If an MMORPG go F2P , will you try it ?

iixviiiix

No to me.

I rather play a F2P since the start than try a game that go F2P later

Kyleran

I rarely play F2P games regardless whether they start as such or convert to it from some other model post launch as I've found it to be a good indicator of sub par MMOs.

Ungood

Depends.

I mean, I am not just gonna play an MMO Because it's F2P, I am still gonna check reviews and make sure it's not a dumpster fire of a game.

And while being F2P makes me far more willing to give any recommended or at least, a popular MMO a Try, I am also willing to pay for the games I enjoy.

Po_gg

Quite an outdated question... but more on that a bit later.

So, would I try it, you ask? Of course I would. Payment model (on its own) has very little to do with the game's quality and fun factor.

When a sub-based game goes to f2p, at least when does it the "honest" way like DDO/LotRO, it just means there will be additional options in how you pay for the fun.

Actually, my main games are all in that category, subscription-based games switched to f2p.

Truth to be told however, later after the switch, over the years, they might receive greedy and distasteful changes... and my games suffer from that too.

Maybe AoC the least ("thanks" to being in maintenance mode) and neither CO (though the removal of the subscribe option a couple years ago was a low blow).

LotRO had the best f2p model for almost a decade, but in the last 1-2 years they've made some pretty shady and greedy moves...

You say you rather play games launching as f2p, same applies as above. On its own it tells very little on quality, there were quite good games with f2p built in since launch. But over the years those too received the greedy changes, and to be honest, the recent batch of games I wouldn't even poke with a pole, personally.

(But that ain't for the f2p status, it's more of an indicator of the industry's shitty state in general)

On the question is being outdated: "if an mmorpg go f2p", no such games anymore.
There are just two sub-only MMORPGs left, both have free trials, and no indication nor intention of switching f2p any time soon.

Nothing in the future either, the only MMORPG I know of, which is planning to launch with mandatory subscription is SoL, and I've no idea when will that launch be... not too soon, probably.

Everything else is already f2p, or planning to launch as f2p.

The same question was more interesting in the early 2010s...

Scot

Very much depends on the MMO in question but unlikely for me.

kitarad

I've noticed that games that started with subs are generally better when they go F2P than those that start as F2P. 

For me personally I will check out a F2P and if it is not too bad the way they make money like I am okay with how Path of Exile does it although I have spent a lot on it buying stash tabs. Come to think of it Path of Exile may be insidious because I just said it is okay when I have spent like 200 euros buying stash tabs. I might have out argued myself right there.

In my defense I am coming on 2k hours in POE.

Theocritus

I will most likely try an MMO if it has a free option of some sort, and I most likely will not try it if they want too much up front before playing. OF course there are factors like game style and such

Nebless

JUST because it went F2p - then NO. 

If I'm interested in a game, than I'm interested and how to pay for it doesn't come into the equation.

KnightFalz

Maybe. It depends on whether I feel it might be interesting.

rojoArcueid

If i like what i see, yes.

Amaranthar

Nope. No FtP games for me. Too much I don't like about that pay model. 

Wizardry

I play a f2p sometimes,FFXI private server.I get to play a game i already paid for and own,so there is no guilt whatsoever playing,i don't even consider it free since i paid for it.
Typically f2p=cash shop,it ALWAYS means cash shop so that's a no.I have in the past but i am sick of it and not supporting crappy business models anymore.

cameltosis

Highly unlikely, but then again, I did try out Wildstar again when it went F2P.

I much prefer sub-only games, I feel it results in a higher quality community which is something I look for in an MMORPG.

Po_gg said:

On the question is being outdated: "if an mmorpg go f2p", no such games anymore.

There are just two sub-only MMORPGs left, both have free trials, and no indication nor intention of switching f2p any time soon.

Nothing in the future either, the only MMORPG I know of, which is planning to launch with mandatory subscription is SoL, and I've no idea when will that launch be... not too soon, probably.

Everything else is already f2p, or planning to launch as f2p.

The same question was more interesting in the early 2010s...

Also gotta agree with Po_gg here, only FFXIV and WoW are left as sub-only at the moment. I tried out WoW many years ago and didnt enjoy it. I was in beta tests for FFXIV (1.0 and 2.0) and enjoyed parts of it, but still not right for me. So, going F2P wouldnt get me to play either.

