Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

So, after 10 years of F2P/B2P instead of Subscription, are we better off?

24

Comments

  • LacedOpiumLacedOpium Member EpicPosts: 2,327
    Po_gg said:
     And also, as observer writes, if sub was so good, it'd still be the main thing... and it's not. I guess that tells a lot.
     

    Let me put this argument to rest right now since we have a second person repeating it like its gospel.  The fact that F2P has taken hold over the sub model has nothing to do with it being better than the subscription model.  That may be the case for game developers and publishers but it certainly isn't the case for players for the many reasons already mentioned in this thread.  As far as developers are concerned its been a windfall due to the fact that it introduces many more potential players/spenders to the game earning developers a lot more money than the subscription model would for a substandard product.  Developers are no longer into developing quality games that last.  It is now more about churning out crappy F2P games with the objective of turning a quick buck.   
  • jmcdermottukjmcdermottuk Member RarePosts: 1,571
    observer said:
    The other thing is, if the subscription model was so good, why did they all fail?  The quality of the game is still the same as a F2P game.  Not only that, but F2P games such as Rift were pumping out more content than subscription games, and still failed to stay subscription.
    But they didn't all fail, the biggest MMO on the planet is subscription based to this day, even if they did add a fluff shop later on. Before WoW every MMO was subscription based and few of them outright failed unless the devs did something to fuck em up.

    They may not have had the sheer numbers we get today but the audience was smaller, the genre more niche. Games like EQ were a huge success considering they were expecting 17-20k subs before launch. UO, AC, DAoC, EVE, all sub based, all pre WoW, all achieved success. WoW blew the MMO genre completely out of the water and still has probably twice the active playerbase of any other MMO.

    Since WoW it's a different story. Sub games have failed and had to go free because quality dropped or they just felt too much like WoW. Why play A. N. Other MMO when you already have a lot of max level chars in WoW if they play exactly the same? All your friends are in WoW, your guildies, your time and effort. Of course they failed.

    Maybe if they'd given us something different they might have done better. Then again you have to take the audience into account. A lot of new players coming into the genre from FPS or single player games who were used to paying for a box and that's it, the end, no on-going monthly payments.

    How many here played WoW? How many people paid a sub to more than 1 MMO? I never did but I'd still try new MMO's. Buy the box and play the free month that comes with it. At the end of the month you have to make a choice, stick with WoW or jump to the new MMO. But then all your chars in WoW are max level, kitted out, new expac coming, all your mates/guildies are there, plus all that time you put in. And the new MMO you tried is basically the same as WoW but with a different paint job. Probably less content, not as polished.

    And people wonder why games failed.
  • SpottyGekkoSpottyGekko Member EpicPosts: 6,916
    The genie is out of the bottle and there's no way to put it back. The cornerstone of F2P has always been the microtransactions (Cash Shop), and as F2P became "acceptable" to western audiences, so the microtransactions became acceptable in all games, regardless of the payment models.

    Developers and publishers benefit form microtransactions, because it takes the artificial "cap" off of what a player can spend in a game. Instead of only paying a fixed subscription fee, players can now spend thousands of dollars a month if they so choose.

    I think the horrible truth is that there's a huge number of gamers that actually like to buy their progress or power in a Cash Shop. It's like RMT: nobody will admit to using it, yet the industry is booming.

    Microtransactions allow the average player to "beat the game" quicker, which means they can move on to the next game the moment they get bored.
  • Gaming.Rocks2Gaming.Rocks2 Member UncommonPosts: 531
    Deliver a good game and enough contents, sub works for you. 
    There hasn't been a great game upon release that failed just because of its sub based payment model. 
    F2P is a marketing scheme, not a payment model. What sort of products do you invest your time into when you can't know how much do you have spent in the long run to enjoy it to its fullest?
    And why some say only cosmetic items are ok? Hey I care how my toon looks more than if I am doing less dmg than someone else. 
    Gaming Rocks next gen. community for last gen. gamers launching soon. 
  • ET3DET3D Member UncommonPosts: 330
    F2P managed to keep a lot of games running, and from my POV that's a good thing.
  • Gaming.Rocks2Gaming.Rocks2 Member UncommonPosts: 531
    ET3D said:
    F2P managed to keep a lot of games running, and from my POV that's a good thing.
    It has made survival easier, not good in terms of evolution. And why try to do something extraordinary when mediocre guarantees survival?
    As Carlin once said, stop childproofing your homes!
    Gaming Rocks next gen. community for last gen. gamers launching soon. 
  • VorpalChickenVorpalChicken Member CommonPosts: 2
    Personally in alot of cases I just see the F2P models as cash grabs, the whole game market has changed so much in the last 30 years, I remember when games used to cost £2.99 for a cassette, and that eventually moved to around £40 for a game, then consoles became fairly dominant and the prices were raised again (catridges cost more to produce so we need to charge more).

