Originally posted by Salute F2P didnt kill mmo's. Dead P2P mmo's turned into F2P in order to avoid their shutdown.
Isn't it amazing how people can start enjoying certain games once they no longer have to pay for them ?
This mirrors the story of the movie 'Its a Wonderful Life'. This movie was not a big hit... until the copyright lapsed, and it became free. Since then it has become a megahit, and seen by millions.
Dave's articles over the last few weeks make me laugh. It all looks good on paper but when he was at SOE he never implemented any of what he has wrote for this site.
When EQ 2 first went F2P the game was trying everything possible to force you to sub or spend a fortune in the cash shop. At the time it was one of the worse models of F2P I tried. The cash shop was in your face constantly and Dave was the bugger who unleashed it. I know a lot of people on this site feel Dave is a great dev and give him a lot of credit but to me all he is a salesman; great talking in front of the camera, just like the British guy who was the spokesman for Warhammer Online.
Dave's articles over the last few weeks make me laugh. It all looks good on paper but when he was at SOE he never implemented any of what he has wrote for this site.
When EQ 2 first went F2P the game was trying everything possible to force you to sub or spend a fortune in the cash shop. At the time it was one of the worse models of F2P I tried. The cash shop was in your face constantly and Dave was the bugger who unleashed it. I know a lot of people on this site feel Dave is a great dev and give him a lot of credit but to me all he is a salesman; great talking in front of the camera, just like the British guy who was the spokesman for Warhammer Online.
EQ/EQ2 F2P model were hybrid models. Neither game was ready for the switch. It took 2-3 expansions to get the content and gear needed to make f2p worth it. Today they have the best model I have seen.
Dave's articles over the last few weeks make me laugh. It all looks good on paper but when he was at SOE he never implemented any of what he has wrote for this site.
When EQ 2 first went F2P the game was trying everything possible to force you to sub or spend a fortune in the cash shop. At the time it was one of the worse models of F2P I tried. The cash shop was in your face constantly and Dave was the bugger who unleashed it. I know a lot of people on this site feel Dave is a great dev and give him a lot of credit but to me all he is a salesman; great talking in front of the camera, just like the British guy who was the spokesman for Warhammer Online.
EQ/EQ2 F2P model were hybrid models. Neither game was ready for the switch. It took 2-3 expansions to get the content and gear needed to make f2p worth it. Today they have the best model I have seen.
What he is saying now is based off that experience. Look at how he talks about P2W. He explains why it is not a viable business tactic... which he learned after implementing F2P in these games, and seeing what did/did not work. F2P doesnt work well if you just try to force people to pay.
Dave's articles over the last few weeks make me laugh. It all looks good on paper but when he was at SOE he never implemented any of what he has wrote for this site.
When EQ 2 first went F2P the game was trying everything possible to force you to sub or spend a fortune in the cash shop. At the time it was one of the worse models of F2P I tried. The cash shop was in your face constantly and Dave was the bugger who unleashed it. I know a lot of people on this site feel Dave is a great dev and give him a lot of credit but to me all he is a salesman; great talking in front of the camera, just like the British guy who was the spokesman for Warhammer Online.
EQ/EQ2 F2P model were hybrid models. Neither game was ready for the switch. It took 2-3 expansions to get the content and gear needed to make f2p worth it. Today they have the best model I have seen.
What he is saying now is based off that experience. Look at how he talks about P2W. He explains why it is not a viable business tactic... which he learned after implementing F2P in these games, and seeing what did/did not work. F2P doesnt work well if you just try to force people to pay.
Thanks for your replies.
Last time I played EQ2 was when it initially went F2P so I'm unsure how they have undated their F2P model. If it's good as you say maybe I'll reinstall the game and have a look. I don't mind paying for cash shop items, I just don't like feeling forced.
Dave's articles over the last few weeks make me laugh. It all looks good on paper but when he was at SOE he never implemented any of what he has wrote for this site.
When EQ 2 first went F2P the game was trying everything possible to force you to sub or spend a fortune in the cash shop. At the time it was one of the worse models of F2P I tried. The cash shop was in your face constantly and Dave was the bugger who unleashed it. I know a lot of people on this site feel Dave is a great dev and give him a lot of credit but to me all he is a salesman; great talking in front of the camera, just like the British guy who was the spokesman for Warhammer Online.
I know fully well the reality of where Dave's influence and direction will take a game. I played EQ2 since launch, and watched it gradually erode to become more and more Cash Shop-centric. There is a great deal of hubris in Dave's Weekly Thoughts, but at least some people have direct experience with him to be able to see it.
