What most don't seem to get, is F2P are just a 'cheap' way of advertising and getting people hooked, not free at all (tho you can play as such, but will miss out on alot of stuff or spend insane amount of time getting stuff paying people will get instantly).
None of the games would last a month if they were truly FREE TO PLAY: Without charge, unconstrained, unconfined.
What most don't seem to get, is F2P are just a 'cheap' way of advertising and getting people hooked, not free at all (tho you can play as such, but will miss out on alot of stuff or spend insane amount of time getting stuff paying people will get instantly).
What you don't get is that free for part of the game is good enough for fun. I certainly don't need evertyhing.
They are as free as you choose to make them. A payment is not required from you. However enough will pay that the game continues to exist and create content.
IMO there is no difference in quality, cs, content development between a good f2p or a good p2p, or between a bad f2p and a bad p2p.
And LOTRO can be played free, it is a freemium game. f2p if you choose, cs if you choose, p2p if you choose.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by cura I played P2P, B2P and so called F2P games and all were the same medicore experience so im for B2P with seasonal pass. In this model it feels more like i know what im paying for. P2P model is just as much of a rip off as others and have to go.
If that is true, and no difference between how fun the 3 forms are, why should u pay at all?
Personally i play F2P .. at zero cost .. with some fun.
I much prefer the subscription model. The problem lately for the sub based games hasn't been the payment model used, it's been the product released.
Played: EQ1 (10 Years), Guild Wars, Rift, TERA Tried: EQ2, Vanguard, Lord of the Rings Online, Dungeons and Dragons Online, Runes of Magic and countless others... Currently Playing: GW2
Um...no? Free to play isn't the same as pay to win; they're pretty different things. First of all you have to consider how people are going to define pay to win. I don't see things like experience potions as pay to win; one person plays for two hours and another plays for two days, but in the end they're still in the same spot. The person that pays to get there faster doesn't ensure theirself victory over the person that didn't. In fact the person that spent two days instead of two hours playing may have become more familiar with the mechanics of the game because they had to play longer, so they might come out ahead in the grand scheme of things.
Whatever helps you justify buying pay to win crap......
you don't think it'll have trouble due to oversaturation ?
it's hard for a f2p game to compete against many f2p games and achieve financial stability.
I'm not dissagreeing with you, just pointing out what Fry puts it as "Nobody drives in New York. There's too much traffic".
I thin F2P is here to stay but not at AAA level. it's too risky. I feel there's very fun and addicting browser minig-ame mmo's out there, but in terms of more serious MMOs a more reliable source of income is required.
TF2 and LOL proves that for simpler, combat-based games F2P works fine, and I dare claim even for sandboxes F2P would work fine. It's those themeparks that need content patches regularly that I don't see F2P working.
why ? adding a new hero or ialing up/down the damage of one hero every few months for balance Releasing 100 new models, 2 zones, 14 raid bosses, 5 dungeons and 40 quests every year requires several full-time employees. maintaining a sandbox requires far less. If done right.
I think F2P is a must for low quality games. Very few people will pay monthly for Vangaurd and Pirates of the Burning Sea, etc. That's the only reason it's so successful, every game we're getting since WoW is bad except for GW2. Consoles here we come.
My honest anwer is "I don't know anymore". If it's a f2p or b2p without any restrictions they work for me (LOTRO or TSW) but if its like the SWTOR model with so many restrictions it's easier just to sub for a few months than screw around with the f2p model. On the other hand I'm happy to pay a regular monthly sub as I do with EVE.
i hate cash shops. i like b2p without cash shops, else p2p is my option.
its nice to play as casual f2p games, but if you want to dedicate on to something, then i think p2p is the only option.
i also think that p2p option is the only that gives you a stable community. where your server and your guild has some stable population. not only in numbers, but in specific persons too.
i hate to see everytime i log on to a f2p game, 30 new members and another 30 leavers from guild. i just hate that. thats not a guild or game community, thats a cafe...
i hate cash shops. i like b2p without cash shops, else p2p is my option.
its nice to play as casual f2p games, but if you want to dedicate on to something, then i think p2p is the only option.
i also think that p2p option is the only that gives you a stable community. where your server and your guild has some stable population. not only in numbers, but in specific persons too.
i hate to see everytime i log on to a f2p game, 30 new members and another 30 leavers from guild. i just hate that. thats not a guild or game community, thats a cafe...
