"You just contradicted yourself there. If F2P always makes more than a sub they would release it as a F2P game and not block all those free players that allegedly make them so much money. You can't have it both ways. A F2P game might make more if the game sucks and couldn't survive otherwise or maybe make more as a way to invigorate a dying/dwindling playerbase (or fleeing playerbase in the case of SWTOR) but that isn't saying much. I'm sure there might be a F2P MMO out there that launched that way and doesn't suck but I haven't seen one. NW is the biggest MMO title I can think of that launched as F2P and it's complete garbage. It might make money but it's a shit MMO with a shit pay model. If that's what the freeloaders want they can have it."
How did I contradict myself again?
I never stated, ever, not once, anywhere that F2P always makes more money than a sub. The only thing that came close to that is I said, when it drops below a certain point they will make more. That is not always though, not anywhere close.
That may not have been your intention but there is a clear inference that a AAA title would not launch as F2P so they can sell boxes/subs but that sort of flies in the face of the theory that F2P makes more than box + subs. If F2P really did make more than the sub model they would release that way and the flood of extra free players at launch would make up for the lost box sales. What AAA MMO has launched as F2P that didn't suck? What AAA MMO switched to F2P that wasn't failing or floundering? I would be interested to know of one but I can't think of any.
I will agree that going F2P is a way to invigorate a struggling game but that doesn't mean it's a better model or even a good one. Until MMOs start releasing as F2P and not sucking that will remain the case IMO.
I don't think it flies in the face of that at all. I think it reinforces the point that a sub based game will make more money above ftp when subs cross some line (whereever that is) and a f2p game will make more if subs go below that line.
I also think that any game with millions of subs is better off than a f2p, and virtually any AAA is almost guaranteed a million boxes sold. It just isn't realistic to expect a game to sustain that, so they better not plan for that much or they'll have to redo their plans.
For example (because I don't think there is a set line, it depends on the dev costs...) but if that line is 400k subs. Well they know they'll get a million so go subs first. In 6 months when they are at 300k subs like a normal game they will make more as f2p.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
"You just contradicted yourself there. If F2P always makes more than a sub they would release it as a F2P game and not block all those free players that allegedly make them so much money. You can't have it both ways. A F2P game might make more if the game sucks and couldn't survive otherwise or maybe make more as a way to invigorate a dying/dwindling playerbase (or fleeing playerbase in the case of SWTOR) but that isn't saying much. I'm sure there might be a F2P MMO out there that launched that way and doesn't suck but I haven't seen one. NW is the biggest MMO title I can think of that launched as F2P and it's complete garbage. It might make money but it's a shit MMO with a shit pay model. If that's what the freeloaders want they can have it."
How did I contradict myself again?
I never stated, ever, not once, anywhere that F2P always makes more money than a sub. The only thing that came close to that is I said, when it drops below a certain point they will make more. That is not always though, not anywhere close.
That may not have been your intention but there is a clear inference that a AAA title would not launch as F2P so they can sell boxes/subs but that sort of flies in the face of the theory that F2P makes more than box + subs. If F2P really did make more than the sub model they would release that way and the flood of extra free players at launch would make up for the lost box sales. What AAA MMO has launched as F2P that didn't suck? What AAA MMO switched to F2P that wasn't failing or floundering? I would be interested to know of one but I can't think of any.
I will agree that going F2P is a way to invigorate a struggling game but that doesn't mean it's a better model or even a good one. Until MMOs start releasing as F2P and not sucking that will remain the case IMO.
I don't think it flies in the face of that at all. I think it reinforces the point that a sub based game will make more money above ftp when subs cross some line (whereever that is) and a f2p game will make more if subs go below that line.
I also think that any game with millions of subs is better off than a f2p, and virtually any AAA is almost guaranteed a million boxes sold. It just isn't realistic to expect a game to sustain that, so they better not plan for that much or they'll have to redo their plans.
For example (because I don't think there is a set line, it depends on the dev costs...) but if that line is 400k subs. Well they know they'll get a million so go subs first. In 6 months when they are at 300k subs like a normal game they will make more as f2p.
It's also hard to compete with the $60 box price in the short term that everyone has/will pay. Once you start to get out to that 1 year mark and the newness wears off f2p seems to earn more than p2p just because of the numbers of people who will play.
An MMO that's sub-only and transitions to a F2P (hybird) model—for ex., the game that will not be named that lost 75%+ of its subscribers and had no choice but to change to the F2P to milk the player-base with a cash shop—is a failure. So, in a way, the F2P doesn't really work. It just proves the failure of an MMO.
An MMO that's sub-only and transitions to a F2P (hybird) model—for ex., the game that will not be named that lost 75%+ of its subscribers and had no choice but to change to the F2P to milk the player-base with a cash shop—is a failure. So, in a way, the F2P doesn't really work. It just proves the failure of an MMO.
Naw. That just shows that a bad game is a bad game, regardless of the business model.
Lets use your same words but say with EQ2 or lotro.
