Might I suggest moving to the cellphone naming conventions: Contract/subscription MMO's , and Pay-as-you-go/Free-to play. Would probably keep both sides happy. Not named free, but still states you pay only for what you want.
I like where you're headed, but unfortunately, there already is a payment option that's P2P but you pay per hour (mostly popular in Asia for P2P-based games). Despite me liking "Pay-As-You-Go", it'll seem a tad confusing in the greater scheme of things.
Sorry, I didn't read all the posts in the thread. But I'll toss in my opinion anyway.
The biggest problem with the "Free to play" games as a genre is the huge variety in their scale between the "free play" and the "pay play". Some games really are "free" to play, a player can get to the end-game and play enjoyably without ever spending real money. Sometimes there'll be another trade-off, usually much more grinding, or maybe the item mall contains items that are only convenience or non-combat based. Other games are just the opposite, providing items in their mall that are necessary if not at the beginning of play, at least very close. And of course, there's the wide range of games in between.
Many people that have dabbled in the F2P sphere have played only a few games in that wide range, or read accounts (usually quite biased) of only a few games which have sparked our opinions on the whole market. Some people that've played F2P games have hit the worst of the lot and feel--quite justifiably--that they've been cheated. Others have played the better F2P games and feel--again justifiably--right in defending the market.
While subscription-based games have varied play styles, free-2-play games have not only varied play styles but varied "pay" styles. And then there's the hybrid games... Yeesh, it's all quite the mess. The best thing we gamers can do for discussions involving these payment styles is to also indicate what experience we've had (either real or perceived) with the market so we can at least find out if we're on the same page.
Some of those games really are a rip-off, using everything from false advertising to in-game gimmicks to leverage funding from players. Others are subtle in their approach and weasel money from the players. And others are at least honest in what is needed and offer that at a fair price--usually a price competitive to subscription mmos. (It's sad of the dozen free-to-play games I've tried, I can only think of one--of my personal experience--that fits the last category, and it's more of a hybrid: DDO.)
All of the games have one thing in common though, they all advertise themselves as being "free to play". To my thinking, the free to play designation isn't about how we players view the game, or anything to do with the reality of playing the game, but solely the game's advertising. While it'd be nice if these games were more honest about how they expected to receive money, that isn't likely to happen.
Actually DDO is the MOST Free MMO since it pays you for playing and you can get eveything in the store without paying anything.
And in the update that just hit the test server they are removing the Leveling sigils from the game so you no longer need grind for thoose every 4 levels + They are adding several new high level quests that are FREE .
If WoW = The Beatles and WAR = Led Zeppelin Then LotrO = Pink Floyd
In response to this article, I find it completely unnecessary to change the name for a type of MMO that has been commonly used since the F2P's have been coming about. Albeit, I understand it is new and it is starting to become more and more prominent as players start finding and developing their own taste to an MMO, but that still doesn't warrant any reason to have to not utilize this name when all F2P games are in fact free. The basic model of a F2P game allows players to get to max level without having to pay at all but provide micro-transaction shops to enhance the experience. No these are not necessary despite what others might feel (because they totally need that pimp cane to compliment their pimp hat) for the most part.
For the F2P games that do require you to pay to progress any further, I do agree, those games should not be allowed to utilize such a name, but those games tend to be of lower quality overall anyway. Most F2P games do not fall under this category.
Companies are not at fault because there are a select few people that cannot understand the core concepts behind F2P games yet alone the whole purpose of a company. Let them pick at words all day, again maybe names might carry some impact, but again what's in a name is just a name. Nothing else and I think its about time people start realizing it and just because a game isn't matching THEIR definition of free doesn't mean the game isn't free, it could fairly well mean those particular people are ignorant to a couple things and perhaps companies could try harder in helping players point out how those people can progress for free to save themselves the trouble of whether or not they continue pursuing a game.
Although I like the word free, I tend to understand that every business needs an income to flourish and grow. While there is a large amount of people that can play an MMO without absolutely paying a nickel.
However, there is a large amount that spend anywhere from 30-50 $ a month, what seems to be the national average from researchers. Although, there is a small percentage that spend much more, anywhere from $100 and up. That is where many of the F2P mmo's make the bulk of there capital.