Also, @Po_gg, Camelot Unchained is also planning on launching with a mandatory sub (and no cash shop). Mark Jacobs has also said that the reason for this is the same as my reason: higher quality community. Jacobs has also said that the price will be lower than the typical mmo sub price, though we'll have to wait and see exactly what that price will be

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Xatsh

I would rather play 1 that was f2p from the start if i had to choose between playing a game thay went f2p vs 1 that started as one.

Simply because this means if the game was so bad that it had to go f2p to survive it was not worth 5 to 25 cents an hour to play... aka was not worth playing at all. Not only that a game that started as f2p was designed for it... ones that were p2p that go f2p need to be hastily redesigned for f2p and usally it is done with p2w gating and boost.

A bad game that goes f2p is still bad and usally gets worse.

A potentially great game that is f2p usally gets put into the meh/bad category due to p2w but at least it has the chance to be mediocre.

I lump all f2p games into the crap category and subpar to sub games. Unless they can prove otherwise over time. Generally I will try a sub or box price game over a f2p anyday.

Po_gg

cameltosis said:

Also, Po_gg, Camelot Unchained is also planning on launching with a mandatory sub (and no cash shop). Mark Jacobs has also said that the reason for this is the same as my reason: higher quality community. Jacobs has also said that the price will be lower than the typical mmo sub price, though we'll have to wait and see exactly what that price will be

That's both a surprise and also my fault there...

My fault in the sense I ain't following CU closely, just on the surface since I don't plan to play it (didn't like DAoC either).

And surprise in the sense it's odd he's still sticking to that, even after the lost bet  

I remember on his stance about the subscription model from back in the early days - would be hard to forget, he envisioned the "f2p apocalypse" in three to five years, "and I’m betting closer to three" said Mark.

That was eight years ago, in 2013...  and f2p is pretty much everywhere.

He said it's an unsustainable model, while the industry exploded and took the lead from movies and music.
So unsustainable actually, that the industry is swimming in cash like Scrooge McDuck in his vault...

But it's still nice to see he's sticking to the original plan, now he only needs to finish and launch the game already.

Scot

kitarad said:

I've noticed that games that started with subs are generally better when they go F2P than those that start as F2P. 

For me personally I will check out a F2P and if it is not too bad the way they make money like I am okay with how Path of Exile does it although I have spent a lot on it buying stash tabs. Come to think of it Path of Exile may be insidious because I just said it is okay when I have spent like 200 euros buying stash tabs. I might have out argued myself right there.

In my defense I am coming on 2k hours in POE.

Subs>B2P>F2P. It is down to the cash they get at the start to make and keep a good game running, but also gameplay is not centred around cash shop/GAAS concepts. This still applies once they go F2P though drift sets in. Also it is why we need to scale down our expectations of CF MMOs, money does not ensure a good game by any means but it sure helps.

Theocritus

Timukas said:

I absolutely don't like games with a cash shop so I don't play f2p games. Even cosmetic cash shops tend to ruin immersion for me so I always prefer subscription.

I found a workaround for cash shops: never look in them........It's really that easy.

Ungood

Scot said:

kitarad said:

I've noticed that games that started with subs are generally better when they go F2P than those that start as F2P. 

For me personally I will check out a F2P and if it is not too bad the way they make money like I am okay with how Path of Exile does it although I have spent a lot on it buying stash tabs. Come to think of it Path of Exile may be insidious because I just said it is okay when I have spent like 200 euros buying stash tabs. I might have out argued myself right there.

In my defense I am coming on 2k hours in POE.

Subs>B2P>F2P. It is down to the cash they get at the start to make and keep a good game running, but also gameplay is not centred around cash shop/GAAS concepts. This still applies once they go F2P though drift sets in. Also it is why we need to scale down our expectations of CF MMOs, money does not ensure a good game by any means but it sure helps.

I get your vibe and feel on this.

But, Subs are the epitome of GaaS, as you need to keep paying the Sub or they will end your service contract to the game.

AlBQuirky

Generally speaking, I avoid F2P games. At the base of my preference is that I want to play the same massively multiplayer game as all of the other players. If you can "play/progress" faster thanks to XO potions in a cash shop, we're not playing the same game. If you buy armor/weapons/faster mounts in a cash shop, we're not playing the same game.

However, it is easier to "check out" if a game is good or not by playing it. Box price used to come with 30 days before the sub kicked in. I've paid for many games that never caught my interest (Witcher series is one such). I call that bad decisions on my part and don't blame anyone but myself for them.