That's the only reason I play F2P games like LoL. I can leave at a moment's notice for any reason and have no care in the world to go back. Now if my main game (currently Defiance) is getting updated then sure...I'll mosey on back to LoL since it's my F2P fallback.
I will never support freeloaders, no more subsidized gaming. My Blog
Originally posted by p0nk1n sub no cash shops. everyone pays the same and no one gains an unfair advantage with money.
Exactly. 65% of us chose Sub with no cash shop; everyone else is spread out amongst the other choices. Clear winner. And this is considering those F2P lovers probably have multiple MMORPG accounts.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Originally posted by p0nk1n sub no cash shops. everyone pays the same and no one gains an unfair advantage with money.
Exactly. 65% of us chose Sub with no cash shop; everyone else is spread out amongst the other choices. Clear winner. And this is considering those F2P lovers probably have multiple MMORPG accounts.
If you're that twisted up inside about someone buying some virtual doodad that gives him and advantage over you in a game...
You're no winner.
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire: Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
I like F2P with Cash Shop. I can support the game when I feel like they did well and I have extra cash in my bank. It makes me feel like I'm actually encouraging them when the game brings out something good. It's like when I was a kid, I got my allowance when I got all A's on my report card which actually made me more interested in learning what I was doing and keeping up my good behaviors. It's simple classical conditioning, give the game makers the reward when they do something good and they will be inclined to keep doing good for that same reward if their efforts payed off in their minds.
I dislike the B2P and P2P models because they reinforce the "complacent" behavior. B2P is hands off the money after the purchase of the game, they get their feedback in the amount of people playing and the active community on the forums (which isn't always an active representation of the actual community). P2P is hands on the money all the time. They get their feedback mainly from the users that just stay with the game, which promotes the game developers to be lazy and put out the same stuff because there is no monetary incentive for them to do anything better than what they have already.
I played WoW up until WotLK, played RoM for 2 years and now Rift. I am F2P player. I support games when I feel they deserve my money and I want the items enough. I don't troll, and I don't take kindly to trolls.
Originally posted by p0nk1n sub no cash shops. everyone pays the same and no one gains an unfair advantage with money.
Exactly. 65% of us chose Sub with no cash shop; everyone else is spread out amongst the other choices. Clear winner. And this is considering those F2P lovers probably have multiple MMORPG accounts.
Only because MMORPG is not representative. In the US, F2P players outnumber P2P 6 to 1.
Originally posted by p0nk1n sub no cash shops. everyone pays the same and no one gains an unfair advantage with money.
Exactly. 65% of us chose Sub with no cash shop; everyone else is spread out amongst the other choices. Clear winner. And this is considering those F2P lovers probably have multiple MMORPG accounts.
Only because MMORPG is not representative. In the US, F2P players outnumber P2P 6 to 1.
"So, yes, it would appear that F2P may be a viable revenue model, partly because of the large number of gamers it attracts.But traffic alone is not a definitive measure of success. Overall spending may follow a very different trend depending on a game’s life cycle, player base and genre."
Number of players means jack if they aren't spending. Make a quality MMO and people will spend. Obviously that hasn't been the case recently.
Played: EQ1 (10 Years), Guild Wars, Rift, TERA Tried: EQ2, Vanguard, Lord of the Rings Online, Dungeons and Dragons Online, Runes of Magic and countless others... Currently Playing: GW2
Originally posted by p0nk1n sub no cash shops. everyone pays the same and no one gains an unfair advantage with money.
Exactly. 65% of us chose Sub with no cash shop; everyone else is spread out amongst the other choices. Clear winner. And this is considering those F2P lovers probably have multiple MMORPG accounts.
Only because MMORPG is not representative. In the US, F2P players outnumber P2P 6 to 1.
"So, yes, it would appear that F2P may be a viable revenue model, partly because of the large number of gamers it attracts.But traffic alone is not a definitive measure of success. Overall spending may follow a very different trend depending on a game’s life cycle, player base and genre."
Number of players means jack if they aren't spending. Make a quality MMO and people will spend. Obviously that hasn't been the case recently.
Just pointing out that Arclan's number does not represent the US.
And you also miss "The good news is that in 2012, F2P MMOs made more than their P2P counterparts, capturing the majority of the MMO US market’s revenue."
So there is more money than p2p .. the question is WHO is getting that money.
I too would be interested in seeing who is getting the customers in the F2P market. It would be interesting to see if this information was pointing at merely more money in the F2P market, or more money from the game model per title.
I have a suspiscion it would be the former but it would be interesting (especially with those games that have switched model) to see how the models compare with more data.
I don't think that this spells the end of P2P models regardless (something people have been predicting for as long as they have existed).
I too would be interested in seeing who is getting the customers in the F2P market. It would be interesting to see if this information was pointing at merely more money in the F2P market, or more money from the game model per title.
I have a suspiscion it would be the former but it would be interesting (especially with those games that have switched model) to see how the models compare with more data.
I don't think that this spells the end of P2P models (something people have been predicting for as long as they have existed) regardless.
Obviously we don't have full data. However we do know:
1) F2P market revenue is starting to over-take p2p.
2) LoL & WoT are very successful.
3) STO, DCUO, DDO and a few others are successful enough to add expansions, and new content.
My take is that just like any gaming market, there are a few big hits, and some doing ok, and a lot of failure. That is not so different than the shooter market. CoD, Biosock, Halo & GOW probably took a large part of the market and there are a lot of failure.
This is also no different than the movie market .. also driven by hits. For every Avenger (which makes more than 1.5B) there are a lot of movies like the latest Stanlone come-back which probably did not make back the production cost.
Heck, even the p2p market is like that. There is only one big hit, and many failures. The only difference is that fail p2p can go f2p, so there is a way out, unlike SP games, and movies.
Problem I have with f2p and b2p games have to do strictly with how they make the games. Once a development team has made up its mind to use either f2p and b2p, in many cases, the entire game is structured around the model. Forcing you to spend money in order to have an equal experience with the other person who spends money. If you think otherwise you are fooling yourself.
I rather have p2p with no cash shop because then i know the developers can spend more time on real meaningful content instead of releasing crappy new cosemetic items that know one even cares about or some silly armor templates (looking at you TERA).
Just ask yourself simply, if I don't have a model like p2p, why would i (if i were the developer) waste my time adding content that doesn't make my investor's more money?
With p2p time = money, longer your players play, the more money you make, which means I (developer) can focus on actual content like player housing, sieges, territory wars, new story with new contnent, etc... . And if there is no content, just unsub, and companies see an immediate negative impact of not streamlining new content.
with f2p items = money, more items in cash shop, more money you are likely to make, which makes adding anything more besides cosmetic items to the game a nuisance to developers, because it doesn't guarantee more money like the items do.
Originally posted by p0nk1n sub no cash shops. everyone pays the same and no one gains an unfair advantage with money.
Exactly. 65% of us chose Sub with no cash shop; everyone else is spread out amongst the other choices. Clear winner. And this is considering those F2P lovers probably have multiple MMORPG accounts.
Only because MMORPG is not representative. In the US, F2P players outnumber P2P 6 to 1.
but according to the 90/9/1 rule, or 89/10/1 or w/e...the number of CONSUMERS is 0.6 to 1 for F2P vs P2P. or 3 to 5.
P2P remains ominant in terms of business model as the 90% of free players don't engage in any form of business.
Free players are content for the paid players. Without them, there will be fewer paid players, and may be they don't pay as much because there are fewer people to impress with their $10 magic sword.
Originally posted by Theocritus I jsut dont get the love here for the p2p model...I spent over 1k on EQ from 2000-05 and have nothing to show for it......I would take any f2p over any p2p any day because you save so much more money.....And what p2p is so great that you guys are so enamored with this model?. WoW? Eve? Theres a reason why this model is dying and that's because its a total ripoff.
This. The only difference between p2p with payed expansions and b2p with dlc is the individuals willingness to be taken advantage of.
Um...no? Free to play isn't the same as pay to win; they're pretty different things. First of all you have to consider how people are going to define pay to win. I don't see things like experience potions as pay to win; one person plays for two hours and another plays for two days, but in the end they're still in the same spot. The person that pays to get there faster doesn't ensure theirself victory over the person that didn't. In fact the person that spent two days instead of two hours playing may have become more familiar with the mechanics of the game because they had to play longer, so they might come out ahead in the grand scheme of things.
