By paying cash it means that I get to play something that I actually enjoy. I've tried a few f2p games and they were nowhere near the standard that I want in a game.
I happen to think that 2008 was a turning point for f2p mmos and on the heels of horrible mmo deliveries that I actually and sadly had to pay for like Tabula Rasa, AoC, PotBS, WAR.
What i payed for was someone else's mistakes, lazyness, mediocrity, etc. But many in the market continue to reward poor performance with cash, thereby funding the mundane.
So why is that people feel the need to spend so much money on something that absolutely does not garner them (imho) any more content, game-play, features, graphics, community, etc. than what they can get for a f2p product today versus similar content that they get for paying for something like AoC, WAR, WoW, etc. Sure, you can pay at your discretion for a little bump in experience gain, but it in no means is a game-changing event versus the player that doesnt take advantage of an item mall either at all or as frequently. But my experience this past year is that the f2p games are offering certainly as much if not more than a single p2p title available today.
I thought of this as I read a story on Ten Ton Hammer: Runes of Magic (RoM) plays like the traditional MMOG, borrowing several of the best gameplay systems of popular AAA titles already on the market. Despite the elements it shares with its predecessors, RoM is not just a lazy copycat. It delivers a rich world that feels complete and a story to link it all together. And like Atlantica Online, RoM does not seem interested in fleecing players through its item mall. It provides an experience that gamers can enjoy without ever spending a cent, allowing those of us with more discretionary cash to finance the game. I have noted and maintained that it would take a top quality game with a big name publisher to overcome the Western prejudice against item malls, but maybe all it will take is one developer that is really committed to making a great game. As it stands now, RoM is free to download and free to play. Gamers need not worry about falling behind their friends if they don’t spend money while they pay off bills or look for a new job because the merchandise in the item mall is 100% optional. Deciding not to spend money on RoM will not deter their progression.
bah its not a western prejudice, its western wisdom, there has literally been NO GAME that has an item mall that could even be called MEDIOCRE. I mean sure this game is free but it costs 100$ a month to compete...
We'll see how good RoM is, and if its good, it proves that f2p is a viable financing system in the west (where stupid grindfests aren't rewarded, of course item malls are viable in the east). I still think the best financing method is to have in game non intrusive ads, have no or a small sub fee, and you have to pay extra if you simply do not like adds at all and want them out of the game.
guild wars is free to play...
and i think dungeon runners is too...
oh, and i'm pretty sure that hello kitty online is going to be f2p.
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
In reply to the thread's title; NO I've lost the interest in paying $50/box and $12/month a few years already. I do however, still place some reservations at seeing the downward trend happening at least to 50% lower and acceptable to the industry's norms at newer or upcoming titles. I'm optimistic at seeing that to co-exist peacefully with more f2p efforts as well.
Originally posted by Wizardry
Soooooooo,you got two games that can be released say for sake of argument on equal terms,one more polished lesser graphics,the other less polished superior graphics.Guess witch game can improve?The graphics one of course,because the F2P game is already set,and you can bet your life the graphics wil lNEVER get better,where as the better looking game,still has a chance to improve the content[case in point AOC].
Another perfect example is Vanguard,a game that has a ton of content and GREAT looks,but many complained it was not polished.Well they polished the game up,got rid of the bugs and guess what the F2P games are still the same junk,they wil lnever improve afer launch.
That's a bit of an understatement right there. If we can recall correctly, I'd categorically lump it as 1 of the greatest "post launch shitstorm" from a specific MMO community ever recorded in the annals of the mainstearm MMO industry's history. Not to mention that it was 1 of the greatest catalyst for all of these uber strong SOE haterism to date?
Not a VG fan myself but I share their relief for VG's current state of affairs...
My point is simple...Isn't it (though arguable on so many fronts but fast becoming a "classic" nevertheless) generally agreed upon that this overemphasis on graphics' pre launch impressions has been 1 of the primary cause to the overall stagnant game design discipline effect(s)? Money being the ultimate resource and motivating factor, being cut out as the biggest portion of the same pie specifically directed on graphical concerns alone has obviously choked whatever headroom's left on other core design aspects. Is it really healthy to accept this as a norm for every upcoming and AAA touted title out of the kitchen? I think not? Much more so as a properly justified reason in defense of the p2p business model?
You've named 2 titles and what about the rest? So we look at screenies and vids now, pay 1st and pray later? For how long? And how is this sensible???
I kinda agree with the OP because of 1 definitely clear thing..That the days of letting MMOs gets launched and then profit "as a problem that we can solve by throwing money at it in due time" are nearing its end. I have long argued that the standard industry formulae of "x amount of players * x amount of monthly fee * YEARS = game fixes + patches - profits" are gimping innovations and inculcates this culture of "pay us 1st then we'll see what we can do about additional content..that is..after we fix that nasty 15 bugs' list..". While I truly understand and appreciate the "massively multiplayer" elements, I could never fathom nor have I participated to exceed any offline PC title's RRP at totaling out my MMO expenses. The glaring diff is when I can't include my long time guild mates to participate in what The Elder Scrolls franchise can gratify me in solo as an example, so why should I pay equal to or worse, EXCEED that for something that's far far less packaged in replay values even in multiplayer conditions? Look to the left pane and I'm sorry if I had to repeat "old schools of MMO thinkers" whine but they're right. Longevity not graphics quality are the acceptable yardstick. Only titles like UO, DAoC, the EQ franchise and WoW has held their own. Newer ones maybe like EvE, VG (as you've aptly described), TCoS but afaik EvE didn't really stuttered post launch on a craptacular scale as VG did. To cut it short, as we can actually still see that announcements being made on more p2p efforts with debatable feasibility and players' ROI, the currently successful ones are long past their envelope pushing days no?
