Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
F2P... Phasing out the rest of us?
jonrd463
Member UncommonPosts: 607
This is not a conspiracy theory. I just wanted to make that clear. Just some obsevation and an invitation for discussion.
It seems that for every P2P MMO that's in the works there's about 10 F2P games out there. Evidently, it's profitable enough that more and more people are coming on board. Some of us, myself in particular since I can't speak for others, essentially stop reading game descriptions right about at the part where it says "[Game X] is a new Free to Play MMO by...", and this has me concerned that innovation in P2P games is going to slow to a trickle as pie charts and market trends show that demand for F2P is on the rise.
What, then, for us? Are we approaching an "adapt or die" precipice in our favorite pastime? Or, to take a more optimistic view, will the opposite of what I mention above happen-- namely that P2P developers will adapt to new, revolutionary designs in order to attract paying customers? Or will they decide it's too risky with so many F2P games coming out?
The merits of P2P vs. F2P have been discussed at length on these boards and it's safe to say that, with a few exceptions, we're either for them or against them. Are we heading to a point where a new crop of "old timers" will bitterly and cynically post thread after thread bitching about how the old days of P2P games were a golden age in their own right?
What do you think?
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
Comments
I don't find it too concerning, really.
People are flocking to F2Ps because the recent crop of P2Ps has been pretty dire.
One only has to look at the level of initial interest games like AoC and WAR received to know that the market for P2P games is still healthy and well. All we really need is the P2P developers to up their games and deliver a quality product worth payin' for.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
Good points, but I don't think there will ever be a "completed game" on release day. Too many variables at play that no amount of beta testing can weed out. Patches are inevitable, as well as the natural evolution of expansions and whatnot. I think it's really a matter of someone having the talent to do something revolutionary and the capital investors willing to take the risks. DIKU style is getting long in the tooth. Something else needs to emerge that changes things up enough to be new and fresh but still can be considered an RPG.
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
i bet to disagree, since more and more F2P games are being out in the market every month there's a new or innovated games that comes out. It just happen that some gamers are being stick on the P2P game they are playing since they cost them lesser than the F2P games however the emerging numbers of new F2P games are the mere proof that they are not phasing out.
Let me just suggest this. If a F2P game comes out that sounds the least bit interesting to you, download it, and play it for one hour. Spend zero money, enter no cc info. During that hour, look at what is offered in the cash shop and then decide if it breaks your rules for what is acceptable. Do not simply turn your nose against every F2P game, or you might miss the odd gem.
I think this is correct. The economics will dictate. The ten ton gorilla in the market is WoW, and it's P2P.
There is a segment of gamers that will pay a monthly fee, and this model is very profitable if you have a popular game. The trick is making a popular game.
AoC and WAR were just not good games. I can't speak for AoC becaues I didn't play it, but I did play WAR and it was a big disappointment.
Instanced PvP with RvR? What the heck were they thinking? I wouldn't play it for free, and I certainly wouldn't pay for it.
I think TOR will be a subscription based game, and it's the next release that has a chance of redeeming the P2P model for investors.
I think the duel model is also viable. Release a P2P server, and a F2P server. You compete in both markets, using the same art assets, quests, etc.
Here's why that doesn't really work. F2P games are designed in a specific fashion. If you watch interviews of the developers of F2P games, they don't expect players to buy items in the first month or two of the game.
They know someone is not going to log onto to a game, and with a 1st level character they have invested only an hour of time into, start breaking out the credit card and buying items.
It's only after you develop a connection to the character, and when you go up in levels and things start to get a bit more grindy, that players start to think about buying items.
So playing an hour does nothing, since the game is not designed for you to buy items in the first hour of game play in the first place.
My level of acceptance is just ZERO items offered in a cash shop.
If the items are offered, and people buy them, then they must be worthwhile correct? So I wouldnt' want to play a game and not have access to worthwhile items in the game.
However, I don't like being nickeled and dimed.
To me, the cash shop is like you go to a restaurant.
If the waiter said, your dinner is 14.95. You get a steak, a baked potato, some green beans and a salad, I would say fine. That sounds good.
