I don't have a problem paying for a game I enjoy playing. Whether it's a sub or cash shop items or whatever...I'll pay it if it's worth paying for. I understand people are jaded against cash shops because they were used to paying only $15/mo back in the day for a great MMO experience, but the times they are a changin'. The MMO market is evolving, and as such, is asking for more of our money. And if we want to keep playing quality MMOs, we need to pay it. I am sick of people saying, "If we don't buy X or Y, then companies will get the hint and go back to the $15 sub model." No they won't - they'll start making crappy Android freemium games instead. I don't know about you, but playing MMOs is my main hobby and I don't know of many other hobbies that cost less than an MMO. I would happily pay upwards of $50/mo for a great MMO. For hours played vs. money spent, that's pretty damn cheap.
F2P with micropayments is the way the industry has "found" (tried) to stop the bleeding once the game failed.
Only games that since day -1 were born with the idea to be F2P are (seldom) able to do it "right". All the others just fail (whatever their monetization system was) and try to survive turning into the F2P model. Is just the way to prolong the agony and not accept the truth.
It's reasonable to try it all before closing the shop (F2P liquidation model) but gamers should know better. Failure is part of life and market however painful it is for the individuals the whole game industry benefits from that.
F2p has killed AAA mmos. = in a bad way-their maintnance and updates are far in between. i dont blame them with their small staff.
B2p is ok= with purchasable DLC.
Sub is best = by a long shot! with alternate models.
I disagree. If anything, F2P saved many MMO's, and it's sustaining the genre itself. Sorry, but WoW, FFXIV, and EvE, aren't going to keep the genre afloat much longer, especially as time goes on.
AoC, Lotro, EQ2, Swtor, Rift, Tera, Aion, etc..
All of these started off as subscription based models, then went F2P to save themselves. MMO vets need to concede that subscription based models were always fleecing them for a monthly rate, without providing quality content. If sub models were so great, people would've stayed around. At least with a F2P game, you can spend your money when you want, and not be charged a flat fee.
Look at it yourself. You can only name 3 games that are able to support themselves via SUBs. Out of how many ? See the ratio of quality vs shit games ? It's right there in your post. You are defending F2P because it enables you to play many bad games one after another for a short period ...
F2P = cancer of the gaming world imo. Sure, you can play a shit ton of games for free, but as many others have already said, they mostly suck. I'd rather have 1/10th of quantity if that would mean 10x the quality. Heck, I'd take 2x quality in exchange for that quantity reduction. Or if the prices were somewhat normal compared to P2P...that would also be nice, biggest culprits being the games catering to whales. Man, I get the shivers when I open up the cash store and there's packs for 1000 USD of coins (granted, mostly mobile games with such "cheap" F2P prices)...pretty much auto-delete now if I see that crap.
One can also note that a lot of P2P titles failed coz of lack of quality. Most notable being SWTOR, TESO and WS.
Ah well, almighty buck wins, path to it is irrelevant I guess. As long as ppl pay, things won't change.
I look at this way.. F2P is "pay as you go".. It's like a users tax.. If you don't use the content, you are not paying for it.. Subscription is basically a "socialist" pay model where everyone pays the same rate, regardless if they use the content or not.. I have no objection to B2P or F2P models as long as they are set up fairly.. (which most often they are not)..
Why should a casual gamer that only plays a few hours a month for example, pay the same as the person that lives on the game playing and consuming content at a rate of 6 hours a day? He shouldn't.. I'm glad that MOST of our economy is based on usage philosophy then a socialist point of view..
In my opinion the loudest players against F2P are those gamers that live online, and feel everyone should support their habit socially.. /shrug Personally my choice is B2P, as long as the formula is fair..
F2p has killed AAA mmos. = in a bad way-their maintnance and updates are far in between. i dont blame them with their small staff.
B2p is ok= with purchasable DLC.
Sub is best = by a long shot! with alternate models.
I disagree. If anything, F2P saved many MMO's, and it's sustaining the genre itself. Sorry, but WoW, FFXIV, and EvE, aren't going to keep the genre afloat much longer, especially as time goes on.
AoC, Lotro, EQ2, Swtor, Rift, Tera, Aion, etc..
All of these started off as subscription based models, then went F2P to save themselves. MMO vets need to concede that subscription based models were always fleecing them for a monthly rate, without providing quality content. If sub models were so great, people would've stayed around. At least with a F2P game, you can spend your money when you want, and not be charged a flat fee.
Sounds like some serious wishful thinking going on here.
MMO vets don't need to "concede" anything. We weren't being fleeced, because we knew what we were getting, we knew exactly what it would cost us, and we knew that what we got for that payment is exactly what everyone else got. It was a level playing field (cheating notwithstanding; that's not part of the game design), and everyone had the same opportunities to do and achieve whatever they chose to do, or not to do. There was no nickel-and-dime schemes. No cash shop with a game designed around it, enticing us at every opportunity to "spend a little more".
You know what I consider "fleecing"? Saying "yes! come play our game for free!", and then designing the game with built-in speed-bumps and inconveniences,and items you know people will want... designed specifically to drive people to spend money on virtual trinkets and items "to make the experience more fun". What I find to be "fleecing", is deliberately hiding the actual cost of things behind a "cash shop currency" system, to obfuscate exactly how much is being spent on individual items over time. What I find to be "fleecing" is deliberately staggering the cost of items against the amounts of cash shop currency that can be purchased at one time, so players will almost always have to buy more coins than they need for one purchase, while being left with not enough to buy something else, requiring them to buy even more... The examples go on and on.