Which is a very FLEXIBLE and convienient plan,specially for working adults. I really don't like the fact that I am spending money on something I am not using, like a monthly fee. But, I do realize that a bulk of the games I do like to play are currently charging a monthly fee: EVE. But CCP also gives me the option to use ingame currency to buy a PLEX and extend my time, and if I do that using nothing but currency accrued ingame, then I essentially am playing for FREE!
I rest my case, good to see you keeping em honest jon. I was thinking about coming back to blog here, what do you think?
F2P's are like a demo. You get to play for a while and explore the game and it's worth, before you decide whether you want to pay for the game. It's hell of a lot better then throwing $60 to try a game and not ever play it again, including subscription. With a f2p you get what you want, without ever having blow money on a box and subscription. You get to try it before YOU decide it's worth the money. Nothing wrong with f2ps, they make enough money to continually push out more and more because there is obviously a big enough market for them.
Look at games like Mabinogi, Maplestory (probably the biggest success in f2p history) and Atlantica Online. Hugely profitable companies that still have a loyal following.
For Crying out loud. Are subscription people really this bitter and dumb?
Seriously Free to Play means like 20 other people just tried to explain to you thick people "The Game is Free to Play" Using Item Malls/Cash shop is optional if your that retarded and your ego needs to be refreshed then you must fork over 2000 dollars a week to be number 1 in the F2P MMO, then by all means go right ahead and do it no one is making them pay this money, but they feel the need to go for it.
Now here's where it gets fuzzy Games that let you try a few levels then you must pay (Chronicles of Spellborn) are to me trials/Shareware or Demos, Then with sad Games that let you play most but to get all you must sub like (DDO) are Freemium games not free at all and rather sad games that should be sub or dead. These types of Games claim Free to play status but in fact are far from it.
Unless you can complete the whole game with all game content and not pay a $ then it free to play if not it isn't. Being the best in the server or gaining everything fast is another matter all together, and Free to play MMO's need to pay bills like all of us.
Still a million times better than sub games in my opinion.
MMORPG.com's Jon Wood writes this article examining the usefulness of the term Free to Play when referring to games with items shops. After reading some of the comments brought on by our Best Free to Play MMO of 2009 Editor's Choice Award, I got to thinking about the term Free to Play. You see, on a daily basis I read about people complaining about the intrusion of the free to play genre into a land that was once the sole territory of subscription based MMOs. As with most things on this grand old internet of ours, some of the arguments against F2P games are well thought out and presented while others are stream of consciousness rants. It's just the nature of the beast. Still, there's one argument that pops up over and over again every time that this is debated. I've brought it up before, because I think that it's a complaint that's based on a miscommunication and easily fixed. Simply put, the term Free to Play has to go. The argument, so it goes, is that these games aren't free as the name of the business model might indicate, but rather require players to spend money over time in the inevitable item shop that is available to players. This inevitably opens up the floodgates of people complaining about the "false advertising" that's being committed and the tirade against the "greedy" companies that dare to charge for their products.
It is always interesting to see bias against something, only because people don't really think about it.
F2P means that you do not have to pay for the software, or the account to play (i.e. free).
P2P means that you have to pay for one/both of these.
War/AoC are now F2P. You can download them, create an account, and play for free.
Guild Wars is classically P2P. You pay for the game up front, and only then can you play.
How do microtransactions, monthly fees, time cards, etc fit in with this? They don't. None of these have any relevance to the way these games are marketed and sold... because we are talking about the point of sale here.
I am sure that many of you can look in your local paper and find an ad that reads like this: Free X (with purchase of Y). This is a classic advertising ploy, and has been used for much longer than computers have been around. This is often referred to as a BOGO (Buy one, get one, free).
As is clearly demonstrated in print ads, this marketing is not new... and is even considered a GOOD thing, rather than a bad thing.
So, where is this working (and doing well) in the computer industry? Try Email.
A few years back the email industry went through this same set of issues. Email was a pay per usage service (minute). Then it went to a flat fee (monthly). Then it went to free (with premium services). Sure, there are still many people that pay for email service, but the reality is that the majority get it for free.
Do we all really think that GMail, HotMail, YahooMail, etc suck? Is email being ruined by microtransactions, premium services, and monthly charges? Well, a few years back, that is what people were saying.... that free email sucked, and that no one would ever use those substandard services....
