.
But we already know that is not the case.
There is the "cash" advantage and there is the "time" advantage.
Some people are fine with one and disparage the other.
In the end, one cannot really say that either is right - though, there is a tendency to feel better about the latter than the former. You pay your dues . . . you do not pay to avoid your dues.
Yes, yes we do. A "time" advantage is simply a measure of hard work. A "cash" advantage is literally paying for an advantage.
I can't believe I have to explain this to someone.
You did not explain anything. You did completely miss the point.
No, I got your "point." You think players should be able to buy success. You think cash payment should be as valuable to character and game progression as time invested.
Yes, yes we do. A "time" advantage is simply a measure of hard work. A "cash" advantage is literally paying for an advantage.
I can't believe I have to explain this to someone.
A time advantage is simply a measure of available excess leisure time...and the desire to spend that time playing games.
I'm always leery of people who decide game playing is "work". You're being entertained, for hours at a time, at a really quite cheap rate (fifty cents a day). You are paying for that entertainment, not receiving a paycheck for it.
Refer back to the hourly rates model. The players who "worked" the most clearly bought their advantages with both leisure time and cash. $12/hour was by no means cheap.
It's a little more muddy in a straight-up subscription model, but it's no secret that the people "on top" tend to have a lot of leisure time to throw at game-playing.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
No, I got your "point." You think players should be able to buy success. You think cash payment should be as valuable to character and game progression as time invested.
[Mod Edit]
No, that is not what I said. I clearly stated that some people feel a "time" advantage is okay and some people feel a "cash" advantage is okay. I did not state a preference either way. I did not state that either was okay. The closest I came to that, was stating there is a greater acceptance of "time" over "cash"...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
No, I got your "point." You think players should be able to buy success. You think cash payment should be as valuable to character and game progression as time invested.
[Mod Edit]
No, that is not what I said. I clearly stated that some people feel a "time" advantage is okay and some people feel a "cash" advantage is okay. I did not state a preference either way. I did not state that either was okay. The closest I came to that, was stating there is a greater acceptance of "time" over "cash"...
If I tell you what I think of your "point," much less the blazing trail you are laying in trying to backtrack from your position, a mod will apparently just delete it.
Suffice it to say, I disagree and I'd prefer to play games without players sharing your pay-to-win is A-OK view"point."
@Meowhead, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the "free" F2P players being "filler" community in a game. I understand wanting to have a population in the game. I remember the AA launch and kind of going, "Hello? Is there anybody else here?"
However, as a developer - I would not want just anybody as community. Call it discriminatory or call it discriminating - we already see it in betas and trials. While part of limiting access to chat channels is to cut down on gold selling spam, it also serves the purpose of cutting down on unwanted spam in general.
Community is a pretty touchy subject with some people. Even recently, we've had people asking if folks would pay more per month for a RP rules enforced server (with GM events). There were more than one reply in that thread from people that would be tempted to pay more just to get away from the "community" on regular servers. There are folks that roll on RP servers that have no intention of participating in RP - simply because they want to get away from the general MMORPG community.
So I have a tough time with just wanting warm bodies there.
No doubt I take that a step further because of my belief that if you enjoy an entertainment product, you should pay for it. So that "community" would be filled with people that do not share that belief.
Yet, in turn - this begs the question - if you fill your community with people that are fine with not paying for their entertainment, why on Earth would you expect any of them ever to purchase anything? Would they also not simply attract others that were not interested in paying anything?
You might get a nickel or a dime out of them - but they are a far cry from those that wish to pay a la carte. After all, those are the people that are actually utilizing the cash shops. So you would be filling your world with people . . . with differing desires than your target audience.
Which I believe speaks to a larger overall issue - people are trying to sell a one-size fits all form of "community" - when the playerbase is incredibly diverse. Look at all the varying discussions on what "social" means - people do not agree.
If I'm looking to hold a rally for Steelers fans - odds are that I'm not going to use a marketing list for Ravens fans to generate my invitations.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Give me a monthly fee with full access and I am happy. I have played F2P and the other models and to really experience endgame you end up paying more than monthly subscriptions overall.
@Meowhead, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the "free" F2P players being "filler" community in a game. I understand wanting to have a population in the game. I remember the AA launch and kind of going, "Hello? Is there anybody else here?"
However, as a developer - I would not want just anybody as community. Call it discriminatory or call it discriminating - we already see it in betas and trials. While part of limiting access to chat channels is to cut down on gold selling spam, it also serves the purpose of cutting down on unwanted spam in general.
Community is a pretty touchy subject with some people. Even recently, we've had people asking if folks would pay more per month for a RP rules enforced server (with GM events). There were more than one reply in that thread from people that would be tempted to pay more just to get away from the "community" on regular servers. There are folks that roll on RP servers that have no intention of participating in RP - simply because they want to get away from the general MMORPG community.
So I have a tough time with just wanting warm bodies there.