Take for example how overt the push has become to use Station Cash to advance yourself. Many people argue that EQ2 has P2W elements now because of this. At the very least it is opportunistic price gouging to charge the equivalent of a monthly subscription fee for a single spell upgrade.
There is also the contentious double-dipping issue of the latest expansion that came with a new race. Err, didn't come with a new race. If you bought the expansion, you still have to fork over an additional $20 for the new winged Aerakyn. Unfortunately, that is just the base model. If you wanted to get one that could actually fly, you'd have to fork over $42 to buy the complete package.
So, thanks for another enlightening article, Dave. I've seen firsthand how what you say and what you do actually work in the games you influence. There is a wide gap of discrepancy between what you sell the masses in these self-promotional articles and the application. Your honey-coated F2P vision still coats a bitter, nasty pill.
Development is often focused on how to create pathways into the cash shop - it stilts game design and is obvious.
Much more expensive to play a F2P game if you're not one of the freeloaders. Basically, you're subsidizing the game for people who don't feel the game is worth paying for.
All F2P has done is allowed games that are "just barely fun" to be free for people who are just passing time waiting for a game they actually want to play (and would be willing to pay for) to survive by making those who choose to support a product by paying far more than they otherwise would if the game was good enough to have a real playerbase.
That's why the MMO community is so transient these days, they don't particularly like these games, but they play them because they're "free" and some people are being heavily monetized so that the devs can continue to crank out games that people are willing to try as long as they don't have to pay anything. Great.
This doesn't read as a Pro and Con article. It reads as an advocacy piece for F2P. That's fine if that's your position but please don't bill it as Pro & Con since you've pretty much glossed over and minimized all the legitimate negatives of F2P.
Though I personally hate the F2P model, I'm not going to sit here beating it with a baseball bat. However, like most things in life it does have real negatives along with the positives and to pretend they are easily and routinely solved is just nonsense.
Originally posted by Salute F2P didnt kill mmo's. Dead P2P mmo's turned into F2P in order to avoid their shutdown.
Isn't it amazing how people can start enjoying certain games once they no longer have to pay for them ?
Yup. If you give people the choice of paying $15 for a case of Bud, or give them 6 free cans of Bud with the option of buying individual cans for $2 afterwards, I'm willing to bet they will take the 6 free beers and maybe buy the individuals if they have the time and/or desire to drink more.
Sorry but I really got a good laugh out of that article.
Granted, f2p is a great way to try out a game, but that could be a real problem if you really like the game because you will forever be on the bottom looking up unless you are prepared to open your wallet wide.
"Pay to Win is mostly a Shadow Fear" That headline really cracked me up. Just wondering how many f2p games have you played? Just as an example, play any Perfect World game or that game they so heavily advertise on TV, the Game of War and try to compete in pvp. You will soon learn what pay-to-win means. I could just list a litany of games just like them. Sure there are many f2p games out there without such a feature, but they are in the minority.
Your short diatribe on the Trolls was a bit brief. Trolls bring, cheaters, hackers, gold sellers, etc. which most indie developers have little chance of having personnel to combat such. Look at the problems Trion had with ArchAge and they are a pretty big shop compared to others. These people literally destroy any game economy you attempt to maintain.
A typical f2p game will raise the level limit soon as they get enough paying customers all outfitted so they again require the item shop all over again. I can't count how many of them do this, pretty much most of them.
You also forgot that there are some really different categories that fall under the f2p moniker. AAAGames like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, etc. take an entirely different approach than what many others do. To start with they usually have alot more content than your normal f2p game.
All I can say is, next time know something about your topic before making yourself look foolish.
F2P saved MMOs. I was there when SWTOR was dying, so deserted it was almost unplayable, and F2P saved that game. Future MMO devs would be fools not to make their games F2P from day one. Anyway...
Georgeson likes the simplicity of F2P games with paywalls. I hate paywalls inside F2P games. Like in DCUO for instance, you need to buy the DLCs. Why should I get my hero to max level... only to have to pay to play? Internal paywalls kill the illusion that you are investing your time as you play, and without that illusion, MMOs are pretty boring.
Dave's articles over the last few weeks make me laugh. It all looks good on paper but when he was at SOE he never implemented any of what he has wrote for this site.
When EQ 2 first went F2P the game was trying everything possible to force you to sub or spend a fortune in the cash shop. At the time it was one of the worse models of F2P I tried. The cash shop was in your face constantly and Dave was the bugger who unleashed it. I know a lot of people on this site feel Dave is a great dev and give him a lot of credit but to me all he is a salesman; great talking in front of the camera, just like the British guy who was the spokesman for Warhammer Online.
