Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

How long will MMOs hide P2W behind the veil of FTP?

123468

Comments

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Darkcrystal

    This drives me nuts how gamers think games should be free good make your own and let me play it for free and after all your hard work, you will see why they charge for it, so anyways the market is turning and will turn into B2p and some will keep B2P , F2P ois not gonna work and proven time and time again.

     How so? May MMOs turned F2P and are successful. More players. More money. More content.

    People think when they see F2p and then say the game fails, well your wrong , its what the market is currenlty and companies need to do what the market is asking for , but as I said it won't last, we are already seeing games going B2P more and more, we will continue to see it because it works, and it helps keep good communitys.

    You think it won't last? F2P has grown in the last 3 years from 39 to 50% market share. I suppose nothing last forever, but it is not going away in a year or two. 

     

  • DauzqulDauzqul Member RarePosts: 1,982

    I don't know, but Path of Exile has the best FTP model I've ever seen.

  • AdalwulffAdalwulff Member, Newbie CommonPosts: 1,152
    Originally posted by Arclan

    MMO companies are taking a huge gamble; and enduring significant losses. All in the hopes that P2W becomes increasingly accepted every day. MMO companies don't mind losing a generation (the anti-P2W crowd of UO, EQ, etc) as long as the incoming generation accepts P2W as the norm. The result is you will be paying a lot more for less entertainment.

    MMOs are engineered, it seems, to last a few months. They want you to spend as much P2W money as possible in that time frame.

     

    When old games like that go F2P, I dont see how its P2W, unless your realllllly impatient. Its the natural process for a dieing game.

    But look at games like LoL and PS2, those games have a nice model, but PS2 most definitly is P2W. But who cares if you love playing it?

    PS2 is the only FTP games I have ever spent money on, because I find it extremely fun to play, and I want to support it. When it comes down to it, that is all that matters.

    The sad part is, there are only a few companies willing to whip out something deep, something worthy of being called an MMO. So while FTP has its place, the others seem to have been forgotton. Maybe there is not room enough?

    One game company I am watching is CCP, if Dust can sell well, they will have the means to develop World of Darkness. That game just might be a true MMO, hopefully!!

    image
  • thinktank001thinktank001 Member UncommonPosts: 2,144
    Originally posted by mmoDAD

    I don't know, but Path of Exile has the best FTP model I've ever seen.

     

    This is true, but I wonder how far will bank tabs and cosmetics go?

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Member RarePosts: 14,247
    Originally posted by thinktank001
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Yakkin
    Originally posted by SirFubar
    P2W = pay to be more powerful than the ones who can't spend money in the cash shop. That is the real definition of P2W.

    If you REALLY stretch this definition, this could also apply to paid expansions in general. If you don't pay for the expansion, your character is permalocked at a lower level, which means less stats, poorer gear, and no access to higher level raids.

    Word.

    Cash shop games don't give free expansions.   They just add more content that has been monetized and/or increased the value of the current content that is already monetized.

    You state your (often false) assumptions as fact on a regular basis. Please, if you really want to contribute to the conversation, do some research. Below are expansions from the F2P games I recently played. There was no charge for any of them or for the expansions prior.

    That said, how does some F2P games having paid expansions change the fact that an expansion in a subscription game fits the definition of Pay to Win?

     

    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

  • YamotaYamota Member UncommonPosts: 6,593
    How long? Well as long as there are jackasses willing to spend houndreds on virtual items. The whole reason F2P/P2W took of is because there are some gamers with more money than sense.
  • ariasaitchoariasaitcho Member UncommonPosts: 112

    1) F2P =/= P2W, though most P2W games are F2P.

     

    2) Most of the examples cited are games that were once sub, then went F2P/P2W.

     

    3) The idea that players who spend money on a "free" game shouldn't be rewarded for supporting the developer and/or publisher of that game is ludicris. However, the advantage that paying customers get should not be so overwhelming that customers who can't afford to shell out $$$ every month are marginalized from the game. Balance is the key. I don't mind someone who can only play on weekends shelling out extra dough so they can level faster. They have less playing time than I do, in the long run, I'll reach end game before they do. I do mind that weekend player shelling out for op pvp gear that makes him untouchable to all but those who also shelled out.

