I'm not a firm believer of the F2P model being the future. I believe the hybrid model utilized by Blizzard is more or less the way to go for more games in the future and it does put the power more in the consumer hands so they're not pigeon-holed into sub or micro, there's more choice in that and I truly think that should be the future.
I think its most respectable of the consumers and their wallets and I agree with the above poster, why spend more than 15/month on micro using the hybrid system when you can just subscribe, get access to everything and utilize the points stipend you receive monthly. It seems like this model does offer a lot of choice and I don't see too many LOTR players complaining about the "big shift" in financial model.
"What's concerning about Turbine's precedent is it forces players to accept the product they've invested a significant amount of money and time into is changing its business model without consultation or consent,"
They need your consent? Who owns the company? Who made the product? Not you. The producers and creators of a game can sell it on any business model they want; It's far more concerning that you would see this as a problem.
She doesn't mean "consent" in the sense that Turbine should have explicitly "asked our permission", but rather in the sense of acknowledging that the change would ultimately and potentially affect their players - who had invested time and money into the game already, and at least getting a consensus among those players that it wasn't something that was going to turn them all away.
Think of the SWG NGE and CU and the trouble SOE would have saved themselves had they *really* paid attention to their players instead of only claiming to, forcing a change like that into their game without really considering how their players would feel about it.
And besides, isn't Turbine's slogan "Powered By Our Fans"? If the notion in that is at all sincere, then it would seem that they do place a significant degree of importance in the thoughts of their customers.
'I typically end my thoughts for the week on a call to action for the MMO community, but such action is already alive and well in the community. We've been telling the media and the industry we don't want a fully free-to-play or micro-transaction supported market for a while now. We've been pretty loud, even obnoxious at times, about making our point clear. However, this time I appeal for the industry and the gaming media to listen up, re-evaluate, and think about what this shifting model means for the industry as a whole. This includes the impact on the consumer. It's time to stop patronizing the gaming community and listen."
I think this article is poorly written; as the author displays poor understanding of economics and makes wild claims about the gaming industry in which she clearly doesn't understand.
First, the article has nothing to do with the economics of F2P. That's not what Jamie is discussing, so to call her out or question her knowledge of economics, in the context of this article, is not only presumptious, but also completely pointless.
The article is a critical look at how the media and, of course, the F2P developers are championing and praising the F2P model; forcing it down our throats using all sorts of hyperbole about it "being the future of MMOs" and such. All the while, they're ignoring the significant amount of people - especially in the Western market - who aren't at all happy about or accepting of F2P, and will never accept it as a "standard" payment model.
She's not discussing the economics of it. That would be stuff for a different article.
Just because a few people are upset that the MMO they have been playing and investing in is changing business models is not reason to write an article telling the industry to look and notice consumers. That kind of condescension is unnecessary; of course they are listening; a business must FIRST and foremost realize what their audience wants before they make any kind of decision; THEN is it possible and is it profitable.
Condescension? Oh, I don't think that's true at all and I think you're being disingenuous in your characterization of her article. In the context of what she wrote, there is nothing at all condescending in what she's put forth.
When you agree to play an MMO you agree to the terms of the business. NOT your terms. If you don't like the idea of paying for a game that could, tomorrow, change the way it charges its customers (or better yet, not exist), then don't play MMO's. Since that is a RISK you take when investing in an MMO.`
So you believe that the players - the paying customers - have no say or influence in what a developer does, nor any impact through their potential response thereof? That we should all just shut our mouths and accept what ever is shoveled at us, because it's all on the company's terms, and we just have to go along for the ride? Even if it's a drastic change to what we'd already purchased and had been paying for?
If that's the case, and I'm understanding you correctly.... wow... talk about figuratively bending over.
I don't think you're giving the importance of the players' collective voice quite the credit it deserves...
SWG ring a bell? SOE went ahead and implemented sweeping changes to that game - doing it "on their terms, not the players'" - and look how that worked out for them. It back-fired. Big time. I'm sure SOE would have loved if they had more subscribers who thought like you around back then, though.
There's also that whole "voting with you wallet" thing... If developers act against the will of, or without consideration to their customers because "it's on their terms" and the result is more people leaving the game than sticking around or joining... Well, kinda hard to make money on a product when few are playing it.
And that has happened... a number of times just in the past few years.
Can companies ignore what their players say and do whatever they think is in their own best interest? Sure. Is it a smart idea? Not really. Do the customers still have the final say? Absolutely.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
I think the way Turbine is handling the F2P, in that they are treating it as an addition to the game rather than a complete overhaul of the game, is great. It keeps aging games from dying and looking like ghost towns and it keeps the developer pushed to create new content to keep people interested. I think this hybrid model will be very successful in the West and Turbine is actually breaking new ground with this new way of thinking.
I think that too much choice puts too much power into the hands of the game company suits, and we all know what THAT means. A simple freemium model is best, I think. You can play x amount for free and see if you enjoy the game enough and make enough friends to want to pay the subscription. If you don't, no harm done either way. You put some content into the game world for the paying players to compensate for the bandwidth you used, and everyone's happy.
However, if you have microtransactions like an item shop or choose-your-content model, guess what? You've got a bunch of Men's Wearhouse suits in the company offices with their heads buried in spreadsheets all day long, analyzing how to "optimize the return on investment". Meaning, "how to get you to spend as much as possible for as little gameplay benefit as possible".
This is what I fear with microtransactions. It's not the abuse by players, it's the abuse by the company trying to play us players.
Well one instance of gutting has already been confirmed. They are limiting the char slots to 4 and if you already have 9 you will have to buy the other 5 back. At least thats what I remember reading.
You are wrong. You got two character slots from buying Mines of Moria. You got two more from buying the Adventurer's Pack. All content that you have already purchased remains yours -- even if you drop down to free status. So those four extra character slots will always be yours, no matter what. They won't get locked and they won't have to be repurchased. What you would lose if you drop from VIP to Premium is two of the core (Shadows of Angmar) slots.
