It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
As long as there are numerous benefits to subbing such as increased exp and other models (like SWTOR) then I don't mind being in the game with F2P'ers.
Allow me a whole lot of cosmetic options as well as a denefit "nod" from developers for being sub and I can play along.
Sub games are the best because you know all the players you meet have a reasonable level of committment to being around in the future.
These ftp games are very unsociable, players are fleety, just not the same experience at all.
Originally posted by Lissyl Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Between f2p and p2p I have noticed no difference in quality, content, depth or customer service. They are about the same.
If you think Turbine or Gpotato have the same Customer Service as Blizzard, I fear you are delusional. To quote, it's not in the same ballpark. Its not the same league. It isn't even the same blankin' sport. Content, I agree with. Depth...usually, but not always. Quality, well, no one polishes as well as Blizzard, but if you remove Blizzard then yah even quality is about the same. But not customer service. Not at all.
I do notice that the report y'all are looking at mentions, in that methodology section, the country. I really find no surprise that if you add up f2p's in other countries they're going to out-total p2p. I'm pretty sure Nexon could do that alone. But is that a fair comparison?
Gpotato, cant' say haven't played their games. But for ncsoft, Soe, turbine and gamersfirst with FE, no I have not noticed any difference in CS. Had good service and bad service in all other them. Sometimes quick, sometimes slow.
Actually Gamersfirst has actually had the best cs IMO, almost always quick and resolved quick.
My only real question in the report how are they ensureing that people are not being duplicated.
I'm assuming they do not have access to actual accounts. So all they can do is say blizzard has 5 million (number made up as an example), farmville has 10 million, therefore the market is 15 million. However 4 million of those wow players also play farmville making the market only 11 million - interested to see how the correct for that.
f2p and p2p are both played on a global level. As long as they look at p2p in other countries it's a fair comparison.
edit - @aelious that too, I think there may be a lot of duplication going on.
edit - gpotato - may be a really bad one. But there are really bad p2p as well, NPCube and Farlan entertainment anyone?
Personally my ideal payment model is B2P + convenience/cosmetic only cash shop or F2P + convenience/cosmetic only cash shop. When I hear someone from EA talk about the model I assume they are talking about the nickle and diming freemium / pay to win model.
When you look at the success of games like GW2, League of Legends, and Path of Exile you'll see that B2P or F2P works just as well as the subscription model.
Raptr link because it's the cool new trend:
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
You know how you have those guys at work who say stupid shit, and try to sound authoritative all the time? Turns out, so does EA.
"The market has spoken and no one wants to pay $15 a month to play our games" is what he should have said.
Gdemami -Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
LOL, simple solution then...
Game is released. You don't buy it. You just download it. You can play to your hearts content for two weeks. No costs involved to you except maybe internet access on your end. Then after two weeks you either have to purchase the game or start paying a subscription.
Sounds awesome right? LOL, not really... down in the fine print it clearly says there is no save/auto save feature. You exit the game or become idle for an extended period of time causing your client to disconnect or you get disconnected... your character and everything associated with it is erased. In essence, nothin that you do during the free trial can be recovered... saving is a premium feature afforded to their paying customers.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by Adalwulff F2P will always be mediocre. There are already demands for World of Darkness to be subscription based, because we all know what the communities are like in F2P. Also, the quality of the game is ALWAYS better for sub games, there is always more to offer, and without any additional costs!!
Between f2p and p2p I have noticed no difference in quality, content, depth or customer service. They are about the same.
Actually there are many huge differences, graphics, more game features, more updates, better customer support. After 15 years of online gaming, I think I would know the difference.
But the biggest most important thing that you didnt mention, is the community. That is by FAR the biggest difference and imo the most important for any online game to last.
Originally posted by Aelious Does any F2P/P2P model make a distinction between subs and free players within each game? For instance, do they count EQ2 as a F2P game and count it's revenue as F2P? That would be misleading since there are people who pay a sub. In fact, most western MMOs that are "F2P" have a subscription model as well. Are those seperated? If not the statistics are skewed from the start and can be taken with a grain of salt. It is good to see the playerbase get bigger though even if the majority aren't used to paying, yet.
They have unique spending data on a large 1M sample of players. Read their website. It is all there.
Originally posted by Adalwulff Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by Adalwulff F2P will always be mediocre. There are already demands for World of Darkness to be subscription based, because we all know what the communities are like in F2P. Also, the quality of the game is ALWAYS better for sub games, there is always more to offer, and without any additional costs!!
No. They are about the same. After 13 years of gaming I think I would know the difference, and there are none. Some f2p have better graphics than some p2p, some have more updates, some have more features. Some p2p have more than some f2p.
F2p games generally have the same graphics, features updates and cs. And there is no difference in the community. There are some good, some bad. IMO no real differences in percentages.
....Being Banned from MMORPG's forums since 2010, for Trolling the Trolls!!!