No doubt I take that a step further because of my belief that if you enjoy an entertainment product, you should pay for it. So that "community" would be filled with people that do not share that belief.
Yet, in turn - this begs the question - if you fill your community with people that are fine with not paying for their entertainment, why on Earth would you expect any of them ever to purchase anything? Would they also not simply attract others that were not interested in paying anything?
You might get a nickel or a dime out of them - but they are a far cry from those that wish to pay a la carte. After all, those are the people that are actually utilizing the cash shops. So you would be filling your world with people . . . with differing desires than your target audience.
Which I believe speaks to a larger overall issue - people are trying to sell a one-size fits all form of "community" - when the playerbase is incredibly diverse. Look at all the varying discussions on what "social" means - people do not agree.
If I'm looking to hold a rally for Steelers fans - odds are that I'm not going to use a marketing list for Ravens fans to generate my invitations.
I am one of those guys that roll on RP servers to get from general mmorpg community. Call me elitist whatever I don't really care. Stupid character names and trash-talk and all other things that are plaguing normal servers are smaller problem on RP servers especially if company has rules for enforing some rules. I don't RP myself, but I find those servers have better atmosphere and be more enjoyable. I can pay more for those servers or /and higher subscription in general - I have a rule - no cash shop at all, even vanity one.
Same with 'one-size fits all' - seriously freemium is attempt like that and for me it does NOT work. Subscription in freemium games is not an equivalent of subscription in p2p game, simply because of big cash shop existence.
That's why I have problem with cash shops expanding onto p2p games.
People have diffrent desires and accept or don't accept with diffrent things. What's bad about this from my pure gamer point of view?
Well f2p/freemium models - I do not accept. So that make alot of games not playable for me and I obviously don't like it.
Things like p2p + cash shops are getting similar.
What's worse I will NOT play game simply because it is p2p game. I have to like a game AND it have to have accepted by me business model for me to play it. So it is becoming extremly hard for me to find a game.
F.e. I won't play next biggest p2p game - Swtor (I will check trial once avabile just for the sake of judgining with my own eyes, but I don't see my playing this game) because I don't like what type of mmorpg it is judging from what developers have been saying and what I saw on videos.
Same with TSW cause I don't agree with their P2P + cash shop (that will be growing with time as Funcom themselves 'said').
I am sure that there are alot of people that won't play Swtor + TSW cause they are p2p games.
Well there is a resolution for this problem. Make 2 version of games with separate server. I don't care if people on the server I am NOT playing on can buy "i rule" items. For all I care they can even sell 5x times more powerful things in item shop on those servers and virtually have all kind of ridiculous prices and "extortion" sociotechniques ways present IF on my server there is no cash shops.
One f2p version and one p2p version. There is a big problem from developer standpoint:
1. Higher developemnt & maintenance costs
2. Growing with time as game futher develop rift and diffrences between those two versions that make managing and develping those two versions even harder & more expensive.
Still playerbase is becoming more and more fragmented in approach to business models and what type of mmorpg's they want to play.
I wonder how this situation gonna be taken care of by developers?
Currently maybe it is not as visible but imho in 2-3 years fragmentation in mmorpg playerbase will be VERY visible.
WoW decline on western markets will just make it much mroe visible, especially that there won't be one game that will replace it.
I am one of those guys that roll on RP servers to get from general mmorpg community. Call me elitist whatever I don't really care. Stupid character names and trash-talk and all other things that are plaguing normal servers are smaller problem on RP servers especially if company has rules for enforing some rules. I don't RP myself, but I find those servers have better atmosphere and be more enjoyable. I can pay more for those servers or /and higher subscription in general - I have a rule - no cash shop at all, even vanity one.
Same with 'one-size fits all' - seriously freemium is attempt like that and for me it does NOT work. Subscription in freemium games is not an equivalent of subscription in p2p game, simply because of big cash shop existence.
That's why I have problem with cash shops expanding onto p2p games.
People have diffrent desires and accept or don't accept with diffrent things. What's bad about this from my pure gamer point of view?
Well f2p/freemium models - I do not accept. So that make alot of games not playable for me and I obviously don't like it.
Things like p2p + cash shops are getting similar.
What's worse I will NOT play game simply because it is p2p game. I have to like a game AND it have to have accepted by me business model for me to play it. So it is becoming extremly hard for me to find a game.
F.e. I won't play next biggest p2p game - Swtor (I will check trial once avabile just for the sake of judgining with my own eyes, but I don't see my playing this game) because I don't like what type of mmorpg it is judging from what developers have been saying and what I saw on videos.
Same with TSW cause I don't agree with their P2P + cash shop (that will be growing with time as Funcom themselves 'said').
I am sure that there are alot of people that won't play Swtor + TSW cause they are p2p games.
Well there is a resolution for this problem. Make 2 version of games with separate server. I don't care if people on the server I am NOT playing on can buy "i rule" items. For all I care they can even sell 5x times more powerful things in item shop on those servers and virtually have all kind of ridiculous prices and "extortion" sociotechniques ways present IF on my server there is no cash shops.
