1. AAA titles that ran with a fixed subscription and turned into "PAY to further play options" will never have the same gameplay anymore. Forget huge end game content.
2. The focus will shift from making content for long term players to short term money making techniques for new and medium recruited players in the first 2 months.
3. Those kind of MMo's are nothing short of a bursty steeple chase in which every money hurdle will thin out the players base.
4. Those fools that invested LOTS of money and time into these 'unlocked content trics" will be confronted with an ever thinning paying public at the highest levels.
So the problem is FAR greater than speaking about some minor inconveniences in the "early free zones".
You just pull the carpet from the very fundamentals of MMO play: long term investment.
It is NO coincidence that most guys supporting the idea are just hopping from one F2T turd to another (like the one above - they hop from chick to chick).
Its embarrassing when an NPC compliments you in an MMo, the only relevant, cool and epic things come from players whispering you Grtz, mate, we did it. copyright Pilnkplonk
Depends on how little you're talking about. But enough about your imaginary talk.
All subscription games do the same: Anyone who has ever had a subcription or probably even tried the game on a free trial could be counted as a "player" since the word is so loosely defined.
But none of this matters. It comes down to who makes the most money at the end of the day. It comes down to what is most profitable.
Even though you claim that the majority of players don't like F2P (where you get this data from, I don't know) the market still proves otherwise.
The reason why an industry would endorse such behavor (F2P) is because it brings home more money than they make now.
If they are wrong, then they will simply go under and another company will come and replace them. No big deal. You get to squeal with glee that you were right and a bigger, better company will emerge because of it. Win/Win
Nope, In the end ... it all comes down to WHO makes the best game. Not who makes the best techniques to make more profits.
Loss/loss for all players. The games that are made for ... players (remember).
And like I said above a F2P MMO is not really an MMO: no long term played end game and investment.
Its embarrassing when an NPC compliments you in an MMo, the only relevant, cool and epic things come from players whispering you Grtz, mate, we did it. copyright Pilnkplonk
Why do some people keep posting crap about how F2P are a scam and really cost more than P2P? I've played dozens of F2P games for years and for most of them haven't spend a penny on them. I've spent a grand total of about $10. On the other hand, over the last 10 years I've spent over $2000 of P2P games.
I love the trend to F2P and think Turbine has the ideal model where you can continue with the P2P model or go F2P and add in optional features where you feel they are worthwhile. They nice part is giving players a choice instead of forcing them into a single payment model.
F2P users can spend as little (0) or as much as they want to tailor the game to their play style.
I keep reading pro-F2P posts like this in all threads as well in all the propaganda going around for the F2P model.
Then, is it just me or there's a bit of logical (and mathematical) contradiction with the assumption that F2P is also a boon for MMOs incomes ?
As others have already said, it' not a matter of religious dogmas. A lot of MMO players know that F2P changes the focus of the game toward the short-term player. And a lot of us want a MMO with an environment to enjoy, a breathing world. Instead F2P bring us "McDonald's" MMOs to play-and-throw-away. You could say "dont play them if you dont want" but problem is that this mindset will damage the development of actual and future games and so will damage all the gamers indiscriminately.
One and only thing I'm a bit optimistic about is that I think that "pure" (asian-like) F2P is not quite compatible with western mindset and playing tastes. Even Turbine's system and its poor marketing pr will be a fail in the long term (as someone above said: what would you expect from a company that made mediocre games from two of the most valuable IPs around). I think that the so-called "Hybrid" system will have to offer a REAL choice for monthly (Flat) subs, pay-per-play, item shops (only on a cosmetic/lore level and not game-impacting).
I've seen several say that for LOTRO subscribers "nothing will change" - they can keep subscribing and everything will be dandy. What absolute crap. Go play DDO for a while and you will see the need to get players spending Turbine points fundamentally affects the play experience. Nothing will change? Bullshit.
I don't know what to say to those "enthusiastic" about the trend to F2P/hybrid/RMT, except maybe to bloody WAKE UP and get a CLUE. Yes, it does lower the barrier to entry which is good for players and good for the developers. And yes it does bring some life to the game, but it also brings a fundamental change in the way the games are developed (see DDO). This change is not good for players and it is unavoidable change even if you subscribe. Loads of people have described this change better than I can.
But the real problem is that if you do not like the F2P/hybrid and this trend continues, then your CHOICE of MMO is starting to look pretty fu&*ing grim.
All as I can say at this point is I HOPE that GW2 is going to turn out alright.
Anet, you and your payment model are our only hope.
I've seen several say that for LOTRO subscribers "nothing will change" - they can keep subscribing and everything will be dandy. What absolute crap. Go play DDO for a while and you will see the need to get players spending Turbine points fundamentally affects the play experience. Nothing will change? Bullshit.