But, if the waiter said, you want a fork? That's 50 cents. You want some green beans? 4.95. Some salt? 75 cents. You want a napkin? 35 cents. ......
I would have a horrible experience and never eat there, even if the total came to 13.95.
You can't innovate the basis of F2P games. It will always be use the cash shop or be unable to participate fully. All they ever change is the wrapper the core mechanic is static.
Yeah that's kind of the trap, isn't it.
If a developer is going to make a game where their income depends on getting people to pull out the credit card to buy individual items... they better damn well make sure those items are deemed necessary, or at least desirable enough by the players to do so. And they better make sure enough of them feel that way on an ongoing basis, or they ain't payin' the electric bill this month, so to speak.
Thus... and this is only looking at the situation from - at least to me - a realistic point-of-view... the game has to be designed with mechanics in place so people will find those items necessary...
Many people treat MMOs as nothing but a level grind to the end.... So, they make the grind longer and slower and more difficult, then dangle these xp potions in front of them to say "Hey look... these will make it easier! Just pay us $5!" (or whatever the price is).
Many players have expressed that they hate dealing with a death penalty that results in lost xp or weakness... or anything that slows their progress or hampers their "fun".. So the developers put a penalty in place, then dangle these items in front of their faces "want to do away with that pesky death penalty? We have something for that! $5 please!"
Inventory... another thing that is seemingly always in short supply in just about any MMO ... I've tried a few F2P MMOs that leave the player with a deliberately small amt of inventory space.. but then expect them to carry around a number of items, several of which don't stack... then dangle the solution in front of them... "Having trouble carrying around everything you need to? We have expanded inventory in the item shop! $5 please! BTW, It's only temporary so you'll have to purchase it again if you want to keep the space in the future"
In Perfect World, there were these "megaphones" (or something like that). They were consumed on use and were the only way to talk to the global chat channel. Using the global chat channel, as it turns out, was the only way to have a GM contact you at that time as well (hopefully they fixed that). "Want to talk to people elsewhere in the world? Want to request help globally with something? Need in-game help from a GM? We have something for that in our item shop! $5 please!"
And on and on... HP and MP charms to give you more survivability and less "hands on" maintenance of your health and mana pools... temporary Mounts (also something approaching a necessity when you have to travel long distances and there's no alternate route other than on foot)... and so forth..
F2P are literally a "nickel and dime the player for as long as they're playing" approach.
On the other hand...
P2P MMOs can't nickel and dime (except those like EQ2 with in-game Item shops,which is a whole other kind of BS... but that's another rant). They have to earn the players' monthly sub, and so they must provide content that keeps the player playing and enjoying themselves at least enough to keep playing. Instead of so much of your character's in-game experience being driven by real world transactions (let it not be forgotten that item malls are basically that... sanctioned RMT), the developer instead makes such things obtainable by playing the game and, in my opinion, in a much more interesting way.
In other words.. I'm actually *playing the game* (what a concept!) to obtain my increased inventory space - and it 's permanent. I'm playing the game to get my mount... and it's always available after that. I'm playing the game to try and work off a death penalty and, on the other hand, playing more cautiously to avoid dying in the first place... I don't have a near endless supply of MP or HP thanks to $5 trinkets or potions at my disposal, so I have to rely on aspects of the gameplay - again, *playing* the game - to maintain both those resources as well as possible.
In my view, P2P design will always work for enough people because there are enough people who prefer to *play* their games, instead of conveniently purchasing their way through every problem or limitation they encounter.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Nice chart and article here
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/27581/Study_US_Gamers_Spent_38_Billion_On_MMOs_in_2009.php
[img]www.worldsinmotion.biz/100309-today.png[/img]
The study also breaks down the $3.8 billion total spent on MMOs in 2009: 47 percent ($1.8 billion) was spent on monthly subscriptions, 15 percent ($580 million) on annual subscriptions, 19 percent ($740 million) on virtual currency, 8 percent ($280 million) on direct microtransactions, and 11 percent ($400 million) on the initial boxed product or client download.