One f2p version and one p2p version. There is a big problem from developer standpoint:
1. Higher developemnt & maintenance costs
2. Growing with time as game futher develop rift and diffrences between those two versions that make managing and develping those two versions even harder & more expensive.
Still playerbase is becoming more and more fragmented in approach to business models and what type of mmorpg's they want to play.
I wonder how this situation gonna be taken care of by developers?
Currently maybe it is not as visible but imho in 2-3 years fragmentation in mmorpg playerbase will be VERY visible.
WoW decline on western markets will just make it much mroe visible, especially that there won't be one game that will replace it.
There are a few games that have tried to impement the VIP/sub servers - but those still tend to include the cash shops, etc.
I can definitely see where there would be an increased operating cost in supporting multiple models with the same game. Have to figure that is one of the reasons that many of the games have gone with a Freemium Hybrid model instead - trying to work with the F2P, B2P, P2P players and the various mixtures there.
It is curious though - how many games going through the conversion has lost subscribers while attempting to attract new players . . . in the hopes that they might spend money. It works for some, it does not work for others.
I have to say, with some of the intense discussions that have taken place over the past few weeks on the matter - my ideal model has evolved - into a pretty complicated system, lol. Still, three things remain on the outside:
F2P Deceptive Practices
F2P Pay to Win
F2P Free Players that are content to enjoy the entertainment offered by the game without supporting the developers
It has definitely come a long way from the simple P2P mentality that I previously held firm to...but those three things, are all but anathema to me.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
You are, in fact, supplying something to the F2P people even if you don't give them money. YOu give them numbers and community and a lower class.
You can't have an upper class without treading on the backs of the lower class citizens, so by your simple miserable unpaid existence, you make people paying seem more attractive.
I'm trying to figure out if you're playfully poking the F2P beehive or if you actually believe what you typed there.
+ there is plenty of slides, presentations and even official, academic, etc papers on f2p model on the internet - easy to find really. Besides there are almsot no western f2p titles from the ground up. Some think they will be better than p2p -> f2p. You will be surprised. In a bad way imho.
You might be surprised if you think Meowhead is getting ideas out of his 'lower back' ;p
I've seen it. He's talking specifically about F2P designed for a Chinese audience, like he has done so for years now. There are massive cultural differences between the Western and Chinese gaming audiences. You are aware of that, correct?
Or are you about to suggest that their culture and gaming style is not different from ours, and that their perception of fairness, castes and level grinding (to name a few) are the same as those of the NA/EU audience?
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 are, in fact, supplying something to the F2P people even if you don't give them money. YOu give them numbers and community and a lower class.
You can't have an upper class without treading on the backs of the lower class citizens, so by your simple miserable unpaid existence, you make people paying seem more attractive.
I'm trying to figure out if you're playfully poking the F2P beehive or if you actually believe what you typed there.
+ there is plenty of slides, presentations and even official, academic, etc papers on f2p model on the internet - easy to find really. Besides there are almsot no western f2p titles from the ground up. Some think they will be better than p2p -> f2p. You will be surprised. In a bad way imho.
You might be surprised if you think Meowhead is getting ideas out of his 'lower back' ;p
I've seen it. He's talking specifically about F2P designed for a Chinese audience, like he has done so for years now. There are massive cultural differences between the Western and Chinese gaming audiences. You are aware of that, correct?
Or are you about to suggest that their culture and gaming style is not different from ours, and that their perception of fairness, castes and level grinding (to name a few) are the same as those of the NA/EU audience?
Of course there are diffrences.
You're naive if you think that western F2P will not evolve more into "Chinese" model. There are already some mmoprg's in western market that are heavy p2w.
Will western f2p ever be as p2w as Chinese f2p? Propably not, at least not in foresable future. Will they offer more advantage and focus more on item shop that atm? Surely they will.
Advantage also sells best in western item shops, there is no doubt about that. This was covered and reported by game developers multiple times.
Diffrence is atm those advantages are small-moderate in most titles, but as f2p 'sinks' in the market more and dedicated f2p titles start to show + increasing competition in f2p field - I am sure that will change evoluttionary and step by step in selling more and more advantage in item shops.
Remember what you can offer in cash shop in dependant on market and that include views of your consumers. Game companies want and are obligated to maximise profits.
There is a limit how much you can sell cosmetics, convenience and vanity items.
Players accept above items in cash shops more easily simply because many of them don't care about those items.
That itself shows that there is wide player segment that is not 'utilized' by cash shop sales.
Problem is that for many years western playerbase was used to 'fair gameplay' - that (at least majority of players ) you could not buy 'advantage' / power / success for $, so you cannot just put p2w of Asian magnitude into western cash shops because you will drive away too % of players.
So changes will come slowly and evollutionary.
Let's talk in 5 years and then talk how big diffrence is between western f2p and eastern f2p.