I don't know what to say to those "enthusiastic" about the trend to F2P/hybrid/RMT, except maybe to bloody WAKE UP and get a CLUE. Yes, it does lower the barrier to entry which is good for players and good for the developers. And yes it does bring some life to the game, but it also brings a fundamental change in the way the games are developed (see DDO). This change is not good for players and it is unavoidable change even if you subscribe. Loads of people have described this change better than I can.
But the real problem is that if you do not like the F2P/hybrid and this trend continues, then your CHOICE of MMO is starting to look pretty fu&*ing grim.
Well I do play DDO and LotRO and have had no problem with the change from the P2P model and the C2P model. Yes there are some people who refuse to do anything unless you have the store bought potions in DDO, but this is exagerated on the forums and is easily avoidable by choosing your company well. I have gotten along fine with the TP I get each month and have played basically the same way.
As for the article I am confused by the whole thing. It seems on the one hand you are saying that choice is good and the DDO model is good for facilitating that choice. Then you turn around and denounce the switch in LotRO. You mix your message and never seem to draw a solid line on what you mean when you say f2p. Sometimes you seem to put LotRO's change in there and other times you say that it will give choice. Finally, you say that players aren't for this when we have all seen just how divided players are. There doesn't seem to be a real consistancy overall.
In the end ... people will only play the games they like.
And DDO and Lotro were not liked by too many.
The only boost DDO and Lotro will get are the temporary + 500% quotes with non existent dollar signs attached to it.
500% of little is still very much little. And like ALL F2P games every idiot who logged in once in the last 12 months will be counted as a player for the bragging stats on mmorpg.com.
-
And Why o Why I am not surprised the bloodless industry and media supporting that talentless industry are all for it, while the vast majority of players know the pitfalls.
"vast" majority of players is complete BS. First of all, the vast majority of people who would be affected by this don't frequent places like mmorpg.com. A lot of people who would be affected by this are people who are only beginning to come into the MMO industry because of games switching their model to a C2P system.
As for the +500% revenue, let's put it this way. As MMO players we know that when a game gets to around 20,000 players it is soon disconnected. So we can probably assume DDO had at least 20,000 players. 5x that revenue is the same as having 100,000 players which in the industry means a game is succesful. Even if it only had 10,000 players (which is HIGHLY unlikely) we still see a revenue of 50,000 players which is survivable.
Too many pages to read... too many 'wall of text' posts.
@ the F2P market. I've tried a few of the F2P games and I'm left with the same type of feel with each and every F2P game. Someone said 'you see 1/2 the complaining in the F2P' player base, compared to the P2P player base that complains a lot'... Think about why that is, just for a second. Because, if I 'pay' to play something, I should be able to voice my opinion and ask for certain things. IMHO, I've 'paid' for that right. I don't bother complaining about F2P games... I just download another and try it out, hopefully it's 'better' than the last F2P. It doesn't cost anything (other than time) to try these game.
In my experience, DDO and LotR weren't games that I liked before they switched to F2P. Changing their payment model won't do anything to change that gameplay either, imho. Money isn't the object here... it's quality and game experience.
I would offer up a few other things while we're talking about things we'd pay for...
1) I'd pay to play on 'mature' servers. Servers that are heavily monitored for WoWesque trade spam. Get ride of the little smacktard spammers AND the gold farmer spam, please. No, not all that do this spamming are kids... but I'd pay extra $/mo just so that I wouldn't have to deal with them. I'm not the only one that would pay for this either. Until I can punch someone in the face over standard TCP/IP, I'd rather just play on a server with fewer targets.
2) Character customization. People pay for nearly anything that makes their characters look different as it is. They either spend hours grinding, farming, or raiding for an item... OR they spend $5-15 for it. In games like WoW... you have 6.5million players (11 mill by Blizz's numbers) that all end up looking exactly like one another. Why do people spam and act out in the game as much as they do? To be different. They have nearly no other means to do so in WoW. They have to find a way to differentiate themselves from the masses. So, they spam/say off the wall/random things for their 15 seconds of fame.
3) Offline content. Say... activities that you could do with your character while servers were down for maintenance? Maybe, small maps or 'invidiual' instances/dungeons that you could tackle solo?
From my viewpoint, Runes of Magic has to be the best of the F2Ps, not only for its content, construction, style, and all the other things with which it rivals the best of the subscription games, but for the numerous methods of obtaining Item Shop items WITHOUT spending real money. I've never seen an F2P that really IS F2P is you want to invest the time in it. Sure, it's slow-going to obtain these "extras" via the non-cash methods, but it CAN be done and IS done by many many players. And it just whets the appetite even more to actually SPEND the spare 25 bucks on diamonds (the major item shop currency) when you can. The many promotions for "double diamonds" to enhance your buying power, the daily and weekly "specials" (discounts on Item Shop items) and all the other enticements offerred makes it the premier F2P on the market, imo. The model makes for a truly FREE game with access to many items you have GOT to pay for in other F2Ps out there.