    "Hey we've got this really cool game with above average graphics, good game play, and awesome pvp. But unless you spend at least $50~100 a week you'll have no chance in pvp. So you'll have to make due with pve only."

    or

    "Build a character, quickly level that character to max or near max. Use that charcter as a sugar daddy for the character that you really wanted to build so you can pvp as you level and get the rewards for specific levels. Because unless you do that you'll have to spend $$$ on your character for each progressive level to have any shot what so ever of competing. That way only veteran players and players who can afford to shell out can really play. New players who can't afford to spend a lot or want to actually play their first character and learn the game; what a loser."

     

     

    image
  • azzamasinazzamasin Member UncommonPosts: 3,105
    Originally posted by Arclan

    MMO companies are taking a huge gamble; and enduring significant losses. All in the hopes that P2W becomes increasingly accepted every day. MMO companies don't mind losing a generation (the anti-P2W crowd of UO, EQ, etc) as long as the incoming generation accepts P2W as the norm. The result is you will be paying a lot more for less entertainment.

    MMOs are engineered, it seems, to last a few months. They want you to spend as much P2W money as possible in that time frame.

    First off F2P or B2P is the norm now and the Subscription model is a dieing trend proven by market statistics.  Companies that are taking a massive hit are doing so because they released with an outdated subscription model and when they fail to bring in millions of subsciptions and lose money they eventually go F2P, and usually start thriving again.

     

    As for P2W, that is only an issue in Asian games or small studios.  Most Triple-A studios would never concieve of P2W.

    Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!

    Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!

    Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!

    image

  • thinktank001thinktank001 Member UncommonPosts: 2,144
    Originally posted by Loktofeit

    You state your (often false) assumptions as fact on a regular basis. Please, if you really want to contribute to the conversation, do some research. Below are expansions from the F2P games I recently played. There was no charge for any of them or for the expansions prior.

    That said, how does some F2P games having paid expansions change the fact that an expansion in a subscription game fits the definition of Pay to Win?

     

     

    Cash shop based games can release content with no upfront cost, but still require players to purchase cash shop items to take advantage of the new content.

     

    Simplest example is adding a new tier of equipment that requires players to upgrade with cash shop items. 

     

    How is this free content if it still requires payment to progress through it?

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member EpicPosts: 6,601
    Originally posted by thinktank001
    Originally posted by Loktofeit

    You state your (often false) assumptions as fact on a regular basis. Please, if you really want to contribute to the conversation, do some research. Below are expansions from the F2P games I recently played. There was no charge for any of them or for the expansions prior.

    That said, how does some F2P games having paid expansions change the fact that an expansion in a subscription game fits the definition of Pay to Win?

     

     

    Cash shop based games can release content with no upfront cost, but still require players to purchase cash shop items to take advantage of the new content.

     

    Simplest example is adding a new tier of equipment that requires players to upgrade with cash shop items. 

     

    How is this free content if it still requires payment to progress through it?

    A game could do that yes but is the new tier necessary? 

    Of course you have to determine if the tier is actually necessary or you just want it.  I've never had the top tier of gear in any game I've ever played and have managed to play them very well.

    Has any game done that?  Made the gear absolutely necessary?

    A p2p game could do that just as easily.

    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Yamota
    How long? Well as long as there are jackasses willing to spend houndreds on virtual items. The whole reason F2P/P2W took of is because there are some gamers with more money than sense.

    I think these games need only a very very small percentage of whales. So i doubt this phenomenon is going away any time soon. There are always some who is willing to spend a lot on a game.

  • ArclanArclan Member UncommonPosts: 1,550


    Originally posted by snapfusion
    ...P2P - everything the game has to offer equals 14.99 per monthF2P - everything the game has to offer equals 100's a month and up

    FTW. Can't make it any simpler than this. Bravo, Snap!

    Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
    In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit

  • FoeHammerJTFoeHammerJT Member Posts: 148

    Answer to this question:

     

    Until players quit paying to win!

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member EpicPosts: 6,601
    Originally posted by Arclan

     


    Originally posted by snapfusion
    ...

     

    P2P - everything the game has to offer equals 14.99 per month

    F2P - everything the game has to offer equals 100's a month and up

     


     

    FTW. Can't make it any simpler than this. Bravo, Snap!