Or don't feel p2p are worth spending the money on.
Or feel that p2p is a rip-off.
World of Warcraft shows that Subs are still the best, honest and most fair deals in gamebusiness. It binds the customer to the game and lets the working Devs get their hard earned money. Look at the old WoW game model, it can hold millions of subscribers.
it is just about good games! I bet World of Tanks would work too with a Sub based system, as does EVE. If a game is good, the only real business model is sub based, if a game is terrible the only chance to just survive is F2P.
Originally posted by Lonzo World of Warcraft shows that Subs are still the best, honest and most fair deals in gamebusiness. It binds the customer to the game and lets the working Devs get their hard earned money. Look at the old WoW game model, it can hold millions of subscribers. it is just about good games! I bet World of Tanks would work too with a Sub based system, as does EVE. If a game is good, the only real business model is sub based, if a game is terrible the only chance to just survive is F2P.
Hmm your data support your conclusion.
WoW shows that subs are very profitable when you have 10 million people. Eve shows that subs are very profitable when you have 450,000 people. (of course all this depends on the particular overhead your game has)
No data does it show that subs are the most honest and GW2 will say that it is completely unncessary.
No data shows that it is the most fair deal, again GW2 offers the same value, actually many f2p offer the same value.
However unless you have numbers than talk of fair, best, honest, value is completely subjective.
Originally posted by bcbully Sub is just fine. B2P is evil. Anything with a 60$ upfront fee is evil. Free is to intrusive.
Um... sub games still require you to buy the $60 box...
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots moreRelatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots moreNow Playing: NoneHope: None
Originally posted by Vesavius Originally posted by rojo6934 Originally posted by Vesavius Originally posted by bcbully Sub is just fine. B2P is evil. Anything with a 60$ upfront fee is evil. Free is to intrusive.
I agree with all this BC.
Free client, 1-2 week full access trial, then sub (with no cash shop) is my ideal.
how can a B2P with 60 upfront be evil and a P2P with also 60 upfront be fine?... people sometimes dont make any sense.
Which isn't how the majority of new P2P games work today, sorry. You only get the client for free if you wait a while after release. Condemning B2P for sharing a model that virtually all P2P games have is absurd.
So the number one MMO with 9 Million plus is a sub game but f2p is the way to go? this is a silly little topic here. Dev up a game that's worth 15 bones a month and people will pay it. I've played most all the F2P games and none hold my attention at all. Seeing the B2P is they way most are going to go and some better games that come out might have a lower sub like $7.99 or $5 per month. F2P will slowly go away as the "casuals" move on to other interest. I've said this 1000 times, your hardcore are what keep an MMO going, not the casuals, give the hardcore what they want and the rest will follow.
F2p has been around longer than p2p, it has shown it's longevity both in individual games and in the market.
This may be a bubble we are in right now, however f2p itself is not going anywhere.
Originally posted by doodphace Originally posted by JoeyMMO Originally posted by doodphace Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by doodphace *snip*
"Subscription-based MMOs have been on a decline in the US, dropping from 8.5MM in December 2009 to 6.7MM in October 2012. F2P, on the other hand, has been growing from 7.5MM in 2007 to 39.5MM in October 2012." "The good news is that in 2012, F2P MMOs made more than their P2P counterparts, capturing the majority of the MMO US market’s revenue. The tricky part lies in how to capture and replicate this success."
You do realise that the only confirmed P2P numbers they included are WoW right? Not Rift, not EVE, not all of the "F2P" (which still have a substantial subscription) games. The article should read "WoW", not "subscription based. Seriously though, read the data behind their study. The only P2P game they confirm they took into account is WoW, which makes sense, seeing as they are the only game (aside form EVE) who announces their actual sub numbers.
wow does not have 8.5 million in the US alone, which is where apparently the study was looking at, so it has to have been looking at other MMO's besides WoW as well.
I consider farmville and MMO, not the same type surely but is there are thousands of people you can interact with in a game setting. A social MMO, yes but still an MMO.
edit - lotro wasn't dying in any way sahpe or form when they switched from p2p to f2p. They were steady and in the black. They switched for the same reason EQ switched, that being their other game did well on f2p.
The study doesnt say that WoW (or "subscription based)" currently has 8.5mill subs in the US...you really didn't even read it, did you? I am not trying to be sarcastic btw.
Then what are you trying to be, just plain wrong? Your statement is red is wrong, not the one in the study. He's not saying the study is wrong, he's saying you're wrong and he's obviously right about that.
No...hes syaing that WoW does not have 8.5mil subs in the US Today. I agreed with that, and remineded him that the 8.5mil number was form 2010, not today....
You literally highted the part that said it was 6.7 as of 2012, yet defend him for arguing that wow does not have 8.5mil today, when it was never implied to begin with?
I give up.
Give up, it's not about the 6.7M or the 8.5M, it's about "WoW only" against "subscription based MMO's".