An MMO thats sub only, with a healthy stable playerbase (lotro, eq2 for ex) that changed to f2p is an even bigger success. So in a way the f2p really does work, it just proves the success of an mmo.
See.
A business model does not make a bad game better.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I have often wondered about this free to play model... why is everybody adopting it? What makes them think it's ...
Well world is full of more or less hard working people, full of exploiters that are rich disproportionaly to their own work or capacity. And there is other kind, those that sit in front of some shop open their hand and hope somebody will drop something, beggars. Of course world can not function with sole beggars. As long as there are enough working people that provide for whole population this system can work. I never felt sorry for lazy people but I do for those that are forced by life to begg.
In short: I'm very against f2p model, destroyer of good gaming.
Oh, yes, do not forget that there is not such thing as "free to play game". Does not exist. There is ALWAYS price to pay, sooner or later. From my experience when played in past (at least 5 years ago and before) games without sub, only "free", at that end of the month I have spent more real money for crap game with crap performance (as I remember first but for sure worst that comes to my mind was Rappelz) then I would spend for some more or less decent game with sub or at least B2P.
An MMO that's sub-only and transitions to a F2P (hybird) model—for ex., the game that will not be named that lost 75%+ of its subscribers and had no choice but to change to the F2P to milk the player-base with a cash shop—is a failure. So, in a way, the F2P doesn't really work. It just proves the failure of an MMO.
Naw. That just shows that a bad game is a bad game, regardless of the business model.
Lets use your same words but say with EQ2 or lotro.
An MMO thats sub only, with a healthy stable playerbase (lotro, eq2 for ex) that changed to f2p is an even bigger success. So in a way the f2p really does work, it just proves the success of an mmo.
See.
A business model does not make a bad game better.
Personally, I'm just totally against the F2P model, like the poster above. Destroys good gaming and promotes milking the player-base.
yet another F2P vs P2P smack down thread. aren't we bored of these yet?
up front: these are my opinions. these opinions are largely the result of my experiences.
To the poster on "lazy" beggars:
Perhaps you don't realize this Mr 1%, but not everyone who is poor is poor because they are lazy. Some people are poor because no matter how hard they work, they are not rewarded for their efforts with a decent wage. To use myself as an example: I have a degree, yet I cannot find work that pays much more than minimum wage. And you really can't make it in this world with poverty level wages. I've been called "a valuable company resource" and "a good team member", yet when it's time for pay rises to be given out I get 5¢ an hr raise. The largest pay rise I've ever gotten was 25¢ an hr, and not long after I left that job for one offering better wages than what I was then currently earning. The highest gross income I've ever earned was $24k. And I had to work 10 hr days, 7 days a week for 8 months of the year to earn that much. This is reality for many people. Work like a dog, get scraps. Not everyone at the bottom rungs of society are there because they don't work hard. We aren't all "takers". I pay my taxes like everyone else. That man with the cup? He might be a military veteran, with mental issues as a result of something that happened while he was on duty. And he has somehow fallen through the cracks and ended up on the street with only soup kitchens and flop houses to support him. Don't belittle people whom you know nothing about. You are not superior to anyone. Regardless of how much money you make, who your parents were, or who you are acquainted with. In case you couldn't guess this is something I feel very strongly about.
I am always amused by the number of people who contradict themselves in these threads. Like the excessively long, vitriolic post where the poster gave an example of a F2P game that "got it right", then went on to say that there "are no examples of any good F2P games!"
Or the posters who: remember the good 'ole days of grinding for items for hours, days, even weeks; remembering what fun they had doing so. Then go on to complain about the amount of grinding required in nearly all F2P games.
Not all P2P games are great games. Not all F2P games are crap. AAA is just a title. The amount of money spent on developing a game shouldn't automatically earn it that title. AAA should reflect it's playability, not how much the dev spent on programmers, artists, and pitch men.
I have said this before: not all F2P games are P2W. First off what is "winning" in a mmo game? Is it solely being able to beat another player in pvp? That's end game? Winning for me is being able to play as I like, with who I like.
The "you mad bro" mentality has infected, and as far as I am concerned, destroyed many games. The phrase itself angers me. LOL I wasn't mad till you said that.
F2P might be for casual gamers, but I think if you really want to play a game you're willing pay some money for it.
There are some hybrid models coming out the market that I think are cool: the game is f2p but you don't gain experience, you can subscript to gain experience, or buy experience with real money from a cash shop or buy experience, that other people have bought with real money, with in-game coin that drops as loot. How does that sound?
Of course the experience packs that you can buy are such that when you activate one you steadily can gain experience for a week or month or so and can use that experience to buy skills etc.
Talking about games where thousands of players exist simultaneously in a single instance and mechanics related to such games.
Sinds i know of free2play prolly 10 years ago and casshops in free2play games ive not spent 1 eurocent and im not playing any free2play.
So no its not working at least not for me they have not the power to seduce me spending money or even play it for free.
Ive btw tried a dozen of those so called free2play over the years.
Im willing to play with monthly fee but those are even infected with cash shops and i refuse to play any game with cash shops.