+ there is plenty of slides, presentations and even official, academic, etc papers on f2p model on the internet - easy to find really. Besides there are almsot no western f2p titles from the ground up. Some think they will be better than p2p -> f2p. You will be surprised. In a bad way imho.
You might be surprised if you think Meowhead is getting ideas out of his 'lower back' ;p
I've seen it. He's talking specifically about F2P designed for a Chinese audience, like he has done so for years now. There are massive cultural differences between the Western and Chinese gaming audiences. You are aware of that, correct?
Or are you about to suggest that their culture and gaming style is not different from ours, and that their perception of fairness, castes and level grinding (to name a few) are the same as those of the NA/EU audience?
Of course there are diffrences.
You're naive if you think that western F2P will not evolve more into "Chinese" model. There are already some mmoprg's in western market that are heavy p2w.
Will western f2p ever be as p2w as Chinese f2p? Propably not, at least not in foresable future. Will they offer more advantage and focus more on item shop that atm? Surely they will.
Advantage also sells best in western item shops, there is no doubt about that. This was covered and reported by game developers multiple times.
Diffrence is atm those advantages are small-moderate in most titles, but as f2p 'sinks' in the market more and dedicated f2p titles start to show + increasing competition in f2p field - I am sure that will change evoluttionary and step by step in selling more and more advantage in item shops.
Remember what you can offer in cash shop in dependant on market and that include views of your consumers. Game companies want and are obligated to maximise profits.
There is a limit how much you can sell cosmetics, convenience and vanity items.
Players accept above items in cash shops more easily simply because many of them don't care about those items.
That itself shows that there is wide player segment that is not 'utilized' by cash shop sales.
Problem is that for many years western playerbase was used to 'fair gameplay' - that (at least majority of players ) you could not buy 'advantage' / power / success for $, so you cannot just put p2w of Asian magnitude into western cash shops because you will drive away too % of players.
So changes will come slowly and evollutionary.
Let's talk in 5 years and then talk how big diffrence is between western f2p and eastern f2p.
I will bet that diffrence will be MUCH smaller.
Instead of telling me what I "might want to read" or calling me naive, let's dial it back a bit. I never questions anything about 'pay to win' or what the future holds five years from now. Rather, my stance was on the value and importance placed on the free-playing user and the acceptance (or lack thereof, especially among millenials) of castes/unfairness in gaming amoung Western players. Your pay to win rant is a little askew of the topic of customer support and caste issue presented by Meowhead in the quoted post.
Add to that, you presented your link as proof of how things are now, (and rather snarkily, too) yet here your argument is the prophecy of how it's not how things are now (agreeing with me) but that's how they will be in the future.
Caste and tiers in gameplay (Lineage 1) or in support (Chinese MMOs) when it is visibly based on the money spent does not sit well with the the US audience and can often be a bone of contention in the NA/EU audience as a whole. Any developer will tell you that. The Spectral Tiger worked because it gave no advantage. Battlefield Heroes shop works because you cannot see whether the guy that killed you did so with purchased resources or resources gained from gameplay.
If you'd like, I'm more than willing to take a discussion to PMs to explain to you how and why it is important to the Western developer to offer equal (and in some cases, greater) support to the players that are not spending money.
"You can't have an upper class without treading on the backs of the lower class citizens, so by your simple miserable unpaid existence, you make people paying seem more attractive."
^---That is the topic I was addressing. The misconception that the free player in a F2P MMO focused on Western gamers and their current culture (not culture five years from now) requires and receives equal focus and attention in order to make a successful Western F2P MMO.
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 agree that there are diffrences and that there mindset between eastern and western player is diffrent.
I am just saying we're moving in eastern direction and while there might never be as big 'p2w' here as in eastern markets it definately imho be much bigger than it is now and spectral tiger will be hmm viewed as perfectly appropiate.
Western player accept spectral tiger and similar things, so devs try to stretch it further (as it can be seen atm in many titles) and it will be pushed more and more bit by bit.
It is just natural and logical.
I hate it as well.
I just have hope that there will be some titles without such things in future. P2P prefereably or maybe future games will offer multiple business models or something else will be hmm "invented".
Well if not I will just stop playing mmorpg's - as I found by my own experience that cash shops ruin my own personal enjoyment from game just by their existence.
I find it fascinating that most of the discussion threads in MMORPG.COM relating to F2P are filled with posts by seemingly to groups of people. One group alleges that F2P actually end up costing more than subscription games, and that they would never play them. The other group claims to have played one or more F2P games very succesfully with minimal to no spending at all. Where are the posts by the substantial amount of people that DO spend regularly on their F2P games ? Are they too "embarrassed" to admit it ?
I see so many posts where people complain long and hard about the fact that all F2P games are actually "pay-to-win". This "winning" that's being paid for in most cases is the fact that it is easier/faster to get to level-cap by spending money in the cash shop. True P2W in my book is if you can buy high-powered weapons and/or ammo in the cash shop ONLY, and then use them in PVP to gain a decisive advantage.