Or maybe even Darkfall we can exclude as to which I understand why most of their "cult members" are vocally staunch if DF can deliver just 50% of all on paper game features, graphics be damned for them? Now now I'm aggresively a carebear but like I said, they still get cookie points for being able to set proper priorities.
I happen to think that 2008 was a turning point for f2p mmos and on the heels of horrible mmo deliveries that I actually and sadly had to pay for like Tabula Rasa, AoC, PotBS, WAR.
What i payed for was someone else's mistakes, lazyness, mediocrity, etc. But many in the market continue to reward poor performance with cash, thereby funding the mundane.
So why is that people feel the need to spend so much money on something that absolutely does not garner them (imho) any more content, game-play, features, graphics, community, etc. than what they can get for a f2p product today versus similar content that they get for paying for something like AoC, WAR, WoW, etc. Sure, you can pay at your discretion for a little bump in experience gain, but it in no means is a game-changing event versus the player that doesnt take advantage of an item mall either at all or as frequently. But my experience this past year is that the f2p games are offering certainly as much if not more than a single p2p title available today.
I thought of this as I read a story on Ten Ton Hammer: Runes of Magic (RoM) plays like the traditional MMOG, borrowing several of the best gameplay systems of popular AAA titles already on the market. Despite the elements it shares with its predecessors, RoM is not just a lazy copycat. It delivers a rich world that feels complete and a story to link it all together. And like Atlantica Online, RoM does not seem interested in fleecing players through its item mall. It provides an experience that gamers can enjoy without ever spending a cent, allowing those of us with more discretionary cash to finance the game. I have noted and maintained that it would take a top quality game with a big name publisher to overcome the Western prejudice against item malls, but maybe all it will take is one developer that is really committed to making a great game. As it stands now, RoM is free to download and free to play. Gamers need not worry about falling behind their friends if they don’t spend money while they pay off bills or look for a new job because the merchandise in the item mall is 100% optional. Deciding not to spend money on RoM will not deter their progression.
bah its not a western prejudice, its western wisdom, there has literally been NO GAME that has an item mall that could even be called MEDIOCRE. I mean sure this game is free but it costs 100$ a month to compete...
We'll see how good RoM is, and if its good, it proves that f2p is a viable financing system in the west (where stupid grindfests aren't rewarded, of course item malls are viable in the east). I still think the best financing method is to have in game non intrusive ads, have no or a small sub fee, and you have to pay extra if you simply do not like adds at all and want them out of the game.
guild wars is free to play...
and i think dungeon runners is too...
oh, and i'm pretty sure that hello kitty online is going to be f2p.
Solitaire is f2p. But what does that have to with what your talking about.
There are quite a few permutations on the payment models mentioned above.
1. Pay to Buy/Expand & Pay to Play - Buy the Game/Expansions & then pay a Monthly Licence
2. Pay to Buy/Expand & Free to Play - Buy the Game/Expansions but no Monthly Fee
3. Free to Use but Pay to expand - Download & use for free, but pay to access full gane.
4. Free to Use but Pay to Enhance - Download & use for free, but pay for essentials, equipment & fluff.
5. Pay for everything & more - The SOE model, as in 1 but also pay for advantages & fluff (more to come).
MMOs like WAR & AoC fall into the first category, whereas games like Guild Wars fall into the second.
EQ & EQ2 used to also be in the first category, but now fall into the fifth category where SOE really do seem to be trying to 'Have their Cake & Eat it Too'.
The third category is really just a variant on the second but with a different 'free trial' mechanism, but the fourth category is the one causing all the fuss, because in these revenue is dependant on RMT.
The OPs thread title is a deliberate attempt at spinning normal payment models to sound expensive as compared to other methods. Certainly 'Models 2 & 3' have a clear advantage over 'Model 1', so in those cases it is really a matter of personal preference whether the extra monthly fee is justified buy the quality of game play. I currently play WAR, but have tried 'Guild Wars' in the past. GW was a reasonably good game but I just couldn't get into it, my personal preference.
How about if we rephrase the thread title as 'Why the growing interest in paying $5 every couple of hours'?
In my opinion, RMT based games are based on the 'Mosquito Principal'. Developers asume that players won't notice how those little bites accumulate until it gets to the end of the month & they realise they have lost several pints of blood. It is of course possible to play these games & pay nothing at all, but that is similar to saying that it is possible for someone with no money to live off free 'finger food' in Las Vegas.