    Now we have digital distribution for games (ala Steam) and the prices stayed the same, with no reduction.

    The next change was then DLC, not only do you have to buy the game, but in order to stay competitive you feel you need to buy the DLC for your games.

    Roll out online games, my first one being Everquest (still playing it 17 years on lol) now subscription for an online game I can understand, there is a need (especially back in the day) to pay a sub as there are hidden costs the user can't see that the company needs to continue to pay.

    Now we have the rise of the F2P model, if you've been carefully watching the news you will have seen that several countries are beginning to investigate F2P due to complaints that some are like gambling.

    The age of gamers has also dropped, and generally kids don't have credit cards, so you can't get money out of them for subs, but mum and dad generally won't mind spending the odd £5 here and there on little johnnys game (and as a parent with 2 gamng kids I've encountered this)

    While I find F2P games to generally be worse than the old sub games, I can understand why F2P as risen to such prominence, with so many games now out there wanting cash the player base has become spread and it's only really unique IP's that have been able to hold decent player bases (aka Warcraft) and also the fact that games that would once have only required a single purchase now require multiple ones (DLC) mean that the average gamers pool of cash shrinks ever smaller, so paying a sub for one game no longer seems reasonable.
  • QuesaQuesa Member UncommonPosts: 1,432
    I see F2P the biggest problem when a game is designed with that in mind.  Seems more often than not the game design is built around you spending more money.  Conversion games (from P2P or B2P with optional sub) has a different mindset when it comes to general game design.  
    Man, I almost think it would be worse to develop a game without F2P being the payment model they want to use and then it switching over.
    Star Citizen Referral Code: STAR-DPBM-Z2P4
  • FlyinDutchman87FlyinDutchman87 Member UncommonPosts: 336
    I've personally always been a fan of P2P, but I don't hate F2P by any means. Each game has it's own goals and it's own vision of what it wants to be. The massive success of F2P in the MOBA genera as well as the other lobby based quasi-mmo's has been awesome and I enjoy a lot of those games, but I'm not sure it's the best option for a "True" MMO, if such a thing actually exists.  


    Both systems are good in their own way, but it's about what we as players want out of the genera. Personally I think the whole genera has moved in a poor direction with the rise of the modern themepark, but I'm not sure the business model is really at fault. We have, as consumers, voted with our wallets about what type of games we find interesting. We are just reaping what we have sown. 

    Just like everyone bitches about the government and wall-mart. We've the ones that voted them in, and we are the ones that shop there. Complaining the whole time about their awfulness while we hand them our money and votes.
  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,857
    I'm not so sure the business models are the reason why MMOs have changed over the years. I see the business models as the coping mechanism. Meaning MMOs went after a certain formula and that didn't work out very well. Instead of fixing the formula, the cash shops became the "quick fix"
  • vtravivtravi Member UncommonPosts: 400
    The genie is out of the bottle and there's no way to put it back. The cornerstone of F2P has always been the microtransactions (Cash Shop), and as F2P became "acceptable" to western audiences, so the microtransactions became acceptable in all games, regardless of the payment models.

    Developers and publishers benefit form microtransactions, because it takes the artificial "cap" off of what a player can spend in a game. Instead of only paying a fixed subscription fee, players can now spend thousands of dollars a month if they so choose.