If ITS FREE TWO PLAY WHY IT NEED CASH SHOPS THEN?
Im prolly minority, seems working for millions of gamers hundreds of mmo's these days free2play almost every day of the week KOREA spew out a new f2p mmo lol.
Seems huge market for it and few get rich lol
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77 CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now)) MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB PSU:Corsair AX1200i OS:Windows 10 64bit
It hasn't worked for me thus far. I'm paraphrasing someone here, but the best way I've hard to describe bad f2p is the road is filled with potholes and the cash shop is selling gravel. I've yet to try a free mmo that doesn't make every attempt to force you into their shop. That is not okay. I'm cool with buying things I want to buy, I'm not okay with buying things the devs make me need, and I don't give a rats' ass that they need to make money. Everybody needs to make money and it is a legitimate excuse for shady shit for nobody.
Funny as that is, it is both true and false. Whether or not it is true is entirely dependent on if micro transactions are allowed by the publisher or not. In other words, if micro transactions are allowed paying users only have an advantage in reaching end game, but no significant advantage once they reach end game. If micro transactions are not allowed, or end game is only reachable by way of cash shop; then yes it is true.
I refuse to play games that give that severe an advantage to the paying players. Should they have an advantage? Yes, but it should not be so much of an advantage that only another player who spends as much or more has any real chance. Stick and carrot. If the carrot is too far away, you'll give up trying to reach it. If it's just out of reach, you'll keep trying for a long time.
Originally posted by sketocafe It hasn't worked for me thus far. I'm paraphrasing someone here, but the best way I've hard to describe bad f2p is the road is filled with potholes and the cash shop is selling gravel. I've yet to try a free mmo that doesn't make every attempt to force you into their shop. That is not okay. I'm cool with buying things I want to buy, I'm not okay with buying things the devs make me need, and I don't give a rats' ass that they need to make money. Everybody needs to make money and it is a legitimate excuse for shady shit for nobody.
F2P is like driving on a long stretch of highway with toll booths every ½ mile.
There is always a lot of guess work and facts and presumption,i think i can sum it up VERY easily.
it works differently for each developer but the mot important FACT is that no developer is going to turn down guarantee money in form of subs UNLESS they feel their game is not good enough to attract subs.You can deny it all you want but it makes no sense.A GOOD business is run by knowing the numbers,how much overhead versus profits/loss,subs for the most part give you that organized feel to your business,you know how much money you have to work with.
Of course the first few months are most volatile,many games see their subs drop right off,but that would not help f2p either since both have the same goal which is to make money.Where the difference lies is that devs that figure on f2p WILL make their game cheaper to run to allow for all the freebies and will most likely utilize less perks,like GM's poor quality support and a basic no care attitude towards cheating or bugs,not to say sub games don't do it as well.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
"You just contradicted yourself there. If F2P always makes more than a sub they would release it as a F2P game and not block all those free players that allegedly make them so much money. You can't have it both ways. A F2P game might make more if the game sucks and couldn't survive otherwise or maybe make more as a way to invigorate a dying/dwindling playerbase (or fleeing playerbase in the case of SWTOR) but that isn't saying much. I'm sure there might be a F2P MMO out there that launched that way and doesn't suck but I haven't seen one. NW is the biggest MMO title I can think of that launched as F2P and it's complete garbage. It might make money but it's a shit MMO with a shit pay model. If that's what the freeloaders want they can have it."
How did I contradict myself again?
I never stated, ever, not once, anywhere that F2P always makes more money than a sub. The only thing that came close to that is I said, when it drops below a certain point they will make more. That is not always though, not anywhere close.
That may not have been your intention but there is a clear inference that a AAA title would not launch as F2P so they can sell boxes/subs but that sort of flies in the face of the theory that F2P makes more than box + subs. If F2P really did make more than the sub model they would release that way and the flood of extra free players at launch would make up for the lost box sales. What AAA MMO has launched as F2P that didn't suck? What AAA MMO switched to F2P that wasn't failing or floundering? I would be interested to know of one but I can't think of any.
I will agree that going F2P is a way to invigorate a struggling game but that doesn't mean it's a better model or even a good one. Until MMOs start releasing as F2P and not sucking that will remain the case IMO.
I don't think it flies in the face of that at all. I think it reinforces the point that a sub based game will make more money above ftp when subs cross some line (whereever that is) and a f2p game will make more if subs go below that line.
I also think that any game with millions of subs is better off than a f2p, and virtually any AAA is almost guaranteed a million boxes sold. It just isn't realistic to expect a game to sustain that, so they better not plan for that much or they'll have to redo their plans.
For example (because I don't think there is a set line, it depends on the dev costs...) but if that line is 400k subs. Well they know they'll get a million so go subs first. In 6 months when they are at 300k subs like a normal game they will make more as f2p.
It's also hard to compete with the $60 box price in the short term that everyone has/will pay. Once you start to get out to that 1 year mark and the newness wears off f2p seems to earn more than p2p just because of the numbers of people who will play.
