I hear the "pay to win" scenario being thrown around alot. This in NOT what lotro's model about, you can buy helpful items and stuff to make adventuring less, let's say, tedious, but the gear, weapons, items you need to be successful in game will still come from drops and questing.
I like what Turbine is doing and I'm SOOOO keeping my founders subscription! Party on!
I hear the "pay to win" scenario being thrown around alot. This in NOT what lotro's model about, you can buy helpful items and stuff to make adventuring less, let's say, tedious, but the gear, weapons, items you need to be successful in game will still come from drops and questing.
I like what Turbine is doing and I'm SOOOO keeping my founders subscription! Party on!
So, it's not P2W, but P2NP. Okay, thanks for the explanation, not looking forward paying to avoid playing, or playing to avoid paying...
We'll still have to see what the "over 2500" cash shop items are about, and how significant 500 turbine points can be. I wouldn't be very happy if the desirable things cost over 600 points, just to make me spend a little to be able to purchase it, that is, considering only one will be enough to satisfy me. We could argue about that happening or not, but it will be mere speculation, especially as turbine points aren't universal across turbine games (kind of makes this name a failure, they need to rename that).
Anyway, thanks Aihoshi, we needed one more thread to discuss LOTRO's model change.
It really helped DDO, but I had always liked DDO. It just lacked players. F2P was exactly what it needed to bring in bodies. Not sure if LOTRO is in the same boat. In LOTRO one can solo easily. Other people aren't needed, and the game is about as easy as a game can be. Heck, my first time playing I didn't die once until level 24. I'm thinking LOTRO will not see the huge increase that DDO saw. DDO0 was a game that was very lackluster out of the gate, improved a lot, but it lacked players in a forced group game. Not so in LOTRO, which, imo, still remains a lackluster, non-challenging game.
When the devs are occupied with 'how do I trick the customers out of more money?' rather than 'how do I make the game more fun so players stay subbed?' - that can only produce bad games.
That's pretty much in line with my thinking as well.
The focus has been finding ways of keeping players entertained and occupied enough to keep paying a sub month after month. Now the focus, it seems, will be finding ways to get the players to spend as much as possible in the Item Shop, as often as possible, while still calling it "free to play".
"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
When the devs are occupied with 'how do I trick the customers out of more money?' rather than 'how do I make the game more fun so players stay subbed?' - that can only produce bad games.
That's pretty much in line with my thinking as well.
The focus has been finding ways of keeping players entertained and occupied enough to keep paying a sub month after month. Now the focus, it seems, will be finding ways to get the players to spend as much as possible in the Item Shop, as often as possible, while still calling it "free to play".
As opposed to... dangling pointless carrots in front of you so you spend months and months stuck in timesinks effectively wasting not only about the same amount of money (only spread out over a longer time so you feel better about it), but also a hell of a lot more time?
Until the 800 pound gorilla in the room, World of Warcraft, goes free to play then we are still very much in Kansas, Dorothy.
LOTRO has always had an average, pre-Wow subscription base. And these days that makes such game a niche game, not AAA or mainstream. And since Turbine stuck to their guns and made a game that tried to reflect the IP it was drawn from rather than just making a game based on what the mainstream gamers wanted, it probably had less subscribers than other recent releases. Turbine's so called free to play scheme is nothing more than a glorified demo. If that breathes new life into the game, great. Sadly though I think this game failed mainly due to the fact it decided to NOT be like all the other games out there (one of its massive charms in my book). Unless Turbine drastically changes the game as we know it they aren't going to garner many long time new subscribers and by going free to play they just might chase away the small group of devoted fans that have stuck with the game until now.
So what we actually have is a niche game from a publisher that has already mucked up two, count em two, games so badly they had to make them free to play as well. And now they have not very surprisingly had to make a third game FTP (Better than just killing it like they had to do to Asheron's Call 2 I guess). So actually what we have here is Turbine doing business as usual and not some new massive trend towards a western FTP MMORPG revolution.
In short I wouldn't start humming "Somewhere Over The Rainbow" just yet. And take off those ruby slippers, they really don't suit you. (Neither do your rose tinted glasses.)
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
Yes companies are switching to free to play Richard, and yes we all knew they would despite the fact many of us hate the model and won't play it. The reason is simple by going "Free" to play, your profits increase dramatically, simply because there's so many people out there who love to spend hundreds of dollars in one month on pixels. One guy spending 200 bucks in a month and 10 subscribers quitting over the f2p move = more profit to the company.
This doesn't mean the model is better, or even more enjoyable for gamers. All it means is there are enough crazy people out there that will spend a fortune each month on your game if you provide a way for them to do it.
I'll still stick to much subscriber only MMOs, and when there's none left I will simply be done with MMOs. I haven't bought a console game in a long time because I know every game will have a few hours of content and then will release DLC and make you pay several times over for what you should of got in the first place.
I might be in the minority, but I will stick to my principles and not do an item shop game (even if it has a sub option, and even if most of the items are cosmetic). And I will not buy games that have little content but have DLC packs to make up for it. Perhaps one day I will simply be done with gaming, at that point I'll be older and have more important things to worry about so it probably won't matter much anyways.