    I think the horrible truth is that there's a huge number of gamers that actually like to buy their progress or power in a Cash Shop. It's like RMT: nobody will admit to using it, yet the industry is booming.

    Microtransactions allow the average player to "beat the game" quicker, which means they can move on to the next game the moment they get bored.
    100% agree
  • FrodoFraginsFrodoFragins Member EpicPosts: 6,057
    edited January 2016
    We're definitely better off.  We can jump in with these games whenever we want and not have to pay a sub.  I do avoid the games, like SWTOR, that hide everything worth doing behind an "optional" sub.  Most MMOs aren't worth paying a sub for.  I'd be more likely to pay a one time price to unlock endgame content on games like SWTOR.  I bought LOTRO lifetime sub for this reason even though I probably only broke even on that deal.

    If a game really pulls me in I buy stuff in the shop which allows the game to grow.  This has happened with Marvel Heroes, Devilian, Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm.

    WOW has set a bad precedent of barely giving any new content(after release) to subs.  They are horrible at putting this money back into the game.  they just put out the minimal required to keep them.
  • udonudon Member UncommonPosts: 1,803
    We're definitely better off.  We can jump in with these games whenever we want and not have to pay a sub.  I do avoid the games, like SWTOR, that hide everything worth doing behind an "optional" sub.  Most MMOs aren't worth paying a sub for.  I'd be more likely to pay a one time price to unlock endgame content on games like SWTOR.

    If a game really pulls me in I buy stuff in the shop which allows the game to grow.  This has happened with Marvel Heroes, Devilian, Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm.

    WOW has set a bad precedent of barely giving any new content(after release) to subs.  They are horrible at putting this money back into the game.  they just put out the minimal required to keep them.
    I'm glad your better off because I don't feel like I am.  I don't like the mechanics of the drive to the cash shop that modern MMO's have implemented.  I don't like where that pushes players to spend their time, don't like how developers have crafted things like leveling and token systems and don't like how they put incentives for F2P behavior in the games.

    F2P has turned MMO's into Single player RPG's where the inane babble of global chat has replaced the richness of a single player RPG world that can change over time based on the players actions.  They have none of the good things about what I consider MMO's and are only a shell of a good single player RPG.  At their best they incentive antisocial behavior and at their worse they punish people who want to actually spend time with other human beings in game.  
  • Tasslehoff35Tasslehoff35 Member UncommonPosts: 962
    The genie is out of the bottle and there's no way to put it back. The cornerstone of F2P has always been the microtransactions (Cash Shop), and as F2P became "acceptable" to western audiences, so the microtransactions became acceptable in all games, regardless of the payment models.

    Developers and publishers benefit form microtransactions, because it takes the artificial "cap" off of what a player can spend in a game. Instead of only paying a fixed subscription fee, players can now spend thousands of dollars a month if they so choose.

    I think the horrible truth is that there's a huge number of gamers that actually like to buy their progress or power in a Cash Shop. It's like RMT: nobody will admit to using it, yet the industry is booming.

    Microtransactions allow the average player to "beat the game" quicker, which means they can move on to the next game the moment they get bored.
    Can you list the games that allow you to buy "progress and power" in the cash shop?  Which cash shop allows "average players to beat the game quicker"?  What is "beating" in mmorpg terms to you btw? 

    Its really nice you guys have a home to cry and spout doom and gloom about mmorpgs.  But if you guys hate them so much why not just find a new hobby?  Or is your new hobby finally being accepted and feeling like part of the cool crowd by parroting the other doom and gloomers on this site? 

    They should really just change the name of this site to mmorpgs suck...it's what the vocal minority on this site spam everyday.  The truth is they represent about .0001% of the actual player base...
  • MikehaMikeha Member EpicPosts: 9,196
    edited January 2016
    The problem is the games, not the pay model. 


  • cerulean2012cerulean2012 Member UncommonPosts: 492
    Overall I like the idea of f2p/b2p as in theory they are cheaper then sub games.  Now as to if I play them or not depends on if they interest me from the beginning or not.

    Basically for any game it has to grab me within the first hour of play.  If not then I will most likely leave and not play again.  I don't care what people say about how the game starts at end game.  You still have to get to end game and there are plenty of games that I will never get there.