Existing players will only ever drop to Premium status. They will never drop to the Free Player level. This means that someone who cancels the subscription and drops off VIP status will only have two characters locked. It is possible to buy those two slots back if you want access to the characters again without resubscribing to the game. The only thing I don't think they've addressed is whether those two slots would then add onto the original 9 if you later decided to resubscribe.
I think the industry needs new payment models in order to get players to try more games, and it's been on the cards for years.
I can see the model that LOTRO has adopted being successful. It's basically an extended trial with pay-as-you go DLC and an optional cash-shop, while at the same time keeping a subscription-type deal for players who want to go that way.
There will always be people who won't pay a subscription in exactly the same way as there are players who will never play F2P, and these new payment models need to straddle that line. If they don't they'll fail or adapt, it's really as simple as that.
One other factor is that there's a growing number of MMO players who have grown up with the game style but have also accrued the responsibilities that come with growing up. Players who once had 20 hours a week to dedicate to their MMO(s) of choice now have other demands on their time and all of a sudden the £8/$15 per month doesn't look like such good value. And yet they are the kind of players that any MMO would love to have.
I'm in that category and the only MMO I really play now is the one I've got a lifetime sub to. I've got a shelf of MMOs (including LOTRO) but I'm not going put £8 down just to play for a few, unpredictable hours when I've got the time. It's just not worth it. These new payment models make me hopeful that it'll be worth the money for me to play more MMOs.
Like others in this thread, I think that if the Future is now, it sucks.
I am not playing an MMO currently and the releases of the last few years have been sub par, at best.
I don't like Wow. I most enjoyed pre-trammel UO, and pre-CU SWG. I tried FE but found it not bad, but not quite to my liking. I have beta'd and trialed a good many other games in the last few years, and nothing has hooked me, the oldschooler that I am. Lately, the releases seem to be getting shallower and more linear, and lesser in terms of game mechanics and technical quality. The MMO industry is definitely on the downswing....
I don't like cash shops, and I don't like F2Ps, damn few have been worth the time to download.
It used to be, that in the MMO space, there used to be something for everyone.
Well one instance of gutting has already been confirmed. They are limiting the char slots to 4 and if you already have 9 you will have to buy the other 5 back. At least thats what I remember reading.
You are wrong. You got two character slots from buying Mines of Moria. You got two more from buying the Adventurer's Pack. All content that you have already purchased remains yours -- even if you drop down to free status. So those four extra character slots will always be yours, no matter what. They won't get locked and they won't have to be repurchased. What you would lose if you drop from VIP to Premium is two of the core (Shadows of Angmar) slots.
Existing players will only ever drop to Premium status. They will never drop to the Free Player level. This means that someone who cancels the subscription and drops off VIP status will only have two characters locked. It is possible to buy those two slots back if you want access to the characters again without resubscribing to the game. The only thing I don't think they've addressed is whether those two slots would then add onto the original 9 if you later decided to resubscribe.
What are you talking about? I am getting screwed out of two slots by your analysis. I bought 5 slots with Shadows ($50). I bought 2 more with Moria ($50). I bought 2 more with the AdPack ($20). So they are taking something people "purchased" by their metric. They're just choosing to remove the very old slots because the purchase was long ago and people are much less likely to beef about that.
Look at it this way. Turbine is letting you keep 5 slots from Shadows, the 2 from MoM, and they are taking away the 2 slots from the AdPack. See math doesn't really care about marketing rhetoric. You can move parenthese around all you want in addition and subtraction, but the end result is the same.
This kind of Marketroid speak is exactly the kind of thing we should closely examine and eye with criticism.
You're getting screwed out of nothing. You ONLY lose those two slots if you stop subscribing. If you continue subscribing, you lose no slots.
What happens now if you stop subscribing? Answer: You lose ALL slots.
So how is this aspect of the new plan worthy of criticism?
Year is 2056, with the encroachment of P2P (paid-to-play, as pay-to-play had gone extinct long, long ago), Ms. Jimena S. decided to write an article titled "The Future is Now, Again".
Then there will be many folks defending F2P with cash shops, claiming it's more fair than the emergent paid-to-play mmo's, which award most money to the winners and paid others only minimal wage. At least in F2P with cash shops winners pay for freeloading losers' gameplay, or so they claim. But now, in paid-to-play mmo's, companies award those "cheaters" with stronger psyionic power more cash per time spent than players who weren't born with such ability.
Yeah, in the future when works will all be done by robots and humans will have more than abundant resources, thanks to colonization and mining of several adjacent planets, the only thing matters to game companies is fame and reputation. So more people drawn to the game, more fame points the company will accumulate. The getting- paid-to-play model will replace the traditional model of free-to-play with item malls as the ultimate model for all mmo's.
Thanks for the well written and informative article. I haven't played anything free to play yet, so I appreciate anything that presents the pros and cons logically and without being heavy handed.
Year is 2056, with the encroachment of P2P (paid-to-play, as pay-to-play had gone extinct long, long ago), Ms. Jimena S. decided to write an article titled "The Future is Now, Again".
Then there will be many folks defending F2P with cash shops, claiming it's more fair than the emergent paid-to-play mmo's, which award most money to the winners and paid others only minimal wage. At least in F2P with cash shops winners pay for freeloading losers' gameplay, or so they claim. But now, in paid-to-play mmo's, companies award those "cheaters" with stronger psyionic power more cash per time spent than players who weren't born with such ability.
Yeah, in the future when works will all be done by robots and humans will have more than abundant resources, thanks to colonization and mining of several adjacent planets, the only thing matters to game companies is fame and reputation. So more people drawn to the game, more fame points the company will accumulate. The getting- paid-to-play model will replace the traditional model of free-to-play with item malls as the ultimate model for all mmo's.
Just food for thought.
And then when you order clothes and food (and let's not forget beer) from inside the game you are spending time in (of course getting paid while doing so) the time limit for a free order is down to 4.5 miliseconds from the 30 min of today.
That is why Flower for the ps3 is such a nice tale.
And let's not forget to give Kudos to the ones making it happen. Really great post there Hellmarauder.