I highly doubt one person would be spending $200 a month (I know you didn't say this, but it is implied; if he didn't spend 200$ a month it would be infinitely more profitable for turbine to keep the subscribers). Also, for most good F2P games you don't have to spend a dime to enjoy the content (LoL, DDO, etc), it just requires you to play more in order to experience the better content you could access earlier if you paid.
And for most subscription based games you would have to spend around 200$ a year, "on pixels"
The reason why the F2P model works is because it the core of the game is free. It allows more players access to the game. And if you could make the equivalent of $3 a person via cash shop or Premiums then you make a much greater profit then making $15 a month off of a significantly smaller crowd.
Playing video games is a hobby in which you pay people to make games that entertain you. It should never be free; and people shouldn't get made at game companies for making money; they make money in order to make products that you enjoy.
You do have the right stance though: if you don't like it, don't play it.
well for that one I remember a old history, in RFonline after it get to F2P as said a certain player in the korean version of the game just bought the equivalent to $10,000 dollars in cash shop upgrades, so he could make a weapon +7(with would raise the weapon damage to 200%) and is really what this kind of model really make you do burn more money then you would ina P2P model
For once I'm going to agree with Richard. There is no way I'm defending the F2P and Item Shops model, I'm still 100% against them on principle, but I think it is rapidly approaching the point where it is going to become the standard offering. Despite how much it sticks in my throat to say it, people who have objections to this model are facing a choice. We either give up on MMO's as more and more become F2P and become infected with Item stores, or we bite the bullet, don our flak jackets, and decide to dip our toes in to see how it goes.
There is one thing that gives me a glimmer of hope. Things are done differently in the West. I think this is important. I've tried so many Asian F2P MMO's and found them all unplayable and completely sub par in terms of graphics, gameplay, and general 'feel' when compared to western subscription mmo's. Importantly I've found the gameplay crippled in an effort to entice people into purchasing from the item stores.
DDO has apparantly already shown that the Western style of F2P can work. By all accounts the game is playable and they don't rip you off with the item store, and importantly many people still opt to take out what is in effect a monthly subscription. Infact I do think a new name for this style needs to be used as I see this model as being very different from an F2P game that relies soley on an Item Store for revenue.
My hope is that if this change to F2P cannot be avoided, then there will at least be a balancing out of the games which in the end may actually result in very little change for most MMO players, my suspicion being that many will still opt for the monthly sub. As more and more Western games go F2P with Item Stores there will be intense competition. So if one game cripples gameplay (i.e. becomes a mega grind in order to get people to purchase XP pots), then another game will take advantage in order to try and attract players. As they all start competing for the player base we will hopefully see a reduction in prices on item stores from the rather silly prices of the likes of Allods Online, lets face it if we have a choice of decent, playable, western MMO's then people will not take being ripped off and will simply go elsewhere. Hopefully this competition between the games will act as a deterrent to some of the companies who whould otherwise probably use the opportunity to screw the customer over.
I will admit that the thing I find most painful is the changing of existing subscription MMO's to F2P or Item Store games. As a player who is against Item Stores I felt chased away from EQ2, I thought I'd found a home in Lotro and had just purchased my lifetime sub 14 days ago so was initially furious at the decision to go FTP with Item store. I'm gradually getting over the initial shock and anger, my hope is that Turbine at least treat their lifetimers well in this new and scary world. I'm trying to see past my prejudice towards F2P, I really am, but I would be lying if I said I wasn't finding it hard to accept.
Since the F2P terminology doesn't seem to fit the new model (and actually never was truthful anyway since you spend so much in the item shops), here are a few suggestions for a terminology change...
F2TP2P = Free to Tour, Pay to Play
F2SPL = Free to Start, Pay Later
FoSAPE = Free or Sub - All Pay Eventually
F2P(BKTPH) = Free to Play (But keep the plastic handy)
As stated in the 2 articles preceding this, this marks the end of mine and many of my guild's time in Middle Earth. If this assinine f2p BS item mall pay to win crap is the future of MMOs more the better I suppose. More time to do other things when I quit the hobby entirely.
^ This ^
More then anything, it is this type of reply that is really bothering me most about this whole thing? Why? B/c it is just plain ignorant.
You obviously have NOT done your research, or you would know that it is most certainly NOT "item mall pay to win crap". Holy shit how many times do people have to say this. They are NOT selling items, it is NOT pay2win, not even close. This is not the "eastern" F2P model what-so-ever. Turbine doesn't seem interested in opening an item mall, or allowing players to buy gear that will give them an advantage, or allow them to skip the adventuring that players not interested in spending more money have to do to get an item.
Your game really isn't changing that much. The only thing that is changing is the way you pay for the game. No one can pay-2-win. That's not how this new "western" F2P model, and I don't even want to call it F2P b/c it's really not at all, seems to be developing.
We "western" MMO gamers are used to, and comfortable w/ the monthly subscription, and have a deep seated loathing for any kind of "pay-2-win" and/or item shop intruding on us. But I think that loathing comes from a mis-placed hatred of gold-farmers and sellers, and instantly associate any "eastern" F2P/item mall games w/ such practices. But that really isn't the direction "western" MMO developers are going in.