So1 billion was spent on virtual currency ( I suspect it includes chinese farmers also) and micro transcation .Thats a awesome amount and I guess its easy for many Korean companies to just duplicate the MMOs ,strap them as F2p insert cash shop and volla they have a mnoey making MMO ready the investment is far less .
P2p is a dying breed look what happned to Tabula Rasa, AOC , WAR where they had huge investments
These days companies like Cryptic are thrashing out IP with subs and cash shops to augment revenues
In all these their was only 1 game that I didnt mind spending money on cash shhop and that was Guild Wars .
I don't think that's accurate unless you pretend WoW doesn't exist.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Here's why that doesn't really work. F2P games are designed in a specific fashion. If you watch interviews of the developers of F2P games, they don't expect players to buy items in the first month or two of the game.
They know someone is not going to log onto to a game, and with a 1st level character they have invested only an hour of time into, start breaking out the credit card and buying items.
It's only after you develop a connection to the character, and when you go up in levels and things start to get a bit more grindy, that players start to think about buying items.
So playing an hour does nothing, since the game is not designed for you to buy items in the first hour of game play in the first place.
My level of acceptance is just ZERO items offered in a cash shop.
If the items are offered, and people buy them, then they must be worthwhile correct? So I wouldnt' want to play a game and not have access to worthwhile items in the game.
However, I don't like being nickeled and dimed.
To me, the cash shop is like you go to a restaurant.
If the waiter said, your dinner is 14.95. You get a steak, a baked potato, some green beans and a salad, I would say fine. That sounds good.
But, if the waiter said, you want a fork? That's 50 cents. You want some green beans? 4.95. Some salt? 75 cents. You want a napkin? 35 cents. ......
I would have a horrible experience and never eat there, even if the total came to 13.95.
What won't work about my suggestion? To make a decsion based on more information rather than less?
If an hour seems insufficient, then play for two or three. Play until it's unfun or you are required to pay to proceed.
Also, people pay for fluff things that IMO have no value, but some do still pay.
It's always easier to make a decision when you know more of the facts. To just flat out say "NO! I won't even look at it!" is making a decision on blind stubborness rather than informed intelligence.
You hit the nail on the head.
Cash shops are future for online gaming and if you do not like it, you will be left out to minor releases or you will have to adapt.
I think this is just wishful thinking by people that don't have a credit card, or don't think it's worthwhile to pay for games.
See the P2P game called WoW.
F2P won't take over, they'll just gain strength and then reach an equilibrium of some kind with P2P. If F2P takes off it'll reduce the income for each game as more such games are released. If this happens then investors will shift focus back to P2P. Along the same lines if F2P ever comes to dominate the genre, then all it will take is one developer to release a good P2P game and they'll have the entire P2P community flocking to it like the holy grail. There's plenty of money to be made in both markets.
Like others have said, the F2P market only appears to be doing so well lately because the P2P games released in the last few years have been abysmal.
See the asian market which is pretty much all based on F2P that is x time bigger than US and EU markets together.
See the FarmVille and similar games.
etc.
F2P market is much bigger than you think.
It is just a matter of time until this trend hits the rest of the industry, imho.
See the asian market which is pretty much all based on F2P that is x time bigger than US and EU markets together.
See the FarmVille and similar games.
etc.
F2P market is much bigger than you think.
It is just a matter of time until this trend hits the rest of the industry, imho.
I have to point out here that whilst the numbers of players in the F2P market may be larger, the revenue is many many times smaller. Players in the asian market pay considerably less than we do in the west, add to that the fact that 90% of players in F2P games don't pay for anything and you have a very small source of income.
The only reason F2P games are successful is because the devs don't put much into their development.
Revenue per active player is lower, total revenue as whole is something else.
The F2P model is simple.
While P2P games caps your revenue at 15$/month, cash shop represents virtualy unlimited revenue.
There are pros and cons for both models.
Of course only small part of the active players will use your cash shop but at the same time you are also capable to attract much larger audience, etc.
To me, F2P model makes enough business sense and it is enough proven model to impact the future western market in a way or another.
We never had a P2P flood anyway, you can't really flood the market with P2P games, at least with the current monthly subscription model. If they ever change to a "pay-for-hours" one...