The simple reason why Western players prefer monthly fees over RMT is that they enjoy themselves more when they don't feel like their entire experience is oriented around trying to get them to spend as much money as possible. A monthly fee allows them to see exactly how much they will be paying in advance & if it doesn't seem worth it they can just quit & find something else.
Monthly fee based games rely on players sticking with a title for quite a while, whereas those based on RMT don't really care how long players hang around as long as they spend money before they go. It simply isn't true that RMT shops only sell cosmetic items. In games that depend on RMT, refusing to buy items from the shop is like playing with one arm tied behind your back or worse.
Does anyone really believe that developers like RMT shops because they are more player friendly?
Companies like SOE have openly admitted that they prefer RMT because they think players can be coerced into paying out far more than they would on a monthly fee. Newbies might play completely free for a while, but in later stages people would probably start paying to keep up with other players.
To use a food analogy, in a monthly fee based game you are paying for a 'Balanced Set menu', whereas in RMT based games you get 'Basic Rations' but everything else is extra.
Never has the phrase 'There is no such thing as a Free Lunch' been more true!
Just my opinions of course.
If you can't "Have your cake & eat it too", then how can "The proof of the pudding be in the eating"?
I would rather pay for something thats enjoyable then waste my time on a free to play game that cant hold my interest. When I am playing EQ2, or WAR, or whatever, I am getting my moneys worth out of it because a $50 one time charge plus $15 a month its a hell of a lot cheaper then paying $30-60 a week for a new pc or console game that I beat by weeks end. If they ever make a f2p game that has content and is enjoyable I will play it but so far that has yet to happen.
When I pay 14.95 I can play the game for a month. I can play the game as little or as much as I want. I'm paying for worry fee 24/7 access to the game, without it being an accounting of how much I spend in an item mall. I know exactly what I'm spending, 14.95, and what I'm getting for it, 24/7 access.
If you have an item mall, this is how it works fro me. Log on. Buy every good item in the game for a thousand bucks. GAme over.
In reply to the thread's title; NO I've lost the interest in paying $50/box and $12/month a few years already. I do however, still place some reservations at seeing the downward trend happening at least to 50% lower and acceptable to the industry's norms at newer or upcoming titles. I'm optimistic at seeing that to co-exist peacefully with more f2p efforts as well. Originally posted by Wizardry Soooooooo,you got two games that can be released say for sake of argument on equal terms,one more polished lesser graphics,the other less polished superior graphics.Guess witch game can improve?The graphics one of course,because the F2P game is already set,and you can bet your life the graphics wil lNEVER get better,where as the better looking game,still has a chance to improve the content[case in point AOC]. Another perfect example is Vanguard,a game that has a ton of content and GREAT looks,but many complained it was not polished.Well they polished the game up,got rid of the bugs and guess what the F2P games are still the same junk,they wil lnever improve afer launch. That's a bit of an understatement right there. If we can recall correctly, I'd categorically lump it as 1 of the greatest "post launch shitstorm" from a specific MMO community ever recorded in the annals of the mainstearm MMO industry's history. Not to mention that it was 1 of the greatest catalyst for all of these uber strong SOE haterism to date? Not a VG fan myself but I share their relief for VG's current state of affairs... My point is simple...Isn't it (though arguable on so many fronts but fast becoming a "classic" nevertheless) generally agreed upon that this overemphasis on graphics' pre launch impressions has been 1 of the primary cause to the overall stagnant game design discipline effect(s)? Money being the ultimate resource and motivating factor, being cut out as the biggest portion of the same pie specifically directed on graphical concerns alone has obviously choked whatever headroom's left on other core design aspects. Is it really healthy to accept this as a norm for every upcoming and AAA touted title out of the kitchen? I think not? Much more so as a properly justified reason in defense of the p2p business model? You've named 2 titles and what about the rest? So we look at screenies and vids now, pay 1st and pray later? For how long? And how is this sensible??? I kinda agree with the OP because of 1 definitely clear thing..That the days of letting MMOs gets launched and then profit "as a problem that we can solve by throwing money at it in due time" are nearing its end. I have long argued that the standard industry formulae of "x amount of players * x amount of monthly fee * YEARS = game fixes + patches - profits" are gimping innovations and inculcates this culture of "pay us 1st then we'll see what we can do about additional content..that is..after we fix that nasty 15 bugs' list..". While I truly understand and appreciate the "massively multiplayer" elements, I could never fathom nor have I participated to exceed any offline PC title's RRP at totaling out my MMO expenses. The glaring diff is when I can't include my long time guild mates to participate in what The Elder Scrolls franchise can gratify me in solo as an example, so why should I pay equal to or worse, EXCEED that for something that's far far less packaged in replay values even in multiplayer conditions? Look to the left pane and I'm sorry if I had to repeat "old schools of MMO thinkers" whine but they're right. Longevity not graphics quality are the acceptable yardstick. Only titles like UO, DAoC, the EQ franchise and WoW has held their own. Newer ones maybe like EvE, VG (as you've aptly described), TCoS but afaik EvE didn't really stuttered post launch on a craptacular scale as VG did. To cut it short, as we can actually still see that announcements being made on more p2p efforts with debatable feasibility and players' ROI, the currently successful ones are long past their envelope pushing days no? Or maybe even Darkfall we can exclude as to which I understand why most of their "cult members" are vocally staunch if DF can deliver just 50% of all on paper game features, graphics be damned for them? Now now I'm aggresively a carebear but like I said, they still get cookie points for being able to set proper priorities.