The devs aren't stupid, they realize that we strongly dislike that model, and that is not what they are aiming for. Pay-2-win is not coming to "our" games. I see this as simply an alternate method of paying for the game.
This entire brew-haha is ridiculous and could've simply been avoided if people had actually looked into the changes w/ at least a somewhat open-mind. But instead of reading the announcement, people are reading the headline and just going with their gut-reaction by saying "f%@ this shit, I don't want anything to do w/ that F2P/pay2win bullshit, I'm done w/ this game". That isn't really fair, and it's certainly not accurate.
More then anything, it is this type of reply that is really bothering me most about this whole thing? Why? B/c it is just plain ignorant.
You obviously have NOT done your research, or you would know that it is most certainly NOT "item mall pay to win crap". Holy shit how many times do people have to say this. They are NOT selling items, it is NOT pay2win, not even close.
No items? So, no potions or bigger bags or other things that give an in-game advantage?
Just pure fluff items?
This is not the "eastern" F2P model what-so-ever. Turbine doesn't seem interested in opening an item mall, or allowing players to buy gear that will give them an advantage, or allow them to skip the adventuring that players not interested in spending more money have to do to get an item.
Your game really isn't changing that much. The only thing that is changing is the way you pay for the game. No one can pay-2-win. That's not how this new "western" F2P model, and I don't even want to call it F2P b/c it's really not at all, seems to be developing.
We "western" MMO gamers are used to, and comfortable w/ the monthly subscription, and have a deep seated loathing for any kind of "pay-2-win" and/or item shop intruding on us. But I think that loathing comes from a mis-placed hatred of gold-farmers and sellers, and instantly associate any "eastern" F2P/item mall games w/ such practices. But that really isn't the direction "western" MMO developers are going in.
That's not where my disgust for cash shops comes from, BTW.
The devs aren't stupid,
Prove it.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Since the F2P terminology doesn't seem to fit the new model (and actually never was truthful anyway since you spend so much in the item shops), here are a few suggestions for a terminology change...
F2TP2P = Free to Tour, Pay to Play
F2SPL = Free to Start, Pay Later
FoSAPE = Free or Sub - All Pay Eventually
F2P(BKTPH) = Free to Play (But keep the plastic handy)
FoSYP2P = Free or Sub - You'll Pay to Play
F2PI = Free to Play Illusion
Edit: I forgot one...
BP = Bullwinkle Play (Think about it )
I don't know. Unless it has something to do with Upsydaisyum. Pulling rabbits out of hats?
Anyway - someone else has already coined the best term for it - P2NP "Pay to Not Play".
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
For once I'm going to agree with Richard. There is no way I'm defending the F2P and Item Shops model, I'm still 100% against them on principle, but I think it is rapidly approaching the point where it is going to become the standard offering. Despite how much it sticks in my throat to say it, people who have objections to this model are facing a choice. We either give up on MMO's as more and more become F2P and become infected with Item stores, or we bite the bullet, don our flak jackets, and decide to dip our toes in to see how it goes.
To hell with that. We do have a choice - refuse to play cash shop games, forming a large enough niche that some games are made for us.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
More then anything, it is this type of reply that is really bothering me most about this whole thing? Why? B/c it is just plain ignorant.
You obviously have NOT done your research, or you would know that it is most certainly NOT "item mall pay to win crap". Holy shit how many times do people have to say this. They are NOT selling items, it is NOT pay2win, not even close.
No items? So, no potions or bigger bags or other things that give an in-game advantage?
Just pure fluff items?
Personally, I don't count XP pots, or bigger bags as "items" per say, well, not in "that" sense. They may give, a small, temporary advantage (well, permanent in the case of bags), but I was reffering, as I'm sure you knew, to gear and the like. MMO's, most of them anyway, are heavily biased towards gear as a means of progression in and of itself. Thusly, selling gear to people who are willing to buy it that others, who aren't willing to pay, have to "work" to get is a big no-no in my book. That's what I was reffering to. So yeah, I guess I would group XP pots and larger bags as a type of "fluff", but I understand that not everyone will. But to me, personally, I have no problem w/ them selling those "items"
This is not the "eastern" F2P model what-so-ever. Turbine doesn't seem interested in opening an item mall, or allowing players to buy gear that will give them an advantage, or allow them to skip the adventuring that players not interested in spending more money have to do to get an item.
Your game really isn't changing that much. The only thing that is changing is the way you pay for the game. No one can pay-2-win. That's not how this new "western" F2P model, and I don't even want to call it F2P b/c it's really not at all, seems to be developing.
We "western" MMO gamers are used to, and comfortable w/ the monthly subscription, and have a deep seated loathing for any kind of "pay-2-win" and/or item shop intruding on us. But I think that loathing comes from a mis-placed hatred of gold-farmers and sellers, and instantly associate any "eastern" F2P/item mall games w/ such practices. But that really isn't the direction "western" MMO developers are going in.
That's not where my disgust for cash shops comes from, BTW.
Yeah, I wasn't reffering specifically to you, but was speaking in generalities on what, I percieve, gets everyone so worked up about this issue.