EQ/EQ2 F2P model were hybrid models. Neither game was ready for the switch. It took 2-3 expansions to get the content and gear needed to make f2p worth it. Today they have the best model I have seen.
What he is saying now is based off that experience. Look at how he talks about P2W. He explains why it is not a viable business tactic... which he learned after implementing F2P in these games, and seeing what did/did not work. F2P doesnt work well if you just try to force people to pay.
Thanks for your replies.
Last time I played EQ2 was when it initially went F2P so I'm unsure how they have undated their F2P model. If it's good as you say maybe I'll reinstall the game and have a look. I don't mind paying for cash shop items, I just don't like feeling forced.
yep actually eq2 is pretty fair f2p model , the only "advantage" is master spells , but u can gain enoug plat to buy kronos and upgrade spells an go back to f2p and keep your spells , plus looks like now u get AA automatically while leveling , dunno if f2p players gain now 100% xp , because it was 50% EXP 50% AA before
but SoE push expansions a bit too fast (yeah! ) and content is buggy as hell for some time (if even gets fixe) , the game lost it soul after kunark imho.
but still have its playerbase (if only for housing and crafting alone) , eq2 really needs what wow did with WoD a reduction of spells , having 6 hotbars full of things to press isnt fun , every expa adds spells AAs and more isnt always better.
F2P saved MMOs. I was there when SWTOR was dying, so deserted it was almost unplayable, and F2P saved that game. Future MMO devs would be fools not to make their games F2P from day one. Anyway...
MMO Publishers (not Devs) realize that the way to make the MOST money on the initial rush is to start with P2P, then to lower the barriers of entry over time. I agree that they should develop all the parts necessary for F2P upfront (not doing so is a sign of poor planning). However, they should be taking money upfront (hand over fist) before they implement F2P. This does not change the game, it just makes them a lot more money upfront.
I find it funny that a Developer is telling us that F2P is good. Sorry Georgeson but no I am not drinking your Kool Aid. I played enough F2P games to know they are a load of crap and they are why the MMO industry sucks ass. In some way I can understand the Hybrid model to a point in a game like SWTOR were I can buy different looks to make my character look different. However with that said I do not like that every new look that I want being placed in the cash shop so I pay money to support someone else who is too god dam cheap to spend money on the game. If a person is not willing to pay their way I dont care they do not belong playing what ever game.
What is wrong with the MMO industry is they built crappy ass casual throw away games and want $15 a month subs plus box. What I mean by crappy ass casual game is they cattered to the most casual of player who wants to progress as fast as people who play 5+ hours a week by playing 1 hour a week and want all the same stuff as players who dedicate time each week to play. You developers catter to them by making every bit of content doable on an EASY MODE. Then when the average gamer who has 5 to maybe 10 hours a week comes and plays we are bored out of our minds for months if not a year waiting for new content. So why would we pay $15 for that load of BS? We will not. F2P catters to the cheap and casual players.
I want an MMO much like I am playing right now in FFXIV. They add content for casuals in the way of housing, 24 main Raids that are totally different than the real raid content in Coil, deep crafting systems, and Treasure hunting plus more. They dont make Raiders and Non raiders feel a like, and they only charge $40 for the game at release of ARR and $12 a month. They do have a cash shop however its nothing but visual stuff and minions. They also come out with new content every 3 or 4 months so its hard to get bored unless you play 50 hours a week. My 5 to 10/12 ish a week I still always have something to do and enjoying.
If FFXIV goes F2P I will quit MMOs for good. I played F2P games and hate them and hate what they done to the industry. I have also already known many people who Quit MMOs because of F2P.
Now if you are talking about LOL, DOTA2, HOTS or even Hearthstone. Them are not MMOs they are just Online games. Them being F2P I have no problem with because they do not have deep progression like an MMO has.
Yes all of us are experts on business models. More than a veteran who was part of several games in one of the biggest mmo publishing and developing company. we know everything about everything better than veterans who are in the field.
/sarcasm
Boobs are LIFE, Boobs are LOVE, Boobs are JUSTICE, Boobs are mankind's HOPES and DREAMS. People who complain about boobs have lost their humanity.
This guy is seriously missing the point. The argument is NOT whether a P2W model is sustainable. Thats like arguing ( a bit attenuated ) that global warming IS indeed bad.. we all know it is. The question is whether our actions indeed are causing global warming.
Simiilarly, everyone knows P2W is not sustainable.. the topic hot button topic is What consitutes a P2W game? Or is this or is this NOT a P2W game. Saying that P2W games suck is merely a truism.