THIS is the model that should evolve. And they don't seem to be having much trouble making money either, since they're now into their third major expansion. If you like the fantasy genre (OK, WoW with prettier anime skins) and don't have any cash, RoM is the game to play.
-- Xix "I know what you're thinking: 'Why, oh WHY, didn't I take the BLUE pill?'"
Thank you for this article. Before reading this article the idea that p2p games are going to be completely replaced by "free" business models seemed so ridiculous that it hadn't even occurred to me. I seriously thought that everyone thought, like I do, that there is plenty of space for both p2p and f2p games. As someone who has never paid-2-play I think I now understand why there have been so many vocal comments decrying f2p games now. I hope those in charge of the business side of MMO's don't get caught up in "the future is now" mentality and go f2p alienating their current customers. They should instead look at other options like APB's system where you can have a monthly subscription or pay for actual game time.
Nothing new here...Companies have been chopping up their product for years and selling it piece by piece to gain a higher percentage of profit from their investment.
Personaly I am tired of this type of attack on my wallet. I call it being "nickeled and dimed" And I for one am tired of it and will not support that type of payment plan.
I am not saying it is a bad way to go just one I don't agree with. I'd prefer to pay an inclusive rate, that iincludes the entire game.
In the West, i don't feel F2P will become dominant under any circumstances. I do, however, feel that a Hybrid model; free to play with MT AND full sub will become the dominant model. the MMO community wants choice, not to be steam rolled into one option or another.
This.
I see it as 'MMO gaming a la carte', where you pick the payment model that comes closest to your gaming style: do you have a couple of months with lots of spare time that you'd like to turn your full attention to 1 MMO, then you opt for going a few months subbed, do you have less time only to play occasionally then you switch back again to F2P.
This system also provides you the opportunity to play several MMO's concurrently without having to worry about a pile of subs draining your account, in the same way as already now I play 1 subbed MMO with GW to the side, as I'm sure others do with GW or a DDO next to their main MMO.
This is exactly how I feel. I can't say it any better. BTW, good article.
I just wanted to add that by doing the F2P model like what is going to happen in LotRO, and I can't wait and bought the game already.
What if WoW would make a server specifically for F2P market? Instead of having to look at the huge numbers of private servers online, then why don't they want to cater to those market? Its untapped resource for the ever growing MMO space. And the reason for some of these players is because they don't have the $14.99 a month just to remain subscribed to the game. I'm just saying because I'm one of those who can't have multiple MMO's being active all at the same time.
Interesting how most game companies/developers and journalist seem to think F2P is the future and all excited about it where as most gamers seems to be against it. Could it be because the former is to gain from the new model where as us the customers will need to pay more to get what we currently are getting for a subscription fee?
Because that is all this F2P sham is about; for companies to charge more for pretty much the same, under the illusion that it is all free. But you are not fooling anyone...
This is exactly how I've been viewing the situation for a while now. The only customers that will benefit from the F2P model are the casual crowd. Anyone that plays for extended periods of time will end up paying more in a F2P game one way or another.
I understand the OP's point of view except she is not noticing one major factor that is being overlooked. Before there was even lifetime offers, there were the subscribers from beta referred to as "Founders" by Turbine. The Founders were given opportunities to get some special features first, such as special clothing accessories, items, and the lifetime membership offer. The Lifetime offer, originally was only for Founders but over time Turbine has slowly changed all of that and offered it and other features to everyone else. I'm all for equal opportunity, but gradually the Founders are being kicked under the rug and now with the F2P model being worked in, the Founders aren't even being given the VIP treatment now, but instead those newer members who bought lifetime accounts are.
It is really going to rub it in the wrong way if Turbine ends up removing some of the Founder features from Founders and trying to make them pay to get the stuff back from CS. Most likely that will happen because the same thing happened to my DDO account when I downgraded from VIP. I ended up being locked out of already made characters and class types, not to mention a lot of quest areas which is ridiculous and why I stopped playing DDO.
I understand the OP's point of view except she is not noticing one major factor that is being overlooked. Before there was even lifetime offers, there were the subscribers from beta referred to as "Founders" by Turbine. The Founders were given opportunities to get some special features first, such as special clothing accessories, items, and the lifetime membership offer. The Lifetime offer, originally was only for Founders but over time Turbine has slowly changed all of that and offered it and other features to everyone else. I'm all for equal opportunity, but gradually the Founders are being kicked under the rug and now with the F2P model being worked in, the Founders aren't even being given the VIP treatment now, but instead those newer members who bought lifetime accounts are.