You are both right, and seemed to have missed how this could happen.
P2P is about selling a product. You measure your success in units sold. This is a front loaded business model.
F2P is about selling a service. You measure your sucess in customers served. This is a back end loaded business model.
The best case scenario for business (which is why they do this) is to launch a game as P2P, and get as much money upfront as possible. Once they have reached the point of diminishing returns with this, they simply move on to a F2P model, which is not as fast to monetize, but can make much more money over time. P2P is about the quick cash in. F2P is about the long term returns.
An MMO that's sub-only and transitions to a F2P (hybird) model—for ex., the game that will not be named that lost 75%+ of its subscribers and had no choice but to change to the F2P to milk the player-base with a cash shop—is a failure. So, in a way, the F2P doesn't really work. It just proves the failure of an MMO.
This is a great example of the blind hatred displayed when it comes to F2P.
Gamers weren't paying 15 dollars a month for it, so they switched to F2P to 'milk' more than 15 dollars a month from the players? If the game closed down and failed under both models, that is a commentary on the game itself. If the game was doing better as F2P, then that would indicate the F2P model was the preferred choice of the players.
Right?
The same game, two business models. One model wasn't profitable and the other was. Your conclusion flies in the face of logic.
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 both right, and seemed to have missed how this could happen.
P2P is about selling a product. You measure your success in units sold. This is a front loaded business model.
F2P is about selling a service. You measure your sucess in customers served. This is a back end loaded business model.
The best case scenario for business (which is why they do this) is to launch a game as P2P, and get as much money upfront as possible. Once they have reached the point of diminishing returns with this, they simply move on to a F2P model, which is not as fast to monetize, but can make much more money over time. P2P is about the quick cash in. F2P is about the long term returns.
From discussions I've had with associates at Turbine prior to LOTRO's release, I'd say that you just described their exact strategy for the release and transition of LOTRO.
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 both right, and seemed to have missed how this could happen.
P2P is about selling a product. You measure your success in units sold. This is a front loaded business model.
F2P is about selling a service. You measure your sucess in customers served. This is a back end loaded business model.
I don't agree 100% with this. I think P2P is about selling a monthly sub so you have to convince players that your game is worth making a long term financial and time commitment to (make a game with enough longevity to keep people interested.) F2P/B2P is more about appealing to the whales that really support the game so you focus on the kind of doll clothes and convenience items that whales like to buy in the cash shop.
People tend to forget that games like Rift that people trot out as "good" F2P games, were designed around the sub model. GW2 is the first game I've played that is designed around a cash shop right from the beginning and I find the additional content since launch to be very lackluster. LOTRO was also a lot better in my eyes before it went F2P. In a game that relies heavily on its setting, it sucks to be asked at every point in the game if you want to buy something from the store, and there again, content has really slowed down since the F2P transition started.
There is always a lot of guess work and facts and presumption,i think i can sum it up VERY easily.
Where the difference lies is that devs that figure on f2p WILL make their game cheaper to run to allow for all the freebies and will most likely utilize less perks,like GM's poor quality support and a basic no care attitude towards cheating or bugs,not to say sub games don't do it as well.
Let me paraphrase that for you: If it's F2P then cheating is rife, GMs don't care or aren't present, customer service is laughable, and bugs are left as is.
Do you honestly think anyone would stick around if that were the case? Do you honestly think people are that stupid? Look, there are some publishers of F2P games that are like that. You know what? Those companies have a bed reputation for a reason. But that does not mean that all F2P publishers are like that. At least you admit that there are some P2P devs that pull that junk too.
The point is those games where that kind of thing is happening don't last long enough for the publisher/developer to recoup what they spent on the game (usually). And the publishers with bad reputations? The law of diminishing returns applies to them. They have to keep finding new people to play their bad games. And there comes a point where their bad reputation precedes any advertising for new players. Eventually they either have to clean up their act, or go bankrupt. Fact.
Let me give you an example of how things should work with F2P publishers.
Weekly maintenance on servers. Sometimes there's a patch, sometimes it's just a backup and optimization. If there's a patch then it takes longer to bring the servers back up because the GMs need to make sure there are no major issues with the patch before they open it up to the users. Patches are usually at least once a month, with major patches (content releases) around every 6 months or so. This is how it is with a good publisher and developer combination on the F2P side of things. Sounds reasonable, doesn't it?
GM support in game, in forums, and through email support. Email support has a max 24 hr turnaround for technical issues. Since GM are for technical support only, billing inquiries typically take a little longer (24 - 48 hrs). Reports of cheaters (bug exploitation), gold farmers, and bugs are taken seriously and dealt with swiftly. And in the case of exploitation, dealt with harshly. They are in the business of making money by offering a product. They know a defective product won't sell. They know that cheating and gold farming reduces their profit margin.
This is how things are done at the F2P publisher that I play the majority of F2P games at. They don't always do things right, but then everyone makes mistakes; right? I won't outright name the publisher, but I will say that they publish a game that was released around this time last year. And the ads for that game are ones that everyone here loves to hate.