"The player doesn’t have to pay before trying the game. This gives the game a much better chance at first-month critical mass."
Which is one reason why they design for the first month not the twelve, they don't expect anyone to be there then. And so end game is often an afterthought.
"Early gains make a game more successful and more obviously worth supporting for the long-term."
Early design philosophy makes devs only think of the short term. They forget about the long term as they do not expect there to be one, or if there is they will have been let go by then.
"Even when done well, if people are noticing your pay options, then at that moment, and very briefly, they’re thinking about whether to spend money instead of just enjoying the game."
But that's what they want you to do, cash shop games would rather you spend all your time in the cash shop. that's inherent in their design. The fact you have to game to want to use the cash shop is a necessary nuisance.
"So in general, there’s not much of a reason to fear pay-to-win suddenly being introduced into your existing game because it’s a really bad business move and the clever in the industry won’t do it to you."
Yet P2W exists in nearly every game with a cash shop. It is so prevalent now commentators do not even think of XP potions and buying elements of a crafted weapon as P2W. They think you need a to be able to buy a box called "You have Won the Game" to call a cash shop P2W.
"I don’t personally have anything against pay-to-win games. I’ve played several good ones and lots of smaller ones for research purposes."
I wonder if David could tell us how many of those "F2P" MMOs he enjoyed where once seriously funded P2P MMOs that subsequently went F2P?
The biggest negative as far as I'm concerned is the focus on how they are developed and operated. An individual developer may be focused on just making the best game they can but the companies that pay their salaries and operate them for the most part are corporations and corporations are focused on just one thing.... maximizing profits. A small indie developer or privately held company may have other goals beside that but for the large public corporation that is the focus of their entire existence. I don't mean to imply there is anything sinister or unfair about that. It's how our economy works and the corporations are simply doing what is natural for them to do....get the best return on investment for their shareholders. However, that focus combined with the choice of business model is going to have an impact on the design of the products and services they produce and that impact needs to be understood. Everyone wants to make a good product (game) but the best product that no one spends any money on is a loser for the corporation.
A corporations sole goal is to maximize profit and that goal is reflected in the products and services they provide. With a pure sub-based game (no cash shop) the proposition for maximizing profit is fairly straightforward. Get as many people to subscribe to the game as possible and get them to come back month after month. There is a fixed maximum amount that each user pays, so it is really irrelevant to the corporation what the user does in the game (with the exception of driving away other users) or how much time they spend in it each month as long as they are willing to pay their $15 that month and return to pay it again the next month. Every user is a revenue source.
The F2P model is different. People can access the service without paying anything. Each user that plays the game and doesn't spend over a certain threshold is COST to the corporation, not a source of REVENUE. Users who don't spend may help with hyping the games popularity and make it seem bustling to other users but they are a loss financially. This is mitigated by 2 factors..... first that they can get a larger number of people to try the product and some of those people will spend but secondly that the amount any individual user will spend is variable with NO UPPER BOUNDS. This means that the corporation is not just concerned with getting people to play their game and return but they are concerned with what the player does within the game. In order to make money, they have to push, prod and cajole the player to engage in SPENDING behavior while playing the game. They need to do that because that's the only way they make money. In fact. in order to maximize their profit they want the user to engage in spending behavior to the maximum degree they are willing to do. This neccessarily will influence the design of the game and not neccessarily in ways that are positive for the gamer. In fact, the optimal design, as far as the corporation goes, is to push, prod, cajole and irritate the player to spend to the maximum degree possible but falling just short of that which will drive them away from the game.
This is not evil or sinister but it is impactfull to the end user and the design. It does not make for the "best" game experience or the one that is "most fun to play" but rather a game that is good enough that many people will want to still play it, and as many of those will engage in as much spending behavior as they will tolerate. There are lots of tactics that prey on human psychology that can be employed to do that. This model is similar to the way that most casino's operate. Again, this is not an "evil" thing...at least not if the consumer is aware of how the model works but it does detract from the users experience.
Example, people in the gambling room of a casino would probably have a "better" experience if there were windows they could look out and enjoy the view, if there were clocks on the wall to remind them of the dinner appointments and shows they didn't want to miss, if there wasn't quite as much free alcohol flowing around to impair their judgement while gambling. However you won't see any of that in most casino's because while it makes for the best experience for the patron, it's not in the best interest of the casino... who want's to keep the patron gambling as long, as much and as recklessly as possible...because that's how the casino maximizes it's profit.
Yes all of us are experts on business models. More than a veteran who was part of several games in one of the biggest mmo publishing and developing company. we know everything about everything better than veterans who are in the field.