Good article. I guess because this is an article we are allowed to talk about F2P vs P2P. Wow, MMORPG is getting pretty heavy handed these days. Anyway, I think the two can co-exist. I have no idea why some of the fanatics of F2P get so hostile so often when some crticizes the model.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
i DO think it will be one or the other (billing style) that survives. I do not see the market supporting both types. i think when a clear majority of successful game becomes dominant, there will still be the usual smattering of independant or foreign games leaking through that use the minority system, but it really all hinges on what the big dogs do in the next 6 months, or so.
i think in any case, 15/month will be a thing of the past. If a company can make chicken feed of that with item shops by appealing to new demographics, the ancien regime will have to shove a cheek.
this is how i see it. the traditional MMO elite is losing their grip on the community, and soon any schmoe off the street will be able to pay for the same rank and priviledge that only 5+ year veterans of whichever MMO (ie the Beta testers of every game that has ever been released) I cant say im sad to see things change. while "earning" your place in an MMO had some kind of charm, it really drove alot of support from the MMO genre away.
i DO think it will be one or the other (billing style) that survives. I do not see the market supporting both types. i think when a clear majority of successful game becomes dominant, there will still be the usual smattering of independant or foreign games leaking through that use the minority system, but it really all hinges on what the big dogs do in the next 6 months, or so.
i think in any case, 15/month will be a thing of the past. If a company can make chicken feed of that with item shops by appealing to new demographics, the ancien regime will have to shove a cheek.
this is how i see it. the traditional MMO elite is losing their grip on the community, and soon any schmoe off the street will be able to pay for the same rank and priviledge that only 5+ year veterans of whichever MMO (ie the Beta testers of every game that has ever been released) I cant say im sad to see things change. while "earning" your place in an MMO had some kind of charm, it really drove alot of support from the MMO genre away.
You sound pretty bitter, and I think you missed the point of the article entirely.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
You're getting screwed out of nothing. You ONLY lose those two slots if you stop subscribing. If you continue subscribing, you lose no slots.
What happens now if you stop subscribing? Answer: You lose ALL slots.
So how is this aspect of the new plan worthy of criticism?
Just stop saying if you sub you don't lose anything. Everyone knows that. This isn't about now, it's about October and F2S. The argument presented by you and the Turbine Defense Squad is that if you bought it you don't lose it.
I'm losing my 2 slots from I bought from the AdPack. Will I have to buy back my shared storage too? How much else that I already purchased, not through a subscription, but from BUYING SoA, MoM, and the AdPack, will I lose out on?
Remember the subscription only buys you access to the servers. You have to buy the content and always have. Lifers never got content for free. They had to buy buy it just like everything else. In the future VIPs won't get all access to all future content, they will have to buy it.
Let's look at it again - I bought:
SoA - 5 slots
MoM - 2 slots
AdPack - 2 slots
5 + 2 + 2 = 9, but I'm only getting 7 which means 5 + 2 + 0 = 7. They're taking my AdPack slots from me.
Am I going to lose my shared storage? Am I going to lose my in game purchased storage that I've spent over 100 gold on?
See you can't use the argument anymore that if you sub you get it, because Turbine is choosing a hybrid model where you purchase some stuff for good. Let's say you have 5 slots as a Free customer because you bought extra and then you subbed for a while to get "all access". Do you lose your slots when you unsub later because you're a Premium player with only 3 slots? By you logic if you don't sub you don't get anything. We know that's a bunch of crap because that former Free player paid for it, but their purchase counts "more" because they bought it after the F2S period.
I paid $120 for content. I paid 3 years subsription at about $9.55/mo for server access. When the game goes F2S I should have access to all the quests, areas, and any other content I purchased. I shouldn't have to repurchase stuff I've already bought not matter how hard they try and tangle it in marketing speak and logic. If they add new quests or content (whether it's in an existing area) I fully expect to pay for them.
* Purchasers of the Mines of Moria™ expansion get access to the Mines of Moria region and content, premium classes (Rune-Keeper and Warden), legendary items feature, Tier 6 crafting feature, 2 extra character slots and a level cap of 60. Purchasers of the Siege of Mirkwood™ expansion get access to the Siege of Mirkwood region and content, a level cap of 65 and the Siege of Mirkwood skirmishes.
** Purchasers of the LOTRO Adventurer's Pack get 2 extra character slots and 20 slots of shared bank storage across all characters on the same servers.
Did you buy MoM? If so, then as a VIP you get 5 + 2 slots for a total of 7. If you also bought the AP then you get 5 +2 +2 slots for a total of 9. As a VIP you lose no slots.
If you then cancel your subscription you drop to Premium. (Current and past subscribers will never be reduced to Free.) So then you have 3 +2 +2 slots for a total of 7.
So once again: If you have bought MoM and the AP as you obviously have then you have 9 slots now and you will continue to have 9 slots for as long as you continue to subscribe. If you cancel your subscription you will drop to 7 slots but will have the option to buy those two slots back separately without resubscribing.
As a subscriber today, your $15 a month buys continuing access to the content that you've already purchased. Am I wrong? If you cancel your subscription you lose access to that content that you have purchased. Am I wrong? This holds true with every single pay to play MMO out there. Am I wrong? Under the new plan you can keep access to that content even after cancelling your subscription. So rather than losing all access for no longer subscribing, you lose partial access.
As for the Free player -- who is ONLY someone who has NEVER subscribed to the game before -- we don't know the whole story. I have some assumptions, and you clearly have some of your own. But it's all speculation. All we know for sure, due to the placement of the * and ** symbols, is that anyone of any account type who purchases MoM or the AP will permanently get all of the benefits listed under the chart. Bounce from free to VIP to Premium all you want, you'll still have permanently purchased those specific items and have full access to them. Meanwhile, we know for certain that those of us who play the game now and have purchased those items will continue to have them. You will NOT have to buy your character slots back unless you wish to permanently go Premium and in that case you only have to buy two slots back.
Does that finally make sense? Please explain how this makes Turbine evil.