It is really going to rub it in the wrong way if Turbine ends up removing some of the Founder features from Founders and trying to make them pay to get the stuff back from CS. Most likely that will happen because the same thing happened to my DDO account when I downgraded from VIP. I ended up being locked out of already made characters and class types, not to mention a lot of quest areas which is ridiculous and why I stopped playing DDO.
The free-to-play addition doesn't change anything for us other players. Basically you pay month-to-month for access to the game now, and after the change you will pay month-to-month to have full access to the game. Lifetime subscribers, like me, still do not have to pay to be V.I.P.; It's part of our lifetime package. Founders, also like me, get a cloak and a trinket. That'll still be the same in the future as well. Nothing's changing other than a store in which to spend points and a micro-transaction and free-to-play system. The pay-to-play and lifetime subscribers will remain at the same level as they were before.
This is why I like to call the free-to-play option for LOTRO an _addition_, because it doesn't overwrite anything we have, it's two additional options to the game.
Stuff like this makes me proud to be a member of this site. The fat lady hasn't started singing yet!
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I think there is an option that f2p and p2p are missing. Lower the monthly subsciption price, I and a few others are more likely to play more than 1 game if they are cheaper.
"Its better to look ugly and win than pretty and lose"
Actually I like that LotRO is going free to play. Several others need to as well. CO, STO, Alganon, etc. just to name a few.
There are way to many Free to play quality games that publishers and devs try to pass off as pay to play worthy. Look at Aion, Age of Conan, GW2, Blade and Soul, ST:ToR, etc. the bar has been risen on quality for MMO's and it continues to rise. Gamers know what could be now so a lot of this rehashed crud simply won't cut it anymore. So if you want to develop and market a sub par game then it needs to be f2p. Atari and Cryptic are the biggest example of this.
Champions Online and Star Trek Online were both slapped together and filled with Micro Transactions and they had the nerve to declare them pay to play worthy when neither has reached a point where they are. Free to play is the realm they need to sit.
Other Devs and Publishers know where their game should be. Look at Allods, it's on par with most pay to play MMO's. Is this because it's just one of the most well done free to plays or is it because any MMO regardless of quality is deemed pay to play worthy now days? I personally believe it's a combination of both though I don't play allods anymore it was neat for about a week but in the end it boils down to being the same in essence as any of the other MMO's we have currently with a few exceptions. It's nice for what it is and it's definitely on par with most pay to plays and it certainly is one of the better free to plays, just not my thing as I'm not looking for more of what we already have.
Game Mechanics and systems are evolving, and with this new batch of MMO's on the horizon lets hope quality is as well. 2009 and 2010 seemed to be the years of pump and dump MMO's. 2010 seemed to be the year of Micro Transaction overkill in pay to play MMO's. I'm hoping 2011 will be about quality and innovation and mostly about fun finally. So many MMO's now days just feel like a 9-5.
As I said I am happy that the time for free to plays is now, less people will have to buy a game to find out it's crud. Certainly will be less QQ threads saying " I got suckered into pre-ordering or a life time subscription". So many current titles deserve to be free to play because they simply lack the quality, mechanics, or content to be worth the monthly fee.
Leave the monthly fee business model to the games with the content, quality and mechanics to warrant it.
Edited to Add: One thing I do know this Hybrid lets milk everyone for all they're worth business model needs to end. Micro Transactions have no place in pay to play games. If GW2 does as well or better than GW1 then we will hopefully see a decline of all this nonsense anyways. Might even be good for the industry as it would allow more MMO's to flourish.
I tend to agree on LOTRO going "Free to Play"; it really plays like an "asian grinder" with a premier IP behind it. Plus, they have an "upper limit" on revenue with the current subscription model.
Like you, I'm also hoping like you that one of the new subscription MMO from the some of the premier game companies will kick the market a bit, though for different reasons. "Free to Play"/"Pay to Win" is unfortunately such a disgusting gaming model; often little difference from RMT, buy your levels, characters, virtual uberness, buy your self esteem ... In that sense, I tend to think of "Free to Play" more from the "unfair gaming model", rather than the business model. The type of people you end up playing with are those who "buy their fun" rather than having fun playing a game they bought.
Having 1 person pay for x other people via "Free to Play", may be a good business model, but I'm not sure it is a better model for the gaming industry longer term; is it more beneficial pumping money into these types of games. I can say from my point of view that I have yet to really enjoy many "Free to Play" games where as those I really enjoyed were overwhelmingly subscription-based.
Not enough time to touch on everything 'd like to as I have to head out here in a few minutes...
But... Freaking excellent article, Jamie. Thank you for writing and posting it, and in such eloquent fashion.
