I don't know if F2P killed the genre, however I feel that the subscription model didn't help it any. Not becuase $15 is to expensive, but the quality of games trying to charge that amount is/was subpar.
I think it has less to do with MMOs not being quality (i.e., fun) enough to charge a sub and more to do with people thinking they're money is worth more than it is. Sub fans expect so much for their dollar, monthly updates, 24/7 support, weekly or daily GM events, and so on. To them that's reasonable, but in reality it's just not.
I'm not even going to go into the hypocrisy that is complaining about F2P games costing more than a sub, while also claiming they'd pay double, triple, even quadruple the current $15 a month for a "quality" sub game. No, what almost killed this genre isn't the subscription, it's the people that refused to pay it. It's now those same people who are angry that MMO companies have shifted their focus over to the F2P "casuals" that saved the genre. They're literally angry that the genre they abandoned turned around and abandoned them.
Interesting point of view. Not going to agree or disagree, but rather let it marinate my brain for a bit.
I am no fan of the F2P model. I will state this upfront.
That being said I do see the appeal for F2P games and even the overwhelming push over the past few years into the MMO genre, but personally I have not found a single F2P title that I have enjoyed and supported monetarily, ever.
I do not feel the MMO genre has benefited from this marketing model from a deeper development perspective. There has been nothing note worthy or innovative that has come from a F2P MMO game and before you start listing titles like SWTOR, LOTRO or even ArcheAge remember all those titles were originally developed, funded and launched as subscription models.
In the end I am a realist (well at times) and I do not see the model going away anytime soon for many developers and publisher see $$$ attached to it and rightfully so, it is a huge "Cash Cow" for the industry. On the flip side of this I do not see many developers and publishers of MMOs pushing to innovate in this type of business model, thus the rise of the Indy developers and crowd funded companies.
FFXIV is one game you should look to and keep an eye on. So far they have over 2.5 million players and growing using the subscription model. They have one of the best crafting systems in an MMO, a very smooth gaming experience with little bugs and glitches and are continuing to progress the game title. Yoshi and his crew made history in the midst of a multitude of Nay-Sayers and I applaud him and Square-Enix for supporting his dream. I personally do not think the subscription model is dead, but I do not expect it to be as popular as it once was.
My personal view of marketing models leans more towards the B2P with purchasable DLC content as the leading role in the future. BUT........ we will see what the future holds soon enough.
F2P is generally better for a consumer because it allows the OPTION to pay after seeing the game. P2P requires payment upfront before the game can be seen. This allows the customer to determine the value of the product based off of their experience, rather than off of marketing hype. Which do you trust more, your personal experience, or what you see in an ad?
I have heard this argument a lot and it seems to me to be a bit shortsighted. A MMO isn't something you try for a couple weeks than cast aside it's something you integrate into a community of others and play for years. Or at least it should be. In that respect the money you spend trying the game is irrelevant to the long term enjoyment you hope to get out of it.
It seems like most F2P players these days play games more like free trials than actually trying to experience what makes MMO's different from SPG or even FPS games which is the ability to build and interact in a community. You can't do that if you are jumping from game to game every couple of weeks.
If you wish to make the statement that MMO's are a long term investment, wouldn't that make it important to see the product before giving them your money. I cant agree that it is MORE customer friendly to take a customers money before seeing the product than it is to ask for it after they have seen it.
Personal preference aside, it was asked how F2P was more customer friendly... and I have explained it.
F2P saved it. The MMO industry needed a temporary crutch in order to innovate. What we got is the fix-all for short term profitability and a industry wide f2p/cash shop cycle/development which has lasted WAY too long. The problem being is that mmo's are no longer a social experience for the most part - they are large multiplayer games made for adult-children with ADHD with very little depth using the same formulas over and over again.
MMORPG's like Archeage are able to do VERY well in western markets, yet the western publishers of those titles are trying desperately to "Westernize" and apply the instant gratification formulas and simplified mechanics to those titles in order to "churn and burn" some quick cash - primarily because EVERY developer that has had success in the genre in the past is bleeding money. Its an uphill battle at this point.
You know when companies like Blizzard shutters wip's and won't go near an MMO development cycle ever again, that the genre is DEAD. Everyone is riding the end of the lightning bolt - and no one can innovate without GOBS of cash.
ITS OVER FOLKS.
(unless someone who still thinks pre-trammel UO, the original three expansions of EQ, and SWG pre-nge is the "way" wins this weeks powerball jackpot)
I disagree.