I love this discussion, I always have, because it shows people still CARE and are PASSIONATE about MMO's. I have grown a bit old and jaded about MMO's since my daughter was born. (Hard to play anything online with a 2 year old attacking you. KID AGRO! )
Which is why I like the idea of Hybrid games. Or even the "Unlimited Trial" games. Why? Because unlike "normal" players I may not hit level 10 in a 10 day free trial, that's how little I get to play. The pure subscription model really doesn't work for me anymore as I cannot see making the investment because I don't have the time to enjoy it.
$60 box price just to try the game for 30 days. In that 30 days I'll probably get 7 "good" days of gaming in if I'm lucky. Versus before the wife and child I drop $60 on a game and play the heck out of it for those 30 days and make it worth my wile and probable subsciption. Then tack on the $15 a month when, as I recently did, played all of ONE day for that $15. Yeah, you can see how the subscription model really doesn't work for me for the forseable future. (I figure in 8 years I'll have a CHANCE to play again. )
Now Free To Play, and Unlimited Trial games on the other hand give me a chance to enjoy a game on my terms. I don't feel as pissed by paying for something I'm not using. I'll admit it, I'm a key demographic for the F2P market and darn it I'm GLAD they're bringing more games into this format. Don't get me wrong I'm not advocating a full move to the Hybrid model, or even the infinate free trial (though I wouldn't mind that. ) I'm just glad that the OPTION of the Hybrid or F2P model is there. More games for me to try!
Plus if it can breath life into some older games isn't that a good thing? DDO is the perfect example as I tried it in Beta, post launch, and then in the F2P era and have been happy with it in F2P era the most. (Though I will full admit that is partially due to all the upgrades in the interveining time.)
In the end I'm all about giving players choices. If the industry goes full F2P and many of you live up to your promises and never plays them then MAYBE the industry would adapt. Realistically though I have a feeling that many of the companies going F2P could care less if thousands of us don't play their games. They'll be happy with the thousands of others who do.
:
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
I get what you're saying. My point is they aren't taking my purchase of SoA into account. Yeah premium get 3, and VIPs get 5. My MoM and Adpack purchases count, but they're taking away SoA content and game featuers I PURCHASED the same as I purchased Moria and the AdPack.
They can do whatever they want, but that doesn't mean I have to roll over. They're taking features away from me out of SoA because it was a long time ago and they think no one cares or no one will make a fuss, or even worse the Turbine Defense Squad will come in and forum lawyer for them. I don't like that they are removing features I purchased and making me buy them back. That is a really shitty thing to pull on your existing customers.
I can see where there might be some confusion because of how the upgrade to SoM was handled. The actual SoM expansion included the region, the cap increase to 65 and all the skirmishes. In addition to that was the AP which included the extra character slots, the cloak, the shared storage and the goat mount.
The first * covers the first half of this: the region, cap increase and skirmishes. As a current subscriber, you will still have it after the conversion, regardless of whether you continue to subscribe or drop to Premium.
The second ** covers the character slots and shared storage. As a current subscriber, you will still have these as well regardless of whether or not you continue to subscribe. What is not mentioned are the goat and cloak, but it seems safe to assume that you'll continue to receive them.
If you continue to subscribe after the change is made you will still have everything you have now. You lose nothing. In point of fact you actually also receive 500 free Turbine points every month which are equivalent to as much as half your subscription fee if you purchased them yourself. Those points can be used to buy any extras they bring out in the future; cosmetic items, maybe more character slots, maybe new expansions -- we don't know yet.
If you stop subscribing then you go to Premium. In that case you will continue to have everything you have now in terms of purchased content from MoM, SoM and the AP. You will lose two character slots. You will also have some other limitations such as fewer trait slots and a gold cap. But again, this is a huge sight better than what would happen if you stopped subscribing today because today you lose all access to the game including everything you've purchased in the expansions.
In fact, it's a safe bet that if you just took all the different bonus points they're going to give out between now and when this change goes live you would be able to drop to Premium and buy most of the limitation removals. In other words, you could very possibly cancel your subscription after the change is made and continue to play completely free. At least, until the next major content release.
In fact, it's a safe bet that if you just took all the different bonus points they're going to give out between now and when this change goes live you would be able to drop to Premium and buy most of the limitation removals. In other words, you could very possibly cancel your subscription after the change is made and continue to play completely free. At least, until the next major content release.
So how exactly are premium members going to remove the chat, mail and auction limitations... according to the chart, they can't.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
Okay, I wasn't going to say anything, since a lot of people seemed to enjoy this piece and I may be in the minority, but I've read a couple responses praising this article for how "logical" it was - which is not at all the case.
This article is riddled with informal logical fallacies, including strawman arguements and ad populum. Infact, the whole article is pretty much a big ad populum: the author acts as though she speaks for the supposed majority of the mmo community, but cannot. She also rallies everyone against some faceless menace and constructs "their side" of the argument out of nearly nothing.
This is not a good example of a logical work. Let's treat it like what it is: an opinion piece.
Why do some people keep posting crap about how F2P are a scam and really cost more than P2P? I've played dozens of F2P games for years and for most of them haven't spend a penny on them. I've spent a grand total of about $10. On the other hand, over the last 10 years I've spent over $2000 of P2P games.
I love the trend to F2P and think Turbine has the ideal model where you can continue with the P2P model or go F2P and add in optional features where you feel they are worthwhile. They nice part is giving players a choice instead of forcing them into a single payment model.
F2P users can spend as little (0) or as much as they want to tailor the game to their play style.
I keep reading pro-F2P posts like this in all threads as well in all the propaganda going around for the F2P model.
Then, is it just me or there's a bit of logical (and mathematical) contradiction with the assumption that F2P is also a boon for MMOs incomes ?
Yep. We have people on the Developer side of the deal explaining that a F2P/Microtransaction model allows the developers to monetize the players for *more* than they can get for a $15 monthly sub... Yet you have people on the player side absolutely *insisting* that you can play the entire game just fine, without paying a dime to do so. Hmm... One side isn't giving, or perhaps doesn't know, all the details. I'm sure it's not the developers.