One of the earlier posts in this thread alleged that developers who charge a monthly sub will build-in systems that are designed to keep the player paying for as long as possible, while adding as little to the game as they can get away with.
According to that post, F2P is superior because the developers will add masses of content (i.e. enhance the game) to the cash shop in an effort to entice the "free" player to spend money.
However, the flipside of that argument is that the F2P developer will also be tempted to hobble the play experience of the "free player" to such an extent that they cannot endure the free content for very long.
Well Adam, there really is no war. Small budget developers go the f2p route because they don't have the marketing strength to attract enough people to their game. Granted some developers innovate enough to attract a following, but that is very rare.
The big budget developers have really no choice, a subscription model shows revenue from every gamer, f2p does not. Investors will be very hesitant to fund a game that relies on nebulous item shop revenues.
Don't throw SOE in there as an example as they have made so many people mad at them, they can't expect to fund in the normal way.
I much prefer the Free 2 Play system as I feel that as a customer I get more and I am able to enjoy the game more.
I can pay for Experience potions to hasten leveling if I want, I can pay for faster movement if I want to. I can purchase the adventures I want in the areas I want.
THe Developers don't really have as much incentive to slow me down and to introduce long grinds to keep me paying a monthly subscription. Instead they have incentive to create new content for me to purchase. Whether this is new Adventures (Dungeons/Missions/Flashpoints whatever), new costume pieces, new powers, new areas etc.
On the flip side if a Company earns more money the longer I keep playing then it is a simple series of equations to figure out what the minimum amount of work they need to do in order to keep me playing in the same content for the longest period of time to maximise their profits.
With Free 2 Play it's a different equation that is more on the side of the Player. If World of Warcraft was Free to Play I believe we would get content updates more frequently including new Pets, new mounts, new costume armor pieces, new battlegrounds etc. ,for example.
Guild Wars was a Massively Multiplayer Game. And if one doesn't agree then no game that uses instancing is Massively Multiplayer (Including Star Wars the Old Republic which has Instanced Zones of an as yet unknown number of players in each instance). City of Heroes uses instanced missions as well, with an open world that also functions as a Hub.
I believe Free to Play is the future of the MMORPG model. Free option (purchase content packs), with a Subscription if you want, and a Cash Shop for quality of life, vanity and novelty items. I think these options serve the customer best. I believe the Subscription model rewards the developer for what I consider to be anti-consumer gameplay such as artificially lengthening content by grinds, one dimensional end-game, and timed release of content based on financial targets that are themselves based on how long content can be strung out.
For me City of Heroes' features, payment model and approach to gameplay is the best value in the MMO market today.
Unfortunately experience says otherwise with this. F2P games don't make money unless thier customer is spending and the more the customer spends the more the company makes with no upper bounds. It's the same model that casino's follow. They only make money when your gambling and the more you lose, the more they make...so they are incentivized to push you into gambling behavior.
A F2P games model (in order to maximize proffit) is to incentivize purchasing behavior...upto the very maximum that the user can tolerate before they walk away. Thus they design barriers and annoyances into the game so that users will be incentivized into purchasing behavior in order to eliminate those obstacles. If you've ever worked on a product that follows the F2P model, those are EXACTLY the sort of goals that are discussed during design team meetings.
On the contrary, the pure sub based model (without cash shop) is much simpler from a design perspective. The company makes a fixed sum from the user per month REGARDLESS of what the user does within the game. Thus the company doesn't have any incentive to design goads into thier system to push the player into purchasing behavior. Thier only design consideration is for the user to enjoy the experience enough to return next month (and pay again) and to insure that the user isn't doing anything that would deter other users from wanting to return. It's a much simpler and more straightforward design goal that's based around user satisfaction....not purchasing behavior.
The "grind" thing is common to both F2P & Subscription based models and relates to the cost of the service compared to the cost to produce content. In the F2P model, the mechanism is typicaly consumables (i.e. X amount of potions at X dollars a pop gets you through X content) in order to pay for the production of content. In sub-based models it's calculated into the overhead of the subscription fee's. In BOTH models if the company is calculating things correctly, it has enough revenue to pay for content creation..... and in BOTH models the company maximizes it's proffit by spending as few resources as possible on content creation in order to continue to get returns (i.e. in the F2P model it's far cheaper for them to have you buy 500 more XP potions then it is to pay a designer to build a new area for you to unlock.... and in the sub model it's far cheaper for them to build a new area every 4 months rather then every 2). There really is no difference between models in that regard...both will have a company invest the minimum amount of resources it thinks will take to maximize returns.
Comments
Im not sure what the problem is, there is room in the market place for each model & ultimately the players (the target market in this case) will decide where they will and will not spend their money & publishers will adapt accordingly.
I think a lot of games end up on the F2P shelf because they think they are going to somehow out WoW, WoW itself which is never going to work.