Whatever helps you justify buying pay to win crap......
Ironically I've never bought anythign except cosmetics (in only one MMO) in any cash shop. But I must ask: Why do you post this mindless reply instead of trying to provide any justification whatsoever as to why you would consider an experience potion a pay to win item? Could it be the fact that there is no justification?
And I asked once before, but I don't think anyone replied, so...to anyone preferring sub without a cash shop: What game currently has a sub and no cash shop? If you're going to knock an all cosmetic cash shop, then you also must eliminate WoW, Eve, UO, and any other MMO with RMTs. What's left with a sub and no cash shop?
Comments
What most don't seem to get, is F2P are just a 'cheap' way of advertising and getting people hooked, not free at all (tho you can play as such, but will miss out on alot of stuff or spend insane amount of time getting stuff paying people will get instantly).
None of the games would last a month if they were truly FREE TO PLAY: Without charge, unconstrained, unconfined.
What you don't get is that free for part of the game is good enough for fun. I certainly don't need evertyhing.
Oh we get it.
They are as free as you choose to make them. A payment is not required from you. However enough will pay that the game continues to exist and create content.
IMO there is no difference in quality, cs, content development between a good f2p or a good p2p, or between a bad f2p and a bad p2p.
And LOTRO can be played free, it is a freemium game. f2p if you choose, cs if you choose, p2p if you choose.
If that is true, and no difference between how fun the 3 forms are, why should u pay at all?
Personally i play F2P .. at zero cost .. with some fun.
Played: EQ1 (10 Years), Guild Wars, Rift, TERA
Tried: EQ2, Vanguard, Lord of the Rings Online, Dungeons and Dragons Online, Runes of Magic and countless others...
Currently Playing: GW2
Nytlok Sylas
80 Sylvari Ranger
Whatever helps you justify buying pay to win crap......
I think F2P is a must for low quality games. Very few people will pay monthly for Vangaurd and Pirates of the Burning Sea, etc. That's the only reason it's so successful, every game we're getting since WoW is bad except for GW2. Consoles here we come.
My honest anwer is "I don't know anymore". If it's a f2p or b2p without any restrictions they work for me (LOTRO or TSW) but if its like the SWTOR model with so many restrictions it's easier just to sub for a few months than screw around with the f2p model. On the other hand I'm happy to pay a regular monthly sub as I do with EVE.
I can't give this an honest answer.
I will never support freeloaders, no more subsidized gaming.
My Blog
i hate cash shops. i like b2p without cash shops, else p2p is my option.
its nice to play as casual f2p games, but if you want to dedicate on to something, then i think p2p is the only option.
i also think that p2p option is the only that gives you a stable community. where your server and your guild has some stable population. not only in numbers, but in specific persons too.
i hate to see everytime i log on to a f2p game, 30 new members and another 30 leavers from guild. i just hate that. thats not a guild or game community, thats a cafe...
That's the only reason I play F2P games like LoL. I can leave at a moment's notice for any reason and have no care in the world to go back. Now if my main game (currently Defiance) is getting updated then sure...I'll mosey on back to LoL since it's my F2P fallback.
I will never support freeloaders, no more subsidized gaming.
My Blog
Exactly. 65% of us chose Sub with no cash shop; everyone else is spread out amongst the other choices. Clear winner. And this is considering those F2P lovers probably have multiple MMORPG accounts.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
If you're that twisted up inside about someone buying some virtual doodad that gives him and advantage over you in a game...
You're no winner.
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire:
Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
I like F2P with Cash Shop. I can support the game when I feel like they did well and I have extra cash in my bank. It makes me feel like I'm actually encouraging them when the game brings out something good. It's like when I was a kid, I got my allowance when I got all A's on my report card which actually made me more interested in learning what I was doing and keeping up my good behaviors. It's simple classical conditioning, give the game makers the reward when they do something good and they will be inclined to keep doing good for that same reward if their efforts payed off in their minds.
I dislike the B2P and P2P models because they reinforce the "complacent" behavior. B2P is hands off the money after the purchase of the game, they get their feedback in the amount of people playing and the active community on the forums (which isn't always an active representation of the actual community). P2P is hands on the money all the time. They get their feedback mainly from the users that just stay with the game, which promotes the game developers to be lazy and put out the same stuff because there is no monetary incentive for them to do anything better than what they have already.