    Also even if a game grabs me, if there are items in the cash shop that will give players major advantages in the game then I will leave.  I rarely buy anything from cash shops (sometimes pets, mounts or cosmetic items) so I will not buy things that give advantages and I do not believe they should be in the game.

    Anyway I would rather have f2p/b2p (no monthly subs needed) but if there is nothing I want to play except a sub game then so be it.
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    I see F2P the biggest problem when a game is designed with that in mind.  Seems more often than not the game design is built around you spending more money.  Conversion games (from P2P or B2P with optional sub) has a different mindset when it comes to general game design.  

    What is the problem? On average, a whale don't purchase for 18 days. So a game has to provide at least 2-3 weeks of good free fun. Isn't that a big win for consumers?
  • Flyte27Flyte27 Member RarePosts: 4,574
    DMKano said:
    We are better off - because if mmos all stayed P2P or B2P without any cash shops - most game studios would be shut down.

    Also 10 years is wrong - cash shops really went all out in the last 5 years.

    Cash shops won in a huge way, almost all games regardless of pay model have a cash shop now - p2p, b2p, f2p is largely irrelevant. 
    That is not a bad thing IMO.  There are already to many games on the market.  Especially considering that MMOs seem to almost never go away.
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Robokapp said:
    I see F2P the biggest problem when a game is designed with that in mind.  Seems more often than not the game design is built around you spending more money.  Conversion games (from P2P or B2P with optional sub) has a different mindset when it comes to general game design.  

    What is the problem? On average, a whale don't purchase for 18 days. So a game has to provide at least 2-3 weeks of good free fun. Isn't that a big win for consumers?
    not in MMO timespans. P2Ps provide 15 days free trial.
    May be MMOs should learn to live with shorter time spans.

    Heck, it is not like they are not changing already. 
  • aRtFuLThinGaRtFuLThinG Member UncommonPosts: 1,387
    I think the rise of the b2p model has, in no small part, quite a bit to do with the rise of smartphone games as well.

    Making money from smartphone games wouldn't have been possible without it, and smartphone has seen a meteoric rise in the last 10 years.

    So I don't think MMOs and MMO players (or any biased opinions on Asian MMOs) are entirely to be blamed here - they are just chasing trends set by the market.
  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Member EpicPosts: 3,967
    I used to be totally against subscriptions because the games asking for them couldn't maintain a content schedule to justify the cost. I'd quit sub games after a month or 2 because of devs not fixing bugs or addressing issues in a timely fashion.

    After seeing how destructive the F2P model has been to the games, I wish I could take back everything I ever said about subscriptions. I'd rather play a sub game, and ditch it for a better game with a better price and allow free market competition to lower prices. I was so wrong and I didn't realize how corrupting F2P models are to these devs. They're all like Thorin Oakenshield with the dragon sickness. 

    https://youtu.be/TLA2jataDKs
    "As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*" 

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 11,843
    For the life of me i cannot understand why there has not been more reduced sub mmorpgs. $10? $5? $3? 
  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Member EpicPosts: 3,967
    bcbully said:
    For the life of me i cannot understand why there has not been more reduced sub mmorpgs. $10? $5? $3? 
    QFT.


    "As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*" 

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Phixion13Phixion13 Member UncommonPosts: 190
    First, yes I am a fanboy. Second, it is generally known Wildstar has the best F2P model out there. I think their model is what MMO players should support - no content behind paywalls, no P2W, in game currency rewarded for playing that can buy cash shop items, in game currency purchasable subscription, etc - all in all just playing the game itself can eventually unlock anything in the cash shop/subscription.
         That being said, the sub leaves a little more to be desired but are bonus's none the less.  Are there issues? Yes, but nothing they haven't worked out before and continue to do so. If I have any faith in the F2P MMO market - it is whole heartedly with Wildstar, just hope others see the potential :P
  • Charlie.CheswickCharlie.Cheswick Member UncommonPosts: 469
    The answer is No.
    -Chuckles
Sign In or Register to comment.