I've been heavily influenced by Zhan Ye's presentation and what I've seen in F2P games.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
The majority will determine for the minority...
...this works when the majority considers the desires of the minority.
I don't feel like waiting a couple hundred years for the majority to come around on that.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
A-freakin'-men.
And that should be the /thread.
But we already know that is not the case.
There is the "cash" advantage and there is the "time" advantage.
Some people are fine with one and disparage the other.
In the end, one cannot really say that either is right - though, there is a tendency to feel better about the latter than the former. You pay your dues . . . you do not pay to avoid your dues.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Yes, yes we do. A "time" advantage is simply a measure of hard work. A "cash" advantage is literally paying for an advantage.
I can't believe I have to explain this to someone.
You did not explain anything. You did completely miss the point.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
No, I got your "point." You think players should be able to buy success. You think cash payment should be as valuable to character and game progression as time invested.
[Mod Edit]A time advantage is simply a measure of available excess leisure time...and the desire to spend that time playing games.
I'm always leery of people who decide game playing is "work". You're being entertained, for hours at a time, at a really quite cheap rate (fifty cents a day). You are paying for that entertainment, not receiving a paycheck for it.
Refer back to the hourly rates model. The players who "worked" the most clearly bought their advantages with both leisure time and cash. $12/hour was by no means cheap.
It's a little more muddy in a straight-up subscription model, but it's no secret that the people "on top" tend to have a lot of leisure time to throw at game-playing.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
No, that is not what I said. I clearly stated that some people feel a "time" advantage is okay and some people feel a "cash" advantage is okay. I did not state a preference either way. I did not state that either was okay. The closest I came to that, was stating there is a greater acceptance of "time" over "cash"...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
If I tell you what I think of your "point," much less the blazing trail you are laying in trying to backtrack from your position, a mod will apparently just delete it.
Suffice it to say, I disagree and I'd prefer to play games without players sharing your pay-to-win is A-OK view"point."
@Meowhead, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the "free" F2P players being "filler" community in a game. I understand wanting to have a population in the game. I remember the AA launch and kind of going, "Hello? Is there anybody else here?"
However, as a developer - I would not want just anybody as community. Call it discriminatory or call it discriminating - we already see it in betas and trials. While part of limiting access to chat channels is to cut down on gold selling spam, it also serves the purpose of cutting down on unwanted spam in general.
Community is a pretty touchy subject with some people. Even recently, we've had people asking if folks would pay more per month for a RP rules enforced server (with GM events). There were more than one reply in that thread from people that would be tempted to pay more just to get away from the "community" on regular servers. There are folks that roll on RP servers that have no intention of participating in RP - simply because they want to get away from the general MMORPG community.
So I have a tough time with just wanting warm bodies there.
No doubt I take that a step further because of my belief that if you enjoy an entertainment product, you should pay for it. So that "community" would be filled with people that do not share that belief.
Yet, in turn - this begs the question - if you fill your community with people that are fine with not paying for their entertainment, why on Earth would you expect any of them ever to purchase anything? Would they also not simply attract others that were not interested in paying anything?
You might get a nickel or a dime out of them - but they are a far cry from those that wish to pay a la carte. After all, those are the people that are actually utilizing the cash shops. So you would be filling your world with people . . . with differing desires than your target audience.
Which I believe speaks to a larger overall issue - people are trying to sell a one-size fits all form of "community" - when the playerbase is incredibly diverse. Look at all the varying discussions on what "social" means - people do not agree.
If I'm looking to hold a rally for Steelers fans - odds are that I'm not going to use a marketing list for Ravens fans to generate my invitations.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Give me a monthly fee with full access and I am happy. I have played F2P and the other models and to really experience endgame you end up paying more than monthly subscriptions overall.
I am one of those guys that roll on RP servers to get from general mmorpg community. Call me elitist whatever I don't really care. Stupid character names and trash-talk and all other things that are plaguing normal servers are smaller problem on RP servers especially if company has rules for enforing some rules. I don't RP myself, but I find those servers have better atmosphere and be more enjoyable. I can pay more for those servers or /and higher subscription in general - I have a rule - no cash shop at all, even vanity one.
Same with 'one-size fits all' - seriously freemium is attempt like that and for me it does NOT work. Subscription in freemium games is not an equivalent of subscription in p2p game, simply because of big cash shop existence.
That's why I have problem with cash shops expanding onto p2p games.
People have diffrent desires and accept or don't accept with diffrent things. What's bad about this from my pure gamer point of view?
Well f2p/freemium models - I do not accept. So that make alot of games not playable for me and I obviously don't like it.
Things like p2p + cash shops are getting similar.
What's worse I will NOT play game simply because it is p2p game. I have to like a game AND it have to have accepted by me business model for me to play it. So it is becoming extremly hard for me to find a game.
F.e. I won't play next biggest p2p game - Swtor (I will check trial once avabile just for the sake of judgining with my own eyes, but I don't see my playing this game) because I don't like what type of mmorpg it is judging from what developers have been saying and what I saw on videos.