For over a decade, I never once even thought about how much I was spending while playing a P2P. Because I already knew. I paid $14 for the month, and wouldn't be billed again for at least another 4 weeks (or whatever). How much I had spent, or could spend, or might spend, or wondering whether that pack of heal potions, or that faster but temporary mount was worth it never even crossed my mind. I never had reason to stop and wonder "how much have I spent on this cash shop so far?" None of that crap was even a shadow of a thought in my mind.
All I had to worry about was:
"hmm... I really like that chest armor piece, should I go for it now, or wait 'til I have more time, and maybe invite a few folks along who might want it, too?" or...
"Man, I love that faster mount... but I'm still 10 levels short, and need more money to get it. Okay, I'll work on some crafting, so I can make more money and have enough to buy it by the time I'm able to ride it" or...
"Eek... these mobs are hitting hard and my HP potions just aren't quite cutting it. I need to buy some stronger ones... Let's see, my Alchemy skill isn't high enough yet to make them, so maybe I can find someone in Guild who can... otherwise I can just buy them from the Auction house"
The examples go on and on and on...
Those are my concerns in a P2P MMO. Everything is in the context of what my character is, or has in the game. How much I have in my bank account never comes into play.
There's never any concern of "hmm.. can I justify spending $10 on 1000 cash shop coins, when I only need 200 for those potions, and I already have 100..."
Because P2P is simple, straight-forward and transparent. $14 (or $15, or $10, or whatever) a month, done. I was able to just dive in and play. I didn't have to wonder if it was worth spending money in the cash shop, because the game made it available as a reward, or otherwise, by actually doing content. You know... playing the game? The whole reason you're supposedly there in the first place?
Sorry, but your assertions about us "vets" being "fleeced" by P2P is plain, flat wrong. 100%. Stop pretending to know otherwise. We understood how the P2P model works. We understood what we were paying for. We understood that once we paid our monthly sub, what we did or didn't do, or achieve, or obtain was entirely up to us. We still understand that. Obviously, you don't.
No game is going to "keep the genre afloat". Each game succeeds, or fails, or merely limps along, on its own merit. The failure of one game has nothing to do with the success of another - and vice versa. FFXI, FFXIV, Eve,WoW and other MMOs that are still doing fine on subscriptions are doing so, and will continue to do so completely separate from what's going on around them. Several MMOs have already been doing this for years.
As has been said by numerous people now, in the industry and out, Subscriptions are a perfectly viable revenue model for those MMOs that are designed around them - and designed well. I know people like you hate to hear that, and want to pretend that somehow P2P is some great evil to be wiped out. Well... sucks for you, I guess?
And seriously, could people please stop with these "predictions" about how P2P isn't going to last or whatever? For crying out loud... People like you have been saying this for the past several years now. You continue to be wrong. Year after year.
Or is the idea that "eventually I'll be right, and then I get to gloat!"?
I mean, if you're going to make predictions about something that "will eventually happen... somewhere down the line", then hey... I can make a prediction, too... "All MMORPGs will eventually go offline". There. Now all I have to do is wait long enough, and I'll be proven right!
! of the bad F2P MMORPG: Neverwinter. Each new module become more and more worst, no new content just recycle the exist, low quality and more and more force player to pay.
Therefore...off the main topic, F2P player not really money free... with the huge amount time of grinding this or that tot achieve top gears, player actually using their electricity bill buy those ingame stuff....
Off the main topic question:
When the game request player do lots of grinding, Is it still your origin goal to play the game for fun or suffer long time period pain no life grinding? Are you playing the game or the game playing you?
I know most reasons why microtransaction business model are introduced to games.
If I would be deciding person in a game company making an online game, I would myself choose to introduce microtransactions in majority of games as well. I would also not have any reservations (obviously) to work as employee in company making games with microtransactions.
BUT
as a player - I will simply not play them. No matter of sugar coating or convincing that it's best thing since toilet paper is gonna change that. Simply because I've been there done that and there is no chance in hell that I will be playing MMORPG with microtransactions ever again. That include P2P+cash shop games as well.
I look at this way.. F2P is "pay as you go".. It's like a users tax.. If you don't use the content, you are not paying for it.. Subscription is basically a "socialist" pay model where everyone pays the same rate, regardless if they use the content or not.. I have no objection to B2P or F2P models as long as they are set up fairly.. (which most often they are not)..
Why should a casual gamer that only plays a few hours a month for example, pay the same as the person that lives on the game playing and consuming content at a rate of 6 hours a day? He shouldn't.. I'm glad that MOST of our economy is based on usage philosophy then a socialist point of view..
In my opinion the loudest players against F2P are those gamers that live online, and feel everyone should support their habit socially.. /shrug Personally my choice is B2P, as long as the formula is fair..
Are you serious ?
Are you honestly going to try and spin subscriptions as socialist ?! LMAO !
As opposed to F2P, where only a small number of people pay for the product, so that a large amount of other people can play for free ? You don't think "welfare gaming" is socialist at all ?
These forums throw up some real gems from time to time, lol
Sub is best if the developer can actually provide enough value for the sub fee. Most can't. Sometimes players will keep paying despite the developers just taking the money and running, like WoW, but most can't get away with it.