It's about time someone posted an article that speaks to "the other side" of the F2P discussion. Up 'til now, as you correctly point out, Jamie, the media has been overwhelmingly "Ra Ra Ra! Go F2P Go!" about it... even as a significant portion of gamers are saying "Wait... not everyone is on board with the whole "Pro-F2P" thing...". Regardless, we're largely drowned out by the "Ra Ra Ra!" media coverage making it seem like everyone agrees that F2P is the best thing ever.
It feels sometimes like telling someone "Well, I'm not a fan of Coca Cola really... More of a Pepsi drinker, myself" only to have them turn around and say, "See? Everyone loves Coca Cola! It's undisputed!".
I also agree that it's highly frustrating to see other authors regularly and dismissively marginalize those who don't like the F2P model in the various ways they do. Being represented as someone who "just doesn't understand F2P", or is "in denial", among other things, when neither is true is extremely frustrating. Many of us most certainly *do* understand it and, as Jamie noted, much better than even some pro-F2P people do.
Speaking for myself, I've played plenty of F2P MMOs... going as far back as Archlord when it first went F2P and even before that. I've put money into the item shops in several of the games to see how far my money would get me and if it would be a worthy investment; Archlord, Perfect World and Shaiya, to name a few. I've seen how much I'm investing cash-wise versus what I'm getting out of it, item for item. I've compared it to what would be required to acquire the same kind of items in a sub-based game where everything is readily available with only a moderate amount of effort and little time. Dollar for dollar, F2P just doesn't add up.
In short... I *know* what the F2P model is all about. I understand it perfectly fine.
So, indeed... Great article, well said and thank you again for posting it.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
I understand the OP's point of view except she is not noticing one major factor that is being overlooked. Before there was even lifetime offers, there were the subscribers from beta referred to as "Founders" by Turbine. The Founders were given opportunities to get some special features first, such as special clothing accessories, items, and the lifetime membership offer. The Lifetime offer, originally was only for Founders but over time Turbine has slowly changed all of that and offered it and other features to everyone else. I'm all for equal opportunity, but gradually the Founders are being kicked under the rug and now with the F2P model being worked in, the Founders aren't even being given the VIP treatment now, but instead those newer members who bought lifetime accounts are.
It is really going to rub it in the wrong way if Turbine ends up removing some of the Founder features from Founders and trying to make them pay to get the stuff back from CS. Most likely that will happen because the same thing happened to my DDO account when I downgraded from VIP. I ended up being locked out of already made characters and class types, not to mention a lot of quest areas which is ridiculous and why I stopped playing DDO.
The free-to-play addition doesn't change anything for us other players. Basically you pay month-to-month for access to the game now, and after the change you will pay month-to-month to have full access to the game. Lifetime subscribers, like me, still do not have to pay to be V.I.P.; It's part of our lifetime package. Founders, also like me, get a cloak and a trinket. That'll still be the same in the future as well. Nothing's changing other than a store in which to spend points and a micro-transaction and free-to-play system. The pay-to-play and lifetime subscribers will remain at the same level as they were before.
This is why I like to call the free-to-play option for LOTRO an _addition_, because it doesn't overwrite anything we have, it's two additional options to the game.
I had several max level characters on my account in Lotro. What I'm saying that probably will happen in Lotro is like what happened with my DDO account. I lost access to half of my characters due to their not being available for non-VIP members which is plain wrong if I already paid for them as a VIP member previously. I don't want to login to Lotro and find out that my main character that I had during beta is locked just because I am not a "VIP" anymore due to his race or class or something stupid and only available by being a VIP or bought in a CS.
Comments
To the OP.
1. AAA titles that ran with a fixed subscription and turned into "PAY to further play options" will never have the same gameplay anymore. Forget huge end game content.
2. The focus will shift from making content for long term players to short term money making techniques for new and medium recruited players in the first 2 months.
3. Those kind of MMo's are nothing short of a bursty steeple chase in which every money hurdle will thin out the players base.
4. Those fools that invested LOTS of money and time into these 'unlocked content trics" will be confronted with an ever thinning paying public at the highest levels.
So the problem is FAR greater than speaking about some minor inconveniences in the "early free zones".
You just pull the carpet from the very fundamentals of MMO play: long term investment.
It is NO coincidence that most guys supporting the idea are just hopping from one F2T turd to another (like the one above - they hop from chick to chick).
Its embarrassing when an NPC compliments you in an MMo, the only relevant, cool and epic things come from players whispering you Grtz, mate, we did it. copyright Pilnkplonk
Nope, In the end ... it all comes down to WHO makes the best game. Not who makes the best techniques to make more profits.
Loss/loss for all players. The games that are made for ... players (remember).
And like I said above a F2P MMO is not really an MMO: no long term played end game and investment.