Same with TSW cause I don't agree with their P2P + cash shop (that will be growing with time as Funcom themselves 'said').
I am sure that there are alot of people that won't play Swtor + TSW cause they are p2p games.
Well there is a resolution for this problem. Make 2 version of games with separate server. I don't care if people on the server I am NOT playing on can buy "i rule" items. For all I care they can even sell 5x times more powerful things in item shop on those servers and virtually have all kind of ridiculous prices and "extortion" sociotechniques ways present IF on my server there is no cash shops.
One f2p version and one p2p version. There is a big problem from developer standpoint:
1. Higher developemnt & maintenance costs
2. Growing with time as game futher develop rift and diffrences between those two versions that make managing and develping those two versions even harder & more expensive.
Still playerbase is becoming more and more fragmented in approach to business models and what type of mmorpg's they want to play.
I wonder how this situation gonna be taken care of by developers?
Currently maybe it is not as visible but imho in 2-3 years fragmentation in mmorpg playerbase will be VERY visible.
WoW decline on western markets will just make it much mroe visible, especially that there won't be one game that will replace it.
There are a few games that have tried to impement the VIP/sub servers - but those still tend to include the cash shops, etc.
I can definitely see where there would be an increased operating cost in supporting multiple models with the same game. Have to figure that is one of the reasons that many of the games have gone with a Freemium Hybrid model instead - trying to work with the F2P, B2P, P2P players and the various mixtures there.
It is curious though - how many games going through the conversion has lost subscribers while attempting to attract new players . . . in the hopes that they might spend money. It works for some, it does not work for others.
I have to say, with some of the intense discussions that have taken place over the past few weeks on the matter - my ideal model has evolved - into a pretty complicated system, lol. Still, three things remain on the outside:
F2P Deceptive Practices
F2P Pay to Win
F2P Free Players that are content to enjoy the entertainment offered by the game without supporting the developers
It has definitely come a long way from the simple P2P mentality that I previously held firm to...but those three things, are all but anathema to me.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
I've seen it. He's talking specifically about F2P designed for a Chinese audience, like he has done so for years now. There are massive cultural differences between the Western and Chinese gaming audiences. You are aware of that, correct?
Or are you about to suggest that their culture and gaming style is not different from ours, and that their perception of fairness, castes and level grinding (to name a few) are the same as those of the NA/EU audience?
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
Of course there are diffrences.
You're naive if you think that western F2P will not evolve more into "Chinese" model. There are already some mmoprg's in western market that are heavy p2w.
Will western f2p ever be as p2w as Chinese f2p? Propably not, at least not in foresable future. Will they offer more advantage and focus more on item shop that atm? Surely they will.
Advantage also sells best in western item shops, there is no doubt about that. This was covered and reported by game developers multiple times.
Diffrence is atm those advantages are small-moderate in most titles, but as f2p 'sinks' in the market more and dedicated f2p titles start to show + increasing competition in f2p field - I am sure that will change evoluttionary and step by step in selling more and more advantage in item shops.
Remember what you can offer in cash shop in dependant on market and that include views of your consumers. Game companies want and are obligated to maximise profits.
There is a limit how much you can sell cosmetics, convenience and vanity items.
Players accept above items in cash shops more easily simply because many of them don't care about those items.
That itself shows that there is wide player segment that is not 'utilized' by cash shop sales.
Problem is that for many years western playerbase was used to 'fair gameplay' - that (at least majority of players ) you could not buy 'advantage' / power / success for $, so you cannot just put p2w of Asian magnitude into western cash shops because you will drive away too % of players.
So changes will come slowly and evollutionary.
Let's talk in 5 years and then talk how big diffrence is between western f2p and eastern f2p.
I will bet that diffrence will be MUCH smaller.
Instead of telling me what I "might want to read" or calling me naive, let's dial it back a bit.
I never questions anything about 'pay to win' or what the future holds five years from now. Rather, my stance was on the value and importance placed on the free-playing user and the acceptance (or lack thereof, especially among millenials) of castes/unfairness in gaming amoung Western players. Your pay to win rant is a little askew of the topic of customer support and caste issue presented by Meowhead in the quoted post.
Add to that, you presented your link as proof of how things are now, (and rather snarkily, too) yet here your argument is the prophecy of how it's not how things are now (agreeing with me) but that's how they will be in the future.
Caste and tiers in gameplay (Lineage 1) or in support (Chinese MMOs) when it is visibly based on the money spent does not sit well with the the US audience and can often be a bone of contention in the NA/EU audience as a whole. Any developer will tell you that. The Spectral Tiger worked because it gave no advantage. Battlefield Heroes shop works because you cannot see whether the guy that killed you did so with purchased resources or resources gained from gameplay.
If you'd like, I'm more than willing to take a discussion to PMs to explain to you how and why it is important to the Western developer to offer equal (and in some cases, greater) support to the players that are not spending money.