chaki is right about vanguard.
it wasn't that vanguard wasn't polished. it was INCOMPLETE.
edit:
for those who would say: "oh mmos are never complete, they're always a work in progress". <<< this is the second lie that i'm fed up with hearing. that is utter and complete nonsense.
why? oh, if it's never complete then i can never play it and it should never go to retail. i don't buy an incomplete car, tv, dog, washer/dryer. my dog is always GROWING and CHANGING, but that doesn't mean my dog is incomplete.
see those little warning "gaming experience may change", does it say "gaming experience may be incomplete?" why doesn't it? i've seen devs whine like morons "oh an mmo is never really complete" BULL-HOCKEY.
i don't feel like making a five page rant on how completely idiotic that nonsense is - so let me just say - it is completely idiotic and on a gargantuan scale.
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
I'm sorry I have a job there for I prefer P2p mmos that actually give me content, an active dev team and no cash shops.
While You may think WAR, WoW and a few other F2p MMOs dont give you anything F2p games do. thats your opinion.
WAR,WoW, EQ2, LotRO, EvE, CoX all give me tons of content.
You could add the content together of Atlantica, RoM and a crappy game like requiem together and they still dont compete a Game like AoC (and Aoc is a average mmo at best).
When I pay 14.95 I can play the game for a month. I can play the game as little or as much as I want. I'm paying for worry fee 24/7 access to the game, without it being an accounting of how much I spend in an item mall. I know exactly what I'm spending, 14.95, and what I'm getting for it, 24/7 access. If you have an item mall, this is how it works fro me. Log on. Buy every good item in the game for a thousand bucks. GAme over.
That's just not very much gameplay for the price.
*looks around* "rofl* *clears throat*
Ohh - hi. So you can pay 15 bucks and play as little or as much as you'd like. *psssttt* Guess what...i can play as little or as much as I want for $0. Call me crazy. And as for the item mall issue, ignorance is bliss if you have this false impression that you can buy yourself to advancement at all -- thats not how it works in the slightest.
When I pay 14.95 I can play the game for a month. I can play the game as little or as much as I want. I'm paying for worry fee 24/7 access to the game, without it being an accounting of how much I spend in an item mall. I know exactly what I'm spending, 14.95, and what I'm getting for it, 24/7 access. If you have an item mall, this is how it works fro me. Log on. Buy every good item in the game for a thousand bucks. GAme over.
That's just not very much gameplay for the price.
*looks around* "rofl* *clears throat*
Ohh - hi. So you can pay 15 bucks and play as little or as much as you'd like. *psssttt* Guess what...i can play as little or as much as I want for $0. Call me crazy. And as for the item mall issue, ignorance is bliss if you have this false impression that you can buy yourself to advancement at all -- thats not how it works in the slightest.
Then what can you buy?
I"ve played few f2p games, and I thought $0 was too much. They should have been paying me to play. A lot.
Supposedly free to play games are not free. In fact they will cost you a lot more to play than a regular flat subscription rate game. You can't be competitive with other players on a fair level playing field unless you spend a lot of money with microtransactions in an item shop game.
I will NEVER play a MMOG that has microtransactions.
I'm sorry I have a job there for I prefer P2p mmos that actually give me content, an active dev team and no cash shops.
While You may think WAR, WoW and a few other F2p MMOs dont give you anything F2p games do. thats your opinion. WAR,WoW, EQ2, LotRO, EvE, CoX all give me tons of content. You could add the content together of Atlantica, RoM and a crappy game like requiem together and they still dont compete a Game like AoC (and Aoc is a average mmo at best). You get what you pay for.
Ohh no, sorry. The point was that the pay $50 for a box and $15/month games dont have content...they sure do. But, Atlantica Online and RoM have full-time active developers and as much content, game-play, graphics eye-candy, community, and depth as those WoW, WAR, AoC, etc. I think.
Again, a cash-shop is not a game-play character advancement opportunity either; their minor game-play perks that you can reward yourself with by making an appreciative monetary contribution to the game at your discretion. So rather than me, which I sadly did, purchase AoC and pay for 3 months to find out that the content was a re-skin of whats already available with nothing really unique other than i have to mash more buttons for a single melee move and I can be attacked anywhere at any time without purpose, consequences or game-play advantage...well, the f2p games even look that much better when I can get a little more for far less invested.
When I pay 14.95 I can play the game for a month. I can play the game as little or as much as I want. I'm paying for worry fee 24/7 access to the game, without it being an accounting of how much I spend in an item mall. I know exactly what I'm spending, 14.95, and what I'm getting for it, 24/7 access. If you have an item mall, this is how it works fro me. Log on. Buy every good item in the game for a thousand bucks. GAme over.
