"There's a vocal contingent of gamers online who don't appreciate free-to-play business models, but their complaints are being drowned out by customers speaking with their wallets..." - Nick Earl
Don't you find it ironic that both 'free-to-play' and 'speaking with their wallets' are both used in the same sentence; especially when you consider that 'speaking with their wallets' suggests people are buying here. So, basically, people are buying free-to-play games. Honestly, 'free-to-play' is a marketing term that does not accurately describe these games. Here's a few that describe these games better:
- Demo, With the Option to Buy More Content
- Partial Game With Endless Developer Hands Dipping Into Your Pockets For Money
- Free To Download, Expensive To Get The Whole Game
- Whale Hunting
- Endless Nickel & Diming For Complete Experience
- Half The Value At Double Or More The Price of Premium Games
I remember when companies first started the whole 'free-to-play' is the future. Not many people actually wanted it. However, once they did (or rather, once the younger 'entitlement' crowd came) you started seeing the trolling increase; the immaturity of gamers increase; and the general decline of gaming. Suddenly, planting crops in a game that asked you to spam your friends every 10 seconds or sign-up for this or that credit card became popular.
FACT: There are very few 'true' free-to-play games -if any- that are not partial games in comparison to premium games. There are no exceptions. League of Legends? (which actually is a very well done 'free-to-play' game) Nope. You have to unlock heroes with money. You don't get them all so you don't have the full game. The same even goes for freemium games such as LoTRO. Sure, you can earn stuff through in-game means, but you cannot unlock the entire game without a subscription.
This guy pretty much nailed it.
There are no "free to play" games, someone pays for the production of the game and running the servers.
Blizzard and CCP are surely quaking in their boots at all the "free to play" games that are closing down on a weekly basis.
I sometimes make spelling and grammar errors but I don't pretend it's because I'm using a phone
Originally posted by SaltDaFries Most of the time people will spend way more money on a F2P game over time rather than a sub game whether they are aware of it or not.
Actually the data shows that 60-90 percent of the people in the games spend nothing at all.
edit - I however am not one of those people. I don't mind spending money in games. If the game is fun I'll play it, and if there is something in the CS I want, I'll get it. (looking at you 32 slot bags)
Most times there is nothing in the CS I want. In FE I would have loved a dog, however all the dogs were so freaking ugly.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by SaltDaFries Most of the time people will spend way more money on a F2P game over time rather than a sub game whether they are aware of it or not.
I've never spent a red cent on any F2P game and don't plant to ever do so. They are as fun as they are for what they provide for free, when they stop being fun, I go elsewhere.
Another note which just occurred to me about this mighty successful GW2, that it is the common opinion that GW2 cannot be played long-term as a main MMO. So basically this successful game needs to be supplemented with another MMO. So unless you LOVE temporary content, how do you play GW2 in it's current state long term? Again you get what you pay for.
I don't need another MMO to supplement GW2. I have no need for an MMO to "live" in. For casual play it's the best thing since baked bread so to speak. I see no other AAA MMO with the same or greater value for money than what GW2 gives you, if you're looking for a game you can play pretty casually that is.
Originally posted by SaltDaFries Most of the time people will spend way more money on a F2P game over time rather than a sub game whether they are aware of it or not.
Actually the data shows that 60-90 percent of the people in the games spend nothing at all.
Which data? One that is supplied by by a non invested source? One that is neutral in their agenda and not here just to shill a business model that ultimately is only good for the share holder.
Originally posted by SaltDaFries Most of the time people will spend way more money on a F2P game over time rather than a sub game whether they are aware of it or not.
I've never spent a red cent on any F2P game and don't plant to ever do so. They are as fun as they are for what they provide for free, when they stop being fun, I go elsewhere.
...and so speaks the non invested transient non supporting modern 'customer'.
These are the people that are dictating the modern MMORPG market. Enjoy it.
Originally posted by SaltDaFries Most of the time people will spend way more money on a F2P game over time rather than a sub game whether they are aware of it or not.
That's simply not true. There are a whole lot more people playing F2P games than P2P games and F2P revenue is only slightly higher than P2P revenue. What is true is that the paying players in F2P games will, on average, be paying more than they would pay for a subscription game.
Around 8/10 of players in a F2P game never pay a dime, so a paying player roughly pays for himself and 4 others, but since F2P games are usually cheaper than sub games they, on average, actually don't pay THAT much more than they would on a sub. Exceptions will be exceptions though.
Originally posted by SaltDaFries Most of the time people will spend way more money on a F2P game over time rather than a sub game whether they are aware of it or not.
I've never spent a red cent on any F2P game and don't plant to ever do so. They are as fun as they are for what they provide for free, when they stop being fun, I go elsewhere.
...and so speaks the non invested transient non supporting modern 'customer'.
These are the people that are dictating the modern MMORPG market. Enjoy it.