The devs aren't stupid,
Prove it.
Heh, well, I can't. I guess that was more of a hope, then a statement. I mean, yes, some dev's have shown incredibly bad judgement w/ certain desicions on certain types of changes. But again, generally, I think (read:hope) that the developers of MMO's do have a better grasp on the "pulse" of the MMO community then most people give them credit for.
Personally, I don't count XP pots, or bigger bags as "items" per say, well, not in "that" sense.
Oh no, really? You amaze me.
They most certainly are items.
They may give, a small, temporary advantage (well, permanent in the case of bags), but I was reffering, as I'm sure you knew, to gear and the like.
Then that is what you should have. Otherwise, it might seem like you were misleading us.
MMO's, most of them anyway, are heavily biased towards gear as a means of progression in and of itself. Thusly, selling gear to people who are willing to buy it that others, who aren't willing to pay, have to "work" to get is a big no-no in my book. That's what I was reffering to. So yeah, I guess I would group XP pots and larger bags as a type of "fluff", but I understand that not everyone will. But to me, personally, I have no problem w/ them selling those "items"
Obviously.
---- snippage ---
Heh, well, I can't. I guess that was more of a hope, then a statement. I mean, yes, some dev's have shown incredibly bad judgement w/ certain desicions on certain types of changes. But again, generally, I think (read:hope) that the developers of MMO's do have a better grasp on the "pulse" of the MMO community then most people give them credit for.
The only thing they want a grasp on is our wallets.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Personally, I don't count XP pots, or bigger bags as "items" per say, well, not in "that" sense.
Oh no, really? You amaze me.
They most certainly are items.
Yeah, they are items, but they are not items in the same sense as a piece of endgame gear or the like, and as such, I don't have a problem w/ them selling those type of things.. It's a temporary bonus, usually only an hour or two. As for larger bags, or more storage space, well, limited storage space is an antiquated means of limiting progression and in most cases having a larger bag hardly confers any kind of advantage.
They may give, a small, temporary advantage (well, permanent in the case of bags), but I was reffering, as I'm sure you knew, to gear and the like.
Then that is what you should have. Otherwise, it might seem like you were misleading us.
I did..."Turbine doesn't seem interested in opening an item mall, or allowing players to buy gear that will give them an advantage, or allow them to skip the adventuring that players not interested in spending more money have to do to get an item."
You're right though, I could have been more clear.
MMO's, most of them anyway, are heavily biased towards gear as a means of progression in and of itself. Thusly, selling gear to people who are willing to buy it that others, who aren't willing to pay, have to "work" to get is a big no-no in my book. That's what I was reffering to. So yeah, I guess I would group XP pots and larger bags as a type of "fluff", but I understand that not everyone will. But to me, personally, I have no problem w/ them selling those "items"
Obviously.
---- snippage ---
Heh, well, I can't. I guess that was more of a hope, then a statement. I mean, yes, some dev's have shown incredibly bad judgement w/ certain desicions on certain types of changes. But again, generally, I think (read:hope) that the developers of MMO's do have a better grasp on the "pulse" of the MMO community then most people give them credit for.
The only thing they want a grasp on is our wallets.
Well of course they do, that's kind of the point of all buisness in a capitalist market.
When the devs are occupied with 'how do I trick the customers out of more money?' rather than 'how do I make the game more fun so players stay subbed?' - that can only produce bad games.
That's pretty much in line with my thinking as well.
The focus has been finding ways of keeping players entertained and occupied enough to keep paying a sub month after month. Now the focus, it seems, will be finding ways to get the players to spend as much as possible in the Item Shop, as often as possible, while still calling it "free to play".
As opposed to... dangling pointless carrots in front of you so you spend months and months stuck in timesinks effectively wasting not only about the same amount of money (only spread out over a longer time so you feel better about it), but also a hell of a lot more time?
What you said makes no sense. The most hardcore grinders are usually F2P games, you know, those games where only one guy reaches the level cap... while spending hundreds of dollars to be able to survive the XP curve (like getting 0,001% per mob kill, each taking a while).
Time sinks aren't a P2P-exclusive, sorry, and objectively every game is a "time sink", meanwhile, others will call that "fun" and "content", because they, um... enjoy it. It's because we are playing RPGs.
When the devs are occupied with 'how do I trick the customers out of more money?' rather than 'how do I make the game more fun so players stay subbed?' - that can only produce bad games.
That's pretty much in line with my thinking as well.
The focus has been finding ways of keeping players entertained and occupied enough to keep paying a sub month after month. Now the focus, it seems, will be finding ways to get the players to spend as much as possible in the Item Shop, as often as possible, while still calling it "free to play".
As opposed to... dangling pointless carrots in front of you so you spend months and months stuck in timesinks effectively wasting not only about the same amount of money (only spread out over a longer time so you feel better about it), but also a hell of a lot more time?
What you said makes no sense. The most hardcore grinders are usually F2P games, you know, those games where only one guy reaches the level cap... while spending hundreds of dollars to be able to survive the XP curve (like getting 0,001% per mob kill, each taking a while).