That's just not very much gameplay for the price.
*looks around* "rofl* *clears throat*
Ohh - hi. So you can pay 15 bucks and play as little or as much as you'd like. *psssttt* Guess what...i can play as little or as much as I want for $0. Call me crazy. And as for the item mall issue, ignorance is bliss if you have this false impression that you can buy yourself to advancement at all -- thats not how it works in the slightest.
Then what can you buy?
I"ve played few f2p games, and I thought $0 was too much. They should have been paying me to play. A lot.
No kidding....ive played some of those 2, but very few are worth the smaller investment...you cant purchase armor or weapons, but where in a P2P game you might be able to craft a teleportation scroll while paying all the game-play fees, you buy for 3 bucks that has a 3-month use for example. So minor things really that might take the edge off travel. But essentially, the same game-play content without buying your way to character advancement.
Supposedly free to play games are not free. I will NEVER play a MMOG that has microtransactions.
Thats right....lets not try to spin the acronym and please dont come off so superior as though someone is baiting you. No one is.
You're playing mmo's that have a macro transaction versus a micro transaction system....i happen to think that the micro works in todays environment where the macro transactions I shelled out resulted in disappointment like Tabula Rasa, AoC, WAR...WoW I played to 60 over 6 months and got bored. /shrugs
So now I can play and pay at my discretion and at my own pace where the developers get paid based on their delivery and quality, I think....the consumer is more in charge rather than the developers charging you for something that isn't as advertised.
FREE???? what is this word 'FREE'. Last time I saw the word and utilized it, it cost me more money than I would like to admit to spending on the said 'FREE' item...
Personally I have to say that between everything and with the way the post is set up, I do feel that purchasing the game for said retail price ($50 for example) is a little rediculous when you stop to consider that your going to be paying upwards to $180 per year just to play the game (not including the said free service and/or multiple accounts).
I do like the approach I have been seeing with some of the newer games, as well as a game that I've been playing (Eve) where you paid $20 for your first month and then $15 for each subsequant month, oh and you don't have to pay for the expansions/upgrades (groan to think of the money I spent for Everquest).
I personally believe in the entire bit of paying for ongoing games just due to the fact that you (generally speaking) will have people who will put more effort in the product because of the steady income that they will be getting.
FREE???? what is this word 'FREE'. Last time I saw the word and utilized it, it cost me more money than I would like to admit to spending on the said 'FREE' item... Personally I have to say that between everything and with the way the post is set up, I do feel that purchasing the game for said retail price ($50 for example) is a little rediculous when you stop to consider that your going to be paying upwards to $180 per year just to play the game (not including the said free service and/or multiple accounts). I do like the approach I have been seeing with some of the newer games, as well as a game that I've been playing (Eve) where you paid $20 for your first month and then $15 for each subsequant month, oh and you don't have to pay for the expansions/upgrades (groan to think of the money I spent for Everquest). I personally believe in the entire bit of paying for ongoing games just due to the fact that you (generally speaking) will have people who will put more effort in the product because of the steady income that they will be getting.
Although I played EVE for a short while when it first came out, I wasn't aware that they were replacing the initial purchase fee by phasing it into the first months rental now, that is a great idea!
If other subscription based games followed suit & phased the initial cost into the first few months rental rather than including the first month rental in the box, that would be an excellent idea. With no production costs for an actual box, they wouldn't have to charge as much for the software either.
In theory more people might try it from launch rather than wait several months for the free trial & since I have heard that the distributors usually end up pocketing most of the profits from box sales it could even give them a better ROI whilst being more attractive to new players.
I think there are many ways that developers can use to charge for gaming time, I also believe that monthly fees encourage developers to put more effort in to keeping the product interesting. When compared to RL activities they aren't that expensive either.
I doubt I will ever agree with RMT based games though as without even going into the quality, they just seem to be contrived to force people to overspend in order to fully enjoy the game, at least to me anyway.
I also played EQ/EQ2 for many years & my son still does. The thing that most annoyed me the most about the way they cost recent expansions is that they now always include absolutely everything & don't offer an incremental version for loyal players that already own all the previous ones. I think it is a great idea for new players to be able to get all the material at once, but why make loyal subscribers feel that they are being ripped off? Since virtual items cost literally nothing to create, they could at least offer a free 'Wall Scroll' saying 'There is a Sucker Born Every Minute', but I guess that is SOE for you.
Just my opinions of course.
If you can't "Have your cake & eat it too", then how can "The proof of the pudding be in the eating"?
Comments
Plus, $50 a game and $20/month for xbox live is the exact same thing, no? (But more expensive)
By paying cash it means that I get to play something that I actually enjoy. I've tried a few f2p games and they were nowhere near the standard that I want in a game.
bah its not a western prejudice, its western wisdom, there has literally been NO GAME that has an item mall that could even be called MEDIOCRE. I mean sure this game is free but it costs 100$ a month to compete...