"You can't have an upper class without treading on the backs of the lower class citizens, so by your simple miserable unpaid existence, you make people paying seem more attractive."
^---That is the topic I was addressing. The misconception that the free player in a F2P MMO focused on Western gamers and their current culture (not culture five years from now) requires and receives equal focus and attention in order to make a successful Western F2P MMO.
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
Sorry If I sounded a bit hmm too personal.
I agree that there are diffrences and that there mindset between eastern and western player is diffrent.
I am just saying we're moving in eastern direction and while there might never be as big 'p2w' here as in eastern markets it definately imho be much bigger than it is now and spectral tiger will be hmm viewed as perfectly appropiate.
Western player accept spectral tiger and similar things, so devs try to stretch it further (as it can be seen atm in many titles) and it will be pushed more and more bit by bit.
It is just natural and logical.
I hate it as well.
I just have hope that there will be some titles without such things in future. P2P prefereably or maybe future games will offer multiple business models or something else will be hmm "invented".
Well if not I will just stop playing mmorpg's - as I found by my own experience that cash shops ruin my own personal enjoyment from game just by their existence.
flat rate subscription works for me. like EVE Online (or Perpetuum). pay each month, play as much as you want/like/can. expansions are free.
I hate the WOW model. It is basicaly GW and subscriptions together. Worst of both.
I find it fascinating that most of the discussion threads in MMORPG.COM relating to F2P are filled with posts by seemingly to groups of people. One group alleges that F2P actually end up costing more than subscription games, and that they would never play them. The other group claims to have played one or more F2P games very succesfully with minimal to no spending at all. Where are the posts by the substantial amount of people that DO spend regularly on their F2P games ? Are they too "embarrassed" to admit it ?
I see so many posts where people complain long and hard about the fact that all F2P games are actually "pay-to-win". This "winning" that's being paid for in most cases is the fact that it is easier/faster to get to level-cap by spending money in the cash shop. True P2W in my book is if you can buy high-powered weapons and/or ammo in the cash shop ONLY, and then use them in PVP to gain a decisive advantage.
One of the earlier posts in this thread alleged that developers who charge a monthly sub will build-in systems that are designed to keep the player paying for as long as possible, while adding as little to the game as they can get away with.
According to that post, F2P is superior because the developers will add masses of content (i.e. enhance the game) to the cash shop in an effort to entice the "free" player to spend money.
However, the flipside of that argument is that the F2P developer will also be tempted to hobble the play experience of the "free player" to such an extent that they cannot endure the free content for very long.
Well Adam, there really is no war. Small budget developers go the f2p route because they don't have the marketing strength to attract enough people to their game. Granted some developers innovate enough to attract a following, but that is very rare.
The big budget developers have really no choice, a subscription model shows revenue from every gamer, f2p does not. Investors will be very hesitant to fund a game that relies on nebulous item shop revenues.
Don't throw SOE in there as an example as they have made so many people mad at them, they can't expect to fund in the normal way.
Unfortunately experience says otherwise with this. F2P games don't make money unless thier customer is spending and the more the customer spends the more the company makes with no upper bounds. It's the same model that casino's follow. They only make money when your gambling and the more you lose, the more they make...so they are incentivized to push you into gambling behavior.
A F2P games model (in order to maximize proffit) is to incentivize purchasing behavior...upto the very maximum that the user can tolerate before they walk away. Thus they design barriers and annoyances into the game so that users will be incentivized into purchasing behavior in order to eliminate those obstacles. If you've ever worked on a product that follows the F2P model, those are EXACTLY the sort of goals that are discussed during design team meetings.
On the contrary, the pure sub based model (without cash shop) is much simpler from a design perspective. The company makes a fixed sum from the user per month REGARDLESS of what the user does within the game. Thus the company doesn't have any incentive to design goads into thier system to push the player into purchasing behavior. Thier only design consideration is for the user to enjoy the experience enough to return next month (and pay again) and to insure that the user isn't doing anything that would deter other users from wanting to return. It's a much simpler and more straightforward design goal that's based around user satisfaction....not purchasing behavior.
The "grind" thing is common to both F2P & Subscription based models and relates to the cost of the service compared to the cost to produce content. In the F2P model, the mechanism is typicaly consumables (i.e. X amount of potions at X dollars a pop gets you through X content) in order to pay for the production of content. In sub-based models it's calculated into the overhead of the subscription fee's. In BOTH models if the company is calculating things correctly, it has enough revenue to pay for content creation..... and in BOTH models the company maximizes it's proffit by spending as few resources as possible on content creation in order to continue to get returns (i.e. in the F2P model it's far cheaper for them to have you buy 500 more XP potions then it is to pay a designer to build a new area for you to unlock.... and in the sub model it's far cheaper for them to build a new area every 4 months rather then every 2). There really is no difference between models in that regard...both will have a company invest the minimum amount of resources it thinks will take to maximize returns.