Next I prefer a B2P with DLC.
F2P comes in last for me. There are some great F2P games, but generally most of the new content tends to be fluff, and I tend to run out of stuff to do that I enjoy too quickly.
I look at this way.. F2P is "pay as you go".. It's like a users tax.. If you don't use the content, you are not paying for it.. Subscription is basically a "socialist" pay model where everyone pays the same rate, regardless if they use the content or not.. I have no objection to B2P or F2P models as long as they are set up fairly.. (which most often they are not)..
Why should a casual gamer that only plays a few hours a month for example, pay the same as the person that lives on the game playing and consuming content at a rate of 6 hours a day? He shouldn't.. I'm glad that MOST of our economy is based on usage philosophy then a socialist point of view..
In my opinion the loudest players against F2P are those gamers that live online, and feel everyone should support their habit socially.. /shrug Personally my choice is B2P, as long as the formula is fair..
Are you serious ?
Are you honestly going to try and spin subscriptions as socialist ?! LMAO !
As opposed to F2P, where only a small number of people pay for the product, so that a large amount of other people can play for free ? You don't think "welfare gaming" is socialist at all ?
These forums throw up some real gems from time to time, lol
So a golfer that goes out once a month is a welfare golfer, because he's not paying a monthly dues like country clubs are doing? We could use Movies the same way too.. I don't pay $15 a ticket to see a movie the first month it comes out.. I"ll wait till it goes to the matenee theaters for $2 a ticket.. Hell I might even wait till it goes on TV and pay nothing..
See how I spun it? I see nothing wrong with a "pay as you go".. Why are you set against it? lol Let me ask you.. OUTSIDE of computer gaming, how many businesses out there have an ONLY "set" subscription model that allows customers unlimited access to everything?
I think the core issue with F2P is players simply lost track of P2W really means. Seems to me like people for some reason decided they want to hate F2P and are trying to find a valid reason to hate it and as such decided believing F2P = P2W is the best way to go.
Dave is right, sure there are some P2W MMOs out there but they're the exception not the rule. Yet people still believe every F2P game out there is P2W even if all they sell is miniscule advantages like XP potions.
Seems to me like people lost track of the fact there is no such thing as a perfect balance and that's regardless of business model. Sure in a F2P game I could buy an endless supply of XP potions that give me 50% more XP. Well couldnt I take a couple of weeks off work to get ahead in a subscription based game? isnt that using money to gain the same sort of advantage? its not just money that brings an imbalance to the equation either. what if I have a job and someone else does not? they can play a lot more then I can hence they'll get way ahead ! Is that okey simply because they didnt spend any money doing it?
Thing is pay to win isnt really just about getting an advantage (so much so its not called pay for advantage) its about getting an advantage you can never get without paying money. Simply speaking time isnt a deciding factor because that will change between player to player based on a wide range of factor. Sure money may be one of them but there is also free time, RNG gods smiling direction, Guild, You schedule, Real life, Commitments, etc...
The other thing people love to hate F2P for is the notion that it somehow costs a ton more to play a F2P game then it does one which has a subscription. This is pretty funny because like Dave pointed out (as have others) close to 5% of the player base actually buy stuff. Problem with that is to have 5% paying you need another 95% who arent paying. Now sure you may argue those 5% are all paying 1000% more then they would in a subscription game, sure its possible but that doesnt change the fact that 95% are playing happily without spending anything which in turn means whatever game we're talking about isnt really forcing those 5% to pay 1000% more, they're doing it by choice or maybe from a lack of self control, who knows!. Either way it doesnt matter because what ever is the reason why they're spending so much more it still doesnt mean a F2P game costs more then a subscription based game to play as proven by that 95% who dont pay anything and yet still play.
"I don’t personally have anything against pay-to-win games." Dave Georgeson
I think it fundamental that the integrity and immersion of an alternate world be preserved and buying in game items and gold and cash shops let alone straight up Pay 2 Win completely and utterly destroy any reason for me to play the game.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
I look at this way.. F2P is "pay as you go".. It's like a users tax.. If you don't use the content, you are not paying for it.. Subscription is basically a "socialist" pay model where everyone pays the same rate, regardless if they use the content or not.. I have no objection to B2P or F2P models as long as they are set up fairly.. (which most often they are not)..
Why should a casual gamer that only plays a few hours a month for example, pay the same as the person that lives on the game playing and consuming content at a rate of 6 hours a day? He shouldn't.. I'm glad that MOST of our economy is based on usage philosophy then a socialist point of view..
In my opinion the loudest players against F2P are those gamers that live online, and feel everyone should support their habit socially.. /shrug Personally my choice is B2P, as long as the formula is fair..
Are you serious ?
Are you honestly going to try and spin subscriptions as socialist ?! LMAO !
As opposed to F2P, where only a small number of people pay for the product, so that a large amount of other people can play for free ? You don't think "welfare gaming" is socialist at all ?
These forums throw up some real gems from time to time, lol
So a golfer that goes out once a month is a welfare golfer, because he's not paying a monthly dues like country clubs are doing? We could use Movies the same way too.. I don't pay $15 a ticket to see a movie the first month it comes out.. I"ll wait till it goes to the matenee theaters for $2 a ticket.. Hell I might even wait till it goes on TV and pay nothing..