The Online Gaming Industry is following suite. Wow will become the CompuServe/AOL of the past. Free games will become more popular, they will be generally improved, and they will become the basic standard. There will still be plenty of people that pay for extra services... but the days where you can charge upfront for a product, before the consumer can see what they are getting are over.
So, is F2P the right term? Most definitely.
Do people know what it means? Most definitely not.
Comments
I like where you're headed, but unfortunately, there already is a payment option that's P2P but you pay per hour (mostly popular in Asia for P2P-based games). Despite me liking "Pay-As-You-Go", it'll seem a tad confusing in the greater scheme of things.
----
Games Tried: TCOS, 12sky, 12Sky2, Rappelz, LoA, GO, HO, GMU, Warrock, TR, PWI, SotNW:GE, PotC, EVE, MxO, PotBS, KO, HO, 9Dragons, LotRO, DDO, L2, Maplestory, Second Life, CoX, GW, EQ2, Ryzom, WoW, Planetside, SWG, FE, Aion, Allods, CO, etc
Sorry, I didn't read all the posts in the thread. But I'll toss in my opinion anyway.
The biggest problem with the "Free to play" games as a genre is the huge variety in their scale between the "free play" and the "pay play". Some games really are "free" to play, a player can get to the end-game and play enjoyably without ever spending real money. Sometimes there'll be another trade-off, usually much more grinding, or maybe the item mall contains items that are only convenience or non-combat based. Other games are just the opposite, providing items in their mall that are necessary if not at the beginning of play, at least very close. And of course, there's the wide range of games in between.
Many people that have dabbled in the F2P sphere have played only a few games in that wide range, or read accounts (usually quite biased) of only a few games which have sparked our opinions on the whole market. Some people that've played F2P games have hit the worst of the lot and feel--quite justifiably--that they've been cheated. Others have played the better F2P games and feel--again justifiably--right in defending the market.
While subscription-based games have varied play styles, free-2-play games have not only varied play styles but varied "pay" styles. And then there's the hybrid games... Yeesh, it's all quite the mess. The best thing we gamers can do for discussions involving these payment styles is to also indicate what experience we've had (either real or perceived) with the market so we can at least find out if we're on the same page.
Some of those games really are a rip-off, using everything from false advertising to in-game gimmicks to leverage funding from players. Others are subtle in their approach and weasel money from the players. And others are at least honest in what is needed and offer that at a fair price--usually a price competitive to subscription mmos. (It's sad of the dozen free-to-play games I've tried, I can only think of one--of my personal experience--that fits the last category, and it's more of a hybrid: DDO.)
All of the games have one thing in common though, they all advertise themselves as being "free to play". To my thinking, the free to play designation isn't about how we players view the game, or anything to do with the reality of playing the game, but solely the game's advertising. While it'd be nice if these games were more honest about how they expected to receive money, that isn't likely to happen.
-w
Actually DDO is the MOST Free MMO since it pays you for playing and you can get eveything in the store without paying anything.
And in the update that just hit the test server they are removing the Leveling sigils from the game so you no longer need grind for thoose every 4 levels + They are adding several new high level quests that are FREE .
If WoW = The Beatles
and WAR = Led Zeppelin
Then LotrO = Pink Floyd
In response to this article, I find it completely unnecessary to change the name for a type of MMO that has been commonly used since the F2P's have been coming about. Albeit, I understand it is new and it is starting to become more and more prominent as players start finding and developing their own taste to an MMO, but that still doesn't warrant any reason to have to not utilize this name when all F2P games are in fact free. The basic model of a F2P game allows players to get to max level without having to pay at all but provide micro-transaction shops to enhance the experience. No these are not necessary despite what others might feel (because they totally need that pimp cane to compliment their pimp hat) for the most part.
For the F2P games that do require you to pay to progress any further, I do agree, those games should not be allowed to utilize such a name, but those games tend to be of lower quality overall anyway. Most F2P games do not fall under this category.
Companies are not at fault because there are a select few people that cannot understand the core concepts behind F2P games yet alone the whole purpose of a company. Let them pick at words all day, again maybe names might carry some impact, but again what's in a name is just a name. Nothing else and I think its about time people start realizing it and just because a game isn't matching THEIR definition of free doesn't mean the game isn't free, it could fairly well mean those particular people are ignorant to a couple things and perhaps companies could try harder in helping players point out how those people can progress for free to save themselves the trouble of whether or not they continue pursuing a game.
