My preference would be the B2P model that The Secret World and Guild Wars 2 use. Next would be free to play. I just hope sub games are going the way of the dinosaurs. With B2P I know I can hop in and out and play whenver the mood strikes me. If I was paying a monthly sub I always feel I need to play. Free to play allows me to pay for the parts of the game I want, sort of like a buffet. I don't care how many people say it on here, it doesn't make it true. I have played many free to play games and spent less money than if I subbed. Maybe I don't need all the features other people need in a game. Also, I don't buy the argument you get great updates with a sub. GW2 is delivering awesome monthy FREE updates without a sub. At this point I would say it is superior to any sub based game out there. Just my opinion, of course.
The numbers are being misrepresented here. It can be simplified and understood this way:
Game A (Premium):
10,000 people who bought it
Game B (Free-To-Play):
50,000 people play it
5,000 people pay for the nickel & dime scheme (10% conversation, VERY VERY HIGH)
Of course, 50,000 is a bigger number than 10,000 so -for marketing/pr purposes- you twist this around.
Now, Game B may make more money than Game A, but that's because Game B 'whales' have to PAY FAR MORE MONEY to get the same experience as Game A. Therefore, in the end, to get the same experience as those in Game A the 'whales' in Game B have to pay a HIGHER PREMIUM.
You were right on the money until the section in red. Why do they have to pay more to get the same experience. Maybe the f2p people are getting the same experience as what most subs offer, and the whales are paying more for a greater experience.
See - it's totally subjective.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Going beyond what an earlier poster said - there is no such thing as a true free-to-play mmo. Every one of those games is pay to win. Sure many, if not most of them, do not let you buy better weapons and armor but they offer instead othere goodies such xp packages. Faster xp means you level faster - thus paying to be better - paying to win. Of course there is so much more involved (player skill, time in game, etc.) but the bottom line is that you can spend money and get ahead of those that do not.
I know of no game that offers ONLY cosmetic items. Contrary to what the posters on this site avow - most players won't buy something unless it gives them some sort of advantage. And it works. True p2w works even better (in the sense that people will spend more money).
I loath f2p. Yet, here I am, back in SWTOR, and what did I do? I re-subbed so that I could get all the goodies and the faster xp. That is what I hate about f2p - it is so seductive - like the Dark Side
And of course in a level based game game, getting to the end faster does not confer any advantage over any one else.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
The numbers are being misrepresented here. It can be simplified and understood this way:
Game A (Premium):
10,000 people who bought it
Game B (Free-To-Play):
50,000 people play it
5,000 people pay for the nickel & dime scheme (10% conversation, VERY VERY HIGH)
Of course, 50,000 is a bigger number than 10,000 so -for marketing/pr purposes- you twist this around.
Now, Game B may make more money than Game A, but that's because Game B 'whales' have to PAY FAR MORE MONEY to get the same experience as Game A. Therefore, in the end, to get the same experience as those in Game A the 'whales' in Game B have to pay a HIGHER PREMIUM.
You were right on the money until the section in red. Why do they have to pay more to get the same experience. Maybe the f2p people are getting the same experience as what most subs offer, and the whales are paying more for a greater experience.
See - it's totally subjective.
True, it can all be subjective. Just like how people have a 'greater experience' planting crops in a Facebook game. The reality is that if you want a game with as much depth and content as a premium game then you have to pay a 'much higher price' in a f2p game to get there.
The only reason why companies like f2p is because they like the idea of having no ceiling to the amount of money they can collect from any one person.
Really? The Market decided that? What would Blizzard and CCP have to say about that?
The market did not decide FTP for MMOs.....the market decided FTP for poorly made, no content "multiyplayer games".
They want the impulse buyers. F2P is the online version of infomercials. Fake demand to accomodate over supply.
Funny thing is there was 'no demand' for free-to-play. People were fine with subscription games - as long as those games delivered on content and content updates. Or rather, the whole cash shop addition that f2p brought.
Really? The Market decided that? What would Blizzard and CCP have to say about that?
The market did not decide FTP for MMOs.....the market decided FTP for poorly made, no content "multiyplayer games".
They want the impulse buyers. F2P is the online version of infomercials. Fake demand to accomodate over supply.
Funny thing is there was 'no demand' for free-to-play. People were fine with subscription games - as long as those games delivered on content and content updates.