/sarcasm
The question is not whether he knows more about the field then most of the rest of us. The question is whether he is writing objectively and without any agenda.
I'm absolutely certain that when I go car shopping, the salesman I talk to will know more about cars and car shopping then I do. That doesn't mean he's going to give me objective information about what the best car for me is.... and how I can get it at the best price.
I certainly could be wrong about this and I don't attribute any sinister motives to the author but the article definately reads to me more like an advocacy piece and less like an objective Pro & Con evaluation.
This guy is seriously missing the point. The argument is NOT whether a P2W model is sustainable. Thats like arguing ( a bit attenuated ) that global warming IS indeed bad.. we all know it is. The question is whether our actions indeed are causing global warming.
Simiilarly, everyone knows P2W is not sustainable.. the topic hot button topic is What consitutes a P2W game? Or is this or is this NOT a P2W game. Saying that P2W games suck is merely a truism.
Thanks David "cpt. obvious" Georgson
Probably the ideal situation for a Developer is to have a P2W game that is not PERCEIVED as P2W..... that way they have the easiest route to push the player into spending behavior without having the negative stigma of "being P2W" which will drive potential customers away. That's why I take pieces on this site that try to present that such and such is not "really" pay to win with a very large grain of salt.
Obviously what constitutes "P2W" and what doesn't is entirely subjective. However, Developers have a vested interest in trying to convince gamers that almost nothing is P2W and to spread the perception that such is a common sentiment and you are merely an outlier if you do not share it. They could literally sell you an "I Win!" button and you'll see an article crop up here or elsewhere trying to present the opinion that is not "P2W".
Yes all of us are experts on business models. More than a veteran who was part of several games in one of the biggest mmo publishing and developing company. we know everything about everything better than veterans who are in the field.
/sarcasm
Well, some of us are. And just for the sake of saying it, SOE wasn't exactly the paragon of great business decisions nor of consistently great video games. Just because someone is a veteran of an industry doesn't mean that they're actually good or exceptional.
Also, let's keep in mind that just because a business model is a good choice for generating revenue, doesn't make it good for the consumer. This is actually a great place for the much loved, often misused McDonald's analogy. Just because McDonald's has a great business model doesn't mean their food is good for you (or good tasting or good in any particular way). But hey, you can't criticize McDonald's. After all, you're not an expert on business models.
I also find it rather ironic that as I read this article the advert below it is for a F2P game that uses the bi-line "Battle for Sexy Angels" . Clearly F2P is about producing quality gameplay experiences and not at all about preying on the hormones of 14 year old boys to run up charges on their parents credit cards so they can buy softcore anime porn with micro-transactions.
Comments
All Time Favorites: EQ1, WoW, EvE, GW1
Playing Now: WoW, ESO, GW2
Isn't it amazing how people can start enjoying certain games once they no longer have to pay for them ?
This mirrors the story of the movie 'Its a Wonderful Life'. This movie was not a big hit... until the copyright lapsed, and it became free. Since then it has become a megahit, and seen by millions.
Dave's articles over the last few weeks make me laugh. It all looks good on paper but when he was at SOE he never implemented any of what he has wrote for this site.
When EQ 2 first went F2P the game was trying everything possible to force you to sub or spend a fortune in the cash shop. At the time it was one of the worse models of F2P I tried. The cash shop was in your face constantly and Dave was the bugger who unleashed it. I know a lot of people on this site feel Dave is a great dev and give him a lot of credit but to me all he is a salesman; great talking in front of the camera, just like the British guy who was the spokesman for Warhammer Online.
EQ/EQ2 F2P model were hybrid models. Neither game was ready for the switch. It took 2-3 expansions to get the content and gear needed to make f2p worth it. Today they have the best model I have seen.
What he is saying now is based off that experience. Look at how he talks about P2W. He explains why it is not a viable business tactic... which he learned after implementing F2P in these games, and seeing what did/did not work. F2P doesnt work well if you just try to force people to pay.
Thanks for your replies.
Last time I played EQ2 was when it initially went F2P so I'm unsure how they have undated their F2P model. If it's good as you say maybe I'll reinstall the game and have a look. I don't mind paying for cash shop items, I just don't like feeling forced.
I know fully well the reality of where Dave's influence and direction will take a game. I played EQ2 since launch, and watched it gradually erode to become more and more Cash Shop-centric. There is a great deal of hubris in Dave's Weekly Thoughts, but at least some people have direct experience with him to be able to see it.
Take for example how overt the push has become to use Station Cash to advance yourself. Many people argue that EQ2 has P2W elements now because of this. At the very least it is opportunistic price gouging to charge the equivalent of a monthly subscription fee for a single spell upgrade.