Perhaps you don't realize this Mr 1%, but not everyone who is poor is poor because they are lazy. Some people are poor because no matter how hard they work, they are not rewarded for their efforts with a decent wage.
Maybe I was not clear and besides all English is not my mother language ... but exactly this I tried to say. Many people work hard and they are not rewared. Many are fired because their BOSS is ruining company, not them, ... but boss will continue to keep his high salary.
I was refering however to that kind of people that are very lazy, they would just open their mouth hoping somebody will drop in. Has nothing to do with pople trying hard and not having success (many times not being at all their fault).
You are both right, and seemed to have missed how this could happen.
P2P is about selling a product. You measure your success in units sold. This is a front loaded business model.
F2P is about selling a service. You measure your sucess in customers served. This is a back end loaded business model.
I don't agree 100% with this. I think P2P is about selling a monthly sub so you have to convince players that your game is worth making a long term financial and time commitment to (make a game with enough longevity to keep people interested.) F2P/B2P is more about appealing to the whales that really support the game so you focus on the kind of doll clothes and convenience items that whales like to buy in the cash shop.
People tend to forget that games like Rift that people trot out as "good" F2P games, were designed around the sub model. GW2 is the first game I've played that is designed around a cash shop right from the beginning and I find the additional content since launch to be very lackluster. LOTRO was also a lot better in my eyes before it went F2P. In a game that relies heavily on its setting, it sucks to be asked at every point in the game if you want to buy something from the store, and there again, content has really slowed down since the F2P transition started.
I have to agree with this. I payed for World of Warcraft for well over 4.5 years because despite not having new content released every month, I knew that should I continue subscribing I would be rewarded with quality content, freedom from "pay to win" and full access to all the game offered via effort (not money).
Maybe it is just be personally but when I subscribe to an MMO I like that after paying that 15 bucks everything in the game is gated behind effort; not credit cards. I haven't found a F2P game that gives me that same feeling. But maybe it just has not come along yet, and I eventually will. I'm not saying it cannot happen, I'm just saying (for me) it hasn't yet.
Warrior/Druid - Level 90/90 - World of Warcraft GLD Level 27 - CNJ Level 15 - Final Fantasy XIV: ARR Jedi Guardian/Republic Gunslinger - Level 50/50 - SW:TOR Cleric - Level 48 - RIFT Illuminati - QL6 - The Secret World Trickster Rogue - Level 50 - Neverwinter Summoner Level 30 - League of Legends EGO Rating 363 - Defiance
I have to agree with this. I payed for World of Warcraft for well over 4.5 years because despite not having new content released every month, I knew that should I continue subscribing I would be rewarded with quality content, freedom from "pay to win" and full access to all the game offered via effort (not money).
Maybe it is just be personally, but when I subscribe to an MMO, I like that after paying that 15 bucks, everything in the game is gated behind effort; not credit cards...
...says the guy that spent anywhere from 60-180 dollars on expansions, above the cost of the monthly sub.
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 have to agree with this. I payed for World of Warcraft for well over 4.5 years because despite not having new content released every month, I knew that should I continue subscribing I would be rewarded with quality content, freedom from "pay to win" and full access to all the game offered via effort (not money).
Maybe it is just be personally, but when I subscribe to an MMO, I like that after paying that 15 bucks, everything in the game is gated behind effort; not credit cards...
...says the guy that spent anywhere from 60-180 dollars on expansions, above the cost of the monthly sub.
I already stated I was just fine doing that. The service, quality and refinement that I received for that money was far above ANYTHING I have experienced in a F2P game.
I would much rather have payed that amount on expansions where everything was gated behind player effort rather than spend
$300 on XP boots
$40 on content unlocks
$30 on currency in game
$20 on cosmetic items
etc.
Warrior/Druid - Level 90/90 - World of Warcraft GLD Level 27 - CNJ Level 15 - Final Fantasy XIV: ARR Jedi Guardian/Republic Gunslinger - Level 50/50 - SW:TOR Cleric - Level 48 - RIFT Illuminati - QL6 - The Secret World Trickster Rogue - Level 50 - Neverwinter Summoner Level 30 - League of Legends EGO Rating 363 - Defiance
You are both right, and seemed to have missed how this could happen.
P2P is about selling a product. You measure your success in units sold. This is a front loaded business model.
F2P is about selling a service. You measure your sucess in customers served. This is a back end loaded business model.
I don't agree 100% with this. I think P2P is about selling a monthly sub so you have to convince players that your game is worth making a long term financial and time commitment to (make a game with enough longevity to keep people interested.) F2P/B2P is more about appealing to the whales that really support the game so you focus on the kind of doll clothes and convenience items that whales like to buy in the cash shop.
People tend to forget that games like Rift that people trot out as "good" F2P games, were designed around the sub model. GW2 is the first game I've played that is designed around a cash shop right from the beginning and I find the additional content since launch to be very lackluster. LOTRO was also a lot better in my eyes before it went F2P. In a game that relies heavily on its setting, it sucks to be asked at every point in the game if you want to buy something from the store, and there again, content has really slowed down since the F2P transition started.