See how I spun it? I see nothing wrong with a "pay as you go".. Why are you set against it? lol Let me ask you.. OUTSIDE of computer gaming, how many businesses out there have an ONLY "set" subscription model that allows customers unlimited access to everything?
There are far more examples of fixed-price billing in RL than I could ever list here:
My healh-club monthly sub
My Netflix monthly sub
My landline monthly rental
Etc.
Your once-a-month golfer is a hopeless example, there's no such thing as F2P in golf. You pay, else you don't play. How much you pay is dependant on your own preferences, but paying is not optional.
I think I see your problem though. You believe in "Pay-as-you-go", but you don't think that you should have to pay to play games. You should only pay if you want premium stuff in games. That's not a socialist issue, it's purely an entitlement issue, lol
You forget that the F2P game ceases to operate the moment the "whales" go somewhere else. The free players can only play as long as someone else is footing the bill.
"I don’t personally have anything against pay-to-win games." Dave Georgeson
I think it fundamental that the integrity and immersion of an alternate world be preserved and buying in game items and gold and cash shops let alone straight up Pay 2 Win completely and utterly destroy any reason for me to play the game.
You quoted Dave out of context.
The full quote states that he has no problem with P2W games, provided they are upfront and perfectly clear about their model. And there I agree with him (even though I disagree with many of his other points).
My beef with F2P is that it is primarily built on manipulation and deception. The monetization schemes are deliberately obscure and hidden under layers of obfuscation. All the weaknesses and foibles of human nature are ruthlessly exploited. It will inevitably influence the game play, itemization and drop rates in any game.
I look at this way.. F2P is "pay as you go".. It's like a users tax.. If you don't use the content, you are not paying for it.. Subscription is basically a "socialist" pay model where everyone pays the same rate, regardless if they use the content or not.. I have no objection to B2P or F2P models as long as they are set up fairly.. (which most often they are not)..
Why should a casual gamer that only plays a few hours a month for example, pay the same as the person that lives on the game playing and consuming content at a rate of 6 hours a day? He shouldn't.. I'm glad that MOST of our economy is based on usage philosophy then a socialist point of view..
In my opinion the loudest players against F2P are those gamers that live online, and feel everyone should support their habit socially.. /shrug Personally my choice is B2P, as long as the formula is fair..
Are you serious ?
Are you honestly going to try and spin subscriptions as socialist ?! LMAO !
As opposed to F2P, where only a small number of people pay for the product, so that a large amount of other people can play for free ? You don't think "welfare gaming" is socialist at all ?
These forums throw up some real gems from time to time, lol
So a golfer that goes out once a month is a welfare golfer, because he's not paying a monthly dues like country clubs are doing? We could use Movies the same way too.. I don't pay $15 a ticket to see a movie the first month it comes out.. I"ll wait till it goes to the matenee theaters for $2 a ticket.. Hell I might even wait till it goes on TV and pay nothing..
See how I spun it? I see nothing wrong with a "pay as you go".. Why are you set against it? lol Let me ask you.. OUTSIDE of computer gaming, how many businesses out there have an ONLY "set" subscription model that allows customers unlimited access to everything?
There are far more examples of fixed-price billing in RL than I could ever list here:
My healh-club monthly sub
My Netflix monthly sub
My landline monthly rental
Etc.
Your once-a-month golfer is a hopeless example, there's no such thing as F2P in golf. You pay, else you don't play. How much you pay is dependant on your own preferences, but paying is not optional.
I think I see your problem though. You believe in "Pay-as-you-go", but you don't think that you should have to pay to play games. You should only pay if you want premium stuff in games. That's not a socialist issue, it's purely an entitlement issue, lol
You forget that the F2P game ceases to operate the moment the "whales" go somewhere else. The free players can only play as long as someone else is footing the bill.
I think you're misunderstanding Rydeson message. This is not about playing without paying but simply about not having a subscription. Thats entirely different. Subscription are quite a commitment. Sure a single subscription viewed on a period of 1 month may seem trivial but consider 2 or 3 over a period of 5 years. Thats close to $3000 for just 3 games which is a lot. Worst yet is another point Rydeson made. When you've been subscribed to a game for a long while there will be times when you'd feel like playing something else and barely touch the game for months but on the other hand you may feel not like unsubscribing so that you can get a quick fix when you feel like it. I empatize with that a lot because I did that myself plenty of times.
So much so if I may point out he never said pay nothing ever, he said pay as you go which is what a cash shop or better yet buy to play does.
Business aren't in the charity business, Free to play exists because it makes money. They allow people to play for free because they know that will result in some of them paying money one time or another. Those who dont pay also have a useful role in that they help the game feel alive by their in game activity.
Its like Free to Air TV, They dont make money directly from their viewers but from their advertizers and those advertizers dont pay the TV station cause they're generous but because they're luring the viewers to buy their products.
Its all about the business model and what makes most of your customers happy.
Its an undeniable fact most MMOs change from subscription to either F2P or B2P and they wouldnt do that if the majority of people want Subscription or if F2P players didnt spend more money then Subscription people do.
Question all is it just because of the whales or is it because more people paying less is more profitable then less people paying regularly? Thats the real question imho
I am not sure I got this correct but if only 5 % spend and 95 % are needed to keep game going ,I don't think that that sounds like a sound business model that can be sustained for a long time. I am not a business major or anything but common sense tells me that the bottom is apt to fall out .