Its embarrassing when an NPC compliments you in an MMo, the only relevant, cool and epic things come from players whispering you Grtz, mate, we did it. copyright Pilnkplonk
Gandalf - There are two types of peoples in the world Frodo ... peoples that suck and Chuck Norris.
Frodo - Why do peoples make fun of my mama these days and how do they know she's fat.
Gandalf - but because yo mama is so fat she fell in love and broke it Frodo
Frodo - I see ...
Rp will get a nice twist in middle earth this fall
I keep reading pro-F2P posts like this in all threads as well in all the propaganda going around for the F2P model.
Then, is it just me or there's a bit of logical (and mathematical) contradiction with the assumption that F2P is also a boon for MMOs incomes ?
As others have already said, it' not a matter of religious dogmas. A lot of MMO players know that F2P changes the focus of the game toward the short-term player. And a lot of us want a MMO with an environment to enjoy, a breathing world. Instead F2P bring us "McDonald's" MMOs to play-and-throw-away. You could say "dont play them if you dont want" but problem is that this mindset will damage the development of actual and future games and so will damage all the gamers indiscriminately.
One and only thing I'm a bit optimistic about is that I think that "pure" (asian-like) F2P is not quite compatible with western mindset and playing tastes. Even Turbine's system and its poor marketing pr will be a fail in the long term (as someone above said: what would you expect from a company that made mediocre games from two of the most valuable IPs around). I think that the so-called "Hybrid" system will have to offer a REAL choice for monthly (Flat) subs, pay-per-play, item shops (only on a cosmetic/lore level and not game-impacting).
Nice article Jaime.
I've seen several say that for LOTRO subscribers "nothing will change" - they can keep subscribing and everything will be dandy. What absolute crap. Go play DDO for a while and you will see the need to get players spending Turbine points fundamentally affects the play experience. Nothing will change? Bullshit.
I don't know what to say to those "enthusiastic" about the trend to F2P/hybrid/RMT, except maybe to bloody WAKE UP and get a CLUE. Yes, it does lower the barrier to entry which is good for players and good for the developers. And yes it does bring some life to the game, but it also brings a fundamental change in the way the games are developed (see DDO). This change is not good for players and it is unavoidable change even if you subscribe. Loads of people have described this change better than I can.
But the real problem is that if you do not like the F2P/hybrid and this trend continues, then your CHOICE of MMO is starting to look pretty fu&*ing grim.
All as I can say at this point is I HOPE that GW2 is going to turn out alright.
Anet, you and your payment model are our only hope.
What? Are you nuts? It has a strong community and plenty of players with whom to play.
Well I do play DDO and LotRO and have had no problem with the change from the P2P model and the C2P model. Yes there are some people who refuse to do anything unless you have the store bought potions in DDO, but this is exagerated on the forums and is easily avoidable by choosing your company well. I have gotten along fine with the TP I get each month and have played basically the same way.
As for the article I am confused by the whole thing. It seems on the one hand you are saying that choice is good and the DDO model is good for facilitating that choice. Then you turn around and denounce the switch in LotRO. You mix your message and never seem to draw a solid line on what you mean when you say f2p. Sometimes you seem to put LotRO's change in there and other times you say that it will give choice. Finally, you say that players aren't for this when we have all seen just how divided players are. There doesn't seem to be a real consistancy overall.
"vast" majority of players is complete BS. First of all, the vast majority of people who would be affected by this don't frequent places like mmorpg.com. A lot of people who would be affected by this are people who are only beginning to come into the MMO industry because of games switching their model to a C2P system.
As for the +500% revenue, let's put it this way. As MMO players we know that when a game gets to around 20,000 players it is soon disconnected. So we can probably assume DDO had at least 20,000 players. 5x that revenue is the same as having 100,000 players which in the industry means a game is succesful. Even if it only had 10,000 players (which is HIGHLY unlikely) we still see a revenue of 50,000 players which is survivable.
Too many pages to read... too many 'wall of text' posts.
@ the F2P market. I've tried a few of the F2P games and I'm left with the same type of feel with each and every F2P game. Someone said 'you see 1/2 the complaining in the F2P' player base, compared to the P2P player base that complains a lot'... Think about why that is, just for a second. Because, if I 'pay' to play something, I should be able to voice my opinion and ask for certain things. IMHO, I've 'paid' for that right. I don't bother complaining about F2P games... I just download another and try it out, hopefully it's 'better' than the last F2P. It doesn't cost anything (other than time) to try these game.
In my experience, DDO and LotR weren't games that I liked before they switched to F2P. Changing their payment model won't do anything to change that gameplay either, imho. Money isn't the object here... it's quality and game experience.
I would offer up a few other things while we're talking about things we'd pay for...