As for "being able to play the game without paying a dime", well again, if you want to play semantics, technically it's true. But it becomes a matter of *how much* of the game can you play, and at what level can you play the game, without spending a dime. It's very easy to play a F2P MMO up to level 20 or 30 without spending a dime because the games are deliberately designed that way. The game will typically throw free versions of items normally found in the item shop (HP/MP trinkets, etc) so you can cruise through those lower levels without worry. You can even go a bit beyond that without buying anything, though it becomes notably harder to do so.
I'm waiting for someone who insists you can play and enjoy the entire game without paying a dime to come forth and show me their fully developed, top level, geared-to-the-teeth character who can stand toe-to-toe and stat-for-stat with a player who uses the cash shop; who can do all the high end content - PvE or PvP - and do so with the same frequency and efficacy as those spending money in the cash shop, and without having to spend a significant amount of their time grinding the resources (and hence, not engaging in said content with the same frequency as those who do pay) to do so.
When someone can show me that, then I'll concede that it's at all possible to experience the entire game the same as someone who pays, without spending a dime yourself. Until then, it's just unfounded and unsupported pro-F2P spin. There's a whole lot of F2P fans who love to repeat that mantra, but not a single one has been able to prove it.
As others have already said, it' not a matter of religious dogmas. A lot of MMO players know that F2P changes the focus of the game toward the short-term player. And a lot of us want a MMO with an environment to enjoy, a breathing world. Instead F2P bring us "McDonald's" MMOs to play-and-throw-away. You could say "dont play them if you dont want" but problem is that this mindset will damage the development of actual and future games and so will damage all the gamers indiscriminately.
Bingo. That's a great summation of at least one aspect of why many of us are not happily hopping on the F2P bandwagon. We see and understand - beyond the costs involved (which is where many people seem to stop in their consideration of it) - how the change in payment model also fundamentally changes the design of the game.
It moves the design away from the focus on long-term adventures and goals for players to enjoy and set in a fully realized online world. It moves the design toward a shorter-term effort to make players spend as much as they can in an online environment that feels more like a virtual shopping mall, where I'm reminded far more than I want to be that "You can buy "Item Here!" in our online shop!", or "Make sure to recharge your credits!".
The former is conducive to an immersive, online experience. The latter isn't.
Even in Turbine's hybrid model, I'm still reminded regularly of the presence of th cash shop. You know what... I'm paying a subscription so I don't have to use the cash shop... so can you please remove all mention of it? You're already getting my money.
The extent I want to be "aware of" the developer of a MMO is when I buy the game and set up the autopay on my subscription. After that, I want the company to get the hell out of the way. I don't want to be reminded that "I could get "this" or "that" for a mere 30 Points!" when I'm trying to immerse myself in and enjoy whatever game I'm playing.
And then, of course, there's the true cost involved if (in many cases) one wants to play a F2P MMO the way they would play a MMO that they payed a monthly sub for. It has been argued that "well, if you don't want to pay as much, then just adjust your plastyle so you don't have to spend as much." That argument amazes me.
Ummm... No. I won't "adjust my playstyle", and that I would even have to *consider* doing such a thing - in a supposedly "Free To Play" MMO, no less - is another huge indicator of why F2P isn't all it's hyped up to be.
"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
Okay, I wasn't going to say anything, since a lot of people seemed to enjoy this piece and I may be in the minority, but I've read a couple responses praising this article for how "logical" it was - which is not at all the case.
This article is riddled with informal logical fallacies, including strawman arguements and ad populum. Infact, the whole article is pretty much a big ad populum: the author acts as though she speaks for the supposed majority of the mmo community, but cannot. She also rallies everyone against some faceless menace and constructs "their side" of the argument out of nearly nothing.
This is not a good example of a logical work. Let's treat it like what it is: an opinion piece.
Okay...?
Examples? Reasons? Anything at all to illustrate and support your statements and why you dismiss the entire article wholesale?
"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
A very bold yet self explantionary profecy/statement. I do however disagree in many aspects. Whilist all that has occured is truly a triumphant move for F2P scene. It's also situation that doesn't evolve nearly any fields of mmorpg itself. Subscription methods are more and more going from "paid cable tv" To commercial " free advertisement filled tv" It is a good thing as game makers are finally able to generate revenue other than paid subscriptions. However, it doesn't change the facts,
All this flag waving for Western F2P game glory is a bit overshot due the mass production of F2P on exactly same engines and graphical style. No mater how you put it the quality of gaming suffers due revenue is largely based on item shops, However I do admit that Western style of producing F2P games is far better and likely far more succesfull, however we eastern people play far less F2P games than the western counterparts.
It's noted fact that Eastern game studios produce masses of identical games that wave flag for one single playstyle, generally the games drain their styles from common JP Rpgs however, those games never were very suited to be turn into mmorpgs. And the Eastern mentality has allways been a bit different from Western. Those things are largely due different culture and different political lines. Eastern gamers also for far larger aspect enjoy geargrind and challenge of hard work. Their hard work defines many of them as players and people, therefore we can't truly speak of invidualism.
So I truly hope that western F2P games will keep up their quality and fight the masses of Eastern games by customization options and keep offering superior quality gaming. So either the prophecy comes true, but judging from the reaction of people this prophecy might be either selfexplanationary fact that comes to reality. OR failure due the irritation and bad experienced people obtained from Eastern studio games.
I do know that my writings will cause some degree of annoyance and counteropinnions. But that's how it works!
Okay, I wasn't going to say anything, since a lot of people seemed to enjoy this piece and I may be in the minority, but I've read a couple responses praising this article for how "logical" it was - which is not at all the case.
This article is riddled with informal logical fallacies, including strawman arguements and ad populum. Infact, the whole article is pretty much a big ad populum: the author acts as though she speaks for the supposed majority of the mmo community, but cannot. She also rallies everyone against some faceless menace and constructs "their side" of the argument out of nearly nothing.
This is not a good example of a logical work. Let's treat it like what it is: an opinion piece.
Okay...?
Examples? Reasons? Anything at all to illustrate and support your statements and why you dismiss the entire article wholesale?
First off, I did not dismiss it wholesale, I dismissed the assertion that it is "logical" and objective like some others seem to think. I already named the fallacies commited, but didn't have time to give specific examples. I'll restate my reasons, since I was not specific enough.