I like subscriptions because they have a tendency to weed out players with no vested in the game. I'm not a "everyone should play every game" kinda guy

What I dislike about sub games (GaaS) that go F2P is that the offer players "currency" to spend in a cash shop. Their ONLY goal is to get players INTO the cash shop. Hopefully, those "sub paying players" will spend even more while there.

Basically, I want to play the same game (MMO) as everyone else

PS: Anyone else NOT see a way to vote for the poll? Or is it just me?

Mendel

My finances dictate that I consider F2P almost as a first option.  But the method of payment doesn't indicate the quality of the game, or even those that play it.  Even when I had cash, I rarely played anything before I had a hands-on experience with it.  I prefer a demo.  Since MMORPGs don't really understand the concept of a demo, I'll play what I can with the least fiscal risk to myself.  That generally means F2P.

I have purchased MMORPGs on subscription and single player games sight unseen.  The last subscriptions I had were EQ1 and DAoC, never really found the subscription model all that worthwhile.  It's great when you play 100+ hours a month, but gets rapidly less enticing when you drop below that threshold.

Ungood

If we are going to talk about payment models, this is my feels.

I really don't like a sub. The idea that I need to pay every month just to play a game always irritated me, even as far back as Muds like Gemstone IV in the early 90's. 

I always felt that there should have been a point where I paid enough.

With the rise of B2P, I liked this idea, all things said and done. I kinda liked the idea that Eternal Crusade used (Later adopted by Fortnight) where you can play a free trial, but once you spent the "Box amount" you unlocked the whole game. Which I thought was a handy.

Similar to DDO's, F2P, Premium, and ViP status, just a little better.

I like the idea of buying content to play, whatever you want to call it, Adventure Packs, Story Episodes, Mini-Expansions, Full On Expansions, Etc. Sell it to me baby.

if I like the game, I am gonna want to consume more of it.. feed me, and make us pay for it, that way, everyone in the paid area, you know paid to be there, no one is a freeloader in those zones/areas, so there is a sense of everyone being on the same foot.

What I don't like.

Supporting the whole game on selling pointless shit in the store, and then guessing what content to put in the game.

By and large, this has to be dumbest plan to make a game from, and yet it is so popular. It's like here, buy some fancy cosmetic thong, and since this gives us no clue what you like about the game, or what will keep you around, we are just going make random ass guesses based of what someone else on reddit said to us, as to what direction to take the game towards.

I can't be the only one that sees that as a train wreck in the making.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

cheyane

I like F2P games that give you the option to sub. I wished Neverwinter Online did that. I like the 'pay and forget' kind of thing. So I get the sub and all content is then opened up for me. I don't mind if the game then uses currency for cosmetics like SWTOR.

I just dislike it when they keep reminding me I have to buy stuff like inventory space by clogging my inventory with rubbish. Nothing pisses me off more than that since it is not  a too subtle method of filling my damn inventory to get me to buy bags.

I don't actually mind F2P games they can be good unless their cash shop is so terribly entwined into the advancement and one that is only apparent when you are at a high level and have gotten into a hole where your time and effort investment makes you reluctant to leave. Those games I never even bother with.

Po_gg

Neverwinter does have a VIP option... which is really weird and illogical.

CO and STO were subscription-based games, then switched to f2p with optional sub, and then (a few years ago) Cryptic took away that optional sub possibility. Which was pretty important since the games were built with that subscription in mind...

Then, there's Neverwinter, which also was originally built as a subscription game but then PWE entered, so it was delayed and reworked into f2p. Cryptic's first game launched as f2p, without a sub.

Then, later they've added the VIP, which is technically the subscription...

So now they have two strictly f2p games which were built around subscription, and a game which was built as strictly f2p, but now offers a sub option.

For a vulcan in STO it'd be a brain-melting mess

ed. to make things worse, VIP is borderline p2w, especially if you sub for 6 months or more. Some powerful perks on the list...

AAAMEOW

Wargfoot said:

F2P = time to leave

I prefer a monthly sub for two reasons:

1. Quality Developer:  I expect new content, no store, no loot boxes,  and a significant GM presence (banning gold sellers, etc).  
2. Quality Players: Disposable free accounts, IMHO, is a breeding ground for griefers who can be total jerks in game, losing only something for which they never paid.

Ya but, what's the difference between F2P and subscription base with cash shop.  

(Except if you believe subscription base game will have a less intrusive cashshop.