Time sinks aren't a P2P-exclusive, sorry, and objectively every game is a "time sink", meanwhile, others will call that "fun" and "content", because they, um... enjoy it. It's because we are playing RPGs.
I know that timesinks arent P2P exclusive, and yes there are a lot of F2P games with horrible grinds, but those are kind of in a sub-genre of their own like Korean Grinders, but it doesnt hold true to all F2P games. the point is your are required to pay in order to waste your time doing them, whereas F2P gives you the option of do it for free, or pay and skip over some of it. It depends on the person really, but personally i dont find the "content" in most MMOs anymore to be "fun" after ive already killed 8732685623652 wolves to collect theirs pelts in a dozen other games that use the same exact game/quest/content/mechanics design.
Seriously, think about all the stuff youre forced to do in many P2P MMOs in order to advance. Its typically one type of grind or another with no real point to it other than to get the next level or piece of equipment, and it rarely ever differs in terms of how you gain it. Grind X mobs/quests here, then move to the next town/hub and repeat. Is any of that really necessary? No, but being forced to waste that time keeps you playing the game longer and paying that subscription month after month. It's really no different than F2P in the end, however F2P gives you an option of wasting time or wasting money depending on your preferrence, whereas P2P requires you to pay them first, then you get to go waste that time.
Dont kid yourself into thinking P2P devs design games only with your enjoyment in mind without implementing mechanics/features that drive people to play somewhat obsessively in order to keep paying that subscription.
Wow! Such derision, and from people who boldly admit to never trying the system! I can understand opinions on both sides, but I'll judge each instance of f2p individually before condemning the lot -- I learned my lesson after Runes of Magic. If f2p holds no interest to you, stop wasting so much time and effort ridiculing it. Vote with your money elsewhere.
As to lotro going f2p, I am a founder -- a lifer from beta -- and I have to say I'm cautiously excited about the proposed system. Most of my kin shares that sentiment, and many that were against it are slowly changing their opinion after reading what's being offered.
As to why lotro is going f2p... I've read a lot of posts that claim lotro is a failed mmo. That couldn't be further from the truth. I recently returned to the game after many months away and was blown away by the population. I have multiple toons on multiple servers, and I couldn't believe how well populated ALL of the areas were at all levels. There were probably more people in the Lonelands than were in the Barrens (having just left WoW). There was nothing special about the timing of my return - no free weekend (there was to be one in coming weeks), no new festival, nothing of the sort. Having said that, I'm sure Turbine could use more money to develop content faster, and going f2p will (in theory) provide some muc needed revenue. I read an interview (don't ask me to link it -- if you're really that concerned, google it) that claimed DDO's revenue tripled in the transition. When I read that, I knew it was just a matter of time before lotro went f2p as well. And as long as the developers continue to listen to their core audience, I think lotro can benefit from this move AND move their game in a positive direction as well.
Look like a way to get cash out of lifers to me. Won't stop me from playing though.
They will not be getting cash from me. in fact, since being a lifetime subscriber gives me points every month, they'll end up seeing less cash from me; I'll use those points to purchase future paid expansions.
"Oh my, how horrible, someone is criticizing a MMO. Oh yeah, that is what a forum is about, looking at both sides. You rather have to be critical of anything in this genre as of late because the track record of these major studios has just been appalling." -Ozmodan
I agree that we have some terminology issues here.
We have "Subscription" That's good.
"Free to Play" - Lets get rid of that now because it's more of "Free to muck around in." Not that it is bad, most games I no longer invest the time they want so just being able to "muck around in" for free is good for me.
"Item Shop" is a bit of a miss nomer too since it conjures up the ability to by "Epic Loot." Now if your item shop DOES sell epic loot then no worries. How about "Cosmetic Shop" or "Bonus Shop" instead to try and point out you're not selling "I WIN swords +1?"
"Hybrid" sounds too much like a monster movie. We think of the worst things of both parts when we see that. Item shops full of "I WIN" and Levels, a regular fee for crap and broken content/combat. You get the idea.
So lets try something new. Just tossing them out there let me know what you think. We'll start off with a few quick "Subscription" naming options:
"Commitment" "Contract" "Term-Play" (I.e. you by a term of service) "Use it or lose it."
For the traditional Free to play/item shop style games:
"Pay what you want." "A la Cart" "Play now Pay later" "Rent A Game" "Pay when you feel like it" "Pay as you go" "Papercuts" (I.e. we'll bleed you to death)
These new hybrid models:
"Pay or don't, we don't care." "Padded Subscriber Numbers" "Coming or Going" "Pay now, pay later, Pay always." "Item shop plus!" (The exclamation point makes it all better.) "Subscription PLUS!" "Xtreme Subscription"
It's all academic at this point. They will continue to try and come up with new ways of seperating us from our money. Personally being able to come and go when I feel like it works well for me as a model. So I'm a fan of Guild Wars model and DDO since if I ever get "into" them I can pay later. As it stands I haven't bothered enough with either to care, but hey I haven't lost money finding out! (I got Guild Wars as a gift. )
Current Game: Asssasins Creed 2(PS3, Gamer Tag: Happy_Hubby) Current MMO: World of Warcraft and World of Tanks Former Subscribed MMO: Star Trek Online, Aion, WoW, Guild Wars, Eve Online, DAoC, City of Heroes, Shattered Galaxy, 10six. Tried: Too many to list
Honestly, who cares about terminology? Some developers could argue that the terminology "MMORPG" is non longer there because everything is becoming some form of a hybrid online with roleplaying elements type game anyway. I think there's better things to argue. F2P is most recognizable and it explains the core of what it means really well. It's free for everyone to play. Period. It's just that if you want more (usually content) or more conveniences, you're going to have to pay. What's so hard about this to grasp?