The author commits ad populum and other fallacies throughout the entire article by appealing to the reader's need for belonging. Half her wording creates an illusion that most people agree with her and that's why you should accept what she's saying. Ironically, she accuses "the media" of hoping on bandwagons, when she herself uses a fallacy nicknamed as such. For just one example out of many:
"This is exactly what many 'experts' are claiming, however. 'It's inevitable that we go to a free to play MMO model,' the chant cries; but this isn't a matter of death or taxes."
The above statement commits atleast 3 separate types of fallacies: ad populum (because she's trying to rally the audience against some supposed united opposition that may or may not even exist), strawman (because she puts words in the mouth of those who might be on the other side of the argument and uses an extreme form of their case), and begging the question (because she presents us with no evidence that any of this is the case, only her own word for it). These are running themes throughout the piece.
She cites no "experts" and only points to her fellow blogger's opposing opinion piece for a representation of a supposedly dominant industry perspective. She acts as though she is the voice of the entire mmo consumer community with many of her statements. She uses charged language to appeal to the emotions of the reader without also supporting why we should feel a certain way with any sort of evidence.
Hence, my assertion that it is an opinion piece, and should not be looked to as an example of logic in writing. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with the piece when viewed in the proper perspective though. I merely wished to point that out.
Comments
I'm not a firm believer of the F2P model being the future. I believe the hybrid model utilized by Blizzard is more or less the way to go for more games in the future and it does put the power more in the consumer hands so they're not pigeon-holed into sub or micro, there's more choice in that and I truly think that should be the future.
I think its most respectable of the consumers and their wallets and I agree with the above poster, why spend more than 15/month on micro using the hybrid system when you can just subscribe, get access to everything and utilize the points stipend you receive monthly. It seems like this model does offer a lot of choice and I don't see too many LOTR players complaining about the "big shift" in financial model.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
I think the way Turbine is handling the F2P, in that they are treating it as an addition to the game rather than a complete overhaul of the game, is great. It keeps aging games from dying and looking like ghost towns and it keeps the developer pushed to create new content to keep people interested. I think this hybrid model will be very successful in the West and Turbine is actually breaking new ground with this new way of thinking.
I think that too much choice puts too much power into the hands of the game company suits, and we all know what THAT means. A simple freemium model is best, I think. You can play x amount for free and see if you enjoy the game enough and make enough friends to want to pay the subscription. If you don't, no harm done either way. You put some content into the game world for the paying players to compensate for the bandwidth you used, and everyone's happy.
However, if you have microtransactions like an item shop or choose-your-content model, guess what? You've got a bunch of Men's Wearhouse suits in the company offices with their heads buried in spreadsheets all day long, analyzing how to "optimize the return on investment". Meaning, "how to get you to spend as much as possible for as little gameplay benefit as possible".
This is what I fear with microtransactions. It's not the abuse by players, it's the abuse by the company trying to play us players.
You are wrong. You got two character slots from buying Mines of Moria. You got two more from buying the Adventurer's Pack. All content that you have already purchased remains yours -- even if you drop down to free status. So those four extra character slots will always be yours, no matter what. They won't get locked and they won't have to be repurchased. What you would lose if you drop from VIP to Premium is two of the core (Shadows of Angmar) slots.
Existing players will only ever drop to Premium status. They will never drop to the Free Player level. This means that someone who cancels the subscription and drops off VIP status will only have two characters locked. It is possible to buy those two slots back if you want access to the characters again without resubscribing to the game. The only thing I don't think they've addressed is whether those two slots would then add onto the original 9 if you later decided to resubscribe.
In short, if the industry keeps evolving like it does now.
I'm turning my back to it. And so should other mmo gamers.
This "change" is only intended to make us pay for less.
You would expect that "change" and "free" as marketing speak would have lost its touch by now..
But keep doing what you are doing industry. The player will cast its vote.
I'm sure I'm not the only one predicting a massive rise in indy mmo popularity.
Besides it should be obvious by now that we have no choice.
The industry has decided that this is what we will get.
Acquiescence people....you will be hear that word a lot the comming years.
I think the industry needs new payment models in order to get players to try more games, and it's been on the cards for years.
I can see the model that LOTRO has adopted being successful. It's basically an extended trial with pay-as-you go DLC and an optional cash-shop, while at the same time keeping a subscription-type deal for players who want to go that way.
There will always be people who won't pay a subscription in exactly the same way as there are players who will never play F2P, and these new payment models need to straddle that line. If they don't they'll fail or adapt, it's really as simple as that.
One other factor is that there's a growing number of MMO players who have grown up with the game style but have also accrued the responsibilities that come with growing up. Players who once had 20 hours a week to dedicate to their MMO(s) of choice now have other demands on their time and all of a sudden the £8/$15 per month doesn't look like such good value. And yet they are the kind of players that any MMO would love to have.
I'm in that category and the only MMO I really play now is the one I've got a lifetime sub to. I've got a shelf of MMOs (including LOTRO) but I'm not going put £8 down just to play for a few, unpredictable hours when I've got the time. It's just not worth it. These new payment models make me hopeful that it'll be worth the money for me to play more MMOs.
If they don't then I still won't play them.
Like others in this thread, I think that if the Future is now, it sucks.
I am not playing an MMO currently and the releases of the last few years have been sub par, at best.
I don't like Wow. I most enjoyed pre-trammel UO, and pre-CU SWG. I tried FE but found it not bad, but not quite to my liking. I have beta'd and trialed a good many other games in the last few years, and nothing has hooked me, the oldschooler that I am. Lately, the releases seem to be getting shallower and more linear, and lesser in terms of game mechanics and technical quality. The MMO industry is definitely on the downswing....
I don't like cash shops, and I don't like F2Ps, damn few have been worth the time to download.
It used to be, that in the MMO space, there used to be something for everyone.
Now there isn't.
You're getting screwed out of nothing. You ONLY lose those two slots if you stop subscribing. If you continue subscribing, you lose no slots.
What happens now if you stop subscribing? Answer: You lose ALL slots.
So how is this aspect of the new plan worthy of criticism?
Year is 2056, with the encroachment of P2P (paid-to-play, as pay-to-play had gone extinct long, long ago), Ms. Jimena S. decided to write an article titled "The Future is Now, Again".
Then there will be many folks defending F2P with cash shops, claiming it's more fair than the emergent paid-to-play mmo's, which award most money to the winners and paid others only minimal wage. At least in F2P with cash shops winners pay for freeloading losers' gameplay, or so they claim. But now, in paid-to-play mmo's, companies award those "cheaters" with stronger psyionic power more cash per time spent than players who weren't born with such ability.
Yeah, in the future when works will all be done by robots and humans will have more than abundant resources, thanks to colonization and mining of several adjacent planets, the only thing matters to game companies is fame and reputation. So more people drawn to the game, more fame points the company will accumulate. The getting- paid-to-play model will replace the traditional model of free-to-play with item malls as the ultimate model for all mmo's.
Just food for thought.
Thanks for the well written and informative article. I haven't played anything free to play yet, so I appreciate anything that presents the pros and cons logically and without being heavy handed.
And then when you order clothes and food (and let's not forget beer) from inside the game you are spending time in (of course getting paid while doing so) the time limit for a free order is down to 4.5 miliseconds from the 30 min of today.
That is why Flower for the ps3 is such a nice tale.
And let's not forget to give Kudos to the ones making it happen. Really great post there Hellmarauder.
Good article. I guess because this is an article we are allowed to talk about F2P vs P2P. Wow, MMORPG is getting pretty heavy handed these days. Anyway, I think the two can co-exist. I have no idea why some of the fanatics of F2P get so hostile so often when some crticizes the model.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
i DO think it will be one or the other (billing style) that survives. I do not see the market supporting both types. i think when a clear majority of successful game becomes dominant, there will still be the usual smattering of independant or foreign games leaking through that use the minority system, but it really all hinges on what the big dogs do in the next 6 months, or so.
i think in any case, 15/month will be a thing of the past. If a company can make chicken feed of that with item shops by appealing to new demographics, the ancien regime will have to shove a cheek.
this is how i see it. the traditional MMO elite is losing their grip on the community, and soon any schmoe off the street will be able to pay for the same rank and priviledge that only 5+ year veterans of whichever MMO (ie the Beta testers of every game that has ever been released) I cant say im sad to see things change. while "earning" your place in an MMO had some kind of charm, it really drove alot of support from the MMO genre away.
You sound pretty bitter, and I think you missed the point of the article entirely.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
Read the bloody chart: http://www.lotro.com/betasignup/vipchart.html
Character Slots */**
VIP get 5
Premium get 3
Free get 1
But the * and ** tell the rest of the story:
* Purchasers of the Mines of Moria™ expansion get access to the Mines of Moria region and content, premium classes (Rune-Keeper and Warden), legendary items feature, Tier 6 crafting feature, 2 extra character slots and a level cap of 60. Purchasers of the Siege of Mirkwood™ expansion get access to the Siege of Mirkwood region and content, a level cap of 65 and the Siege of Mirkwood skirmishes.
** Purchasers of the LOTRO Adventurer's Pack get 2 extra character slots and 20 slots of shared bank storage across all characters on the same servers.
Did you buy MoM? If so, then as a VIP you get 5 + 2 slots for a total of 7. If you also bought the AP then you get 5 +2 +2 slots for a total of 9. As a VIP you lose no slots.
If you then cancel your subscription you drop to Premium. (Current and past subscribers will never be reduced to Free.) So then you have 3 +2 +2 slots for a total of 7.
So once again: If you have bought MoM and the AP as you obviously have then you have 9 slots now and you will continue to have 9 slots for as long as you continue to subscribe. If you cancel your subscription you will drop to 7 slots but will have the option to buy those two slots back separately without resubscribing.
As a subscriber today, your $15 a month buys continuing access to the content that you've already purchased. Am I wrong? If you cancel your subscription you lose access to that content that you have purchased. Am I wrong? This holds true with every single pay to play MMO out there. Am I wrong? Under the new plan you can keep access to that content even after cancelling your subscription. So rather than losing all access for no longer subscribing, you lose partial access.
As for the Free player -- who is ONLY someone who has NEVER subscribed to the game before -- we don't know the whole story. I have some assumptions, and you clearly have some of your own. But it's all speculation. All we know for sure, due to the placement of the * and ** symbols, is that anyone of any account type who purchases MoM or the AP will permanently get all of the benefits listed under the chart. Bounce from free to VIP to Premium all you want, you'll still have permanently purchased those specific items and have full access to them. Meanwhile, we know for certain that those of us who play the game now and have purchased those items will continue to have them. You will NOT have to buy your character slots back unless you wish to permanently go Premium and in that case you only have to buy two slots back.
Does that finally make sense? Please explain how this makes Turbine evil.
*Chuckles*
I love this discussion, I always have, because it shows people still CARE and are PASSIONATE about MMO's. I have grown a bit old and jaded about MMO's since my daughter was born. (Hard to play anything online with a 2 year old attacking you. KID AGRO!
)
Which is why I like the idea of Hybrid games. Or even the "Unlimited Trial" games. Why? Because unlike "normal" players I may not hit level 10 in a 10 day free trial, that's how little I get to play. The pure subscription model really doesn't work for me anymore as I cannot see making the investment because I don't have the time to enjoy it.
$60 box price just to try the game for 30 days. In that 30 days I'll probably get 7 "good" days of gaming in if I'm lucky. Versus before the wife and child I drop $60 on a game and play the heck out of it for those 30 days and make it worth my wile and probable subsciption. Then tack on the $15 a month when, as I recently did, played all of ONE day for that $15. Yeah, you can see how the subscription model really doesn't work for me for the forseable future. (I figure in 8 years I'll have a CHANCE to play again.
)
Now Free To Play, and Unlimited Trial games on the other hand give me a chance to enjoy a game on my terms. I don't feel as pissed by paying for something I'm not using. I'll admit it, I'm a key demographic for the F2P market and darn it I'm GLAD they're bringing more games into this format. Don't get me wrong I'm not advocating a full move to the Hybrid model, or even the infinate free trial (though I wouldn't mind that.