1) I'd pay to play on 'mature' servers. Servers that are heavily monitored for WoWesque trade spam. Get ride of the little smacktard spammers AND the gold farmer spam, please. No, not all that do this spamming are kids... but I'd pay extra $/mo just so that I wouldn't have to deal with them. I'm not the only one that would pay for this either. Until I can punch someone in the face over standard TCP/IP, I'd rather just play on a server with fewer targets.
2) Character customization. People pay for nearly anything that makes their characters look different as it is. They either spend hours grinding, farming, or raiding for an item... OR they spend $5-15 for it. In games like WoW... you have 6.5million players (11 mill by Blizz's numbers) that all end up looking exactly like one another. Why do people spam and act out in the game as much as they do? To be different. They have nearly no other means to do so in WoW. They have to find a way to differentiate themselves from the masses. So, they spam/say off the wall/random things for their 15 seconds of fame.
3) Offline content. Say... activities that you could do with your character while servers were down for maintenance? Maybe, small maps or 'invidiual' instances/dungeons that you could tackle solo?
Just some ideas...
From my viewpoint, Runes of Magic has to be the best of the F2Ps, not only for its content, construction, style, and all the other things with which it rivals the best of the subscription games, but for the numerous methods of obtaining Item Shop items WITHOUT spending real money. I've never seen an F2P that really IS F2P is you want to invest the time in it. Sure, it's slow-going to obtain these "extras" via the non-cash methods, but it CAN be done and IS done by many many players. And it just whets the appetite even more to actually SPEND the spare 25 bucks on diamonds (the major item shop currency) when you can. The many promotions for "double diamonds" to enhance your buying power, the daily and weekly "specials" (discounts on Item Shop items) and all the other enticements offerred makes it the premier F2P on the market, imo. The model makes for a truly FREE game with access to many items you have GOT to pay for in other F2Ps out there.
THIS is the model that should evolve. And they don't seem to be having much trouble making money either, since they're now into their third major expansion. If you like the fantasy genre (OK, WoW with prettier anime skins) and don't have any cash, RoM is the game to play.
-- Xix
"I know what you're thinking: 'Why, oh WHY, didn't I take the BLUE pill?'"
Before reading this article the idea that p2p games are going to be completely replaced by "free" business models seemed so ridiculous that it hadn't even occurred to me. I seriously thought that everyone thought, like I do, that there is plenty of space for both p2p and f2p games.
As someone who has never paid-2-play I think I now understand why there have been so many vocal comments decrying f2p games now.
I hope those in charge of the business side of MMO's don't get caught up in "the future is now" mentality and go f2p alienating their current customers. They should instead look at other options like APB's system where you can have a monthly subscription or pay for actual game time.
Nothing new here...Companies have been chopping up their product for years and selling it piece by piece to gain a higher percentage of profit from their investment.
Personaly I am tired of this type of attack on my wallet. I call it being "nickeled and dimed" And I for one am tired of it and will not support that type of payment plan.
I am not saying it is a bad way to go just one I don't agree with. I'd prefer to pay an inclusive rate, that iincludes the entire game.
"One word, Thundercougarfalconbird."
This is exactly how I feel. I can't say it any better. BTW, good article.
Bravo!, Jaime, bravo!
Great article!
I just wanted to add that by doing the F2P model like what is going to happen in LotRO, and I can't wait and bought the game already.
What if WoW would make a server specifically for F2P market? Instead of having to look at the huge numbers of private servers online, then why don't they want to cater to those market? Its untapped resource for the ever growing MMO space. And the reason for some of these players is because they don't have the $14.99 a month just to remain subscribed to the game. I'm just saying because I'm one of those who can't have multiple MMO's being active all at the same time.
This is exactly how I've been viewing the situation for a while now. The only customers that will benefit from the F2P model are the casual crowd. Anyone that plays for extended periods of time will end up paying more in a F2P game one way or another.
I understand the OP's point of view except she is not noticing one major factor that is being overlooked. Before there was even lifetime offers, there were the subscribers from beta referred to as "Founders" by Turbine. The Founders were given opportunities to get some special features first, such as special clothing accessories, items, and the lifetime membership offer. The Lifetime offer, originally was only for Founders but over time Turbine has slowly changed all of that and offered it and other features to everyone else. I'm all for equal opportunity, but gradually the Founders are being kicked under the rug and now with the F2P model being worked in, the Founders aren't even being given the VIP treatment now, but instead those newer members who bought lifetime accounts are.
It is really going to rub it in the wrong way if Turbine ends up removing some of the Founder features from Founders and trying to make them pay to get the stuff back from CS. Most likely that will happen because the same thing happened to my DDO account when I downgraded from VIP. I ended up being locked out of already made characters and class types, not to mention a lot of quest areas which is ridiculous and why I stopped playing DDO.