    Well, ftw if you consider winning to be a completely inaccurate statement not reflective of the games that are currently being.  By all means ftw.

    Personally I feelthat  completely fabricated statements are FTL.

    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • GravargGravarg Member UncommonPosts: 3,424
    Not all free to play games are pay to win.  There's actually several games that I played that had purely cosmetic items for sell, and they made plenty of money.  It depends on what youre definition of Pay to Win means really.  Most games that are free to play also offer things like expirience boosts and things that make the game easier, but it's hardly pay to win.  Pay to win means that with enough money you have an advantage over players that don't.  Most Free to Play games that I've played, offer a way to buy some of the best things in the game, but they're still obtainable by free players with more work.  To me that's perfectly fine.  I'm more a journey guy anyways.  I'll never buy anything to make things easier or faster.  I miss games that used to take hours and hours of commitment to do something special.  I can remember sitting in my guild house for days in DAoC just crafting non-stop.  I can remember even older games where you could build houses, but it took 6000+ planks of wood, 1000s of ingots, and numerous other resources to build.  And to get those items you first had to go harvest them, then turn them into the items you needed to turn them into the items you needed to build the house.  It took months to do :)
  • ElijarhElijarh Member UncommonPosts: 84
    Originally posted by maplestone
    When people stop paying?

    Yes sir.. Spot on!.  I used to Sub Mmo's in the past. Pay Nothing now. All this FTP/In-gameShop shite.

  • FoeHammerJTFoeHammerJT Member Posts: 148
    Originally posted by Gravarg
    Not all free to play games are pay to win.  There's actually several games that I played that had purely cosmetic items for sell, and they made plenty of money.  It depends on what youre definition of Pay to Win means really.  Most games that are free to play also offer things like expirience boosts and things that make the game easier, but it's hardly pay to win.  Pay to win means that with enough money you have an advantage over players that don't.  Most Free to Play games that I've played, offer a way to buy some of the best things in the game, but they're still obtainable by free players with more work.  To me that's perfectly fine.  I'm more a journey guy anyways.  I'll never buy anything to make things easier or faster.  I miss games that used to take hours and hours of commitment to do something special.  I can remember sitting in my guild house for days in DAoC just crafting non-stop.  I can remember even older games where you could build houses, but it took 6000+ planks of wood, 1000s of ingots, and numerous other resources to build.  And to get those items you first had to go harvest them, then turn them into the items you needed to turn them into the items you needed to build the house.  It took months to do :)

    How exactly do experience boosts not provide a significant advantage to those willing to pay for them?

     

    Also, companies have a history of starting with "cosmetic only" and then adding boosts, items, classes, races and every other bit of content they can in the interest of making some cash.

     

    I'm all about profitibility for a company; but not at the cost of me receiving an inferior product at a greater cost.

  • WraithoneWraithone Member RarePosts: 3,806
    Originally posted by Blasphim

     


    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

    Originally posted by Arclan MMO companies are taking a huge gamble; and enduring significant losses. All in the hopes that P2W becomes increasingly accepted every day. MMO companies don't mind losing a generation (the anti-P2W crowd of UO, EQ, etc) as long as the incoming generation accepts P2W as the norm. The result is you will be paying a lot more for less entertainment. MMOs are engineered, it seems, to last a few months. They want you to spend as much P2W money as possible in that time frame.
    You'll spend as much as you choose to, nothing or lots.  It's your choice.

     

    More choices re good.


     

    Except when those choices provide a rift based on economic situations. If player A only has $15 a month to spare for his gaming hobby, but player B has $115 to spare, why should player A be "punished" cause he can't spend more in the cash shop?

    They aren't. No one is forcing them to play games like that.  Its all a matter of choice.  Not to mention that "P2W" is so vague that defining it is very much a matter of personal bias, in all too many cases.

    "If you can't kill it, don't make it mad."
  • itgrowlsitgrowls Member Posts: 2,951

    That's really not the case in every single mmo out there and it's a logical fallacy to conclude that just because you've had a bad experience with one or two titles like the freemium SOE and the SWTOR model that every game is like that. There are plenty that aren't. 