The top method of monetization (in the west) for F2P has always been via subscription. The top method for P2P has been box sales, but (in the west) is often followed by subscription as well. This has been true for over 10 years. The most current F2P conversions have just followed the examples set by the long time F2P success stories (RuneScape, Maple Story, Club Penguin, etc).
The only real difference between F2P and P2P is when the money is taken. P2P takes the money first, then gives access to the game (up front sales). F2P takes money afterwards, via an upsell (back end sales).
The reason why companies go F2P is simple. It helps lower the cost of aquisition for a customer. Not having to put out 100M for advertising helps companies keep more of what they make. Lowering the barrier of entry (and the cost required to convince people to cross that barrier) cuts out one of the primary reason why developers needed publishers (like EA) and were forced to sign over their products after years of work. It also brought the developer closer to the public, and made the results of the game more based on the product, than the marketting.
Comments
I don't think it flies in the face of that at all. I think it reinforces the point that a sub based game will make more money above ftp when subs cross some line (whereever that is) and a f2p game will make more if subs go below that line.
I also think that any game with millions of subs is better off than a f2p, and virtually any AAA is almost guaranteed a million boxes sold. It just isn't realistic to expect a game to sustain that, so they better not plan for that much or they'll have to redo their plans.
For example (because I don't think there is a set line, it depends on the dev costs...) but if that line is 400k subs. Well they know they'll get a million so go subs first. In 6 months when they are at 300k subs like a normal game they will make more as f2p.
It's also hard to compete with the $60 box price in the short term that everyone has/will pay. Once you start to get out to that 1 year mark and the newness wears off f2p seems to earn more than p2p just because of the numbers of people who will play.
An MMO that's sub-only and transitions to a F2P (hybird) model—for ex., the game that will not be named that lost 75%+ of its subscribers and had no choice but to change to the F2P to milk the player-base with a cash shop—is a failure. So, in a way, the F2P doesn't really work. It just proves the failure of an MMO.
Naw. That just shows that a bad game is a bad game, regardless of the business model.
Lets use your same words but say with EQ2 or lotro.
An MMO thats sub only, with a healthy stable playerbase (lotro, eq2 for ex) that changed to f2p is an even bigger success. So in a way the f2p really does work, it just proves the success of an mmo.
See.
A business model does not make a bad game better.
Well world is full of more or less hard working people, full of exploiters that are rich disproportionaly to their own work or capacity. And there is other kind, those that sit in front of some shop open their hand and hope somebody will drop something, beggars. Of course world can not function with sole beggars. As long as there are enough working people that provide for whole population this system can work. I never felt sorry for lazy people but I do for those that are forced by life to begg.
In short: I'm very against f2p model, destroyer of good gaming.
Oh, yes, do not forget that there is not such thing as "free to play game". Does not exist. There is ALWAYS price to pay, sooner or later. From my experience when played in past (at least 5 years ago and before) games without sub, only "free", at that end of the month I have spent more real money for crap game with crap performance (as I remember first but for sure worst that comes to my mind was Rappelz) then I would spend for some more or less decent game with sub or at least B2P.
Personally, I'm just totally against the F2P model, like the poster above. Destroys good gaming and promotes milking the player-base.
yet another F2P vs P2P smack down thread. aren't we bored of these yet?
up front: these are my opinions. these opinions are largely the result of my experiences.
To the poster on "lazy" beggars:
Perhaps you don't realize this Mr 1%, but not everyone who is poor is poor because they are lazy. Some people are poor because no matter how hard they work, they are not rewarded for their efforts with a decent wage. To use myself as an example: I have a degree, yet I cannot find work that pays much more than minimum wage. And you really can't make it in this world with poverty level wages. I've been called "a valuable company resource" and "a good team member", yet when it's time for pay rises to be given out I get 5¢ an hr raise. The largest pay rise I've ever gotten was 25¢ an hr, and not long after I left that job for one offering better wages than what I was then currently earning. The highest gross income I've ever earned was $24k. And I had to work 10 hr days, 7 days a week for 8 months of the year to earn that much. This is reality for many people. Work like a dog, get scraps. Not everyone at the bottom rungs of society are there because they don't work hard. We aren't all "takers". I pay my taxes like everyone else. That man with the cup? He might be a military veteran, with mental issues as a result of something that happened while he was on duty. And he has somehow fallen through the cracks and ended up on the street with only soup kitchens and flop houses to support him. Don't belittle people whom you know nothing about. You are not superior to anyone. Regardless of how much money you make, who your parents were, or who you are acquainted with. In case you couldn't guess this is something I feel very strongly about.
I am always amused by the number of people who contradict themselves in these threads. Like the excessively long, vitriolic post where the poster gave an example of a F2P game that "got it right", then went on to say that there "are no examples of any good F2P games!"
Or the posters who: remember the good 'ole days of grinding for items for hours, days, even weeks; remembering what fun they had doing so. Then go on to complain about the amount of grinding required in nearly all F2P games.