We were happy with paying our £x a month because that was the cheapest price at the time. We allways want value for money and now we know mmorgs can deliver at much lower costs than £x a month we can see that games with subsciption models are failing to compete (e.g by either drastically improve content delivery to justify cost or reduce costs)
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Subs are evil If I tell any of my friends that I would (or that I was in fact paying a sub for a game in the past) be paying a sub for a game, they will be like "man are you out of your freakin mind, only game addicts pay sub fees for games!!!"
My personal thoughts on the sub fee matter is now more in line with that of my friends. I don't think any game should charge a subscription. I don't believe it that a game company needs to charge me a sub fee every month to keep itself profitable. Although I don't like F2P MMOs either. I gave a few F2P MMOs a try when the whole payment model kicked off but I wouldn't play a F2P MMO game. I guess that's one of the many reasons I don't play MMOs any more They are all F2P now but I am also not willing to pay a sub (guess only P2P game left is WoW and EvE now).
I think it's time MMOs adopted the traditional business model of pretty much every single game genre out there. Sell boxes, sell expansions, sell DLCs. I am all up for that but no sub fees and certainly not those crazy life sucking F2P games like LOTRO and EQ2.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
The numbers are being misrepresented here. It can be simplified and understood this way:
Game A (Premium):
10,000 people who bought it
Game B (Free-To-Play):
50,000 people play it
5,000 people pay for the nickel & dime scheme (10% conversation, VERY VERY HIGH)
Of course, 50,000 is a bigger number than 10,000 so -for marketing/pr purposes- you twist this around.
Now, Game B may make more money than Game A, but that's because Game B 'whales' have to PAY FAR MORE MONEY to get the same experience as Game A. Therefore, in the end, to get the same experience as those in Game A the 'whales' in Game B have to pay a HIGHER PREMIUM.
You were right on the money until the section in red. Why do they have to pay more to get the same experience. Maybe the f2p people are getting the same experience as what most subs offer, and the whales are paying more for a greater experience.
See - it's totally subjective.
True, it can all be subjective. Just like how people have a 'greater experience' planting crops in a Facebook game. The reality is that if you want a game with as much depth and content as a premium game then you have to pay a 'much higher price' in a f2p game to get there.
The only reason why companies like f2p is because they like the idea of having no ceiling to the amount of money they can collect from any one person.
The subjective part not only come in with your particular experience but also on what you view as depth and content. What you stated is not necessarily reality but again perception.
I submit that many free to play games have just as much depth and content available to free users as most p2p games.
edit - and therefore when people buy things they are getting items, xp, something that is not normally available even in most p2p games.
E.G. the 32 slot bags in EQ, so tempting. Not a part of the regular game... ever.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Really? The Market decided that? What would Blizzard and CCP have to say about that?
The market did not decide FTP for MMOs.....the market decided FTP for poorly made, no content "multiyplayer games".
They want the impulse buyers. F2P is the online version of infomercials. Fake demand to accomodate over supply.
Funny thing is there was 'no demand' for free-to-play. People were fine with subscription games - as long as those games delivered on content and content updates.
We were happy with paying our £x a month because that was the cheapest price at the time. We allways want value for money and now we know mmorgs can deliver at much lower costs than £x a month we can see that games with subsciption models are failing to compete (e.g by either drastically improve content delivery to justify cost or reduce costs)
To get the same level of content in a subscription game you have to pay a lot more money when playing a f2p game.
The numbers are being misrepresented here. It can be simplified and understood this way:
Game A (Premium):
10,000 people who bought it
Game B (Free-To-Play):
50,000 people play it
5,000 people pay for the nickel & dime scheme (10% conversation, VERY VERY HIGH)
Of course, 50,000 is a bigger number than 10,000 so -for marketing/pr purposes- you twist this around.
Now, Game B may make more money than Game A, but that's because Game B 'whales' have to PAY FAR MORE MONEY to get the same experience as Game A. Therefore, in the end, to get the same experience as those in Game A the 'whales' in Game B have to pay a HIGHER PREMIUM.
You were right on the money until the section in red. Why do they have to pay more to get the same experience. Maybe the f2p people are getting the same experience as what most subs offer, and the whales are paying more for a greater experience.
See - it's totally subjective.
True, it can all be subjective. Just like how people have a 'greater experience' planting crops in a Facebook game. The reality is that if you want a game with as much depth and content as a premium game then you have to pay a 'much higher price' in a f2p game to get there.