    For example, STO. It's taken them a while but they really have a great balance going. The best gear is no longer RNG it's actually from being in a fleet and maxing the fleet projects. It's no longer from doing instances on the hardest setting which cut off content for people much like the infamous "lobby dungeon only games-people" who make the OP's argument are so fond of holding onto for nothing else but epeens and bragging rights. It's not longer based solely on a type of currency that's only available via the store thru converting the bought currency into the main currency of the game that's used for all upgrades and projects (unlike GW2's current model which requires gems be converted to gold unless you enjoy running a single dungeon endlessly for the only drops available in the game or farming for an entire year for pennies a day). Lotro has a similar one to STO, I think tho that STO enhanced the LOTRO F2P system to the max. Requiring participation in the way STO has done doesn't require endless Raid planning or the problems that go with that. And the Foundry is a nice touch now that they've tied it in with the current repeatable quest system (missions i know) (Foundry is the player created content). So honestly, all the nonsense that I read when we learned Cryptic was bought out by PW was just that, nonsense. They've done a fantastic job. 

    The issues I'm seeing from lesser developers are those that are brought on by execubots that want to squeeze every penny out of the players. That's where the freemium model comes in. Sure you can play our game, but you can't do this this or this, you won't have enough bad space for the drops you get, you won't have access to dungeons, you won't be able to progress, UNLESS you pay the monthly fee, which is what brought about the problems in the first place. So really, should you say F2P OP or should you say Freemium. 

  • AeolynAeolyn Member UncommonPosts: 350
    Originally posted by Arclan

    MMO companies are taking a huge gamble; and enduring significant losses. All in the hopes that P2W becomes increasingly accepted every day. MMO companies don't mind losing a generation (the anti-P2W crowd of UO, EQ, etc) as long as the incoming generation accepts P2W as the norm. The result is you will be paying a lot more for less entertainment.

    MMOs are engineered, it seems, to last a few months. They want you to spend as much P2W money as possible in that time frame.

    Agreed, they're banking on winning=sex, there will always be people willing to pay for it.  What they seem to be missing is that when it comes to winning or sex, it's the anticipation that pulls people in and once the deed is completed they've lost that customer, many never to return.

  • FoeHammerJTFoeHammerJT Member Posts: 148
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by FoeHammerJT
    Originally posted by Gravarg
    Not all free to play games are pay to win.  There's actually several games that I played that had purely cosmetic items for sell, and they made plenty of money.  It depends on what youre definition of Pay to Win means really.  Most games that are free to play also offer things like expirience boosts and things that make the game easier, but it's hardly pay to win.  Pay to win means that with enough money you have an advantage over players that don't.  Most Free to Play games that I've played, offer a way to buy some of the best things in the game, but they're still obtainable by free players with more work.  To me that's perfectly fine.  I'm more a journey guy anyways.  I'll never buy anything to make things easier or faster.  I miss games that used to take hours and hours of commitment to do something special.  I can remember sitting in my guild house for days in DAoC just crafting non-stop.  I can remember even older games where you could build houses, but it took 6000+ planks of wood, 1000s of ingots, and numerous other resources to build.  And to get those items you first had to go harvest them, then turn them into the items you needed to turn them into the items you needed to build the house.  It took months to do :)

    How exactly do experience boosts not provide a significant advantage to those willing to pay for them?

    Also, companies have a history of starting with "cosmetic only" and then adding boosts, items, classes, races and every other bit of content they can in the interest of making some cash.

    I'm all about profitibility for a company; but not at the cost of me receiving an inferior product at a greater cost.

    What significant advantage do those people get?  What should they get for paying money?

    You complain about significant advantage for xp boosts and then complain about the cost of receiving an inferior product?  So what should one get for the money they spend?  What is worth the money spent?

    Some P2P games have offered xp boosts, among other veteran rewards, for subbing a long time.  How is that any less P2W than just selling them in a cash shop?  You must pay over several years to get those.  Someone who is new to the game is at a severe disadvantage by comparison.

    You are begining to wax philosophical here. What is worth the money spent? Really?

    Should we being a conversation about value and the very subjective ideals thereof?

    Or perhaps we could look at where gaming is heading?

    Another genre as been down this road: The FPS.

    I like to use the First Person Shooter model as another prime example of "new business models" and this is why. Back in the day, someone made a First Person Shooter game, the consumer paid for it, and the gamers were allowed to create a community around them.  The players added content, created maps, hosted servers, enhanced the game over years...