They don't dictate the modern MMO market, they're along for the ride that's all. If they catered to this type of player they wouldn't be making any more MMO's. But value for money wise, this attitude can't be beat. Play while it's fun without investing anything. When you feel you're being pushed towards a cash shop then it's bye bye.
Originally posted by SaltDaFries Most of the time people will spend way more money on a F2P game over time rather than a sub game whether they are aware of it or not.
Actually the data shows that 60-90 percent of the people in the games spend nothing at all.
Which data? One that is supplied by by a non invested source? One that is neutral in their agenda and not here just to shill a business model that ultimately is only good for the share holder.
Links to this data please?
Market research firms whose data has been plastered all over this website, I'm sure a search will help you.
The model lets players play a good portion for free.
The model means that the game must be fun first, or the devs get no money whatsoever unlike a p2p model where they get your $15 before you know if it's fun or not.
Try before you buy is a good thing and f2p supports that.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by SaltDaFries Most of the time people will spend way more money on a F2P game over time rather than a sub game whether they are aware of it or not.
Actually the data shows that 60-90 percent of the people in the games spend nothing at all.
Which data? One that is supplied by by a non invested source? One that is neutral in their agenda and not here just to shill a business model that ultimately is only good for the share holder.
Links to this data please?
Market research firms whose data has been plastered all over this website, I'm sure a search will help you.
The model lets players play a good portion for free.
The model means that the game must be fun first, or the devs get no money whatsoever unlike a p2p model where they get your $15 before you know if it's fun or not.
Try before you buy is a good thing and f2p supports that.
The people that pay are supporting the freeloaders. The payers should get a lot more than the freeloaders.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Originally posted by SaltDaFries Most of the time people will spend way more money on a F2P game over time rather than a sub game whether they are aware of it or not.
Actually the data shows that 60-90 percent of the people in the games spend nothing at all.
Which data? One that is supplied by by a non invested source? One that is neutral in their agenda and not here just to shill a business model that ultimately is only good for the share holder.
Links to this data please?
Market research firms whose data has been plastered all over this website, I'm sure a search will help you.
The model lets players play a good portion for free.
The model means that the game must be fun first, or the devs get no money whatsoever unlike a p2p model where they get your $15 before you know if it's fun or not.
Try before you buy is a good thing and f2p supports that.
The standard 14 day free trial covered this concern just fine. "F2P" is an unnecessary abomination of a payment model that is a cancer for this genre. It's created a horror story of selfish game hopping "dolphins" that contribute squat to the industry. This foolish fad is not going to end in a pretty way.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Originally posted by SaltDaFries Most of the time people will spend way more money on a F2P game over time rather than a sub game whether they are aware of it or not.
Actually the data shows that 60-90 percent of the people in the games spend nothing at all.
Which data? One that is supplied by by a non invested source? One that is neutral in their agenda and not here just to shill a business model that ultimately is only good for the share holder.
Links to this data please?
Market research firms whose data has been plastered all over this website, I'm sure a search will help you.
The model lets players play a good portion for free.
The model means that the game must be fun first, or the devs get no money whatsoever unlike a p2p model where they get your $15 before you know if it's fun or not.
Try before you buy is a good thing and f2p supports that.
The standard 14 day free trial covered this concern just fine. "F2P" is an unnecessary abomination of a payment model that is a cancer for this genre. It's created a horror story of selfish game hopping "dolphins" that contribute squat to the industry. This foolish fad is not going to end in a pretty way.
Not all have a 14 day trial and most not until the game has been out for several months if not years. Most make you buy the box (~$50+) before you even know if you'll like, again months/years before a trial is available. That model is entirely geared towards developers.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Sub is the way to go as most games stand now. The problem is that most games do not do a good job of integrating in the F2P. F2P allows players to get the demo, increase player base without risking any money. The problem is, most of these games end up losing their F2P over time because the games are so limited.
The Devs need to use the F2P players as part of the game. Make F2P players work for/in the game and pay them with P2P game time. That would allow the F2P players to stick around and HELP the P2P players to have fun. The game world and game play could be enriched with all the extra tools and options this would give the Devs.
Sub is the way to go as most games stand now. The problem is that most games do not do a good job of integrating in the F2P. F2P allows players to get the demo, increase player base without risking any money. The problem is, most of these games end up losing their F2P over time because the games are so limited.
The Devs need to use the F2P players as part of the game. Make F2P players work for/in the game and pay them with P2P game time. That would allow the F2P players to stick around and HELP the P2P players to have fun. The game world and game play could be enriched with all the extra tools and options this would give the Devs.
Do they?
I haven't noticed many of the new f2p games be very limited at all? Older ones yes, swtor yes, but many others? no.
What evidence do you ahve that most of these games are losing their f2p over time?