It doesn't mean the game is completely free and what MMO can truly thrive on being completely free. The terminology wars is just sad and pointless. Actually debate about something real please, like how un-viable you believe F2P is or how you feel is destroying the genre etc. Not any of this shouldn't be called F2P garbage, you might as well try to argue the meaning of life or the definition of marriage. In the end, who truly cares what terminology is being used, everyone knows what it means.
Comments
Oh and crafting as well!
So, it's not P2W, but P2NP. Okay, thanks for the explanation, not looking forward paying to avoid playing, or playing to avoid paying...
We'll still have to see what the "over 2500" cash shop items are about, and how significant 500 turbine points can be. I wouldn't be very happy if the desirable things cost over 600 points, just to make me spend a little to be able to purchase it, that is, considering only one will be enough to satisfy me. We could argue about that happening or not, but it will be mere speculation, especially as turbine points aren't universal across turbine games (kind of makes this name a failure, they need to rename that).
Anyway, thanks Aihoshi, we needed one more thread to discuss LOTRO's model change.
It really helped DDO, but I had always liked DDO. It just lacked players. F2P was exactly what it needed to bring in bodies. Not sure if LOTRO is in the same boat. In LOTRO one can solo easily. Other people aren't needed, and the game is about as easy as a game can be. Heck, my first time playing I didn't die once until level 24. I'm thinking LOTRO will not see the huge increase that DDO saw. DDO0 was a game that was very lackluster out of the gate, improved a lot, but it lacked players in a forced group game. Not so in LOTRO, which, imo, still remains a lackluster, non-challenging game.
That's pretty much in line with my thinking as well.
The focus has been finding ways of keeping players entertained and occupied enough to keep paying a sub month after month. Now the focus, it seems, will be finding ways to get the players to spend as much as possible in the Item Shop, as often as possible, while still calling it "free to play".
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
As opposed to... dangling pointless carrots in front of you so you spend months and months stuck in timesinks effectively wasting not only about the same amount of money (only spread out over a longer time so you feel better about it), but also a hell of a lot more time?
Until the 800 pound gorilla in the room, World of Warcraft, goes free to play then we are still very much in Kansas, Dorothy.
LOTRO has always had an average, pre-Wow subscription base. And these days that makes such game a niche game, not AAA or mainstream. And since Turbine stuck to their guns and made a game that tried to reflect the IP it was drawn from rather than just making a game based on what the mainstream gamers wanted, it probably had less subscribers than other recent releases. Turbine's so called free to play scheme is nothing more than a glorified demo. If that breathes new life into the game, great. Sadly though I think this game failed mainly due to the fact it decided to NOT be like all the other games out there (one of its massive charms in my book). Unless Turbine drastically changes the game as we know it they aren't going to garner many long time new subscribers and by going free to play they just might chase away the small group of devoted fans that have stuck with the game until now.
So what we actually have is a niche game from a publisher that has already mucked up two, count em two, games so badly they had to make them free to play as well. And now they have not very surprisingly had to make a third game FTP (Better than just killing it like they had to do to Asheron's Call 2 I guess). So actually what we have here is Turbine doing business as usual and not some new massive trend towards a western FTP MMORPG revolution.
In short I wouldn't start humming "Somewhere Over The Rainbow" just yet. And take off those ruby slippers, they really don't suit you. (Neither do your rose tinted glasses.)
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
well for that one I remember a old history, in RFonline after it get to F2P as said a certain player in the korean version of the game just bought the equivalent to $10,000 dollars in cash shop upgrades, so he could make a weapon +7(with would raise the weapon damage to 200%) and is really what this kind of model really make you do burn more money then you would ina P2P model
For once I'm going to agree with Richard. There is no way I'm defending the F2P and Item Shops model, I'm still 100% against them on principle, but I think it is rapidly approaching the point where it is going to become the standard offering. Despite how much it sticks in my throat to say it, people who have objections to this model are facing a choice. We either give up on MMO's as more and more become F2P and become infected with Item stores, or we bite the bullet, don our flak jackets, and decide to dip our toes in to see how it goes.
There is one thing that gives me a glimmer of hope. Things are done differently in the West. I think this is important. I've tried so many Asian F2P MMO's and found them all unplayable and completely sub par in terms of graphics, gameplay, and general 'feel' when compared to western subscription mmo's. Importantly I've found the gameplay crippled in an effort to entice people into purchasing from the item stores.
DDO has apparantly already shown that the Western style of F2P can work. By all accounts the game is playable and they don't rip you off with the item store, and importantly many people still opt to take out what is in effect a monthly subscription. Infact I do think a new name for this style needs to be used as I see this model as being very different from an F2P game that relies soley on an Item Store for revenue.