Not all P2P games are great games. Not all F2P games are crap. AAA is just a title. The amount of money spent on developing a game shouldn't automatically earn it that title. AAA should reflect it's playability, not how much the dev spent on programmers, artists, and pitch men.
I have said this before: not all F2P games are P2W. First off what is "winning" in a mmo game? Is it solely being able to beat another player in pvp? That's end game? Winning for me is being able to play as I like, with who I like.
The "you mad bro" mentality has infected, and as far as I am concerned, destroyed many games. The phrase itself angers me. LOL I wasn't mad till you said that.
F2P might be for casual gamers, but I think if you really want to play a game you're willing pay some money for it.
There are some hybrid models coming out the market that I think are cool: the game is f2p but you don't gain experience, you can subscript to gain experience, or buy experience with real money from a cash shop or buy experience, that other people have bought with real money, with in-game coin that drops as loot. How does that sound?
Of course the experience packs that you can buy are such that when you activate one you steadily can gain experience for a week or month or so and can use that experience to buy skills etc.
Sinds i know of free2play prolly 10 years ago and casshops in free2play games ive not spent 1 eurocent and im not playing any free2play.
So no its not working at least not for me they have not the power to seduce me spending money or even play it for free.
Ive btw tried a dozen of those so called free2play over the years.
Im willing to play with monthly fee but those are even infected with cash shops and i refuse to play any game with cash shops.
If ITS FREE TWO PLAY WHY IT NEED CASH SHOPS THEN?
Im prolly minority, seems working for millions of gamers hundreds of mmo's these days free2play almost every day of the week KOREA spew out a new f2p mmo lol.
Seems huge market for it and few get rich lol
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77
CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k
GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now))
MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB
PSU:Corsair AX1200i
OS:Windows 10 64bit
Funny as that is, it is both true and false. Whether or not it is true is entirely dependent on if micro transactions are allowed by the publisher or not. In other words, if micro transactions are allowed paying users only have an advantage in reaching end game, but no significant advantage once they reach end game. If micro transactions are not allowed, or end game is only reachable by way of cash shop; then yes it is true.
I refuse to play games that give that severe an advantage to the paying players. Should they have an advantage? Yes, but it should not be so much of an advantage that only another player who spends as much or more has any real chance. Stick and carrot. If the carrot is too far away, you'll give up trying to reach it. If it's just out of reach, you'll keep trying for a long time.
F2P is like driving on a long stretch of highway with toll booths every ½ mile.
There is always a lot of guess work and facts and presumption,i think i can sum it up VERY easily.
it works differently for each developer but the mot important FACT is that no developer is going to turn down guarantee money in form of subs UNLESS they feel their game is not good enough to attract subs.You can deny it all you want but it makes no sense.A GOOD business is run by knowing the numbers,how much overhead versus profits/loss,subs for the most part give you that organized feel to your business,you know how much money you have to work with.
Of course the first few months are most volatile,many games see their subs drop right off,but that would not help f2p either since both have the same goal which is to make money.Where the difference lies is that devs that figure on f2p WILL make their game cheaper to run to allow for all the freebies and will most likely utilize less perks,like GM's poor quality support and a basic no care attitude towards cheating or bugs,not to say sub games don't do it as well.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
You are both right, and seemed to have missed how this could happen.
P2P is about selling a product. You measure your success in units sold. This is a front loaded business model.
F2P is about selling a service. You measure your sucess in customers served. This is a back end loaded business model.
The best case scenario for business (which is why they do this) is to launch a game as P2P, and get as much money upfront as possible. Once they have reached the point of diminishing returns with this, they simply move on to a F2P model, which is not as fast to monetize, but can make much more money over time. P2P is about the quick cash in. F2P is about the long term returns.
This is a great example of the blind hatred displayed when it comes to F2P.
Gamers weren't paying 15 dollars a month for it, so they switched to F2P to 'milk' more than 15 dollars a month from the players? If the game closed down and failed under both models, that is a commentary on the game itself. If the game was doing better as F2P, then that would indicate the F2P model was the preferred choice of the players.
Right?
The same game, two business models. One model wasn't profitable and the other was. Your conclusion flies in the face of logic.
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
From discussions I've had with associates at Turbine prior to LOTRO's release, I'd say that you just described their exact strategy for the release and transition of LOTRO.
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 don't agree 100% with this. I think P2P is about selling a monthly sub so you have to convince players that your game is worth making a long term financial and time commitment to (make a game with enough longevity to keep people interested.) F2P/B2P is more about appealing to the whales that really support the game so you focus on the kind of doll clothes and convenience items that whales like to buy in the cash shop.
People tend to forget that games like Rift that people trot out as "good" F2P games, were designed around the sub model. GW2 is the first game I've played that is designed around a cash shop right from the beginning and I find the additional content since launch to be very lackluster. LOTRO was also a lot better in my eyes before it went F2P. In a game that relies heavily on its setting, it sucks to be asked at every point in the game if you want to buy something from the store, and there again, content has really slowed down since the F2P transition started.