There is also the contentious double-dipping issue of the latest expansion that came with a new race. Err, didn't come with a new race. If you bought the expansion, you still have to fork over an additional $20 for the new winged Aerakyn. Unfortunately, that is just the base model. If you wanted to get one that could actually fly, you'd have to fork over $42 to buy the complete package.
So, thanks for another enlightening article, Dave. I've seen firsthand how what you say and what you do actually work in the games you influence. There is a wide gap of discrepancy between what you sell the masses in these self-promotional articles and the application. Your honey-coated F2P vision still coats a bitter, nasty pill.
Pros:
Makes lots of money.
Low barrier of entry.
Cons:
Props up games that should have shuttered.
Development is often focused on how to create pathways into the cash shop - it stilts game design and is obvious.
Much more expensive to play a F2P game if you're not one of the freeloaders. Basically, you're subsidizing the game for people who don't feel the game is worth paying for.
All F2P has done is allowed games that are "just barely fun" to be free for people who are just passing time waiting for a game they actually want to play (and would be willing to pay for) to survive by making those who choose to support a product by paying far more than they otherwise would if the game was good enough to have a real playerbase.
That's why the MMO community is so transient these days, they don't particularly like these games, but they play them because they're "free" and some people are being heavily monetized so that the devs can continue to crank out games that people are willing to try as long as they don't have to pay anything. Great.
This doesn't read as a Pro and Con article. It reads as an advocacy piece for F2P. That's fine if that's your position but please don't bill it as Pro & Con since you've pretty much glossed over and minimized all the legitimate negatives of F2P.
Though I personally hate the F2P model, I'm not going to sit here beating it with a baseball bat. However, like most things in life it does have real negatives along with the positives and to pretend they are easily and routinely solved is just nonsense.
Yup. If you give people the choice of paying $15 for a case of Bud, or give them 6 free cans of Bud with the option of buying individual cans for $2 afterwards, I'm willing to bet they will take the 6 free beers and maybe buy the individuals if they have the time and/or desire to drink more.
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
Sorry but I really got a good laugh out of that article.
Granted, f2p is a great way to try out a game, but that could be a real problem if you really like the game because you will forever be on the bottom looking up unless you are prepared to open your wallet wide.
"Pay to Win is mostly a Shadow Fear" That headline really cracked me up. Just wondering how many f2p games have you played? Just as an example, play any Perfect World game or that game they so heavily advertise on TV, the Game of War and try to compete in pvp. You will soon learn what pay-to-win means. I could just list a litany of games just like them. Sure there are many f2p games out there without such a feature, but they are in the minority.
Your short diatribe on the Trolls was a bit brief. Trolls bring, cheaters, hackers, gold sellers, etc. which most indie developers have little chance of having personnel to combat such. Look at the problems Trion had with ArchAge and they are a pretty big shop compared to others. These people literally destroy any game economy you attempt to maintain.
A typical f2p game will raise the level limit soon as they get enough paying customers all outfitted so they again require the item shop all over again. I can't count how many of them do this, pretty much most of them.
You also forgot that there are some really different categories that fall under the f2p moniker. AAAGames like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, etc. take an entirely different approach than what many others do. To start with they usually have alot more content than your normal f2p game.
All I can say is, next time know something about your topic before making yourself look foolish.
F2P saved MMOs. I was there when SWTOR was dying, so deserted it was almost unplayable, and F2P saved that game. Future MMO devs would be fools not to make their games F2P from day one. Anyway...
Georgeson likes the simplicity of F2P games with paywalls. I hate paywalls inside F2P games. Like in DCUO for instance, you need to buy the DLCs. Why should I get my hero to max level... only to have to pay to play? Internal paywalls kill the illusion that you are investing your time as you play, and without that illusion, MMOs are pretty boring.
yep actually eq2 is pretty fair f2p model , the only "advantage" is master spells , but u can gain enoug plat to buy kronos and upgrade spells an go back to f2p and keep your spells , plus looks like now u get AA automatically while leveling , dunno if f2p players gain now 100% xp , because it was 50% EXP 50% AA before
but SoE push expansions a bit too fast (yeah! ) and content is buggy as hell for some time (if even gets fixe) , the game lost it soul after kunark imho.
but still have its playerbase (if only for housing and crafting alone) , eq2 really needs what wow did with WoD a reduction of spells , having 6 hotbars full of things to press isnt fun , every expa adds spells AAs and more isnt always better.
Greetings good Sir. Nice to hear from you.