So IMO there's nothing new here, it's not like there's no decent P2P games to look forward to, there just appeared this new model in which people that won't pay $15 for a month of gameplay access to be able to still play, and this model also appeals to those with spare money to spend their money in a way that enhances the gameplay (so a minority will spend so much money in that game that the average revenue per player gets decent and profitable considering how low budget 99% of the F2Ps are, and in the case of higher budget F2P games they can always just make spending money relatively more required for gameplay, but hey, you can always spend weeks grinding to compensate what a quick credit card usage would save you the work for, and maybe not, there can actually be stuff exclusive to people who spend money in the case of items you can't trade in-game), those playing for free won't or can't even really care.
Stretching the comparison a lot, it would be like comparing retail vs piracy and saying retail games are dying (considering that around 90% of the players never spend a single dollar in these games).
Anyway my point is the P2P market has not slowed down as it was never fast, and I have a feeling that we will soon see that F2P MMOs aren't immune to death - like RF Online (CM version), Cabal Online, or other silent deaths. You just can't flood the market with craptastic P2P titles and expect that to work long-term (you do see P2P titles making a insanely hyped release to make achieve impressive box sales, but these unfortunately still work).
A neverending battle of p2p versus f2p
Both types have their customer base. P2P usually more mature base. Or to be more correct, more kids go to F2P, because it's less trouble - no detailed subscription needed, no credit card, don't need to buy the game before downloading and so on. Easier to start.
There's more of F2P games because obviously, it's an easier business model.
All the "high quality" games are P2P though. Name 5 best MMORPGs and see how many of F2p would get in the top 5.
So i agree with those, who says that both f2p and p2p will continue their existence. The P2Ps that don't succeed can change their status to F2P to attract more people to it.
There's also one greedy company, that charges the monthly subscription and has item shop available on top of it. And although the items are mainly fluff, in my opinion it still gives soe the bad name. I loved everquest, but what they are doing now is just ugly.
Here's why that doesn't really work. F2P games are designed in a specific fashion. If you watch interviews of the developers of F2P games, they don't expect players to buy items in the first month or two of the game.
They know someone is not going to log onto to a game, and with a 1st level character they have invested only an hour of time into, start breaking out the credit card and buying items.
It's only after you develop a connection to the character, and when you go up in levels and things start to get a bit more grindy, that players start to think about buying items.
So playing an hour does nothing, since the game is not designed for you to buy items in the first hour of game play in the first place.
My level of acceptance is just ZERO items offered in a cash shop.
If the items are offered, and people buy them, then they must be worthwhile correct? So I wouldnt' want to play a game and not have access to worthwhile items in the game.
You sort of missed his point. What SwampRob said is that you can try a game and take a look at the cash shop the very moment you enter in-game (hell, you can even look on the website first as many companies will show the content of the Cash shop there). In other words, if a person believes the cash shop is "balanced", which is what most F2P gamers do by the way (check the cash shop), well he can give the game a try (if you find the game interesting)
As for "P2P Gamers" commenting on F2P Cash Shop, I realized most of them have little to no understanding on how the F2P market works. People LIKE to buy Vanity or Cosmetic items, and it's one of the basic item that you will find in MANY MMOs. Cosmetic item is considered as "worthwile" by many, it's the ability to be even more different from others.
I would hate paying for hours, even if it turned out to be less than 14.95 per month, for the same reason I hate cash shop games.
I want to pay, once, and then play the game and forget about money.
Just a (slightly off-topic) aside.
TR failed because it had absolutely rubbish post-launch development. I played it for a few months at launch and it really was a pretty good MMO. It just lacked in features and depth and the developers failed to expand the game with much of either after it launched.
The combat was especially well done; it's a rare thing when I'll wander the countryside just aimlessly killing whatever crosses my path, but TR was able to do just that.
Damn shame, really. Garriott went to space and NCsoft hung him (and the game) out to dry.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
There have been two major changes in the Western gaming market in the past few years:
The first trend is that developers are no longer chasing WoW, and its 11.5M players. They are now chasing Farmville and its 50 Million. There is a new king of online games.