    Now? You pay for content every year (or more often in the case of BF3). (Modern Warfare)

    Player made content? Gone.

    New maps for free? Gone. Micro-transaction DLC.

    See a trend here?

    Today its F2P MMOs. Download the demo version free, then pay for hotbars, bags, items, experience (you used to earn this as did everyone else in your community at the base rate...), and on and on this keeps going.

    You think this will save you money? At the end of this journey is a place where you are paying for every bit of content you get. Soon you'll be paying for each dungeon, each armor set, each new class. You think this will save you money over time? 

    The players, playing those games, might not even remember that Asheron's Call or Dark Age provided monthly content upgrades, and additional large chunks of content via Expansion Packs. At a price its gamers happily paid, and without all the gold farmers, botters, moochers and looters grabbing a free account, cause hey look you can jump in and spam general chat for free!

    I sure havent seen a lot of F2P games of superior quality in the last couple of years, so yes, I call today's F2P MMO product inferior.

    P.S.  GW2 was not F2P so please dont go there.

     

     

  • FoeHammerJTFoeHammerJT Member Posts: 148
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by jtcgs
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

     Furcadia 1996

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-play

     

     I hate Wikipedia...they left Nexus: Kingdom of the Winds off that list and that was the first major success in the F2P field, came out in 1996 also.

    That game created the monster that is Nexon today...1.2 billion in profits two years straight and only EA is a larger gaming company.

    Yeah, people must have hated that game.  Stupid F2P.  No one really likes those games or the payment model.

    This post is taking off quickly, I missed this comment.

    This makes my point exactly. Free to play is making companies rich. You think it is doing that by providing more content at a lower price?

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Member RarePosts: 14,247
    Originally posted by FoeHammerJT
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by jtcgs
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

     Furcadia 1996

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-play

     

     I hate Wikipedia...they left Nexus: Kingdom of the Winds off that list and that was the first major success in the F2P field, came out in 1996 also.

    That game created the monster that is Nexon today...1.2 billion in profits two years straight and only EA is a larger gaming company.

    Yeah, people must have hated that game.  Stupid F2P.  No one really likes those games or the payment model.

    This post is taking off quickly, I missed this comment.

    This makes my point exactly. Free to play is making companies rich. You think it is doing that by providing more content at a lower price?

    It's doing that by providing content people want at a price they are willing to pay.

     

    Or are you suggesting it's something else?

    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

  • FoeHammerJTFoeHammerJT Member Posts: 148
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by FoeHammerJT
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by jtcgs
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

     Furcadia 1996

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-play

     

     I hate Wikipedia...they left Nexus: Kingdom of the Winds off that list and that was the first major success in the F2P field, came out in 1996 also.

    That game created the monster that is Nexon today...1.2 billion in profits two years straight and only EA is a larger gaming company.

    Yeah, people must have hated that game.  Stupid F2P.  No one really likes those games or the payment model.

    This post is taking off quickly, I missed this comment.

    This makes my point exactly. Free to play is making companies rich. You think it is doing that by providing more content at a lower price?

    It's doing that by providing content people want at a price they are willing to pay.

     

    Or are you suggesting it's something else?

    Perhaps I'm saying people are willing to pay more, for less content. And perhaps, I am asking said people to please look at what they are doing and ask themselves if it is a good thing.

  • CecropiaCecropia Member RarePosts: 3,985
    Originally posted by FoeHammerJT
    Originally posted by Loktofeit

    It's doing that by providing content people want at a price they are willing to pay.

    Or are you suggesting it's something else?

    Perhaps I'm saying people are willing to pay more, for less content. And perhaps, I am asking said people to please look at what they are doing and ask themselves if it is a good thing.

    One thing I've learned about this community is that many of it's members have a serious lack of foresight. You seem like a logical fellow, but I don't think you're going to get through to many of the people in this thread. They quite literally believe that this "F2P" trend is in their best interest and cannot see the forest for the trees.

    I've been saying for years that "F2P" is simply a system where you pay more and get less (if you want to have the option to play a game in it's entirety). This path was never going to lead to a very nice place.

    It never ceases to amaze how anyone would settle for this nonsense.

     

    "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

Sign In or Register to comment.