I played WoW up until WotLK, played RoM for 2 years and now Rift.
I am F2P player. I support games when I feel they deserve my money and I want the items enough.
I don't troll, and I don't take kindly to trolls.
Only because MMORPG is not representative. In the US, F2P players outnumber P2P 6 to 1.
http://www.superdataresearch.com/us-free-to-play-does-it-pay-to-switch/
"So, yes, it would appear that F2P may be a viable revenue model, partly because of the large number of gamers it attracts.But traffic alone is not a definitive measure of success. Overall spending may follow a very different trend depending on a game’s life cycle, player base and genre."
Number of players means jack if they aren't spending. Make a quality MMO and people will spend. Obviously that hasn't been the case recently.
Played: EQ1 (10 Years), Guild Wars, Rift, TERA
Tried: EQ2, Vanguard, Lord of the Rings Online, Dungeons and Dragons Online, Runes of Magic and countless others...
Currently Playing: GW2
Nytlok Sylas
80 Sylvari Ranger
Just pointing out that Arclan's number does not represent the US.
And you also miss "The good news is that in 2012, F2P MMOs made more than their P2P counterparts, capturing the majority of the MMO US market’s revenue."
So there is more money than p2p .. the question is WHO is getting that money.
I too would be interested in seeing who is getting the customers in the F2P market. It would be interesting to see if this information was pointing at merely more money in the F2P market, or more money from the game model per title.
I have a suspiscion it would be the former but it would be interesting (especially with those games that have switched model) to see how the models compare with more data.
I don't think that this spells the end of P2P models regardless (something people have been predicting for as long as they have existed).
Obviously we don't have full data. However we do know:
1) F2P market revenue is starting to over-take p2p.
2) LoL & WoT are very successful.
3) STO, DCUO, DDO and a few others are successful enough to add expansions, and new content.
My take is that just like any gaming market, there are a few big hits, and some doing ok, and a lot of failure. That is not so different than the shooter market. CoD, Biosock, Halo & GOW probably took a large part of the market and there are a lot of failure.
This is also no different than the movie market .. also driven by hits. For every Avenger (which makes more than 1.5B) there are a lot of movies like the latest Stanlone come-back which probably did not make back the production cost.
Heck, even the p2p market is like that. There is only one big hit, and many failures. The only difference is that fail p2p can go f2p, so there is a way out, unlike SP games, and movies.
Problem I have with f2p and b2p games have to do strictly with how they make the games. Once a development team has made up its mind to use either f2p and b2p, in many cases, the entire game is structured around the model. Forcing you to spend money in order to have an equal experience with the other person who spends money. If you think otherwise you are fooling yourself.
I rather have p2p with no cash shop because then i know the developers can spend more time on real meaningful content instead of releasing crappy new cosemetic items that know one even cares about or some silly armor templates (looking at you TERA).
Just ask yourself simply, if I don't have a model like p2p, why would i (if i were the developer) waste my time adding content that doesn't make my investor's more money?
With p2p time = money, longer your players play, the more money you make, which means I (developer) can focus on actual content like player housing, sieges, territory wars, new story with new contnent, etc... . And if there is no content, just unsub, and companies see an immediate negative impact of not streamlining new content.
with f2p items = money, more items in cash shop, more money you are likely to make, which makes adding anything more besides cosmetic items to the game a nuisance to developers, because it doesn't guarantee more money like the items do.
Free players are content for the paid players. Without them, there will be fewer paid players, and may be they don't pay as much because there are fewer people to impress with their $10 magic sword.
This. The only difference between p2p with payed expansions and b2p with dlc is the individuals willingness to be taken advantage of.
Ironically I've never bought anythign except cosmetics (in only one MMO) in any cash shop. But I must ask: Why do you post this mindless reply instead of trying to provide any justification whatsoever as to why you would consider an experience potion a pay to win item? Could it be the fact that there is no justification?
And I asked once before, but I don't think anyone replied, so...to anyone preferring sub without a cash shop: What game currently has a sub and no cash shop? If you're going to knock an all cosmetic cash shop, then you also must eliminate WoW, Eve, UO, and any other MMO with RMTs. What's left with a sub and no cash shop?