Question all is it just because of the whales or is it because more people paying less is more profitable then less people paying regularly? Thats the real question imho
F2P works because it reduces the cost of new customer acquisition. Marketing is often 5-10x the cost of development. If you can reduce that cost 10x by going F2P, you can reach the break even point much sooner, and easier. This is why F2P is good for independants, and for games after the 1st year. P2P is still the best deal (for the first year) for any big studio, as they can put out cash for a marketing blitz, and get it back with the initial buy-in.
Most people (outside of the business) do not realize that F2P is about the EXPENSE side, not the REVENUE side. If you lower your cost, becoming profitable is much easier. F2P was a counter to the big publishers (like EA) that could push huge marketing campaigns. Now that customers have started to become more wary of these, they have changed to F2P as well, because they are getting less return for their dollar, except with the established brands.
"I don’t personally have anything against pay-to-win games." Dave Georgeson
I think it fundamental that the integrity and immersion of an alternate world be preserved and buying in game items and gold and cash shops let alone straight up Pay 2 Win completely and utterly destroy any reason for me to play the game.
You quoted Dave out of context.
The full quote states that he has no problem with P2W games, provided they are upfront and perfectly clear about their model. And there I agree with him (even though I disagree with many of his other points).
My beef with F2P is that it is primarily built on manipulation and deception. The monetization schemes are deliberately obscure and hidden under layers of obfuscation. All the weaknesses and foibles of human nature are ruthlessly exploited. It will inevitably influence the game play, itemization and drop rates in any game.
So if i say "im gona kill all humans and rape all womens" thats ok because i was honest about it? Bullshit. Its the same bullshit when somebody says "dont complain, you got it for free".
Also in your second paragraph you mistaken F2P with P2W. Theyr are build with deception and milking in core.
"I don’t personally have anything against pay-to-win games." Dave Georgeson
I think it fundamental that the integrity and immersion of an alternate world be preserved and buying in game items and gold and cash shops let alone straight up Pay 2 Win completely and utterly destroy any reason for me to play the game.
You quoted Dave out of context.
The full quote states that he has no problem with P2W games, provided they are upfront and perfectly clear about their model. And there I agree with him (even though I disagree with many of his other points).
My beef with F2P is that it is primarily built on manipulation and deception. The monetization schemes are deliberately obscure and hidden under layers of obfuscation. All the weaknesses and foibles of human nature are ruthlessly exploited. It will inevitably influence the game play, itemization and drop rates in any game.
"I don’t personally have anything against pay-to-win games. I’ve played several good ones and lots of smaller ones for research purposes. They’re not my usual cup of tea, but in the games I enjoyed, the “pay-to-win” was incredibly obvious going in. There were no surprises. Pay-to-win is only annoying to me when I’m somehow surprised by it, or if the game I was playing changes underneath my feet."
I'll quote the whole thing doesn't change my stance on Pay 2 Win being complete garbage and ruining any chance I will play the game be it upfront, devious, or otherwise. Turning the game into who has the biggest credit card is NEVER going to fly with me. I personally will not play games where it's just about who spends the most. I'm completely against Pay 2 Win games.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
The player doesn’t have to pay before trying the game.
F2P means that the curious or the friend-recommended can easily download and try the game without risk.
Generally increased game revenue.
The F2P Pros listed above...oh boy...
1. A game doesn't need to be F2P to allow a player to try it before buying it, have a Free Trial.
2. This is a repeat of #1 made into a second one to make the list longer and seem equal to the cons which it isn't...not even close.
3. Will only increase game revenue for a garbage game that cannot retain players via a subscription. Make a good game, people will continue to pay to play it. It really is that simple as can be seen by so many old games that still have people paying to play them.
F2P is a poison to the consumer and a boon to game makers not making a quality product.
Did you read the article? He explained that data shows free trial doesn't pay off the same way as F2P. People don't engage in it. He even explained that there is a huge discussion about the reasons why and that it just doesn't return the same way.
See I think subscription locking is a scam. Renting your games is a scam. The whole timesink treadmill to perpetuate the rental fee is a scam. I've been there and done it since my first mmo. It reminded me of renting game time on Prodigy and I hated that.
Yes I did read it and its BOGUS.
WoW, has had a free trial and it maintains its high sub bas. Eve, free trial, high sub base.
The main point still stands. Make a GOOD GAME, retain players. Don't? Enjoy F2P because its the ONLY option...and that is why so many are taking it because of the massive amount of average or lower games being made.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
The F2P model (more specifically ) the hybrid models ( i'm looking at you SWTOR) pretty much ran me right out of the MMO genre for the time being.
If you are a F2P game fine, be a F2P game. Don't have a sub option and then still continue to gate content behind cash shops.. and yes I am one of those people who feel even cosmetics are content. No one will change my mind on that.
If I am paying a sub I should have access to everything in the game in the sense that I should be able to earn it in game somehow. It may be hard and I may never achieve it but the ability is there.
I am done with the MMO genre for now, and my reason is the onslaught of F2P games. I just don't believe in that model and will not support it in any shape or form anymore.
I wonder what the price for a subscription would need to be for an mmo in order for a sub-based model to be as profitable as a typical F2P mmo? In other words... how much extra $$ per month does a AAA mmo subscriber base need to pay for a publisher to be willing to forego the extra revenue a cash shop model provides? And how many non-churning subbers would they need year-over-year to continue being a AAA mmo to forego the added revenue of a cash shop?