Shame that pissed me off to see a dedicated and passionate person like you dropped from Daybreak. True shame.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
MMO Publishers (not Devs) realize that the way to make the MOST money on the initial rush is to start with P2P, then to lower the barriers of entry over time. I agree that they should develop all the parts necessary for F2P upfront (not doing so is a sign of poor planning). However, they should be taking money upfront (hand over fist) before they implement F2P. This does not change the game, it just makes them a lot more money upfront.
I find it funny that a Developer is telling us that F2P is good. Sorry Georgeson but no I am not drinking your Kool Aid. I played enough F2P games to know they are a load of crap and they are why the MMO industry sucks ass. In some way I can understand the Hybrid model to a point in a game like SWTOR were I can buy different looks to make my character look different. However with that said I do not like that every new look that I want being placed in the cash shop so I pay money to support someone else who is too god dam cheap to spend money on the game. If a person is not willing to pay their way I dont care they do not belong playing what ever game.
What is wrong with the MMO industry is they built crappy ass casual throw away games and want $15 a month subs plus box. What I mean by crappy ass casual game is they cattered to the most casual of player who wants to progress as fast as people who play 5+ hours a week by playing 1 hour a week and want all the same stuff as players who dedicate time each week to play. You developers catter to them by making every bit of content doable on an EASY MODE. Then when the average gamer who has 5 to maybe 10 hours a week comes and plays we are bored out of our minds for months if not a year waiting for new content. So why would we pay $15 for that load of BS? We will not. F2P catters to the cheap and casual players.
I want an MMO much like I am playing right now in FFXIV. They add content for casuals in the way of housing, 24 main Raids that are totally different than the real raid content in Coil, deep crafting systems, and Treasure hunting plus more. They dont make Raiders and Non raiders feel a like, and they only charge $40 for the game at release of ARR and $12 a month. They do have a cash shop however its nothing but visual stuff and minions. They also come out with new content every 3 or 4 months so its hard to get bored unless you play 50 hours a week. My 5 to 10/12 ish a week I still always have something to do and enjoying.
If FFXIV goes F2P I will quit MMOs for good. I played F2P games and hate them and hate what they done to the industry. I have also already known many people who Quit MMOs because of F2P.
Now if you are talking about LOL, DOTA2, HOTS or even Hearthstone. Them are not MMOs they are just Online games. Them being F2P I have no problem with because they do not have deep progression like an MMO has.
Yes all of us are experts on business models. More than a veteran who was part of several games in one of the biggest mmo publishing and developing company. we know everything about everything better than veterans who are in the field.
/sarcasm
Boobs are LIFE, Boobs are LOVE, Boobs are JUSTICE, Boobs are mankind's HOPES and DREAMS. People who complain about boobs have lost their humanity.
This guy is seriously missing the point. The argument is NOT whether a P2W model is sustainable. Thats like arguing ( a bit attenuated ) that global warming IS indeed bad.. we all know it is. The question is whether our actions indeed are causing global warming.
Simiilarly, everyone knows P2W is not sustainable.. the topic hot button topic is What consitutes a P2W game? Or is this or is this NOT a P2W game. Saying that P2W games suck is merely a truism.
Thanks David "cpt. obvious" Georgson
"The player doesn’t have to pay before trying the game. This gives the game a much better chance at first-month critical mass."
Which is one reason why they design for the first month not the twelve, they don't expect anyone to be there then. And so end game is often an afterthought.
"Early gains make a game more successful and more obviously worth supporting for the long-term."
Early design philosophy makes devs only think of the short term. They forget about the long term as they do not expect there to be one, or if there is they will have been let go by then.
"Even when done well, if people are noticing your pay options, then at that moment, and very briefly, they’re thinking about whether to spend money instead of just enjoying the game."
But that's what they want you to do, cash shop games would rather you spend all your time in the cash shop. that's inherent in their design. The fact you have to game to want to use the cash shop is a necessary nuisance.
"So in general, there’s not much of a reason to fear pay-to-win suddenly being introduced into your existing game because it’s a really bad business move and the clever in the industry won’t do it to you."
Yet P2W exists in nearly every game with a cash shop. It is so prevalent now commentators do not even think of XP potions and buying elements of a crafted weapon as P2W. They think you need a to be able to buy a box called "You have Won the Game" to call a cash shop P2W.
"I don’t personally have anything against pay-to-win games. I’ve played several good ones and lots of smaller ones for research purposes."
I wonder if David could tell us how many of those "F2P" MMOs he enjoyed where once seriously funded P2P MMOs that subsequently went F2P?