The only reason why companies like f2p is because they like the idea of having no ceiling to the amount of money they can collect from any one person.
The subjective part not only come in with your particular experience but also on what you view as depth and content. What you stated is not necessarily realted but again perception.
I submit that many free to play games have just as much depth and content available to free users as most p2p games.
Really? The Market decided that? What would Blizzard and CCP have to say about that?
The market did not decide FTP for MMOs.....the market decided FTP for poorly made, no content "multiyplayer games".
They want the impulse buyers. F2P is the online version of infomercials. Fake demand to accomodate over supply.
Funny thing is there was 'no demand' for free-to-play. People were fine with subscription games - as long as those games delivered on content and content updates.
We were happy with paying our £x a month because that was the cheapest price at the time. We allways want value for money and now we know mmorgs can deliver at much lower costs than £x a month we can see that games with subsciption models are failing to compete (e.g by either drastically improve content delivery to justify cost or reduce costs)
To get the same level of content in a subscription game you have to pay a lot more money when playing a f2p game.
No you don't have to ofcourse if you are smart. You just have to spend 15 bucks a month to get access to entire game.
The numbers are being misrepresented here. It can be simplified and understood this way:
Game A (Premium):
10,000 people who bought it
Game B (Free-To-Play):
50,000 people play it
5,000 people pay for the nickel & dime scheme (10% conversation, VERY VERY HIGH)
Of course, 50,000 is a bigger number than 10,000 so -for marketing/pr purposes- you twist this around.
Now, Game B may make more money than Game A, but that's because Game B 'whales' have to PAY FAR MORE MONEY to get the same experience as Game A. Therefore, in the end, to get the same experience as those in Game A the 'whales' in Game B have to pay a HIGHER PREMIUM.
You were right on the money until the section in red. Why do they have to pay more to get the same experience. Maybe the f2p people are getting the same experience as what most subs offer, and the whales are paying more for a greater experience.
See - it's totally subjective.
True, it can all be subjective. Just like how people have a 'greater experience' planting crops in a Facebook game. The reality is that if you want a game with as much depth and content as a premium game then you have to pay a 'much higher price' in a f2p game to get there.
The only reason why companies like f2p is because they like the idea of having no ceiling to the amount of money they can collect from any one person.
The subjective part not only come in with your particular experience but also on what you view as depth and content. What you stated is not necessarily realted but again perception.
I submit that many free to play games have just as much depth and content available to free users as most p2p games.
Like which game?
well DDO, LOTRO right off the bat. Eve with plex
EQ and EQ2 now have all races/classes for f2p. The shop just gives added bonus, extra mounts, costume slot... none of which was in the game before.
FE had a pretty good system I don't recall any content being locked out of f2p users.
and again GW1 and 2 which has all the same things as a cs game.
So as others have stated what benefits does paying $150/year plus box give me that I'm not allready getting?
edit - last part was a bit tongue in cheek. In many games there is a difference.
But there are enough games out now with good f2p models that we cannot state as a blanket statement anymore that f2p limits depth and content. Espectially because in most cases saying a game is deeper is meaningless.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
The only thing I hear spoken loudly is that the instant gratification/I want it now crowd is too poor and cheap to be able to afford $15/mo and would rather not invest anything into their MMO while expecting the same content and experience that P2P games provide. If you can't cough up $15/mo for hundreds of hours of gameplay imho you have bigger issues. Demanding that all games cater to cheapskates and freeloaders equate to every game activity attempting to funnel it's playerbase to the cash shop. Funneling players to cash shop does nothing to enhance the gaming experience and provides nothing but roadblocks.
Personally, I have a job and can afford to pay for a game I feel is worthy of my money, hell I'd pay $50/mo for a game if it was good enough. Just because you are poor and cheap doesn't mean the entire MMO industry has to change it's model for you, how about fixing the reason you can't afford $15/mo and get back to us?!
The only thing I hear spoken loudly is that the instant gratification/I want it now crowd is too poor and cheap to be able to afford $15/mo and would rather not invest anything into their MMO while expecting the same content and experience that P2P games provide. If you can't cough up $15/mo for hundreds of hours of gameplay imho you have bigger issues. Demanding that all games cater to cheapskates and freeloaders equate to every game activity attempting to funnel it's playerbase to the cash shop. Funneling players to cash shop does nothing to enhance the gaming experience and provides nothing but roadblocks.