Of course most of the p2p lose players over time as well, so it could very well be losing players has nothing to do with the pricing model?
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
to put it bluntly, if you sub, you have more of a committment to play, to meet people, play with people, form a community,
in BTW, PTW, F2P, games you dont have any obligation to do anything, and thats why those games are falling just as fast as they were made.
and if you whine about paying 10-15 bucks a month to pay for a game you will play over 6 hrs a week, your just plain cheap, .
Naw. $15 dollars is pretty cheap. It doesn't affect my level of commitment and I don't think I am a minority in that.
$15 has nothing to do with with meeting people or forming a community.
I have to agree. I cant tell you how many times I forgot to cancel a MMO sub and didn't play the game. So the sub fee in no way translated to commitment for me.
I still think the best model to use would be No box fee, 2 week free trial, sub after that. Thats how it has been for me in every F2P game anyways. If I like it I sub.
Originally posted by SaltDaFries Most of the time people will spend way more money on a F2P game over time rather than a sub game whether they are aware of it or not.
I've never spent a red cent on any F2P game and don't plant to ever do so. They are as fun as they are for what they provide for free, when they stop being fun, I go elsewhere.
...and so speaks the non invested transient non supporting modern 'customer'.
These are the people that are dictating the modern MMORPG market. Enjoy it.
A game, any game, is an entertainment product. I don't have to support the product, it is their job to entertain me. If they do, I pay them. If they do not, I do not. I responded to a post, saying that I do not pay for those games (and frankly, I don't even play them, although I have in the past), thus disproving the point. The idea that you can then claim I'm the problem because I blew away someone else's claim is absurd.
But we can't expect most people on these forums to be honest.
B2P is evil. Anything with a 60$ upfront fee is evil.
Free is to intrusive.
I agree with all this BC.
Free client, 1-2 week full access trial, then sub (with no cash shop) is my ideal.
One week.
Ideally, make them sub still short of reaching the cap.
Realizing the 2-percenters will manage it anyway (through Intravenous Caffeine and GamerPotty™)
...well, as a marketer you had to try, roping them into a lifetime sub at the maximum peak of their addiction.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Originally posted by SaltDaFries Most of the time people will spend way more money on a F2P game over time rather than a sub game whether they are aware of it or not.
Actually the data shows that 60-90 percent of the people in the games spend nothing at all.
Which data? One that is supplied by by a non invested source? One that is neutral in their agenda and not here just to shill a business model that ultimately is only good for the share holder.
Links to this data please?
It's pretty common knowledge that most F2P games only convert 2% or fewer players (leaving 98% or more as free players.)
Exceptions are extremely rare (TF2 announced something like 60% of their audience paying, but I imagine that comes from the many years the game spent as Buy2Play.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by SaltDaFries Most of the time people will spend way more money on a F2P game over time rather than a sub game whether they are aware of it or not.
Actually the data shows that 60-90 percent of the people in the games spend nothing at all.
Which data? One that is supplied by by a non invested source? One that is neutral in their agenda and not here just to shill a business model that ultimately is only good for the share holder.
Links to this data please?
We've linked it for you in enough threads over the past few years that at this point you've got to be kittening. No one can participate in this many discussions about this very topic and be so unaware of the most basic and readily available information on the subject matter.
I mean, seriously, you're going onthree years with this "Link please?" stuff, and we're tired of giving it to you over and over since it obviously doesn't make a difference - you're going to forget in a week anyway.
Google is your friend. Use it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Comments
This guy pretty much nailed it.
There are no "free to play" games, someone pays for the production of the game and running the servers.
Blizzard and CCP are surely quaking in their boots at all the "free to play" games that are closing down on a weekly basis.
I sometimes make spelling and grammar errors but I don't pretend it's because I'm using a phone
Actually the data shows that 60-90 percent of the people in the games spend nothing at all.
edit - I however am not one of those people. I don't mind spending money in games. If the game is fun I'll play it, and if there is something in the CS I want, I'll get it. (looking at you 32 slot bags)
Most times there is nothing in the CS I want. In FE I would have loved a dog, however all the dogs were so freaking ugly.
I've never spent a red cent on any F2P game and don't plant to ever do so. They are as fun as they are for what they provide for free, when they stop being fun, I go elsewhere.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
I don't need another MMO to supplement GW2. I have no need for an MMO to "live" in. For casual play it's the best thing since baked bread so to speak. I see no other AAA MMO with the same or greater value for money than what GW2 gives you, if you're looking for a game you can play pretty casually that is.
Which data? One that is supplied by by a non invested source? One that is neutral in their agenda and not here just to shill a business model that ultimately is only good for the share holder.
Links to this data please?
...and so speaks the non invested transient non supporting modern 'customer'.
These are the people that are dictating the modern MMORPG market. Enjoy it.