Comments
F2P with micropayments is the way the industry has "found" (tried) to stop the bleeding once the game failed.
Only games that since day -1 were born with the idea to be F2P are (seldom) able to do it "right". All the others just fail (whatever their monetization system was) and try to survive turning into the F2P model. Is just the way to prolong the agony and not accept the truth.
It's reasonable to try it all before closing the shop (F2P liquidation model) but gamers should know better. Failure is part of life and market however painful it is for the individuals the whole game industry benefits from that.
Look at it yourself. You can only name 3 games that are able to support themselves via SUBs. Out of how many ? See the ratio of quality vs shit games ? It's right there in your post.
You are defending F2P because it enables you to play many bad games one after another for a short period ...
F2P = cancer of the gaming world imo. Sure, you can play a shit ton of games for free, but as many others have already said, they mostly suck. I'd rather have 1/10th of quantity if that would mean 10x the quality. Heck, I'd take 2x quality in exchange for that quantity reduction. Or if the prices were somewhat normal compared to P2P...that would also be nice, biggest culprits being the games catering to whales. Man, I get the shivers when I open up the cash store and there's packs for 1000 USD of coins (granted, mostly mobile games with such "cheap" F2P prices)...pretty much auto-delete now if I see that crap.
One can also note that a lot of P2P titles failed coz of lack of quality. Most notable being SWTOR, TESO and WS.
Ah well, almighty buck wins, path to it is irrelevant I guess. As long as ppl pay, things won't change.
I look at this way.. F2P is "pay as you go".. It's like a users tax.. If you don't use the content, you are not paying for it.. Subscription is basically a "socialist" pay model where everyone pays the same rate, regardless if they use the content or not.. I have no objection to B2P or F2P models as long as they are set up fairly.. (which most often they are not)..
Why should a casual gamer that only plays a few hours a month for example, pay the same as the person that lives on the game playing and consuming content at a rate of 6 hours a day? He shouldn't.. I'm glad that MOST of our economy is based on usage philosophy then a socialist point of view..
In my opinion the loudest players against F2P are those gamers that live online, and feel everyone should support their habit socially.. /shrug Personally my choice is B2P, as long as the formula is fair..
Sounds like some serious wishful thinking going on here.
MMO vets don't need to "concede" anything. We weren't being fleeced, because we knew what we were getting, we knew exactly what it would cost us, and we knew that what we got for that payment is exactly what everyone else got. It was a level playing field (cheating notwithstanding; that's not part of the game design), and everyone had the same opportunities to do and achieve whatever they chose to do, or not to do. There was no nickel-and-dime schemes. No cash shop with a game designed around it, enticing us at every opportunity to "spend a little more".
You know what I consider "fleecing"? Saying "yes! come play our game for free!", and then designing the game with built-in speed-bumps and inconveniences,and items you know people will want... designed specifically to drive people to spend money on virtual trinkets and items "to make the experience more fun". What I find to be "fleecing", is deliberately hiding the actual cost of things behind a "cash shop currency" system, to obfuscate exactly how much is being spent on individual items over time. What I find to be "fleecing" is deliberately staggering the cost of items against the amounts of cash shop currency that can be purchased at one time, so players will almost always have to buy more coins than they need for one purchase, while being left with not enough to buy something else, requiring them to buy even more... The examples go on and on.
For over a decade, I never once even thought about how much I was spending while playing a P2P. Because I already knew. I paid $14 for the month, and wouldn't be billed again for at least another 4 weeks (or whatever). How much I had spent, or could spend, or might spend, or wondering whether that pack of heal potions, or that faster but temporary mount was worth it never even crossed my mind. I never had reason to stop and wonder "how much have I spent on this cash shop so far?" None of that crap was even a shadow of a thought in my mind.
All I had to worry about was:
"hmm... I really like that chest armor piece, should I go for it now, or wait 'til I have more time, and maybe invite a few folks along who might want it, too?" or...
"Man, I love that faster mount... but I'm still 10 levels short, and need more money to get it. Okay, I'll work on some crafting, so I can make more money and have enough to buy it by the time I'm able to ride it" or...
"Eek... these mobs are hitting hard and my HP potions just aren't quite cutting it. I need to buy some stronger ones... Let's see, my Alchemy skill isn't high enough yet to make them, so maybe I can find someone in Guild who can... otherwise I can just buy them from the Auction house"
The examples go on and on and on...
Those are my concerns in a P2P MMO. Everything is in the context of what my character is, or has in the game. How much I have in my bank account never comes into play.
There's never any concern of "hmm.. can I justify spending $10 on 1000 cash shop coins, when I only need 200 for those potions, and I already have 100..."
Because P2P is simple, straight-forward and transparent. $14 (or $15, or $10, or whatever) a month, done. I was able to just dive in and play. I didn't have to wonder if it was worth spending money in the cash shop, because the game made it available as a reward, or otherwise, by actually doing content. You know... playing the game? The whole reason you're supposedly there in the first place?
Sorry, but your assertions about us "vets" being "fleeced" by P2P is plain, flat wrong. 100%. Stop pretending to know otherwise. We understood how the P2P model works. We understood what we were paying for. We understood that once we paid our monthly sub, what we did or didn't do, or achieve, or obtain was entirely up to us. We still understand that. Obviously, you don't.