Let me paraphrase that for you: If it's F2P then cheating is rife, GMs don't care or aren't present, customer service is laughable, and bugs are left as is.
Do you honestly think anyone would stick around if that were the case? Do you honestly think people are that stupid? Look, there are some publishers of F2P games that are like that. You know what? Those companies have a bed reputation for a reason. But that does not mean that all F2P publishers are like that. At least you admit that there are some P2P devs that pull that junk too.
The point is those games where that kind of thing is happening don't last long enough for the publisher/developer to recoup what they spent on the game (usually). And the publishers with bad reputations? The law of diminishing returns applies to them. They have to keep finding new people to play their bad games. And there comes a point where their bad reputation precedes any advertising for new players. Eventually they either have to clean up their act, or go bankrupt. Fact.
Let me give you an example of how things should work with F2P publishers.
Weekly maintenance on servers. Sometimes there's a patch, sometimes it's just a backup and optimization. If there's a patch then it takes longer to bring the servers back up because the GMs need to make sure there are no major issues with the patch before they open it up to the users. Patches are usually at least once a month, with major patches (content releases) around every 6 months or so. This is how it is with a good publisher and developer combination on the F2P side of things. Sounds reasonable, doesn't it?
GM support in game, in forums, and through email support. Email support has a max 24 hr turnaround for technical issues. Since GM are for technical support only, billing inquiries typically take a little longer (24 - 48 hrs). Reports of cheaters (bug exploitation), gold farmers, and bugs are taken seriously and dealt with swiftly. And in the case of exploitation, dealt with harshly. They are in the business of making money by offering a product. They know a defective product won't sell. They know that cheating and gold farming reduces their profit margin.
This is how things are done at the F2P publisher that I play the majority of F2P games at. They don't always do things right, but then everyone makes mistakes; right? I won't outright name the publisher, but I will say that they publish a game that was released around this time last year. And the ads for that game are ones that everyone here loves to hate.
Maybe I was not clear and besides all English is not my mother language ... but exactly this I tried to say. Many people work hard and they are not rewared. Many are fired because their BOSS is ruining company, not them, ... but boss will continue to keep his high salary.
I was refering however to that kind of people that are very lazy, they would just open their mouth hoping somebody will drop in. Has nothing to do with pople trying hard and not having success (many times not being at all their fault).
I have to agree with this. I payed for World of Warcraft for well over 4.5 years because despite not having new content released every month, I knew that should I continue subscribing I would be rewarded with quality content, freedom from "pay to win" and full access to all the game offered via effort (not money).
Maybe it is just be personally but when I subscribe to an MMO I like that after paying that 15 bucks everything in the game is gated behind effort; not credit cards. I haven't found a F2P game that gives me that same feeling. But maybe it just has not come along yet, and I eventually will. I'm not saying it cannot happen, I'm just saying (for me) it hasn't yet.
Warrior/Druid - Level 90/90 - World of Warcraft
GLD Level 27 - CNJ Level 15 - Final Fantasy XIV: ARR
Jedi Guardian/Republic Gunslinger - Level 50/50 - SW:TOR
Cleric - Level 48 - RIFT
Illuminati - QL6 - The Secret World
Trickster Rogue - Level 50 - Neverwinter
Summoner Level 30 - League of Legends
EGO Rating 363 - Defiance
...says the guy that spent anywhere from 60-180 dollars on expansions, above the cost of the monthly sub.
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 already stated I was just fine doing that. The service, quality and refinement that I received for that money was far above ANYTHING I have experienced in a F2P game.
I would much rather have payed that amount on expansions where everything was gated behind player effort rather than spend
$300 on XP boots
$40 on content unlocks
$30 on currency in game
$20 on cosmetic items
etc.
Warrior/Druid - Level 90/90 - World of Warcraft
GLD Level 27 - CNJ Level 15 - Final Fantasy XIV: ARR
Jedi Guardian/Republic Gunslinger - Level 50/50 - SW:TOR
Cleric - Level 48 - RIFT
Illuminati - QL6 - The Secret World
Trickster Rogue - Level 50 - Neverwinter
Summoner Level 30 - League of Legends
EGO Rating 363 - Defiance
The top method of monetization (in the west) for F2P has always been via subscription. The top method for P2P has been box sales, but (in the west) is often followed by subscription as well. This has been true for over 10 years. The most current F2P conversions have just followed the examples set by the long time F2P success stories (RuneScape, Maple Story, Club Penguin, etc).
The only real difference between F2P and P2P is when the money is taken. P2P takes the money first, then gives access to the game (up front sales). F2P takes money afterwards, via an upsell (back end sales).
The reason why companies go F2P is simple. It helps lower the cost of aquisition for a customer. Not having to put out 100M for advertising helps companies keep more of what they make. Lowering the barrier of entry (and the cost required to convince people to cross that barrier) cuts out one of the primary reason why developers needed publishers (like EA) and were forced to sign over their products after years of work. It also brought the developer closer to the public, and made the results of the game more based on the product, than the marketting.