Personally, I have a job and can afford to pay for a game I feel is worthy of my money, hell I'd pay $50/mo for a game if it was good enough. Just because you are poor and cheap doesn't mean the entire MMO industry has to change it's model for you, how about fixing the reason you can't afford $15/mo and get back to us?!
A huge percentage of the MMO industry has already changed.
Well thats a rather skewed and complete unaccurate view of f2p games now isn't it.
instant gratification - many f2p games have things that take longer than p2p games.
I doubt the "poor" has anything to do with a company choosing their particular sub model
"funnelling all the players into the cs" - A f2p has to be fun first. If it is not fun no one will spend money. Unlike a p2p game where they at least have your 15 dollars before you ever stepped in the game.
Roadblocks - I find just as many roadblocks in p2p as I do in f2p.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Yeah, no. I disagree with the F2P model - everytime I try to play a f2p game it is full of gold spammers, trolls, awful communities, nonexistent CM's and usually they go P2Win in the end... I much prefer a subscription model in my games, I would rather pay the $15/month for a better overall game!
The only thing I hear spoken loudly is that the instant gratification/I want it now crowd is too poor and cheap to be able to afford $15/mo and would rather not invest anything into their MMO while expecting the same content and experience that P2P games provide. If you can't cough up $15/mo for hundreds of hours of gameplay imho you have bigger issues. Demanding that all games cater to cheapskates and freeloaders equate to every game activity attempting to funnel it's playerbase to the cash shop. Funneling players to cash shop does nothing to enhance the gaming experience and provides nothing but roadblocks.
Personally, I have a job and can afford to pay for a game I feel is worthy of my money, hell I'd pay $50/mo for a game if it was good enough. Just because you are poor and cheap doesn't mean the entire MMO industry has to change it's model for you, how about fixing the reason you can't afford $15/mo and get back to us?!
A huge percentage of the MMO industry has already changed.
And how is that turning out?
Last I checked, just about every F2P game is struggling to maintain subs. Please don't mention GW2 because that is the prime example of funneling players through the cash-shop limiting just about everything you do so you can buy those gems or grab that new skin from the cash shop instead of being able to simply farm for things?
The only thing I hear spoken loudly is that the instant gratification/I want it now crowd is too poor and cheap to be able to afford $15/mo and would rather not invest anything into their MMO while expecting the same content and experience that P2P games provide. If you can't cough up $15/mo for hundreds of hours of gameplay imho you have bigger issues. Demanding that all games cater to cheapskates and freeloaders equate to every game activity attempting to funnel it's playerbase to the cash shop. Funneling players to cash shop does nothing to enhance the gaming experience and provides nothing but roadblocks.
Personally, I have a job and can afford to pay for a game I feel is worthy of my money, hell I'd pay $50/mo for a game if it was good enough. Just because you are poor and cheap doesn't mean the entire MMO industry has to change it's model for you, how about fixing the reason you can't afford $15/mo and get back to us?!
A huge percentage of the MMO industry has already changed.
And how is that turning out?
Last I checked, just about every F2P game is struggling to maintain subs. Please don't mention GW2 because that is the prime example of funneling players through the cash-shop limiting just about everything you do so you covert those gems or grab that new skin from the cash shop instead of being able to simple farm for things?
There are more players playing MMORPGs than ever before in the history of MMORPGs.
Comments
Were you being sarcastic? I was pretty sure Command and Conquer was F2P now.
http://www.commandandconquer.com/free/
You were right on the money until the section in red. Why do they have to pay more to get the same experience. Maybe the f2p people are getting the same experience as what most subs offer, and the whales are paying more for a greater experience.
See - it's totally subjective.
And of course in a level based game game, getting to the end faster does not confer any advantage over any one else.
how can a B2P with 60 upfront be evil and a P2P with also 60 upfront be fine?... people sometimes dont make any sense.
They want the impulse buyers. F2P is the online version of infomercials. Fake demand to accomodate over supply.
*Free client*
To give feedback on moderation, contact [email protected]
True, it can all be subjective. Just like how people have a 'greater experience' planting crops in a Facebook game. The reality is that if you want a game with as much depth and content as a premium game then you have to pay a 'much higher price' in a f2p game to get there.
The only reason why companies like f2p is because they like the idea of having no ceiling to the amount of money they can collect from any one person.