No game is going to "keep the genre afloat". Each game succeeds, or fails, or merely limps along, on its own merit. The failure of one game has nothing to do with the success of another - and vice versa. FFXI, FFXIV, Eve,WoW and other MMOs that are still doing fine on subscriptions are doing so, and will continue to do so completely separate from what's going on around them. Several MMOs have already been doing this for years.
As has been said by numerous people now, in the industry and out, Subscriptions are a perfectly viable revenue model for those MMOs that are designed around them - and designed well. I know people like you hate to hear that, and want to pretend that somehow P2P is some great evil to be wiped out. Well... sucks for you, I guess?
And seriously, could people please stop with these "predictions" about how P2P isn't going to last or whatever? For crying out loud... People like you have been saying this for the past several years now. You continue to be wrong. Year after year.
Or is the idea that "eventually I'll be right, and then I get to gloat!"?
I mean, if you're going to make predictions about something that "will eventually happen... somewhere down the line", then hey... I can make a prediction, too... "All MMORPGs will eventually go offline". There. Now all I have to do is wait long enough, and I'll be proven right!
! of the bad F2P MMORPG: Neverwinter. Each new module become more and more worst, no new content just recycle the exist, low quality and more and more force player to pay.
Therefore...off the main topic, F2P player not really money free... with the huge amount time of grinding this or that tot achieve top gears, player actually using their electricity bill buy those ingame stuff....
Off the main topic question:
When the game request player do lots of grinding, Is it still your origin goal to play the game for fun or suffer long time period pain no life grinding? Are you playing the game or the game playing you?
Just my quick comment.
I know most reasons why microtransaction business model are introduced to games.
If I would be deciding person in a game company making an online game, I would myself choose to introduce microtransactions in majority of games as well. I would also not have any reservations (obviously) to work as employee in company making games with microtransactions.
BUT
as a player - I will simply not play them. No matter of sugar coating or convincing that it's best thing since toilet paper is gonna change that. Simply because I've been there done that and there is no chance in hell that I will be playing MMORPG with microtransactions ever again. That include P2P+cash shop games as well.
Are you serious ?
Are you honestly going to try and spin subscriptions as socialist ?! LMAO !
As opposed to F2P, where only a small number of people pay for the product, so that a large amount of other people can play for free ? You don't think "welfare gaming" is socialist at all ?
These forums throw up some real gems from time to time, lol
Sub is best if the developer can actually provide enough value for the sub fee. Most can't. Sometimes players will keep paying despite the developers just taking the money and running, like WoW, but most can't get away with it.
Next I prefer a B2P with DLC.
F2P comes in last for me. There are some great F2P games, but generally most of the new content tends to be fluff, and I tend to run out of stuff to do that I enjoy too quickly.
So a golfer that goes out once a month is a welfare golfer, because he's not paying a monthly dues like country clubs are doing? We could use Movies the same way too.. I don't pay $15 a ticket to see a movie the first month it comes out.. I"ll wait till it goes to the matenee theaters for $2 a ticket.. Hell I might even wait till it goes on TV and pay nothing..
See how I spun it? I see nothing wrong with a "pay as you go".. Why are you set against it? lol Let me ask you.. OUTSIDE of computer gaming, how many businesses out there have an ONLY "set" subscription model that allows customers unlimited access to everything?
I think the core issue with F2P is players simply lost track of P2W really means. Seems to me like people for some reason decided they want to hate F2P and are trying to find a valid reason to hate it and as such decided believing F2P = P2W is the best way to go.
Dave is right, sure there are some P2W MMOs out there but they're the exception not the rule. Yet people still believe every F2P game out there is P2W even if all they sell is miniscule advantages like XP potions.
Seems to me like people lost track of the fact there is no such thing as a perfect balance and that's regardless of business model. Sure in a F2P game I could buy an endless supply of XP potions that give me 50% more XP. Well couldnt I take a couple of weeks off work to get ahead in a subscription based game? isnt that using money to gain the same sort of advantage? its not just money that brings an imbalance to the equation either. what if I have a job and someone else does not? they can play a lot more then I can hence they'll get way ahead ! Is that okey simply because they didnt spend any money doing it?
Thing is pay to win isnt really just about getting an advantage (so much so its not called pay for advantage) its about getting an advantage you can never get without paying money. Simply speaking time isnt a deciding factor because that will change between player to player based on a wide range of factor. Sure money may be one of them but there is also free time, RNG gods smiling direction, Guild, You schedule, Real life, Commitments, etc...
The other thing people love to hate F2P for is the notion that it somehow costs a ton more to play a F2P game then it does one which has a subscription. This is pretty funny because like Dave pointed out (as have others) close to 5% of the player base actually buy stuff. Problem with that is to have 5% paying you need another 95% who arent paying. Now sure you may argue those 5% are all paying 1000% more then they would in a subscription game, sure its possible but that doesnt change the fact that 95% are playing happily without spending anything which in turn means whatever game we're talking about isnt really forcing those 5% to pay 1000% more, they're doing it by choice or maybe from a lack of self control, who knows!. Either way it doesnt matter because what ever is the reason why they're spending so much more it still doesnt mean a F2P game costs more then a subscription based game to play as proven by that 95% who dont pay anything and yet still play.
"I don’t personally have anything against pay-to-win games." Dave Georgeson
I think it fundamental that the integrity and immersion of an alternate world be preserved and buying in game items and gold and cash shops let alone straight up Pay 2 Win completely and utterly destroy any reason for me to play the game.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/There are far more examples of fixed-price billing in RL than I could ever list here:
My healh-club monthly sub
My Netflix monthly sub
My landline monthly rental
Etc.