We'll see how good RoM is, and if its good, it proves that f2p is a viable financing system in the west (where stupid grindfests aren't rewarded, of course item malls are viable in the east). I still think the best financing method is to have in game non intrusive ads, have no or a small sub fee, and you have to pay extra if you simply do not like adds at all and want them out of the game.
guild wars is free to play...
and i think dungeon runners is too...
oh, and i'm pretty sure that hello kitty online is going to be f2p.
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
In reply to the thread's title; NO I've lost the interest in paying $50/box and $12/month a few years already. I do however, still place some reservations at seeing the downward trend happening at least to 50% lower and acceptable to the industry's norms at newer or upcoming titles. I'm optimistic at seeing that to co-exist peacefully with more f2p efforts as well.
Originally posted by Wizardry
Soooooooo,you got two games that can be released say for sake of argument on equal terms,one more polished lesser graphics,the other less polished superior graphics.Guess witch game can improve?The graphics one of course,because the F2P game is already set,and you can bet your life the graphics wil lNEVER get better,where as the better looking game,still has a chance to improve the content[case in point AOC].
Another perfect example is Vanguard,a game that has a ton of content and GREAT looks,but many complained it was not polished.Well they polished the game up,got rid of the bugs and guess what the F2P games are still the same junk,they wil lnever improve afer launch.
That's a bit of an understatement right there. If we can recall correctly, I'd categorically lump it as 1 of the greatest "post launch shitstorm" from a specific MMO community ever recorded in the annals of the mainstearm MMO industry's history. Not to mention that it was 1 of the greatest catalyst for all of these uber strong SOE haterism to date?
Not a VG fan myself but I share their relief for VG's current state of affairs...
My point is simple...Isn't it (though arguable on so many fronts but fast becoming a "classic" nevertheless) generally agreed upon that this overemphasis on graphics' pre launch impressions has been 1 of the primary cause to the overall stagnant game design discipline effect(s)? Money being the ultimate resource and motivating factor, being cut out as the biggest portion of the same pie specifically directed on graphical concerns alone has obviously choked whatever headroom's left on other core design aspects. Is it really healthy to accept this as a norm for every upcoming and AAA touted title out of the kitchen? I think not? Much more so as a properly justified reason in defense of the p2p business model?
You've named 2 titles and what about the rest? So we look at screenies and vids now, pay 1st and pray later? For how long? And how is this sensible???
I kinda agree with the OP because of 1 definitely clear thing..That the days of letting MMOs gets launched and then profit "as a problem that we can solve by throwing money at it in due time" are nearing its end. I have long argued that the standard industry formulae of "x amount of players * x amount of monthly fee * YEARS = game fixes + patches - profits" are gimping innovations and inculcates this culture of "pay us 1st then we'll see what we can do about additional content..that is..after we fix that nasty 15 bugs' list..". While I truly understand and appreciate the "massively multiplayer" elements, I could never fathom nor have I participated to exceed any offline PC title's RRP at totaling out my MMO expenses. The glaring diff is when I can't include my long time guild mates to participate in what The Elder Scrolls franchise can gratify me in solo as an example, so why should I pay equal to or worse, EXCEED that for something that's far far less packaged in replay values even in multiplayer conditions? Look to the left pane and I'm sorry if I had to repeat "old schools of MMO thinkers" whine but they're right. Longevity not graphics quality are the acceptable yardstick. Only titles like UO, DAoC, the EQ franchise and WoW has held their own. Newer ones maybe like EvE, VG (as you've aptly described), TCoS but afaik EvE didn't really stuttered post launch on a craptacular scale as VG did. To cut it short, as we can actually still see that announcements being made on more p2p efforts with debatable feasibility and players' ROI, the currently successful ones are long past their envelope pushing days no?
Or maybe even Darkfall we can exclude as to which I understand why most of their "cult members" are vocally staunch if DF can deliver just 50% of all on paper game features, graphics be damned for them? Now now I'm aggresively a carebear but like I said, they still get cookie points for being able to set proper priorities.
bah its not a western prejudice, its western wisdom, there has literally been NO GAME that has an item mall that could even be called MEDIOCRE. I mean sure this game is free but it costs 100$ a month to compete...
We'll see how good RoM is, and if its good, it proves that f2p is a viable financing system in the west (where stupid grindfests aren't rewarded, of course item malls are viable in the east). I still think the best financing method is to have in game non intrusive ads, have no or a small sub fee, and you have to pay extra if you simply do not like adds at all and want them out of the game.
guild wars is free to play...
and i think dungeon runners is too...
oh, and i'm pretty sure that hello kitty online is going to be f2p.
Solitaire is f2p. But what does that have to with what your talking about.
I do not support stupidity or weakness. Sorry.
Well, you might not. But somebody obviously does.
There are quite a few permutations on the payment models mentioned above.
1. Pay to Buy/Expand & Pay to Play - Buy the Game/Expansions & then pay a Monthly Licence
2. Pay to Buy/Expand & Free to Play - Buy the Game/Expansions but no Monthly Fee
3. Free to Use but Pay to expand - Download & use for free, but pay to access full gane.
4. Free to Use but Pay to Enhance - Download & use for free, but pay for essentials, equipment & fluff.
5. Pay for everything & more - The SOE model, as in 1 but also pay for advantages & fluff (more to come).
MMOs like WAR & AoC fall into the first category, whereas games like Guild Wars fall into the second.
EQ & EQ2 used to also be in the first category, but now fall into the fifth category where SOE really do seem to be trying to 'Have their Cake & Eat it Too'.
The third category is really just a variant on the second but with a different 'free trial' mechanism, but the fourth category is the one causing all the fuss, because in these revenue is dependant on RMT.
The OPs thread title is a deliberate attempt at spinning normal payment models to sound expensive as compared to other methods. Certainly 'Models 2 & 3' have a clear advantage over 'Model 1', so in those cases it is really a matter of personal preference whether the extra monthly fee is justified buy the quality of game play. I currently play WAR, but have tried 'Guild Wars' in the past. GW was a reasonably good game but I just couldn't get into it, my personal preference.
How about if we rephrase the thread title as 'Why the growing interest in paying $5 every couple of hours'?
In my opinion, RMT based games are based on the 'Mosquito Principal'. Developers asume that players won't notice how those little bites accumulate until it gets to the end of the month & they realise they have lost several pints of blood. It is of course possible to play these games & pay nothing at all, but that is similar to saying that it is possible for someone with no money to live off free 'finger food' in Las Vegas.
The simple reason why Western players prefer monthly fees over RMT is that they enjoy themselves more when they don't feel like their entire experience is oriented around trying to get them to spend as much money as possible. A monthly fee allows them to see exactly how much they will be paying in advance & if it doesn't seem worth it they can just quit & find something else.
Monthly fee based games rely on players sticking with a title for quite a while, whereas those based on RMT don't really care how long players hang around as long as they spend money before they go. It simply isn't true that RMT shops only sell cosmetic items. In games that depend on RMT, refusing to buy items from the shop is like playing with one arm tied behind your back or worse.
Does anyone really believe that developers like RMT shops because they are more player friendly?
Companies like SOE have openly admitted that they prefer RMT because they think players can be coerced into paying out far more than they would on a monthly fee. Newbies might play completely free for a while, but in later stages people would probably start paying to keep up with other players.
To use a food analogy, in a monthly fee based game you are paying for a 'Balanced Set menu', whereas in RMT based games you get 'Basic Rations' but everything else is extra.
Never has the phrase 'There is no such thing as a Free Lunch' been more true!
Just my opinions of course.
If you can't "Have your cake & eat it too", then how can "The proof of the pudding be in the eating"?
Take the Hecatomb? TCG What Is Your Doom? quiz.
I would rather pay for something thats enjoyable then waste my time on a free to play game that cant hold my interest. When I am playing EQ2, or WAR, or whatever, I am getting my moneys worth out of it because a $50 one time charge plus $15 a month its a hell of a lot cheaper then paying $30-60 a week for a new pc or console game that I beat by weeks end. If they ever make a f2p game that has content and is enjoyable I will play it but so far that has yet to happen.
Warp
When I pay 14.95 I can play the game for a month. I can play the game as little or as much as I want. I'm paying for worry fee 24/7 access to the game, without it being an accounting of how much I spend in an item mall. I know exactly what I'm spending, 14.95, and what I'm getting for it, 24/7 access.
If you have an item mall, this is how it works fro me. Log on. Buy every good item in the game for a thousand bucks. GAme over.
That's just not very much gameplay for the price.
chaki is right about vanguard.
it wasn't that vanguard wasn't polished. it was INCOMPLETE.
edit:
for those who would say: "oh mmos are never complete, they're always a work in progress". <<< this is the second lie that i'm fed up with hearing. that is utter and complete nonsense.
why? oh, if it's never complete then i can never play it and it should never go to retail. i don't buy an incomplete car, tv, dog, washer/dryer. my dog is always GROWING and CHANGING, but that doesn't mean my dog is incomplete.
see those little warning "gaming experience may change", does it say "gaming experience may be incomplete?" why doesn't it? i've seen devs whine like morons "oh an mmo is never really complete" BULL-HOCKEY.
i don't feel like making a five page rant on how completely idiotic that nonsense is - so let me just say - it is completely idiotic and on a gargantuan scale.
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
I'm sorry I have a job there for I prefer P2p mmos that actually give me content, an active dev team and no cash shops.
While You may think WAR, WoW and a few other F2p MMOs dont give you anything F2p games do. thats your opinion.
WAR,WoW, EQ2, LotRO, EvE, CoX all give me tons of content.
You could add the content together of Atlantica, RoM and a crappy game like requiem together and they still dont compete a Game like AoC (and Aoc is a average mmo at best).
You get what you pay for.
PLaying: EvE, Ryzom
Waiting For: Earthrise, Perpetuum
*looks around* "rofl* *clears throat*
Ohh - hi. So you can pay 15 bucks and play as little or as much as you'd like. *psssttt* Guess what...i can play as little or as much as I want for $0. Call me crazy. And as for the item mall issue, ignorance is bliss if you have this false impression that you can buy yourself to advancement at all -- thats not how it works in the slightest.