I do not believe that F2P has saved or killed the industry. It has been a part of the industry for decades now (and for even longer with similar industries). It is nothing new, and its recent popularity is due to companies using the most favorable approach to the market at the time.
The current market problems is not based on payment models, it is based on development and operations models. We are, where we are, today because companies have been chasing WoW, and have the expectations that WoW is how products should perform.
Pre WoW companies thought that a new product would get 25-50k customers, and might grow to 300k with several years of additional development. They charged $45-60 upfront to recoup the (whole) development cost, and needed $15 a month more each month to continue to pay the developers to expand the game. It was only after a couple additional years of operation that they expected to start making money.
Post WoW companies are expecting to get 2-4M initial customers, and to grow to 5M+. They spend a LOT more on development upfront, and expect to get it all back in boxed sales. They then expect to lay off the development teams (or move them to the next paid expansion) while raking in $15 per month in profit. Each year they will have another paid expansion, and repeat. They expect the userbase to grow each year for the first 5 years.
The reality of post WoW launches is this. Companies get ~1M initial boxed sales, they lose ~50% of these customers a month for the first three months. The game stabilizes, but they never get enough upfront sales to pay for development. They now have to use the development staff (if not already cut) to fix the game for 6 months, while only getting a small amount of monthly subs vs a large expensive staff. Typically this is where they have to plan a business model change, as it is clear that they are never going to recoup cost, let alone make money with the current plan. They then adjust and if they do it right, at the end of the 2 year mark, the game is stable, and may even be growing organically with new players. They can then start making enough money to hopefully have the game paid for by year 4 or 5.
The problem we are having today is that MMO game development is expensive... and the returns have proven to be slow (unless you are the odd breakout hit like WoW). Developers want to make more post WoW (big budget) games, and are still promising WoW type returns. Those with the money are no longer willing to take the risk. In order for progress to be made, the developers have to go back to making pre WoW games with lower budgets, more reasonable expectations, and longer development cycles. Investors will then be willing to fund them, and the market will recover naturally.
My recollection is that almost all games including pre-wow, lost of lot of people in the first 3 months.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
There once was a poor old man who owned a beautiful white horse.
Whenever noblemen passed through the village, they always noticed the horse and offered handsome sums of money for the stallion. But the old man always declined their offers, saying, "This horse is my friend. How can I sell my friend?"
One morning the old man awoke to find the horse was gone. The village people gathered and said, "Old man you were a fool not to sell the horse. You could have been wealthy! Now it has been stolen, and you have nothing. It is a great misfortune!" But the old man replied, "Don't go so far as to say that. Whether the horse was stolen or not, or whether it is a misfortune or a blessing, is unknown. All we know is that the horse is not in the stable."
Some days later the horse returned, bringing with it several beautiful wild mares. Again the village people gathered, and they said, "Old man you were right! The horse was not stolen, and it was not a misfortune. It was a blessing, and now you have many fine horses!" But the old man replied, "Again you go too far. Don't say it's a good thing, don't say it's a bad thing. Just say the horse is back. Whether it is a blessing or a misfortune is unknown."
Some days later the old man's only son began to train the wild mares, but he was thrown and trampled, and one of his legs was badly broken. Again the village people gathered. "Oh old man, you were right! It was not a blessing but a great misfortune, and now your only son is lame! With a sigh the old man replied, "Don't say it's a good thing, don't say it's a bad thing, just say my son has broken his leg. Whether it is a blessing or a misfortune is unknown."
It happened that a few weeks later the country went to war, and all the able bodied young men were forcibly taken for the military. Only the old man's son was passed over, because he was crippled. The whole village was crying and weeping, for they believed their sons would probably be killed and never come home to them. In their grief they came to the old man and said, "You were right old man, your son's injury has proven to be a blessing. Your son may be crippled, but he is with you, while our sons are gone forever! The old man simply shook his head and said, "Will you never learn? Only say that your sons have been forced into the military and my son has not. More than that is not known."
-- attributed to Catherine Marie Heath
By : Scott Teitsworth
Just pointing out that the original parable should be more correctly attributed to Prince Liu An of China (179–122 BC):
This is a retelling of a story from a chapter titled "Lessons from the Human World" from his Chinese philosophical classic (Huainanzi) written in 139 BC.
The story is also the etymology of a famous Chinese proverb.
My recollection is that almost all games including pre-wow, lost of lot of people in the first 3 months.