The free-to-play addition doesn't change anything for us other players. Basically you pay month-to-month for access to the game now, and after the change you will pay month-to-month to have full access to the game. Lifetime subscribers, like me, still do not have to pay to be V.I.P.; It's part of our lifetime package. Founders, also like me, get a cloak and a trinket. That'll still be the same in the future as well. Nothing's changing other than a store in which to spend points and a micro-transaction and free-to-play system. The pay-to-play and lifetime subscribers will remain at the same level as they were before.
This is why I like to call the free-to-play option for LOTRO an _addition_, because it doesn't overwrite anything we have, it's two additional options to the game.
What a fantastic article!
Stuff like this makes me proud to be a member of this site. The fat lady hasn't started singing yet!
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
The F2P-model combined with item-shops for MMOs is okay aslong as there's nothing that forces the players to use the item-shop.
In the question of PvP a level playingfield is only guaranteed by a P2P-model.
Darkfall or EvE Online as F2P with an item-shop? No thanks.
I think there is an option that f2p and p2p are missing. Lower the monthly subsciption price, I and a few others are more likely to play more than 1 game if they are cheaper.
"Its better to look ugly and win than pretty and lose"
I tend to agree on LOTRO going "Free to Play"; it really plays like an "asian grinder" with a premier IP behind it. Plus, they have an "upper limit" on revenue with the current subscription model.
Like you, I'm also hoping like you that one of the new subscription MMO from the some of the premier game companies will kick the market a bit, though for different reasons. "Free to Play"/"Pay to Win" is unfortunately such a disgusting gaming model; often little difference from RMT, buy your levels, characters, virtual uberness, buy your self esteem ... In that sense, I tend to think of "Free to Play" more from the "unfair gaming model", rather than the business model. The type of people you end up playing with are those who "buy their fun" rather than having fun playing a game they bought.
Having 1 person pay for x other people via "Free to Play", may be a good business model, but I'm not sure it is a better model for the gaming industry longer term; is it more beneficial pumping money into these types of games. I can say from my point of view that I have yet to really enjoy many "Free to Play" games where as those I really enjoyed were overwhelmingly subscription-based.
Not enough time to touch on everything 'd like to as I have to head out here in a few minutes...
But... Freaking excellent article, Jamie. Thank you for writing and posting it, and in such eloquent fashion.
It's about time someone posted an article that speaks to "the other side" of the F2P discussion. Up 'til now, as you correctly point out, Jamie, the media has been overwhelmingly "Ra Ra Ra! Go F2P Go!" about it... even as a significant portion of gamers are saying "Wait... not everyone is on board with the whole "Pro-F2P" thing...". Regardless, we're largely drowned out by the "Ra Ra Ra!" media coverage making it seem like everyone agrees that F2P is the best thing ever.
It feels sometimes like telling someone "Well, I'm not a fan of Coca Cola really... More of a Pepsi drinker, myself" only to have them turn around and say, "See? Everyone loves Coca Cola! It's undisputed!".
I also agree that it's highly frustrating to see other authors regularly and dismissively marginalize those who don't like the F2P model in the various ways they do. Being represented as someone who "just doesn't understand F2P", or is "in denial", among other things, when neither is true is extremely frustrating. Many of us most certainly *do* understand it and, as Jamie noted, much better than even some pro-F2P people do.
Speaking for myself, I've played plenty of F2P MMOs... going as far back as Archlord when it first went F2P and even before that. I've put money into the item shops in several of the games to see how far my money would get me and if it would be a worthy investment; Archlord, Perfect World and Shaiya, to name a few. I've seen how much I'm investing cash-wise versus what I'm getting out of it, item for item. I've compared it to what would be required to acquire the same kind of items in a sub-based game where everything is readily available with only a moderate amount of effort and little time. Dollar for dollar, F2P just doesn't add up.
In short... I *know* what the F2P model is all about. I understand it perfectly fine.
So, indeed... Great article, well said and thank you again for posting it.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
I think it would be a lot better if companies made products that were buy-to-play.
Make a one time payment and then don't worry about it for the rest of your life sort of thing.
Take the GW approach. I think that would appeal to both kinds of players.
"Some people feel the rain. Others just get wet." -Bob Marley
I'm probably one of those people who just get wet.
I had several max level characters on my account in Lotro. What I'm saying that probably will happen in Lotro is like what happened with my DDO account. I lost access to half of my characters due to their not being available for non-VIP members which is plain wrong if I already paid for them as a VIP member previously. I don't want to login to Lotro and find out that my main character that I had during beta is locked just because I am not a "VIP" anymore due to his race or class or something stupid and only available by being a VIP or bought in a CS.