Your once-a-month golfer is a hopeless example, there's no such thing as F2P in golf. You pay, else you don't play. How much you pay is dependant on your own preferences, but paying is not optional.
I think I see your problem though. You believe in "Pay-as-you-go", but you don't think that you should have to pay to play games. You should only pay if you want premium stuff in games. That's not a socialist issue, it's purely an entitlement issue, lol
You forget that the F2P game ceases to operate the moment the "whales" go somewhere else. The free players can only play as long as someone else is footing the bill.
You quoted Dave out of context.
The full quote states that he has no problem with P2W games, provided they are upfront and perfectly clear about their model. And there I agree with him (even though I disagree with many of his other points).
My beef with F2P is that it is primarily built on manipulation and deception. The monetization schemes are deliberately obscure and hidden under layers of obfuscation. All the weaknesses and foibles of human nature are ruthlessly exploited. It will inevitably influence the game play, itemization and drop rates in any game.
I think you're misunderstanding Rydeson message. This is not about playing without paying but simply about not having a subscription. Thats entirely different. Subscription are quite a commitment. Sure a single subscription viewed on a period of 1 month may seem trivial but consider 2 or 3 over a period of 5 years. Thats close to $3000 for just 3 games which is a lot. Worst yet is another point Rydeson made. When you've been subscribed to a game for a long while there will be times when you'd feel like playing something else and barely touch the game for months but on the other hand you may feel not like unsubscribing so that you can get a quick fix when you feel like it. I empatize with that a lot because I did that myself plenty of times.
So much so if I may point out he never said pay nothing ever, he said pay as you go which is what a cash shop or better yet buy to play does.
Business aren't in the charity business, Free to play exists because it makes money. They allow people to play for free because they know that will result in some of them paying money one time or another. Those who dont pay also have a useful role in that they help the game feel alive by their in game activity.
Its like Free to Air TV, They dont make money directly from their viewers but from their advertizers and those advertizers dont pay the TV station cause they're generous but because they're luring the viewers to buy their products.
Its all about the business model and what makes most of your customers happy.
Its an undeniable fact most MMOs change from subscription to either F2P or B2P and they wouldnt do that if the majority of people want Subscription or if F2P players didnt spend more money then Subscription people do.
Question all is it just because of the whales or is it because more people paying less is more profitable then less people paying regularly? Thats the real question imho
F2P works because it reduces the cost of new customer acquisition. Marketing is often 5-10x the cost of development. If you can reduce that cost 10x by going F2P, you can reach the break even point much sooner, and easier. This is why F2P is good for independants, and for games after the 1st year. P2P is still the best deal (for the first year) for any big studio, as they can put out cash for a marketing blitz, and get it back with the initial buy-in.
Most people (outside of the business) do not realize that F2P is about the EXPENSE side, not the REVENUE side. If you lower your cost, becoming profitable is much easier. F2P was a counter to the big publishers (like EA) that could push huge marketing campaigns. Now that customers have started to become more wary of these, they have changed to F2P as well, because they are getting less return for their dollar, except with the established brands.
So if i say "im gona kill all humans and rape all womens" thats ok because i was honest about it? Bullshit. Its the same bullshit when somebody says "dont complain, you got it for free".
Also in your second paragraph you mistaken F2P with P2W. Theyr are build with deception and milking in core.
"I don’t personally have anything against pay-to-win games. I’ve played several good ones and lots of smaller ones for research purposes. They’re not my usual cup of tea, but in the games I enjoyed, the “pay-to-win” was incredibly obvious going in. There were no surprises. Pay-to-win is only annoying to me when I’m somehow surprised by it, or if the game I was playing changes underneath my feet."
I'll quote the whole thing doesn't change my stance on Pay 2 Win being complete garbage and ruining any chance I will play the game be it upfront, devious, or otherwise. Turning the game into who has the biggest credit card is NEVER going to fly with me. I personally will not play games where it's just about who spends the most. I'm completely against Pay 2 Win games.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/Yes I did read it and its BOGUS.
WoW, has had a free trial and it maintains its high sub bas. Eve, free trial, high sub base.
The main point still stands. Make a GOOD GAME, retain players. Don't? Enjoy F2P because its the ONLY option...and that is why so many are taking it because of the massive amount of average or lower games being made.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
The F2P model (more specifically ) the hybrid models ( i'm looking at you SWTOR) pretty much ran me right out of the MMO genre for the time being.
If you are a F2P game fine, be a F2P game. Don't have a sub option and then still continue to gate content behind cash shops.. and yes I am one of those people who feel even cosmetics are content. No one will change my mind on that.
If I am paying a sub I should have access to everything in the game in the sense that I should be able to earn it in game somehow. It may be hard and I may never achieve it but the ability is there.
I am done with the MMO genre for now, and my reason is the onslaught of F2P games. I just don't believe in that model and will not support it in any shape or form anymore.
I wonder what the price for a subscription would need to be for an mmo in order for a sub-based model to be as profitable as a typical F2P mmo? In other words... how much extra $$ per month does a AAA mmo subscriber base need to pay for a publisher to be willing to forego the extra revenue a cash shop model provides? And how many non-churning subbers would they need year-over-year to continue being a AAA mmo to forego the added revenue of a cash shop?