Older games grew over time, and took years to reach their peak. EQ launched in 1999, and continued to grow until 2003/4 where it peaked at ~500k. Eve was launched in 2003, and grew slowly until 2011 (not 100% sure if it ever grew past that date). Heck, even second life in 2004 grew until 2010. These games all started with low (sub 50k) numbers, and grew over time.
This is how online products were originally perceived to operate. Launch with a product, then improve it over time to grow the userbase organically. It was cost effective, and created products that were a good return on investment. The current model is to invest lots of money to have a huge userbase right from the start... and this has failed time and time again. When they don't get the numbers needed to pay for the initial investment, the product plan has to be scrapped, and some attempts are made to try to salvage what revenue is possible.... but the product rarely ever has a chance to grow again.
My recollection is that almost all games including pre-wow, lost of lot of people in the first 3 months.
Older games grew over time, and took years to reach their peak. EQ launched in 1999, and continued to grow until 2003/4 where it peaked at ~500k. Eve was launched in 2003, and grew slowly until 2011 (not 100% sure if it ever grew past that date). Heck, even second life in 2004 grew until 2010. These games all started with low (sub 50k) numbers, and grew over time.
This is how online products were originally perceived to operate. Launch with a product, then improve it over time to grow the userbase organically. It was cost effective, and created products that were a good return on investment. The current model is to invest lots of money to have a huge userbase right from the start... and this has failed time and time again. When they don't get the numbers needed to pay for the initial investment, the product plan has to be scrapped, and some attempts are made to try to salvage what revenue is possible.... but the product rarely ever has a chance to grow again.
YOu are aware we are talking about retention rates. Box sales continue over time and you can grow, but doesn't discount those initial losses. Yes, I am saying there is loss and growth.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Once again....the stat mongers are out in force for a topic that didn't need it.
F2P did kill the genre. But only in the last few years. Used to be, we could find a good F2P game to hold us over until the next money sink took over. Then our favorite genre decided to cash in on the F2P model. Now we have what we have today. "1" game comes out with a sub and the community is in an uproar. When it stops being a sub within a year, they cheer "I told ya so!" yet cannot tell us why this is a good thing.
Wish I could go back to the days that devs had balls enough to make what they want again. But that wont work cause they money isn't there any more...
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
There once was a poor old man who owned a beautiful white horse.
Whenever noblemen passed through the village, they always noticed the horse and offered handsome sums of money for the stallion. But the old man always declined their offers, saying, "This horse is my friend. How can I sell my friend?"
One morning the old man awoke to find the horse was gone. The village people gathered and said, "Old man you were a fool not to sell the horse. You could have been wealthy! Now it has been stolen, and you have nothing. It is a great misfortune!" But the old man replied, "Don't go so far as to say that. Whether the horse was stolen or not, or whether it is a misfortune or a blessing, is unknown. All we know is that the horse is not in the stable."
Some days later the horse returned, bringing with it several beautiful wild mares. Again the village people gathered, and they said, "Old man you were right! The horse was not stolen, and it was not a misfortune. It was a blessing, and now you have many fine horses!" But the old man replied, "Again you go too far. Don't say it's a good thing, don't say it's a bad thing. Just say the horse is back. Whether it is a blessing or a misfortune is unknown."
Some days later the old man's only son began to train the wild mares, but he was thrown and trampled, and one of his legs was badly broken. Again the village people gathered. "Oh old man, you were right! It was not a blessing but a great misfortune, and now your only son is lame! With a sigh the old man replied, "Don't say it's a good thing, don't say it's a bad thing, just say my son has broken his leg. Whether it is a blessing or a misfortune is unknown."
It happened that a few weeks later the country went to war, and all the able bodied young men were forcibly taken for the military. Only the old man's son was passed over, because he was crippled. The whole village was crying and weeping, for they believed their sons would probably be killed and never come home to them. In their grief they came to the old man and said, "You were right old man, your son's injury has proven to be a blessing. Your son may be crippled, but he is with you, while our sons are gone forever! The old man simply shook his head and said, "Will you never learn? Only say that your sons have been forced into the military and my son has not. More than that is not known."
-- attributed to Catherine Marie Heath
By : Scott Teitsworth
Thank you, it is a very nice read.
Boobs are LIFE, Boobs are LOVE, Boobs are JUSTICE, Boobs are mankind's HOPES and DREAMS. People who complain about boobs have lost their humanity.