My hope is that if this change to F2P cannot be avoided, then there will at least be a balancing out of the games which in the end may actually result in very little change for most MMO players, my suspicion being that many will still opt for the monthly sub. As more and more Western games go F2P with Item Stores there will be intense competition. So if one game cripples gameplay (i.e. becomes a mega grind in order to get people to purchase XP pots), then another game will take advantage in order to try and attract players. As they all start competing for the player base we will hopefully see a reduction in prices on item stores from the rather silly prices of the likes of Allods Online, lets face it if we have a choice of decent, playable, western MMO's then people will not take being ripped off and will simply go elsewhere. Hopefully this competition between the games will act as a deterrent to some of the companies who whould otherwise probably use the opportunity to screw the customer over.
I will admit that the thing I find most painful is the changing of existing subscription MMO's to F2P or Item Store games. As a player who is against Item Stores I felt chased away from EQ2, I thought I'd found a home in Lotro and had just purchased my lifetime sub 14 days ago so was initially furious at the decision to go FTP with Item store. I'm gradually getting over the initial shock and anger, my hope is that Turbine at least treat their lifetimers well in this new and scary world. I'm trying to see past my prejudice towards F2P, I really am, but I would be lying if I said I wasn't finding it hard to accept.
Since the F2P terminology doesn't seem to fit the new model (and actually never was truthful anyway since you spend so much in the item shops), here are a few suggestions for a terminology change...
F2TP2P = Free to Tour, Pay to Play
F2SPL = Free to Start, Pay Later
FoSAPE = Free or Sub - All Pay Eventually
F2P(BKTPH) = Free to Play (But keep the plastic handy)
FoSYP2P = Free or Sub - You'll Pay to Play
F2PI = Free to Play Illusion
Edit: I forgot one...
BP = Bullwinkle Play (Think about it
~ Adder ~
Quick, Silent, Deadly
^ This ^
More then anything, it is this type of reply that is really bothering me most about this whole thing? Why? B/c it is just plain ignorant.
You obviously have NOT done your research, or you would know that it is most certainly NOT "item mall pay to win crap". Holy shit how many times do people have to say this. They are NOT selling items, it is NOT pay2win, not even close. This is not the "eastern" F2P model what-so-ever. Turbine doesn't seem interested in opening an item mall, or allowing players to buy gear that will give them an advantage, or allow them to skip the adventuring that players not interested in spending more money have to do to get an item.
Your game really isn't changing that much. The only thing that is changing is the way you pay for the game. No one can pay-2-win. That's not how this new "western" F2P model, and I don't even want to call it F2P b/c it's really not at all, seems to be developing.
We "western" MMO gamers are used to, and comfortable w/ the monthly subscription, and have a deep seated loathing for any kind of "pay-2-win" and/or item shop intruding on us. But I think that loathing comes from a mis-placed hatred of gold-farmers and sellers, and instantly associate any "eastern" F2P/item mall games w/ such practices. But that really isn't the direction "western" MMO developers are going in.
The devs aren't stupid, they realize that we strongly dislike that model, and that is not what they are aiming for. Pay-2-win is not coming to "our" games. I see this as simply an alternate method of paying for the game.
This entire brew-haha is ridiculous and could've simply been avoided if people had actually looked into the changes w/ at least a somewhat open-mind. But instead of reading the announcement, people are reading the headline and just going with their gut-reaction by saying "f%@ this shit, I don't want anything to do w/ that F2P/pay2win bullshit, I'm done w/ this game". That isn't really fair, and it's certainly not accurate.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
I don't know. Unless it has something to do with Upsydaisyum. Pulling rabbits out of hats?
Anyway - someone else has already coined the best term for it - P2NP "Pay to Not Play".
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
The only thing they want a grasp on is our wallets.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Well of course they do, that's kind of the point of all buisness in a capitalist market.
What you said makes no sense. The most hardcore grinders are usually F2P games, you know, those games where only one guy reaches the level cap... while spending hundreds of dollars to be able to survive the XP curve (like getting 0,001% per mob kill, each taking a while).
Time sinks aren't a P2P-exclusive, sorry, and objectively every game is a "time sink", meanwhile, others will call that "fun" and "content", because they, um... enjoy it. It's because we are playing RPGs.
I know that timesinks arent P2P exclusive, and yes there are a lot of F2P games with horrible grinds, but those are kind of in a sub-genre of their own like Korean Grinders, but it doesnt hold true to all F2P games. the point is your are required to pay in order to waste your time doing them, whereas F2P gives you the option of do it for free, or pay and skip over some of it. It depends on the person really, but personally i dont find the "content" in most MMOs anymore to be "fun" after ive already killed 8732685623652 wolves to collect theirs pelts in a dozen other games that use the same exact game/quest/content/mechanics design.