*looks around* "rofl* *clears throat*
Ohh - hi. So you can pay 15 bucks and play as little or as much as you'd like. *psssttt* Guess what...i can play as little or as much as I want for $0. Call me crazy. And as for the item mall issue, ignorance is bliss if you have this false impression that you can buy yourself to advancement at all -- thats not how it works in the slightest.
Then what can you buy?
I"ve played few f2p games, and I thought $0 was too much. They should have been paying me to play. A lot.
Supposedly free to play games are not free. In fact they will cost you a lot more to play than a regular flat subscription rate game. You can't be competitive with other players on a fair level playing field unless you spend a lot of money with microtransactions in an item shop game.
I will NEVER play a MMOG that has microtransactions.
Ohh no, sorry. The point was that the pay $50 for a box and $15/month games dont have content...they sure do. But, Atlantica Online and RoM have full-time active developers and as much content, game-play, graphics eye-candy, community, and depth as those WoW, WAR, AoC, etc. I think.
Again, a cash-shop is not a game-play character advancement opportunity either; their minor game-play perks that you can reward yourself with by making an appreciative monetary contribution to the game at your discretion. So rather than me, which I sadly did, purchase AoC and pay for 3 months to find out that the content was a re-skin of whats already available with nothing really unique other than i have to mash more buttons for a single melee move and I can be attacked anywhere at any time without purpose, consequences or game-play advantage...well, the f2p games even look that much better when I can get a little more for far less invested.
*looks around* "rofl* *clears throat*
Ohh - hi. So you can pay 15 bucks and play as little or as much as you'd like. *psssttt* Guess what...i can play as little or as much as I want for $0. Call me crazy. And as for the item mall issue, ignorance is bliss if you have this false impression that you can buy yourself to advancement at all -- thats not how it works in the slightest.
Then what can you buy?
I"ve played few f2p games, and I thought $0 was too much. They should have been paying me to play. A lot.
No kidding....ive played some of those 2, but very few are worth the smaller investment...you cant purchase armor or weapons, but where in a P2P game you might be able to craft a teleportation scroll while paying all the game-play fees, you buy for 3 bucks that has a 3-month use for example. So minor things really that might take the edge off travel. But essentially, the same game-play content without buying your way to character advancement.
Thats right....lets not try to spin the acronym and please dont come off so superior as though someone is baiting you. No one is.
You're playing mmo's that have a macro transaction versus a micro transaction system....i happen to think that the micro works in todays environment where the macro transactions I shelled out resulted in disappointment like Tabula Rasa, AoC, WAR...WoW I played to 60 over 6 months and got bored. /shrugs
So now I can play and pay at my discretion and at my own pace where the developers get paid based on their delivery and quality, I think....the consumer is more in charge rather than the developers charging you for something that isn't as advertised.
FREE???? what is this word 'FREE'. Last time I saw the word and utilized it, it cost me more money than I would like to admit to spending on the said 'FREE' item...
Personally I have to say that between everything and with the way the post is set up, I do feel that purchasing the game for said retail price ($50 for example) is a little rediculous when you stop to consider that your going to be paying upwards to $180 per year just to play the game (not including the said free service and/or multiple accounts).
I do like the approach I have been seeing with some of the newer games, as well as a game that I've been playing (Eve) where you paid $20 for your first month and then $15 for each subsequant month, oh and you don't have to pay for the expansions/upgrades (groan to think of the money I spent for Everquest).
I personally believe in the entire bit of paying for ongoing games just due to the fact that you (generally speaking) will have people who will put more effort in the product because of the steady income that they will be getting.
Although I played EVE for a short while when it first came out, I wasn't aware that they were replacing the initial purchase fee by phasing it into the first months rental now, that is a great idea!
If other subscription based games followed suit & phased the initial cost into the first few months rental rather than including the first month rental in the box, that would be an excellent idea. With no production costs for an actual box, they wouldn't have to charge as much for the software either.
In theory more people might try it from launch rather than wait several months for the free trial & since I have heard that the distributors usually end up pocketing most of the profits from box sales it could even give them a better ROI whilst being more attractive to new players.
I think there are many ways that developers can use to charge for gaming time, I also believe that monthly fees encourage developers to put more effort in to keeping the product interesting. When compared to RL activities they aren't that expensive either.
I doubt I will ever agree with RMT based games though as without even going into the quality, they just seem to be contrived to force people to overspend in order to fully enjoy the game, at least to me anyway.
I also played EQ/EQ2 for many years & my son still does. The thing that most annoyed me the most about the way they cost recent expansions is that they now always include absolutely everything & don't offer an incremental version for loyal players that already own all the previous ones. I think it is a great idea for new players to be able to get all the material at once, but why make loyal subscribers feel that they are being ripped off? Since virtual items cost literally nothing to create, they could at least offer a free 'Wall Scroll' saying 'There is a Sucker Born Every Minute', but I guess that is SOE for you.
Just my opinions of course.
If you can't "Have your cake & eat it too", then how can "The proof of the pudding be in the eating"?
Take the Hecatomb? TCG What Is Your Doom? quiz.