My recollection is that almost all games including pre-wow, lost of lot of people in the first 3 months.
Older games grew over time, and took years to reach their peak. EQ launched in 1999, and continued to grow until 2003/4 where it peaked at ~500k. Eve was launched in 2003, and grew slowly until 2011 (not 100% sure if it ever grew past that date). Heck, even second life in 2004 grew until 2010. These games all started with low (sub 50k) numbers, and grew over time.
This is how online products were originally perceived to operate. Launch with a product, then improve it over time to grow the userbase organically. It was cost effective, and created products that were a good return on investment. The current model is to invest lots of money to have a huge userbase right from the start... and this has failed time and time again. When they don't get the numbers needed to pay for the initial investment, the product plan has to be scrapped, and some attempts are made to try to salvage what revenue is possible.... but the product rarely ever has a chance to grow again.
YOu are aware we are talking about retention rates. Box sales continue over time and you can grow, but doesn't discount those initial losses. Yes, I am saying there is loss and growth.
The retention rates have not drastically changed... and neither have adoption rates. What has changed is the timing, and the cost.
With largely frontloaded sales you get a huge influx, then a huge drop. This creates a negative trend in the game, which is hard to reverse. With a slower start you can get a steady growth, and this positive trend in the game helps it to grow further. The primary driver of long term sales is word of mouth... and after people experience a rapid decline in population it takes years to recover....
The second issue is cost. They have frontloaded the cost, and often do not get a good return on their money. There is a lot of pressure to get a return on this investment (hence the frontloaded sales) and often there are unreasonable assumptions about follow through sales. This causes the investors to call for drastic changes in order to recover whatever is possible. These changes may save the game in the long term, but the experience overall is never good for the game (or gamer).
F2P is just the MMO scene playing out post WoW explosion.
WoW sells a lot of pies ---> Multiple developers makes pies ---> Not enough people wanting THAT much pie ---> Pie now free, whip cream costs extra ---> whip cream doesn't always sell and pie quality is lowered or non-existent.
Don't ask... I just let it ride, but now I'm hungry...
The market is now saturated and those original MMOs that came out right before the F2P splash will be better funded than the titles coming out now. Take Rift, said to have one of the best F2P models... of course it does. The game had a 50M budget, box sales and 2-1/2 years of sub cash flow before going F2P. It can now slowly grow by what money it gets but future titles will not be so lucky.
The genre isn't dead but has adjusted a lot. My advise would be to invest in what moves you. Early access, green light, kickstarter, etc. Embrace it if you believe in what the developers are doing. I know it's a principal thing for a lot of people, and I respect that, but big budget up front titles that spring up almost complete and ready for open beta aren't going to be the norm anymore.
Originally posted by aliven Ofc it not saved anything. It just is better model, both for consumers and producers if done right.
I would challenge that statement. Looking from a distance sure it seems like a better model for both parties. But once you start to really dig into how F2P changes the way game mechanics are presented to the player and how player activities and motivations are altered by them it is a lot harder to make that claim.
Maybe you don't care about that but it doesn't mean everyone doesn't.
And as i said, if done right. Like PoE, Marvel Heroes. League of legends. Dota 2. Smite. Lots of game that nailed f2p. Rift. World of Tanks. There are plenty of examples. And i dont care about shitty f2p scams like SWtoR. They are just do to grab money, that has nothing to do with good f2p.
Those aren't MMO's. PoE and Marvel Heroes are Co-op RPG's. I'm not saying they aren't cool and fun. I'm just saying they aren't MMO's. LoL, Dota 2, and Smite are MOBA's - which, I might add, are all rip-offs of one another. They're Multiplayer Online Battle Arenas.
F2P in an MMO essentially turns a proper MMO INTO one of those titles. It changes the very fabric of what an MMO is. This is exactly why folks like you don't see a difference.
Originally posted by aliven Ofc it not saved anything. It just is better model, both for consumers and producers if done right.
I would challenge that statement. Looking from a distance sure it seems like a better model for both parties. But once you start to really dig into how F2P changes the way game mechanics are presented to the player and how player activities and motivations are altered by them it is a lot harder to make that claim.
Maybe you don't care about that but it doesn't mean everyone doesn't.
And as i said, if done right. Like PoE, Marvel Heroes. League of legends. Dota 2. Smite. Lots of game that nailed f2p. Rift. World of Tanks. There are plenty of examples. And i dont care about shitty f2p scams like SWtoR. They are just do to grab money, that has nothing to do with good f2p.
Those aren't MMO's. PoE and Marvel Heroes are Co-op RPG's. I'm not saying they aren't cool and fun. I'm just saying they aren't MMO's. LoL, Dota 2, and Smite are MOBA's - which, I might add, are all rip-offs of one another. They're Multiplayer Online Battle Arenas.
F2P in an MMO essentially turns a proper MMO INTO one of those titles. It changes the very fabric of what an MMO is. This is exactly why folks like you don't see a difference.
Additionally, Rift and SWTOR, money grab or not, benefitted from a huge initial budget, box sales, and subs for n months to build the foundation that F2P now maintains. The same model cannot fund and sustain a developing MMO now. Solutions like EA have tried to make that up to get the same production value but it's still an adjustment for some players.
F2P saved it. The MMO industry needed a temporary crutch in order to innovate. What we got is the fix-all for short term profitability and a industry wide f2p/cash shop cycle/development which has lasted WAY too long. The problem being is that mmo's are no longer a social experience for the most part - they are large multiplayer games made for adult-children with ADHD with very little depth using the same formulas over and over again.
MMORPG's like Archeage are able to do VERY well in western markets, yet the western publishers of those titles are trying desperately to "Westernize" and apply the instant gratification formulas and simplified mechanics to those titles in order to "churn and burn" some quick cash - primarily because EVERY developer that has had success in the genre in the past is bleeding money. Its an uphill battle at this point.
You know when companies like Blizzard shutters wip's and won't go near an MMO development cycle ever again, that the genre is DEAD. Everyone is riding the end of the lightning bolt - and no one can innovate without GOBS of cash.
ITS OVER FOLKS.
(unless someone who still thinks pre-trammel UO, the original three expansions of EQ, and SWG pre-nge is the "way" wins this weeks powerball jackpot)
Look I understand viewing it from a personal viewpoint in what you want from a MMORPG I agree . But thinking this genre is over I would say it's hasn't even reached it's peak.
Comments
Interesting point of view. Not going to agree or disagree, but rather let it marinate my brain for a bit.
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
I am no fan of the F2P model. I will state this upfront.
That being said I do see the appeal for F2P games and even the overwhelming push over the past few years into the MMO genre, but personally I have not found a single F2P title that I have enjoyed and supported monetarily, ever.
I do not feel the MMO genre has benefited from this marketing model from a deeper development perspective. There has been nothing note worthy or innovative that has come from a F2P MMO game and before you start listing titles like SWTOR, LOTRO or even ArcheAge remember all those titles were originally developed, funded and launched as subscription models.
In the end I am a realist (well at times) and I do not see the model going away anytime soon for many developers and publisher see $$$ attached to it and rightfully so, it is a huge "Cash Cow" for the industry. On the flip side of this I do not see many developers and publishers of MMOs pushing to innovate in this type of business model, thus the rise of the Indy developers and crowd funded companies.
FFXIV is one game you should look to and keep an eye on. So far they have over 2.5 million players and growing using the subscription model. They have one of the best crafting systems in an MMO, a very smooth gaming experience with little bugs and glitches and are continuing to progress the game title. Yoshi and his crew made history in the midst of a multitude of Nay-Sayers and I applaud him and Square-Enix for supporting his dream. I personally do not think the subscription model is dead, but I do not expect it to be as popular as it once was.
My personal view of marketing models leans more towards the B2P with purchasable DLC content as the leading role in the future. BUT........ we will see what the future holds soon enough.
If you wish to make the statement that MMO's are a long term investment, wouldn't that make it important to see the product before giving them your money. I cant agree that it is MORE customer friendly to take a customers money before seeing the product than it is to ask for it after they have seen it.
Personal preference aside, it was asked how F2P was more customer friendly... and I have explained it.
My recollection is that almost all games including pre-wow, lost of lot of people in the first 3 months.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Just pointing out that the original parable should be more correctly attributed to Prince Liu An of China (179–122 BC):
This is a retelling of a story from a chapter titled "Lessons from the Human World" from his Chinese philosophical classic (Huainanzi) written in 139 BC.
The story is also the etymology of a famous Chinese proverb.
Reference: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%A1%9E%E7%BF%81%E5%A4%B1%E9%A6%AC%EF%BC%8C%E7%84%89%E7%9F%A5%E9%9D%9E%E7%A6%8F
"A game is fun if it is learnable but not trivial" -- Togelius & Schmidhuber
Older games grew over time, and took years to reach their peak. EQ launched in 1999, and continued to grow until 2003/4 where it peaked at ~500k. Eve was launched in 2003, and grew slowly until 2011 (not 100% sure if it ever grew past that date). Heck, even second life in 2004 grew until 2010. These games all started with low (sub 50k) numbers, and grew over time.
This is how online products were originally perceived to operate. Launch with a product, then improve it over time to grow the userbase organically. It was cost effective, and created products that were a good return on investment. The current model is to invest lots of money to have a huge userbase right from the start... and this has failed time and time again. When they don't get the numbers needed to pay for the initial investment, the product plan has to be scrapped, and some attempts are made to try to salvage what revenue is possible.... but the product rarely ever has a chance to grow again.
YOu are aware we are talking about retention rates. Box sales continue over time and you can grow, but doesn't discount those initial losses. Yes, I am saying there is loss and growth.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Once again....the stat mongers are out in force for a topic that didn't need it.
F2P did kill the genre. But only in the last few years. Used to be, we could find a good F2P game to hold us over until the next money sink took over. Then our favorite genre decided to cash in on the F2P model. Now we have what we have today. "1" game comes out with a sub and the community is in an uproar. When it stops being a sub within a year, they cheer "I told ya so!" yet cannot tell us why this is a good thing.
Wish I could go back to the days that devs had balls enough to make what they want again. But that wont work cause they money isn't there any more...
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Thank you, it is a very nice read.
Boobs are LIFE, Boobs are LOVE, Boobs are JUSTICE, Boobs are mankind's HOPES and DREAMS. People who complain about boobs have lost their humanity.
The retention rates have not drastically changed... and neither have adoption rates. What has changed is the timing, and the cost.
With largely frontloaded sales you get a huge influx, then a huge drop. This creates a negative trend in the game, which is hard to reverse. With a slower start you can get a steady growth, and this positive trend in the game helps it to grow further. The primary driver of long term sales is word of mouth... and after people experience a rapid decline in population it takes years to recover....
The second issue is cost. They have frontloaded the cost, and often do not get a good return on their money. There is a lot of pressure to get a return on this investment (hence the frontloaded sales) and often there are unreasonable assumptions about follow through sales. This causes the investors to call for drastic changes in order to recover whatever is possible. These changes may save the game in the long term, but the experience overall is never good for the game (or gamer).
F2P is just the MMO scene playing out post WoW explosion.
WoW sells a lot of pies ---> Multiple developers makes pies ---> Not enough people wanting THAT much pie ---> Pie now free, whip cream costs extra ---> whip cream doesn't always sell and pie quality is lowered or non-existent.
Don't ask... I just let it ride, but now I'm hungry...
The market is now saturated and those original MMOs that came out right before the F2P splash will be better funded than the titles coming out now. Take Rift, said to have one of the best F2P models... of course it does. The game had a 50M budget, box sales and 2-1/2 years of sub cash flow before going F2P. It can now slowly grow by what money it gets but future titles will not be so lucky.
The genre isn't dead but has adjusted a lot. My advise would be to invest in what moves you. Early access, green light, kickstarter, etc. Embrace it if you believe in what the developers are doing. I know it's a principal thing for a lot of people, and I respect that, but big budget up front titles that spring up almost complete and ready for open beta aren't going to be the norm anymore.
Those aren't MMO's. PoE and Marvel Heroes are Co-op RPG's. I'm not saying they aren't cool and fun. I'm just saying they aren't MMO's. LoL, Dota 2, and Smite are MOBA's - which, I might add, are all rip-offs of one another. They're Multiplayer Online Battle Arenas.
F2P in an MMO essentially turns a proper MMO INTO one of those titles. It changes the very fabric of what an MMO is. This is exactly why folks like you don't see a difference.
Additionally, Rift and SWTOR, money grab or not, benefitted from a huge initial budget, box sales, and subs for n months to build the foundation that F2P now maintains. The same model cannot fund and sustain a developing MMO now. Solutions like EA have tried to make that up to get the same production value but it's still an adjustment for some players.
An MMO based on Chinese culture will not appeal to Western gamers
"A game is fun if it is learnable but not trivial" -- Togelius & Schmidhuber
$900M
Asia Pacific's huge, but wildly different, social casino market
$11B
Total revenue for pay-to-play and free-to-play MMO markets, worldwide in 2014.