Funny thing is there was 'no demand' for free-to-play. People were fine with subscription games - as long as those games delivered on content and content updates. Or rather, the whole cash shop addition that f2p brought.
We were happy with paying our £x a month because that was the cheapest price at the time. We allways want value for money and now we know mmorgs can deliver at much lower costs than £x a month we can see that games with subsciption models are failing to compete (e.g by either drastically improve content delivery to justify cost or reduce costs)
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Subs are evil
If I tell any of my friends that I would (or that I was in fact paying a sub for a game in the past) be paying a sub for a game, they will be like "man are you out of your freakin mind, only game addicts pay sub fees for games!!!"
My personal thoughts on the sub fee matter is now more in line with that of my friends. I don't think any game should charge a subscription. I don't believe it that a game company needs to charge me a sub fee every month to keep itself profitable. Although I don't like F2P MMOs either. I gave a few F2P MMOs a try when the whole payment model kicked off but I wouldn't play a F2P MMO game. I guess that's one of the many reasons I don't play MMOs any more
They are all F2P now but I am also not willing to pay a sub (guess only P2P game left is WoW and EvE now).
I think it's time MMOs adopted the traditional business model of pretty much every single game genre out there. Sell boxes, sell expansions, sell DLCs. I am all up for that but no sub fees and certainly not those crazy life sucking F2P games like LOTRO and EQ2.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
The subjective part not only come in with your particular experience but also on what you view as depth and content. What you stated is not necessarily reality but again perception.
I submit that many free to play games have just as much depth and content available to free users as most p2p games.
edit - and therefore when people buy things they are getting items, xp, something that is not normally available even in most p2p games.
E.G. the 32 slot bags in EQ, so tempting. Not a part of the regular game... ever.
To get the same level of content in a subscription game you have to pay a lot more money when playing a f2p game.
Like which game?
No you don't have to ofcourse if you are smart. You just have to spend 15 bucks a month to get access to entire game.
Eve (PLEX), GW1, GW2.
Turn it on its head, how many sub games provide value for money with their £100+ a year sub fee in comparison to the above?
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
well DDO, LOTRO right off the bat. Eve with plex
EQ and EQ2 now have all races/classes for f2p. The shop just gives added bonus, extra mounts, costume slot... none of which was in the game before.
FE had a pretty good system I don't recall any content being locked out of f2p users.
and again GW1 and 2 which has all the same things as a cs game.
So as others have stated what benefits does paying $150/year plus box give me that I'm not allready getting?
edit - last part was a bit tongue in cheek. In many games there is a difference.
But there are enough games out now with good f2p models that we cannot state as a blanket statement anymore that f2p limits depth and content. Espectially because in most cases saying a game is deeper is meaningless.
The only thing I hear spoken loudly is that the instant gratification/I want it now crowd is too poor and cheap to be able to afford $15/mo and would rather not invest anything into their MMO while expecting the same content and experience that P2P games provide. If you can't cough up $15/mo for hundreds of hours of gameplay imho you have bigger issues. Demanding that all games cater to cheapskates and freeloaders equate to every game activity attempting to funnel it's playerbase to the cash shop. Funneling players to cash shop does nothing to enhance the gaming experience and provides nothing but roadblocks.
Personally, I have a job and can afford to pay for a game I feel is worthy of my money, hell I'd pay $50/mo for a game if it was good enough. Just because you are poor and cheap doesn't mean the entire MMO industry has to change it's model for you, how about fixing the reason you can't afford $15/mo and get back to us?!
A huge percentage of the MMO industry has already changed.
Well thats a rather skewed and complete unaccurate view of f2p games now isn't it.
instant gratification - many f2p games have things that take longer than p2p games.
I doubt the "poor" has anything to do with a company choosing their particular sub model
"funnelling all the players into the cs" - A f2p has to be fun first. If it is not fun no one will spend money. Unlike a p2p game where they at least have your 15 dollars before you ever stepped in the game.
Roadblocks - I find just as many roadblocks in p2p as I do in f2p.
And how is that turning out?
Last I checked, just about every F2P game is struggling to maintain subs. Please don't mention GW2 because that is the prime example of funneling players through the cash-shop limiting just about everything you do so you can buy those gems or grab that new skin from the cash shop instead of being able to simply farm for things?
There are more players playing MMORPGs than ever before in the history of MMORPGs.