) I'm just glad that the OPTION of the Hybrid or F2P model is there. More games for me to try!
Plus if it can breath life into some older games isn't that a good thing? DDO is the perfect example as I tried it in Beta, post launch, and then in the F2P era and have been happy with it in F2P era the most. (Though I will full admit that is partially due to all the upgrades in the interveining time.)
In the end I'm all about giving players choices. If the industry goes full F2P and many of you live up to your promises and never plays them then MAYBE the industry would adapt. Realistically though I have a feeling that many of the companies going F2P could care less if thousands of us don't play their games. They'll be happy with the thousands of others who do.
:
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
I can see where there might be some confusion because of how the upgrade to SoM was handled. The actual SoM expansion included the region, the cap increase to 65 and all the skirmishes. In addition to that was the AP which included the extra character slots, the cloak, the shared storage and the goat mount.
The first * covers the first half of this: the region, cap increase and skirmishes. As a current subscriber, you will still have it after the conversion, regardless of whether you continue to subscribe or drop to Premium.
The second ** covers the character slots and shared storage. As a current subscriber, you will still have these as well regardless of whether or not you continue to subscribe. What is not mentioned are the goat and cloak, but it seems safe to assume that you'll continue to receive them.
If you continue to subscribe after the change is made you will still have everything you have now. You lose nothing. In point of fact you actually also receive 500 free Turbine points every month which are equivalent to as much as half your subscription fee if you purchased them yourself. Those points can be used to buy any extras they bring out in the future; cosmetic items, maybe more character slots, maybe new expansions -- we don't know yet.
If you stop subscribing then you go to Premium. In that case you will continue to have everything you have now in terms of purchased content from MoM, SoM and the AP. You will lose two character slots. You will also have some other limitations such as fewer trait slots and a gold cap. But again, this is a huge sight better than what would happen if you stopped subscribing today because today you lose all access to the game including everything you've purchased in the expansions.
In fact, it's a safe bet that if you just took all the different bonus points they're going to give out between now and when this change goes live you would be able to drop to Premium and buy most of the limitation removals. In other words, you could very possibly cancel your subscription after the change is made and continue to play completely free. At least, until the next major content release.
So how exactly are premium members going to remove the chat, mail and auction limitations... according to the chart, they can't.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
Okay, I wasn't going to say anything, since a lot of people seemed to enjoy this piece and I may be in the minority, but I've read a couple responses praising this article for how "logical" it was - which is not at all the case.
This article is riddled with informal logical fallacies, including strawman arguements and ad populum. Infact, the whole article is pretty much a big ad populum: the author acts as though she speaks for the supposed majority of the mmo community, but cannot. She also rallies everyone against some faceless menace and constructs "their side" of the argument out of nearly nothing.
This is not a good example of a logical work. Let's treat it like what it is: an opinion piece.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Okay...?
Examples? Reasons? Anything at all to illustrate and support your statements and why you dismiss the entire article wholesale?
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
A very bold yet self explantionary profecy/statement. I do however disagree in many aspects. Whilist all that has occured is truly a triumphant move for F2P scene. It's also situation that doesn't evolve nearly any fields of mmorpg itself. Subscription methods are more and more going from "paid cable tv" To commercial " free advertisement filled tv" It is a good thing as game makers are finally able to generate revenue other than paid subscriptions. However, it doesn't change the facts,
All this flag waving for Western F2P game glory is a bit overshot due the mass production of F2P on exactly same engines and graphical style. No mater how you put it the quality of gaming suffers due revenue is largely based on item shops, However I do admit that Western style of producing F2P games is far better and likely far more succesfull, however we eastern people play far less F2P games than the western counterparts.
It's noted fact that Eastern game studios produce masses of identical games that wave flag for one single playstyle, generally the games drain their styles from common JP Rpgs however, those games never were very suited to be turn into mmorpgs. And the Eastern mentality has allways been a bit different from Western. Those things are largely due different culture and different political lines. Eastern gamers also for far larger aspect enjoy geargrind and challenge of hard work. Their hard work defines many of them as players and people, therefore we can't truly speak of invidualism.
So I truly hope that western F2P games will keep up their quality and fight the masses of Eastern games by customization options and keep offering superior quality gaming. So either the prophecy comes true, but judging from the reaction of people this prophecy might be either selfexplanationary fact that comes to reality. OR failure due the irritation and bad experienced people obtained from Eastern studio games.
I do know that my writings will cause some degree of annoyance and counteropinnions. But that's how it works!
Kindest regards,
DKW
First off, I did not dismiss it wholesale, I dismissed the assertion that it is "logical" and objective like some others seem to think. I already named the fallacies commited, but didn't have time to give specific examples. I'll restate my reasons, since I was not specific enough.
The author commits ad populum and other fallacies throughout the entire article by appealing to the reader's need for belonging. Half her wording creates an illusion that most people agree with her and that's why you should accept what she's saying. Ironically, she accuses "the media" of hoping on bandwagons, when she herself uses a fallacy nicknamed as such. For just one example out of many:
"This is exactly what many 'experts' are claiming, however. 'It's inevitable that we go to a free to play MMO model,' the chant cries; but this isn't a matter of death or taxes."
The above statement commits atleast 3 separate types of fallacies: ad populum (because she's trying to rally the audience against some supposed united opposition that may or may not even exist), strawman (because she puts words in the mouth of those who might be on the other side of the argument and uses an extreme form of their case), and begging the question (because she presents us with no evidence that any of this is the case, only her own word for it). These are running themes throughout the piece.
She cites no "experts" and only points to her fellow blogger's opposing opinion piece for a representation of a supposedly dominant industry perspective. She acts as though she is the voice of the entire mmo consumer community with many of her statements. She uses charged language to appeal to the emotions of the reader without also supporting why we should feel a certain way with any sort of evidence.
Hence, my assertion that it is an opinion piece, and should not be looked to as an example of logic in writing. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with the piece when viewed in the proper perspective though. I merely wished to point that out.