Seriously, think about all the stuff youre forced to do in many P2P MMOs in order to advance. Its typically one type of grind or another with no real point to it other than to get the next level or piece of equipment, and it rarely ever differs in terms of how you gain it. Grind X mobs/quests here, then move to the next town/hub and repeat. Is any of that really necessary? No, but being forced to waste that time keeps you playing the game longer and paying that subscription month after month. It's really no different than F2P in the end, however F2P gives you an option of wasting time or wasting money depending on your preferrence, whereas P2P requires you to pay them first, then you get to go waste that time.
Dont kid yourself into thinking P2P devs design games only with your enjoyment in mind without implementing mechanics/features that drive people to play somewhat obsessively in order to keep paying that subscription.
Wow! Such derision, and from people who boldly admit to never trying the system! I can understand opinions on both sides, but I'll judge each instance of f2p individually before condemning the lot -- I learned my lesson after Runes of Magic. If f2p holds no interest to you, stop wasting so much time and effort ridiculing it. Vote with your money elsewhere.
As to lotro going f2p, I am a founder -- a lifer from beta -- and I have to say I'm cautiously excited about the proposed system. Most of my kin shares that sentiment, and many that were against it are slowly changing their opinion after reading what's being offered.
As to why lotro is going f2p... I've read a lot of posts that claim lotro is a failed mmo. That couldn't be further from the truth. I recently returned to the game after many months away and was blown away by the population. I have multiple toons on multiple servers, and I couldn't believe how well populated ALL of the areas were at all levels. There were probably more people in the Lonelands than were in the Barrens (having just left WoW). There was nothing special about the timing of my return - no free weekend (there was to be one in coming weeks), no new festival, nothing of the sort. Having said that, I'm sure Turbine could use more money to develop content faster, and going f2p will (in theory) provide some muc needed revenue. I read an interview (don't ask me to link it -- if you're really that concerned, google it) that claimed DDO's revenue tripled in the transition. When I read that, I knew it was just a matter of time before lotro went f2p as well. And as long as the developers continue to listen to their core audience, I think lotro can benefit from this move AND move their game in a positive direction as well.
They will not be getting cash from me. in fact, since being a lifetime subscriber gives me points every month, they'll end up seeing less cash from me; I'll use those points to purchase future paid expansions.
"Oh my, how horrible, someone is criticizing a MMO. Oh yeah, that is what a forum is about, looking at both sides. You rather have to be critical of anything in this genre as of late because the track record of these major studios has just been appalling." -Ozmodan
I agree that we have some terminology issues here.
We have "Subscription" That's good.
"Free to Play" - Lets get rid of that now because it's more of "Free to muck around in." Not that it is bad, most games I no longer invest the time they want so just being able to "muck around in" for free is good for me.
"Item Shop" is a bit of a miss nomer too since it conjures up the ability to by "Epic Loot." Now if your item shop DOES sell epic loot then no worries. How about "Cosmetic Shop" or "Bonus Shop" instead to try and point out you're not selling "I WIN swords +1?"
"Hybrid" sounds too much like a monster movie. We think of the worst things of both parts when we see that. Item shops full of "I WIN" and Levels, a regular fee for crap and broken content/combat. You get the idea.
So lets try something new. Just tossing them out there let me know what you think. We'll start off with a few quick "Subscription" naming options:
"Commitment" "Contract" "Term-Play" (I.e. you by a term of service) "Use it or lose it."
For the traditional Free to play/item shop style games:
"Pay what you want." "A la Cart" "Play now Pay later" "Rent A Game" "Pay when you feel like it" "Pay as you go" "Papercuts" (I.e. we'll bleed you to death)
These new hybrid models:
"Pay or don't, we don't care." "Padded Subscriber Numbers" "Coming or Going" "Pay now, pay later, Pay always." "Item shop plus!" (The exclamation point makes it all better.) "Subscription PLUS!" "Xtreme Subscription"
It's all academic at this point. They will continue to try and come up with new ways of seperating us from our money. Personally being able to come and go when I feel like it works well for me as a model. So I'm a fan of Guild Wars model and DDO since if I ever get "into" them I can pay later. As it stands I haven't bothered enough with either to care, but hey I haven't lost money finding out! (I got Guild Wars as a gift.
)
Current Game: Asssasins Creed 2(PS3, Gamer Tag: Happy_Hubby)
Current MMO: World of Warcraft and World of Tanks
Former Subscribed MMO: Star Trek Online, Aion, WoW, Guild Wars, Eve Online, DAoC, City of Heroes, Shattered Galaxy, 10six.
Tried: Too many to list
Honestly, who cares about terminology? Some developers could argue that the terminology "MMORPG" is non longer there because everything is becoming some form of a hybrid online with roleplaying elements type game anyway. I think there's better things to argue. F2P is most recognizable and it explains the core of what it means really well. It's free for everyone to play. Period. It's just that if you want more (usually content) or more conveniences, you're going to have to pay. What's so hard about this to grasp?
It doesn't mean the game is completely free and what MMO can truly thrive on being completely free. The terminology wars is just sad and pointless. Actually debate about something real please, like how un-viable you believe F2P is or how you feel is destroying the genre etc. Not any of this shouldn't be called F2P garbage, you might as well try to argue the meaning of life or the definition of marriage. In the end, who truly cares what terminology is being used, everyone knows what it means.