The biggest negative as far as I'm concerned is the focus on how they are developed and operated. An individual developer may be focused on just making the best game they can but the companies that pay their salaries and operate them for the most part are corporations and corporations are focused on just one thing.... maximizing profits. A small indie developer or privately held company may have other goals beside that but for the large public corporation that is the focus of their entire existence. I don't mean to imply there is anything sinister or unfair about that. It's how our economy works and the corporations are simply doing what is natural for them to do....get the best return on investment for their shareholders. However, that focus combined with the choice of business model is going to have an impact on the design of the products and services they produce and that impact needs to be understood. Everyone wants to make a good product (game) but the best product that no one spends any money on is a loser for the corporation.
A corporations sole goal is to maximize profit and that goal is reflected in the products and services they provide. With a pure sub-based game (no cash shop) the proposition for maximizing profit is fairly straightforward. Get as many people to subscribe to the game as possible and get them to come back month after month. There is a fixed maximum amount that each user pays, so it is really irrelevant to the corporation what the user does in the game (with the exception of driving away other users) or how much time they spend in it each month as long as they are willing to pay their $15 that month and return to pay it again the next month. Every user is a revenue source.
The F2P model is different. People can access the service without paying anything. Each user that plays the game and doesn't spend over a certain threshold is COST to the corporation, not a source of REVENUE. Users who don't spend may help with hyping the games popularity and make it seem bustling to other users but they are a loss financially. This is mitigated by 2 factors..... first that they can get a larger number of people to try the product and some of those people will spend but secondly that the amount any individual user will spend is variable with NO UPPER BOUNDS. This means that the corporation is not just concerned with getting people to play their game and return but they are concerned with what the player does within the game. In order to make money, they have to push, prod and cajole the player to engage in SPENDING behavior while playing the game. They need to do that because that's the only way they make money. In fact. in order to maximize their profit they want the user to engage in spending behavior to the maximum degree they are willing to do. This neccessarily will influence the design of the game and not neccessarily in ways that are positive for the gamer. In fact, the optimal design, as far as the corporation goes, is to push, prod, cajole and irritate the player to spend to the maximum degree possible but falling just short of that which will drive them away from the game.
This is not evil or sinister but it is impactfull to the end user and the design. It does not make for the "best" game experience or the one that is "most fun to play" but rather a game that is good enough that many people will want to still play it, and as many of those will engage in as much spending behavior as they will tolerate. There are lots of tactics that prey on human psychology that can be employed to do that. This model is similar to the way that most casino's operate. Again, this is not an "evil" thing...at least not if the consumer is aware of how the model works but it does detract from the users experience.
Example, people in the gambling room of a casino would probably have a "better" experience if there were windows they could look out and enjoy the view, if there were clocks on the wall to remind them of the dinner appointments and shows they didn't want to miss, if there wasn't quite as much free alcohol flowing around to impair their judgement while gambling. However you won't see any of that in most casino's because while it makes for the best experience for the patron, it's not in the best interest of the casino... who want's to keep the patron gambling as long, as much and as recklessly as possible...because that's how the casino maximizes it's profit.
The question is not whether he knows more about the field then most of the rest of us. The question is whether he is writing objectively and without any agenda.
I'm absolutely certain that when I go car shopping, the salesman I talk to will know more about cars and car shopping then I do. That doesn't mean he's going to give me objective information about what the best car for me is.... and how I can get it at the best price.
I certainly could be wrong about this and I don't attribute any sinister motives to the author but the article definately reads to me more like an advocacy piece and less like an objective Pro & Con evaluation.
Probably the ideal situation for a Developer is to have a P2W game that is not PERCEIVED as P2W..... that way they have the easiest route to push the player into spending behavior without having the negative stigma of "being P2W" which will drive potential customers away. That's why I take pieces on this site that try to present that such and such is not "really" pay to win with a very large grain of salt.
Obviously what constitutes "P2W" and what doesn't is entirely subjective. However, Developers have a vested interest in trying to convince gamers that almost nothing is P2W and to spread the perception that such is a common sentiment and you are merely an outlier if you do not share it. They could literally sell you an "I Win!" button and you'll see an article crop up here or elsewhere trying to present the opinion that is not "P2W".
Well, some of us are. And just for the sake of saying it, SOE wasn't exactly the paragon of great business decisions nor of consistently great video games. Just because someone is a veteran of an industry doesn't mean that they're actually good or exceptional.
Also, let's keep in mind that just because a business model is a good choice for generating revenue, doesn't make it good for the consumer. This is actually a great place for the much loved, often misused McDonald's analogy. Just because McDonald's has a great business model doesn't mean their food is good for you (or good tasting or good in any particular way). But hey, you can't criticize McDonald's. After all, you're not an expert on business models.