This is a trend that happened in Asia about 10 years ago, and that is now happening in the western markets... and it is happening for the same reason. As you broaden the market, and lower the barriers of entry, you are able to draw on a much wider base.
I am sure that we can all agree that Farmville is not a complex MMORPG... but what does is make people into 'gamers' and expose them to the culture that plays more complex games. This means that the market for ALL games has grown, and that any game that learns from this, will be able to take advantage of it. (This is basically how WoW became the top game, and now they have been one upped).
The second trend is that the independant game developers that want to innovate have stepped away from P2P, and are now supporting F2P. This has happened because of the cost of going P2P,and the requirements by the large producers that they give away all rights to their games to do so. F2P allows them to get their game out to the players with minimal cost, while still retaining full control of their IP.
The large publishing houses are very concerned about putting out their money to launch a P2P game, and to not have it be another WoW, because the cost for this is very significant. They ensure that they get full control of the game, and all rights to it, so that they can fully recoup their cost... and lay off the company that created the game.
This means that most of the innovative new games that are coming out are going to be F2P, and that this will be the hot new area of growth, while P2P will have the much higher production (i.e. cost) value remakes, and standard clone games. We will have one group doing the innovation, and takeing the risks at low cost. The other will do the polishing, and standardizing at a much higher cost. Players will be able to decide what is for them.
I consider myself an "old timer". My first graphical MMO was EQ (the first one, at ~ 1 month after the game's launch),and I began playing text-based MMOs on dial-up BBS. Exodus FTW! I use the term "MMO" a bit loosely in relation to a dial-up BBS MUD, but I'm thinking of the term "massive" in a relative sense. In those days it was cool as heck to have 4 to 10 other players online (depending on the number of phone lines that the BBS had).
So there's that.
OP, I both agree and disagree with your point of view. There are a lot of trashy F2P MMOs out there. On the other hand there are some that shine, though they may not be a system that I enjoy. Guild Wars is, of course, the first to come to mind.
What I hope to see in the future is more of the Guild Wars and new DDO model. This is what I see as the natural evolutionary path for these games. What bothers me is that there are so many people who are willing to pay a monthly subscription to an item mall-based game, such as EQ2 and Champions Online. Those people are shooting themselves in the feet by supporting a system like that.
This is similar to a technology standards war, and I hope that the more sensible DDO / GW approach prevails.
Recently I've been playing Aika Online and I've also played a bit of Shin Megami Tensi. They both start out fun, but I expect them both to become the usual grind fest as well. That's usually when I lose all interest in a game.
Here's the kicker. I paid for a 3 month sub to LoTRO and I still have access to the game for a good amount of time, yet I don't play it. It doesn't hold my interest for more than maybe 30 minutes at a time, if that. Part of the reason is that it doesn't have much more to offer than a F2P. The story elements are interesting, but the majority of the game is actually more simplistic than some F2P games. Example: It's a never ending string of "Kill 15 monsters" and "collect 20 hammers" (or whatever), and I don't even have a pet or partner that evolves with my character.
The benefit that LoTRO offers is that there are no (or next to no) spam bots. Aika, for example, is almost as bad as Aion was at launch in regards to spam. Interestingly (and perhaps ironically?) there are not as many AFK botters in Aika as there still are in Aion.
The vast majority of F2P games die out within a month or two. Grand opening. Grand closing.
Some get repackaged and opened by other companies, see also Space Cowboy / Ace Online / Air Rivals, but only a few of these games are managed well enough to stick around. And it is management, not good game design, that allows these games to even make a profit.
I don't think this would be much of a problem if P2P developers could wrap their heads around a concept that F2P publishers already understand: you don't need a huge player population when you keep your production costs and overhead low. P2P game devs damn near bankrupt themselves by swinging for the fences and end up struggling because they just can't compete with WoW. F2P game devs aren't competing with WoW and they don't normally need more than 10,000 regular players to make a profit.
Another to keep in mind is that some of these games are being run by multiple companies at the same time. Currently Neo Steam is being run by both Atlus and ijji. Likewise, Atalantica is being run by NDoors and ijji. I lose track of how many different companies are hosting Gunz: The Duel.