Hi, Good topic.
Although I like the word free, I tend to understand that every business needs an income to flourish and grow. While there is a large amount of people that can play an MMO without absolutely paying a nickel.
However, there is a large amount that spend anywhere from 30-50 $ a month, what seems to be the national average from researchers. Although, there is a small percentage that spend much more, anywhere from $100 and up. That is where many of the F2P mmo's make the bulk of there capital.
Which is a very FLEXIBLE and convienient plan,specially for working adults. I really don't like the fact that I am spending money on something I am not using, like a monthly fee. But, I do realize that a bulk of the games I do like to play are currently charging a monthly fee: EVE. But CCP also gives me the option to use ingame currency to buy a PLEX and extend my time, and if I do that using nothing but currency accrued ingame, then I essentially am playing for FREE!
I rest my case, good to see you keeping em honest jon. I was thinking about coming back to blog here, what do you think?
F2P's are like a demo. You get to play for a while and explore the game and it's worth, before you decide whether you want to pay for the game. It's hell of a lot better then throwing $60 to try a game and not ever play it again, including subscription. With a f2p you get what you want, without ever having blow money on a box and subscription. You get to try it before YOU decide it's worth the money. Nothing wrong with f2ps, they make enough money to continually push out more and more because there is obviously a big enough market for them.
Look at games like Mabinogi, Maplestory (probably the biggest success in f2p history) and Atlantica Online. Hugely profitable companies that still have a loyal following.
For Crying out loud. Are subscription people really this bitter and dumb?
Seriously Free to Play means like 20 other people just tried to explain to you thick people "The Game is Free to Play" Using Item Malls/Cash shop is optional if your that retarded and your ego needs to be refreshed then you must fork over 2000 dollars a week to be number 1 in the F2P MMO, then by all means go right ahead and do it no one is making them pay this money, but they feel the need to go for it.
Now here's where it gets fuzzy Games that let you try a few levels then you must pay (Chronicles of Spellborn) are to me trials/Shareware or Demos, Then with sad Games that let you play most but to get all you must sub like (DDO) are Freemium games not free at all and rather sad games that should be sub or dead. These types of Games claim Free to play status but in fact are far from it.
Unless you can complete the whole game with all game content and not pay a $ then it free to play if not it isn't. Being the best in the server or gaining everything fast is another matter all together, and Free to play MMO's need to pay bills like all of us.
Still a million times better than sub games in my opinion.
Read Wood: What's in a Name?
Juliet:
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
Shakespeare quotes and stream of conciousness remarks? What's going on here?
It is always interesting to see bias against something, only because people don't really think about it.
F2P means that you do not have to pay for the software, or the account to play (i.e. free).
P2P means that you have to pay for one/both of these.
War/AoC are now F2P. You can download them, create an account, and play for free.
Guild Wars is classically P2P. You pay for the game up front, and only then can you play.
How do microtransactions, monthly fees, time cards, etc fit in with this? They don't. None of these have any relevance to the way these games are marketed and sold... because we are talking about the point of sale here.
I am sure that many of you can look in your local paper and find an ad that reads like this: Free X (with purchase of Y). This is a classic advertising ploy, and has been used for much longer than computers have been around. This is often referred to as a BOGO (Buy one, get one, free).
As is clearly demonstrated in print ads, this marketing is not new... and is even considered a GOOD thing, rather than a bad thing.
So, where is this working (and doing well) in the computer industry? Try Email.
A few years back the email industry went through this same set of issues. Email was a pay per usage service (minute). Then it went to a flat fee (monthly). Then it went to free (with premium services). Sure, there are still many people that pay for email service, but the reality is that the majority get it for free.
Do we all really think that GMail, HotMail, YahooMail, etc suck? Is email being ruined by microtransactions, premium services, and monthly charges? Well, a few years back, that is what people were saying.... that free email sucked, and that no one would ever use those substandard services....
The Online Gaming Industry is following suite. Wow will become the CompuServe/AOL of the past. Free games will become more popular, they will be generally improved, and they will become the basic standard. There will still be plenty of people that pay for extra services... but the days where you can charge upfront for a product, before the consumer can see what they are getting are over.
So, is F2P the right term? Most definitely.
Do people know what it means? Most definitely not.