That's simply not true. There are a whole lot more people playing F2P games than P2P games and F2P revenue is only slightly higher than P2P revenue. What is true is that the paying players in F2P games will, on average, be paying more than they would pay for a subscription game.
Around 8/10 of players in a F2P game never pay a dime, so a paying player roughly pays for himself and 4 others, but since F2P games are usually cheaper than sub games they, on average, actually don't pay THAT much more than they would on a sub. Exceptions will be exceptions though.
They don't dictate the modern MMO market, they're along for the ride that's all. If they catered to this type of player they wouldn't be making any more MMO's. But value for money wise, this attitude can't be beat. Play while it's fun without investing anything. When you feel you're being pushed towards a cash shop then it's bye bye.
Market research firms whose data has been plastered all over this website, I'm sure a search will help you.
The model lets players play a good portion for free.
The model means that the game must be fun first, or the devs get no money whatsoever unlike a p2p model where they get your $15 before you know if it's fun or not.
Try before you buy is a good thing and f2p supports that.
The people that pay are supporting the freeloaders. The payers should get a lot more than the freeloaders.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
The standard 14 day free trial covered this concern just fine. "F2P" is an unnecessary abomination of a payment model that is a cancer for this genre. It's created a horror story of selfish game hopping "dolphins" that contribute squat to the industry. This foolish fad is not going to end in a pretty way.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
free to play poker ,wtb. 100% guaranteed winning (CS voice)
Seriously if you wanna call it f2p.why not just call it play.
play model vs f2p ,isnt there something wrong because free 2 play doesnt sound free anymore ?
Let's internet
Not all have a 14 day trial and most not until the game has been out for several months if not years. Most make you buy the box (~$50+) before you even know if you'll like, again months/years before a trial is available. That model is entirely geared towards developers.
Sub is the way to go as most games stand now. The problem is that most games do not do a good job of integrating in the F2P. F2P allows players to get the demo, increase player base without risking any money. The problem is, most of these games end up losing their F2P over time because the games are so limited.
The Devs need to use the F2P players as part of the game. Make F2P players work for/in the game and pay them with P2P game time. That would allow the F2P players to stick around and HELP the P2P players to have fun. The game world and game play could be enriched with all the extra tools and options this would give the Devs.
Do they?
I haven't noticed many of the new f2p games be very limited at all? Older ones yes, swtor yes, but many others? no.
What evidence do you ahve that most of these games are losing their f2p over time?
Of course most of the p2p lose players over time as well, so it could very well be losing players has nothing to do with the pricing model?
F2P or B2P for me.
I can't predict what will happen in the next 30 days to know whether or not I should pay up front for something I may not be able to use.
Pain Gauge
to put it bluntly, if you sub, you have more of a committment to play, to meet people, play with people, form a community,
in BTW, PTW, F2P, games you dont have any obligation to do anything, and thats why those games are falling just as fast as they were made.
and if you whine about paying 10-15 bucks a month to pay for a game you will play over 6 hrs a week, your just plain cheap, .
over 20 years of mmorpg's and counting...
Naw. $15 dollars is pretty cheap. It doesn't affect my level of commitment and I don't think I am a minority in that.
$15 has nothing to do with with meeting people or forming a community.
edit - f2p games, just like p2p games are not failing because of the model. Those games are failing because they are bad games, simple.
I have to agree. I cant tell you how many times I forgot to cancel a MMO sub and didn't play the game. So the sub fee in no way translated to commitment for me.
I still think the best model to use would be No box fee, 2 week free trial, sub after that. Thats how it has been for me in every F2P game anyways. If I like it I sub.
A game, any game, is an entertainment product. I don't have to support the product, it is their job to entertain me. If they do, I pay them. If they do not, I do not. I responded to a post, saying that I do not pay for those games (and frankly, I don't even play them, although I have in the past), thus disproving the point. The idea that you can then claim I'm the problem because I blew away someone else's claim is absurd.
But we can't expect most people on these forums to be honest.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
One week.
Ideally, make them sub still short of reaching the cap.
Realizing the 2-percenters will manage it anyway (through Intravenous Caffeine and GamerPotty™)
...well, as a marketer you had to try, roping them into a lifetime sub at the maximum peak of their addiction.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
It's pretty common knowledge that most F2P games only convert 2% or fewer players (leaving 98% or more as free players.)
Exceptions are extremely rare (TF2 announced something like 60% of their audience paying, but I imagine that comes from the many years the game spent as Buy2Play.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
We've linked it for you in enough threads over the past few years that at this point you've got to be kittening. No one can participate in this many discussions about this very topic and be so unaware of the most basic and readily available information on the subject matter.
I mean, seriously, you're going on three years with this "Link please?" stuff, and we're tired of giving it to you over and over since it obviously doesn't make a difference - you're going to forget in a week anyway.
Google is your friend. Use it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre