Let me explain that a little more. Since DDO was the first to convert it got a lot of publicity and many people tried it out.
Actually, just remembered this but, Anarchy Online was the first to convert I believe. Had a lot of controversy around it too, much like DDO had when it was first announced that it would convert.
Let me explain that a little more. Since DDO was the first to convert it got a lot of publicity and many people tried it out.
Actually, just remembered this but, Anarchy Online was the first to convert I believe. Had a lot of controversy around it too, much like DDO had when it was first announced that it would convert.
Weeeell, they made the game without expansions free but everything else still demands monthly fees so this is closr to AoCs unlimited Tortage trial they have been running for years...
There is also free DaoC servers than run the original game just, they have also been around a long time.
Neither of them did the same as DDO and the games that have converted after it. But I guess we can say that AO was first.
I disagree with the comments about F2P games being of lower quality.
Some I would say are better than many subscription based games.
Look at Xyson and Mortal Online to name just 2 games that I can't believe have a subscription due to the poor quality.
I think one of the only problems for most F2P games is the lack a a big IP behind them.
You can't deny the quality of games like Perfect World / Forsaken World.
Really!?? You're going to pull Indie Games into this now?
Yes I can Deny the quality of games like Perfect World / Forsaken World.
Using the same engine and reskinning it with different rates makes it lower quality. Want to list F2P games of low quality since you went there with listing Indie games in your argument ok...
You are so right renting a game from the developers instead of having a onetime fee to buy content (like in LOTRO) is so much better for the consumer. If you honestly believe that, have fun being broke for the rest of your life. Anyone with any understanding of finances would tell you it is always better to buy then rent!
To all the people that are saying Free to play games mean low quality, how does league of legends fit into your little delusional bubble? I guess the thousands of people that are playing are wrong and you are right, because free 2 play always equals low quality. /reboot brain
I've been saying the same thing, for about six plus years now. (hmmm GW's is around that age)
Seems funny how right from the beginning of the article, you've been placed in a propigated Devils Advocate catagory.
I think it's just to make sure that full credit isn't given to this topic, leaving the big Milking crews (P2P) time to catch up.
What B2P (F2P, Freemium, w/e you want to call GW lol) has done to the MMO market is make it more transparent.
Players now are more informed about different pay schemes and options, they are more informed about what they are willing to pay for, and also are more informed about what they don't want to pay for.
A player that is well informed and is given options is something the big milking crews don't want.
As the idustry sits now, I still have second thoughts about FREE ANYTHING, but if it's free, why not check it out.
The games that just use the word free to get your money are easy to spot and i crumple them up and throw them in the recycle bin without a second thought. If the game has nothing to offer other than a grindfest with a items shop growth on it then don't waste any more money or time on it no matter what.
If anything the F2P model has improved the quality of games. With all the wannabee milkers trying to suck in players and get rich quick of an item shop; what they have inadvertantly done is given the players the ability to spot them quicker.
A perfect example of this and i can say this cause i'm nobody important, and my opinion is just that; MINE, Devils Advocate, right? back to the perfect example;
I LOVE StarTrek , anything about StarTrek catches my eye. So naturaly i purchased STO and paid for 3month without even thinking of it. I hate P2P option but it didn't matter because it's startrek. after a month of low quality and lack of passion from the Cryptic team i easily and happily decided to leave. Biggest mistake they made was throwing everything on the wall to see what would stick instead of accualy going and watching a SINGLE EPISODE.
If you don't give me something WORTH buying i'm not gonna [even if it's Trek] and that's what F2P has done for the MMO market.
I'm so happy we are living in this time of CHANGE!
I've been saying the same thing, for about six plus years now. (hmmm GW's is around that age)
Seems funny how right from the beginning of the article, you've been placed in a propigated Devils Advocate catagory.
I think it's just to make sure that full credit isn't given to this topic, leaving the big Milking crews (P2P) time to catch up.
What B2P (F2P, Freemium, w/e you want to call GW lol) has done to the MMO market is make it more transparent.
Players now are more informed about different pay schemes and options, they are more informed about what they are willing to pay for, and also are more informed about what they don't want to pay for.
A player that is well informed and is given options is something the big milking crews don't want.
As the idustry sits now, I still have second thoughts about FREE ANYTHING, but if it's free, why not check it out.
The games that just use the word free to get your money are easy to spot and i crumple them up and throw them in the recycle bin without a second thought. If the game has nothing to offer other than a grindfest with a items shop growth on it then don't waste any more money or time on it no matter what.
If anything the F2P model has improved the quality of games. With all the wannabee milkers trying to suck in players and get rich quick of an item shop; what they have inadvertantly done is given the players the ability to spot them quicker.
A perfect example of this and i can say this cause i'm nobody important, and my opinion is just that; MINE, Devils Advocate, right? back to the perfect example;
I LOVE StarTrek , anything about StarTrek catches my eye. So naturaly i purchased STO and paid for 3month without even thinking of it. I hate P2P option but it didn't matter because it's startrek. after a month of low quality and lack of passion from the Cryptic team i easily and happily decided to leave. Biggest mistake they made was throwing everything on the wall to see what would stick instead of accualy going and watching a SINGLE EPISODE.
If you don't give me something WORTH buying i'm not gonna [even if it's Trek] and that's what P2P has done for the MMO market.
I'm so happy we are living in this time of CHANGE!
B2P is very far from F2P.
Most FPS games (particualrly on consoles) have had official servers and used B2P a long time. It works great as long as bandwidth is relatively cheap.
B2P games main income is box sales. Guildwars pulled in loads of money on that. Since it doesn't live on selling items they don't have to sell stuff with stats which makes the game far from a P2win game.
F2P on the other hand live completely on selling items to players. Forsaken world and Runes of magic are good examples of F2P.
Freemium sells items, quests and other benefits and have a subscription version as well. LOTRO and EQ2X are good examples.
These 3 models differs a lot from eachother, a 4th version is living on adds even if so far only browser games have been doing that. Don't mix them together or confuse them.
Guildwars is my best used gaming money ever (Biowares NWN is second place).
But what Drew said was that F2P is the savior of the genre. Guildwars were and still is so popular because it is a great game, not because it is B2P. The payment method will not save the genre no matter what, only good games can do that.
If all future games are crap nothing can save the genre, F2P is just a different way to pay for playing, it is not really better or worse than the game we are paying for.
Really!?? You're going to pull Indie Games into this now?
Yes I can Deny the quality of games like Perfect World / Forsaken World.
Using the same engine and reskinning it with different rates makes it lower quality. Want to list F2P games of low quality since you went there with listing Indie games in your argument ok...
FW isn't that bad, you can easily compare it to any Cryptic game (it is even slightly better than those).
But comparing cheap indie games with the best budgeted F2P games isn't fair, not by far. Perfect world should be compared with Wow, not Mortal online. Both have loads of players and good budget.
Saying that all F2P games sucks isn't really fair. I will however say that I think the average P2P game have higher quality than the average F2P, there are just so many Asian crap games out there.
But you guys are kinda missing the point here. Bad games will always fail or live on the brink of death. PW might not fit our Western playstyle but it most be doing something right considering how many players it have (I think exactly the same of Wow BTW). It doesn't really matter how you pay for your game, crap is crap anyways.
Do you really think that Mortal online would be earning more money if it went F2P? I somehow doubt it.
So, "free to play" isn't really free? So why do companies use the term? Why is the term "f2p" parrotted by so many seemingly intelligent people here?
Two terms come to mind here. One, "you get what you pay for". Two, "if you want quality you have to pay for it".
The term, near as I can tell, was just adopted by Marketing departments because it sounds good in advertisements. Especially with the MMOs that have converted to "free-to-play" much time is spent in the forums correcting the misconceptions those advertisements promoted.
I really wish someone would come up with a more accurate term, but unless it fits the ads just as well and Marketing is happy, we will be stuck with "free-to-play".
With the amount of people complaining about games like Aion, Rift, WoW, SWTOR and so on (just take a look at the "4.2 is Wow Déjà vu" thread), you can hardly argue subscription means superior quality. Especially with the bad launches many games had. You're saying subscription means they make money faster? Why can't they spent a bit more before the launch then, if they get it back within half a year, compared to a F2P game who gets money over the long term (and irregulary)?
And with the shops P2P games employ, or ingame rewards for buying related products, one can hardly argue you get everything for $15 (a month. Once you stop paying, even if it's after ten years, you got nothing. F2P: You buy it, you keep it. Obviously not true for consumeable items, but if you buy a dungeon or a weapon, you keep it).
With initial box price, the cost for expansions and the subscription fee, P2P do cost more than most F2P games, no matter how much it is P2Win. Add P2Win stuff to P2P games..
So, many P2P games can have buggy launches, customersoften have trouble with the support, you still might need to buy additonal content, and they may cost more as they add box + expansion + subscription on top of the cash shop (or other way round)
The only reasons P2P games are seen as good is because people are used to it.
If games would have been F2P all along, or B2P, people would argue the other way round. "They get a lot of income through the cash shop each day, they can exactly tell you how many people are buying what, and react to it. People can get exactly what they want, and do not need to pay for stuff they don't like.
And now we are supposed to pay a monthly subscription? And they won't even close the cash shop and/or give it out for free! And how is this supposed to work, i need to buy the expansion to get into area x at all, but i still need to buy the dungeons and quest packs if i want to do anything there?"
F2P has the huge advantage that you do not need to pay a single dime if you do not want to. You might have to grind for months before you get that weapon you want, whereas other people buy it in the shop, or even a better one, but you don't have to spent money. You can play for years, and not buy a single thing. Or you buy everything because you want it now, and you don't want to grind, but it's your decision.
Many P2P games did not even offer trials, so you had to buy the box and a subscription (though a month or so is often included with the game itself, at least) before ever being able to try it our yourself. And after 2 hours you might say "no, this just doesn't work. I'm never playing this again". The money is still gone.
Everything else, like quality, content, cash shop etc is not really divided between P2P and F2P, but among the developers/publishers. Some are know for good games, some are not.
Honestly, some of the best stuff in gaming is fan made. Be it free shards for known MMOs, mods for games like HL2, texture packs for Crysis - they do not even have a cash shop, it's completely free, the ones who did the hard work do not even recieve the fame often enough.
I don't like cash shops, especially P2Win ones, too, but that does not have much in common with F2P anymore.
I'll wait to the day's end when the moon is high And then I'll rise with the tide with a lust for life, I'll Amass an army, and we'll harness a horde And then we'll limp across the land until we stand at the shore
The problem with the F2P model is that it significantly changes the design goals behind a game (or other service). With a subscription based model the design goal is simply to make the game entertaining so that the player will have the motivation to maintain thier subscription to the game service. Outside of that, you really have no particular motivation to control what the player does within the game...other then to insure that whatever they do is enjoyable.
With the F2P play model, you have an added level of complexity involved. It's not simply enough to make coming to the came enjoyable.... you've also got to insure that a high enough percentage of players engage in spending behavior within the game. In other words, if EVERYONE is enjoying playing your game for free so much that they feel no compulsion to make any purchases in your cash shop... you're going to go broke. That means you've got to design so that players are pushed into spending behaviors (the more the better).....and upto the very brink of tolerance where if they were forced to spend anymore, they would stop enjoying the game and walk away. That's a very tricky line to walk and a much more complex design to try to impliment. Especialy with the suits breathing down your neck, as is inevitable, with a constant drone to push the envelope further so that they can "maximize proffits" (what every business naturaly wants to do) .... and usualy with very little understanding on thier part of just how delicate that balance is.
You even see this in many of the better "Fremium" games. LOTRO for example has been constantly increasing the push for spending behavior within the game, even with VIP's. It's gotten to the point where it has become distatsefull for more then a few veteran players. They have also gone past the limits that they assured players that they would never cross when F2P was first implimented. It is most definately NOT just "vanity" items on sale at this point.
Note, that this does not mean that it's impossible to design a quality F2P game or to strike a good balance between pushing spending and providing entertainment to players....just that it IS a much more difficult design & management proposition then the subscription model...and because of that, alot of implimentations are going to flub it...some quite badly.
This does not even address the fact that needing to make purchases with real cash runs contrary to the sense of escapism that many players go to these games for in the first place.
Alot of players don't want to have to worry about thier real world budget issues...or whether they can afford to do/purchase X when playing an MMO. They often go to MMO's for the very purposes of not having to think about those issues. In the same vein that fixed price all inclusive vacations are popular...subscription (or B2P) games are popular in that you don't need to worry about how much fun you can afford to have while there...As long as you can afford the fixed entry price, you can have as much (or as little) fun as you want...without worrying about reaching into your wallet.
I know it's quite a defeatist attitude to have, but at this point I'd rather quit than convert. I just don't trust the F2P or Freemium payment models, and I don't expect I ever will.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I don't like cash shops, especially P2Win ones, too, but that does not have much in common with F2P anymore.
What? What kind of F2P doesn't have cash shops? I've never seen one, ever.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
F2P sucks and you always spend more money then on subscritpion games. I even don't want to try F2P games anymore because sub games have higher quality.
You must have trouble with math, and compared to every other P2P model GW's rocks and it's F2P or B2P or W/E you want to call it. (there is no sub to play it)
Subscriptions DOES NOT MEAN QUALITY!
Prophecies 54$ Client 50$
Factions 49$ Monthly 900$ ((12 months x 15$ fee/month) x 5 years)
Some of you guys stating this is not what the mass of players want really are missing it, sure these options are unpopular on a site like this however if they were so unpopular and destined to fail like you guys keep saying why do they keep succeeding. And just because subscription based doesn't mean there isn't gonna be a cash shop as well. Wow keeps comming up cause its a game with the most subscriptions, how many sparkle ponies did they sell for 25 dollars more then half the cost of a full expansion? Guess those people did not mind losing the immersion factor.
Look at the eve forums despite the outcry you now have a flood of posts of people who's character have the 70 dollar Monocle talking likeif you don't have the monocle you should be a in game peasant. Considering that the game was on sale for 9.99 this weekend on steam there goes the arguement you'll spend more in a f2p game someone can spend more on p2p with cash shops just like they can in free 2 play if they feel the need to buy the newest and greatest shiny object.
Now on the other hand I remember playing Guild Wars at launch, chat was full of people stating they loved the game BECAUSE it did not have a subscription fee. There is a large portion of gamers that are against subscription fees, however microtransactions are fine with those people because you are ultimately the one who decides how much you pay. I mean EA makes money selling in game unlocks in the games you can unlock normally by playing the game.
F2P sucks and you always spend more money then on subscritpion games. I even don't want to try F2P games anymore because sub games have higher quality.
You must have trouble with math, and compared to every other P2P model GW's rocks and it's F2P or B2P or W/E you want to call it. (there is no sub to play it)
Subscriptions DOES NOT MEAN QUALITY!
Prophecies 54$ Client 50$
Factions 49$ Monthly 900$ ((12 months x 15$ fee/month) x 5 years)
Nightfall 54$ Expansion 1 50$
EyeNorth 44$ Expansion 2 50$
---------------- Expansion 3 50$
Total 201$ --------------------
+guilty extras 61$ Total 1100$
----------------
Total 262$
No one said Guild Wars sucks, because buy to play games do not fall under the free to play category.
Being subscriptionless does not make a game F2P. Lack of a box sale and no subscription is what makes a game "F2P".
This only delays a games natural death. look at SWG, sure it if it went F2P it would last, but letting it die a natural death is also going to open the door for TOR to succeed or fail. Many years from now TOR could go F2P even if it sucks, but again let them die/sunset let it be over.
A failed game is still a failure like warhammer. they need to die so we don't have a bazillion failed MMO's on life support with F2P
I disagree with the comments about F2P games being of lower quality.
Some I would say are better than many subscription based games.
Look at Xyson and Mortal Online to name just 2 games that I can't believe have a subscription due to the poor quality.
I think one of the only problems for most F2P games is the lack a a big IP behind them.
You can't deny the quality of games like Perfect World / Forsaken World.
You just picked two western market flops made by indie companies... and picked the two best F2P MMOs made by an eastern corporate giant that has considerable resources available.
If you're going to play that card, then let's compare WoW and Rift to the hundreds of terrible F2P MMOs out there and see who wins.
Then don't generalise, there a great examples of F2P games, just as there are bad examples of subscription based games.
All I'm seeing are comments about 'quality', well that's just not right.
Be more specific rather than just trashing every F2P game.
I was specific, every single Western MMOs that is developed as F2P has proven to be inferior. Name a single western AAA quality MMO that was F2P at release... you can't. Every single AAA western MMO that is F2P, was P2P to begin with, that's the entire reason they're AAA quality to begin with.
Despite what people want to believe, the western market simply does not accept the F2P cashshop model as much as the eastern market. As such, F2P in the western market will for the forseeable future lag behind when it comes to recouping development costs after release, compared to a straight box sale + subscription model in the early life of an MMO.
I've got to LOL.
Are you telling me I have to debate this on YOUR terms?
It HAS to be this, it HAS to be that.
I was making a point about all the people saying F2P is low quality, I can name 20 or more that are far from low quality.
Now we have people saying they tried this and that, saw a cash shop and uninstalled. Did they even make it past level 10 or check to see if the cash shop made a difference to gameplay?
I think it's piss poor to debate on a forum when you have no idea of what you are talking about, or worse, try to funnel people's response in the way you just did.
I disagree with the comments about F2P games being of lower quality.
Some I would say are better than many subscription based games.
Look at Xyson and Mortal Online to name just 2 games that I can't believe have a subscription due to the poor quality.
I think one of the only problems for most F2P games is the lack a a big IP behind them.
You can't deny the quality of games like Perfect World / Forsaken World.
Really!?? You're going to pull Indie Games into this now?
Yes I can Deny the quality of games like Perfect World / Forsaken World.
Using the same engine and reskinning it with different rates makes it lower quality. Want to list F2P games of low quality since you went there with listing Indie games in your argument ok...
I can't comment on their 'quality' because I haven't played them.
I would like to know your definition of quality though, because if it doesn't include things like stability and availability - and your only concept of quality is whether or not you like the art style or gameplay, you may as well make your own list of games we CAN discuss.
F2p leads to cash shops. Cash shops lead to overdependence on cash shop items. Overdependence on cash shop leads to spending more than $15 a month on cash shop items. Pay to play is cheaper. Cash shops normally unbalance pvp.
Pay to play wins for that, and if there isn't a cash shop in a f2p game the game isn't moderated or keep working properly. If it is anywhere near wokring properly then its a small simple game with little to no content.
Pay to play gets better customer support, upkeep is performed on the games and servers, over priced cash shops are not existent or only supply cosmetic items that don't really matter. People know all this so there is a larger community on P2P games. Kids don't have credit cards so we don't have to see "as much" immature people.
F2P may work for some games, but I have yet to see it implemented well.
F2P sucks and you always spend more money then on subscritpion games. I even don't want to try F2P games anymore because sub games have higher quality.
You must have trouble with math, and compared to every other P2P model GW's rocks and it's F2P or B2P or W/E you want to call it. (there is no sub to play it)
Subscriptions DOES NOT MEAN QUALITY!
Prophecies 54$ Client 50$
Factions 49$ Monthly 900$ ((12 months x 15$ fee/month) x 5 years)
Nightfall 54$ Expansion 1 50$
EyeNorth 44$ Expansion 2 50$
---------------- Expansion 3 50$
Total 201$ --------------------
+guilty extras 61$ Total 1100$
----------------
Total 262$
If GW's was a proper MMORPG then you'd be comparing apples to apples, but as it stands, no.
Now when GW's 2 comes out we'll find out if a good B2P MMORPG can thrive without a sub fee.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Comments
Actually, just remembered this but, Anarchy Online was the first to convert I believe. Had a lot of controversy around it too, much like DDO had when it was first announced that it would convert.
Weeeell, they made the game without expansions free but everything else still demands monthly fees so this is closr to AoCs unlimited Tortage trial they have been running for years...
There is also free DaoC servers than run the original game just, they have also been around a long time.
Neither of them did the same as DDO and the games that have converted after it. But I guess we can say that AO was first.
Really!?? You're going to pull Indie Games into this now?
Yes I can Deny the quality of games like Perfect World / Forsaken World.
Using the same engine and reskinning it with different rates makes it lower quality. Want to list F2P games of low quality since you went there with listing Indie games in your argument ok...
http://en.start.gamigo.com/kingofkings3/003a/?affiliateID=689
https://account.91.com/common/eo_register_0610.aspx?Flag=eo&issendemail=1&url=http://eo.91.com&BillID=1308
http://jx2.gameflier.com.my/
Gates of Andaron
http://lastchaos.aeriagames.com/
http://mmohuts.com/review/cardmon-hero
http://bw.us.changyou.com/en/
what to do when the basic game aint that fun.....tease with afew freebies early on
You are so right renting a game from the developers instead of having a onetime fee to buy content (like in LOTRO) is so much better for the consumer. If you honestly believe that, have fun being broke for the rest of your life. Anyone with any understanding of finances would tell you it is always better to buy then rent!
To all the people that are saying Free to play games mean low quality, how does league of legends fit into your little delusional bubble? I guess the thousands of people that are playing are wrong and you are right, because free 2 play always equals low quality. /reboot brain
Well said Drew!
I've been saying the same thing, for about six plus years now. (hmmm GW's is around that age)
Seems funny how right from the beginning of the article, you've been placed in a propigated Devils Advocate catagory.
I think it's just to make sure that full credit isn't given to this topic, leaving the big Milking crews (P2P) time to catch up.
What B2P (F2P, Freemium, w/e you want to call GW lol) has done to the MMO market is make it more transparent.
Players now are more informed about different pay schemes and options, they are more informed about what they are willing to pay for, and also are more informed about what they don't want to pay for.
A player that is well informed and is given options is something the big milking crews don't want.
As the idustry sits now, I still have second thoughts about FREE ANYTHING, but if it's free, why not check it out.
The games that just use the word free to get your money are easy to spot and i crumple them up and throw them in the recycle bin without a second thought. If the game has nothing to offer other than a grindfest with a items shop growth on it then don't waste any more money or time on it no matter what.
If anything the F2P model has improved the quality of games. With all the wannabee milkers trying to suck in players and get rich quick of an item shop; what they have inadvertantly done is given the players the ability to spot them quicker.
A perfect example of this and i can say this cause i'm nobody important, and my opinion is just that; MINE, Devils Advocate, right? back to the perfect example;
I LOVE StarTrek , anything about StarTrek catches my eye. So naturaly i purchased STO and paid for 3month without even thinking of it. I hate P2P option but it didn't matter because it's startrek. after a month of low quality and lack of passion from the Cryptic team i easily and happily decided to leave. Biggest mistake they made was throwing everything on the wall to see what would stick instead of accualy going and watching a SINGLE EPISODE.
If you don't give me something WORTH buying i'm not gonna [even if it's Trek] and that's what F2P has done for the MMO market.
I'm so happy we are living in this time of CHANGE!
B2P is very far from F2P.
Most FPS games (particualrly on consoles) have had official servers and used B2P a long time. It works great as long as bandwidth is relatively cheap.
B2P games main income is box sales. Guildwars pulled in loads of money on that. Since it doesn't live on selling items they don't have to sell stuff with stats which makes the game far from a P2win game.
F2P on the other hand live completely on selling items to players. Forsaken world and Runes of magic are good examples of F2P.
Freemium sells items, quests and other benefits and have a subscription version as well. LOTRO and EQ2X are good examples.
These 3 models differs a lot from eachother, a 4th version is living on adds even if so far only browser games have been doing that. Don't mix them together or confuse them.
Guildwars is my best used gaming money ever (Biowares NWN is second place).
But what Drew said was that F2P is the savior of the genre. Guildwars were and still is so popular because it is a great game, not because it is B2P. The payment method will not save the genre no matter what, only good games can do that.
If all future games are crap nothing can save the genre, F2P is just a different way to pay for playing, it is not really better or worse than the game we are paying for.
FW isn't that bad, you can easily compare it to any Cryptic game (it is even slightly better than those).
But comparing cheap indie games with the best budgeted F2P games isn't fair, not by far. Perfect world should be compared with Wow, not Mortal online. Both have loads of players and good budget.
Saying that all F2P games sucks isn't really fair. I will however say that I think the average P2P game have higher quality than the average F2P, there are just so many Asian crap games out there.
But you guys are kinda missing the point here. Bad games will always fail or live on the brink of death. PW might not fit our Western playstyle but it most be doing something right considering how many players it have (I think exactly the same of Wow BTW). It doesn't really matter how you pay for your game, crap is crap anyways.
Do you really think that Mortal online would be earning more money if it went F2P? I somehow doubt it.
So, "free to play" isn't really free? So why do companies use the term? Why is the term "f2p" parrotted by so many seemingly intelligent people here?
Two terms come to mind here. One, "you get what you pay for". Two, "if you want quality you have to pay for it".
Let's party like it is 1863!
The term, near as I can tell, was just adopted by Marketing departments because it sounds good in advertisements. Especially with the MMOs that have converted to "free-to-play" much time is spent in the forums correcting the misconceptions those advertisements promoted.
I really wish someone would come up with a more accurate term, but unless it fits the ads just as well and Marketing is happy, we will be stuck with "free-to-play".
With the amount of people complaining about games like Aion, Rift, WoW, SWTOR and so on (just take a look at the "4.2 is Wow Déjà vu" thread), you can hardly argue subscription means superior quality. Especially with the bad launches many games had. You're saying subscription means they make money faster? Why can't they spent a bit more before the launch then, if they get it back within half a year, compared to a F2P game who gets money over the long term (and irregulary)?
And with the shops P2P games employ, or ingame rewards for buying related products, one can hardly argue you get everything for $15 (a month. Once you stop paying, even if it's after ten years, you got nothing. F2P: You buy it, you keep it. Obviously not true for consumeable items, but if you buy a dungeon or a weapon, you keep it).
With initial box price, the cost for expansions and the subscription fee, P2P do cost more than most F2P games, no matter how much it is P2Win. Add P2Win stuff to P2P games..
So, many P2P games can have buggy launches, customersoften have trouble with the support, you still might need to buy additonal content, and they may cost more as they add box + expansion + subscription on top of the cash shop (or other way round)
The only reasons P2P games are seen as good is because people are used to it.
If games would have been F2P all along, or B2P, people would argue the other way round. "They get a lot of income through the cash shop each day, they can exactly tell you how many people are buying what, and react to it. People can get exactly what they want, and do not need to pay for stuff they don't like.
And now we are supposed to pay a monthly subscription? And they won't even close the cash shop and/or give it out for free! And how is this supposed to work, i need to buy the expansion to get into area x at all, but i still need to buy the dungeons and quest packs if i want to do anything there?"
F2P has the huge advantage that you do not need to pay a single dime if you do not want to. You might have to grind for months before you get that weapon you want, whereas other people buy it in the shop, or even a better one, but you don't have to spent money. You can play for years, and not buy a single thing. Or you buy everything because you want it now, and you don't want to grind, but it's your decision.
Many P2P games did not even offer trials, so you had to buy the box and a subscription (though a month or so is often included with the game itself, at least) before ever being able to try it our yourself. And after 2 hours you might say "no, this just doesn't work. I'm never playing this again". The money is still gone.
Everything else, like quality, content, cash shop etc is not really divided between P2P and F2P, but among the developers/publishers. Some are know for good games, some are not.
Honestly, some of the best stuff in gaming is fan made. Be it free shards for known MMOs, mods for games like HL2, texture packs for Crysis - they do not even have a cash shop, it's completely free, the ones who did the hard work do not even recieve the fame often enough.
I don't like cash shops, especially P2Win ones, too, but that does not have much in common with F2P anymore.
I'll wait to the day's end when the moon is high
And then I'll rise with the tide with a lust for life, I'll
Amass an army, and we'll harness a horde
And then we'll limp across the land until we stand at the shore
The problem with the F2P model is that it significantly changes the design goals behind a game (or other service). With a subscription based model the design goal is simply to make the game entertaining so that the player will have the motivation to maintain thier subscription to the game service. Outside of that, you really have no particular motivation to control what the player does within the game...other then to insure that whatever they do is enjoyable.
With the F2P play model, you have an added level of complexity involved. It's not simply enough to make coming to the came enjoyable.... you've also got to insure that a high enough percentage of players engage in spending behavior within the game. In other words, if EVERYONE is enjoying playing your game for free so much that they feel no compulsion to make any purchases in your cash shop... you're going to go broke. That means you've got to design so that players are pushed into spending behaviors (the more the better).....and upto the very brink of tolerance where if they were forced to spend anymore, they would stop enjoying the game and walk away. That's a very tricky line to walk and a much more complex design to try to impliment. Especialy with the suits breathing down your neck, as is inevitable, with a constant drone to push the envelope further so that they can "maximize proffits" (what every business naturaly wants to do) .... and usualy with very little understanding on thier part of just how delicate that balance is.
You even see this in many of the better "Fremium" games. LOTRO for example has been constantly increasing the push for spending behavior within the game, even with VIP's. It's gotten to the point where it has become distatsefull for more then a few veteran players. They have also gone past the limits that they assured players that they would never cross when F2P was first implimented. It is most definately NOT just "vanity" items on sale at this point.
Note, that this does not mean that it's impossible to design a quality F2P game or to strike a good balance between pushing spending and providing entertainment to players....just that it IS a much more difficult design & management proposition then the subscription model...and because of that, alot of implimentations are going to flub it...some quite badly.
This does not even address the fact that needing to make purchases with real cash runs contrary to the sense of escapism that many players go to these games for in the first place.
Alot of players don't want to have to worry about thier real world budget issues...or whether they can afford to do/purchase X when playing an MMO. They often go to MMO's for the very purposes of not having to think about those issues. In the same vein that fixed price all inclusive vacations are popular...subscription (or B2P) games are popular in that you don't need to worry about how much fun you can afford to have while there...As long as you can afford the fixed entry price, you can have as much (or as little) fun as you want...without worrying about reaching into your wallet.
It's all about greed, and how they can continue to make money while making shitty games by marketing to the lowest common denominator.
I would add more but I think that sums up my thought.
If only every F2P had a system like in League of Legends of Riot.... Cant buy power with cash.
I know it's quite a defeatist attitude to have, but at this point I'd rather quit than convert. I just don't trust the F2P or Freemium payment models, and I don't expect I ever will.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
What? What kind of F2P doesn't have cash shops? I've never seen one, ever.
You must have trouble with math, and compared to every other P2P model GW's rocks and it's F2P or B2P or W/E you want to call it. (there is no sub to play it)
Subscriptions DOES NOT MEAN QUALITY!
Prophecies 54$ Client 50$
Factions 49$ Monthly 900$ ((12 months x 15$ fee/month) x 5 years)
Nightfall 54$ Expansion 1 50$
EyeNorth 44$ Expansion 2 50$
---------------- Expansion 3 50$
Total 201$ --------------------
+guilty extras 61$ Total 1100$
----------------
Total 262$
Some of you guys stating this is not what the mass of players want really are missing it, sure these options are unpopular on a site like this however if they were so unpopular and destined to fail like you guys keep saying why do they keep succeeding. And just because subscription based doesn't mean there isn't gonna be a cash shop as well. Wow keeps comming up cause its a game with the most subscriptions, how many sparkle ponies did they sell for 25 dollars more then half the cost of a full expansion? Guess those people did not mind losing the immersion factor.
Look at the eve forums despite the outcry you now have a flood of posts of people who's character have the 70 dollar Monocle talking like if you don't have the monocle you should be a in game peasant. Considering that the game was on sale for 9.99 this weekend on steam there goes the arguement you'll spend more in a f2p game someone can spend more on p2p with cash shops just like they can in free 2 play if they feel the need to buy the newest and greatest shiny object.
Now on the other hand I remember playing Guild Wars at launch, chat was full of people stating they loved the game BECAUSE it did not have a subscription fee. There is a large portion of gamers that are against subscription fees, however microtransactions are fine with those people because you are ultimately the one who decides how much you pay. I mean EA makes money selling in game unlocks in the games you can unlock normally by playing the game.
No one said Guild Wars sucks, because buy to play games do not fall under the free to play category.
Being subscriptionless does not make a game F2P. Lack of a box sale and no subscription is what makes a game "F2P".
This only delays a games natural death. look at SWG, sure it if it went F2P it would last, but letting it die a natural death is also going to open the door for TOR to succeed or fail. Many years from now TOR could go F2P even if it sucks, but again let them die/sunset let it be over.
A failed game is still a failure like warhammer. they need to die so we don't have a bazillion failed MMO's on life support with F2P
I've got to LOL.
Are you telling me I have to debate this on YOUR terms?
It HAS to be this, it HAS to be that.
I was making a point about all the people saying F2P is low quality, I can name 20 or more that are far from low quality.
Now we have people saying they tried this and that, saw a cash shop and uninstalled. Did they even make it past level 10 or check to see if the cash shop made a difference to gameplay?
I think it's piss poor to debate on a forum when you have no idea of what you are talking about, or worse, try to funnel people's response in the way you just did.
I can't think of three.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
You have experience of those games do you?
I can't comment on their 'quality' because I haven't played them.
I would like to know your definition of quality though, because if it doesn't include things like stability and availability - and your only concept of quality is whether or not you like the art style or gameplay, you may as well make your own list of games we CAN discuss.
Oh, you just did!
F2p leads to cash shops. Cash shops lead to overdependence on cash shop items. Overdependence on cash shop leads to spending more than $15 a month on cash shop items. Pay to play is cheaper. Cash shops normally unbalance pvp.
Pay to play wins for that, and if there isn't a cash shop in a f2p game the game isn't moderated or keep working properly. If it is anywhere near wokring properly then its a small simple game with little to no content.
Pay to play gets better customer support, upkeep is performed on the games and servers, over priced cash shops are not existent or only supply cosmetic items that don't really matter. People know all this so there is a larger community on P2P games. Kids don't have credit cards so we don't have to see "as much" immature people.
F2P may work for some games, but I have yet to see it implemented well.
"cinnamon buns"
- Pickles
If GW's was a proper MMORPG then you'd be comparing apples to apples, but as it stands, no.
Now when GW's 2 comes out we'll find out if a good B2P MMORPG can thrive without a sub fee.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon