Howdy, Stranger!

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

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

'The market has spoken very loudly that [F2P] is the model they like'

1911131415

Comments

  • sketocafesketocafe StoupaPosts: 802Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by RefMinor
    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.

    +1

    I'd prefer this as well, but I also like high production values in games, so I'm willing to pay a box fee as well for the client. 

  • SephirosoSephiroso Marietta, GAPosts: 1,160Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by Adalwulff
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by Adalwulff
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

    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.

     

    This is SO not true. Your not talking about mmos or any other "real" games.

    Even back in the early days of MUDS you had to pay by the hour, the only free games were arcade type games on web browsers.

    MIght be more accurate to say f2p MMO's have been around longer than p2p MMORPG, as Garriot in UO coined the term MMORPG.

     

    UO was not free, I wonder if you even know what your talking about.

     Good thing I never stated UO was free.  I stated f2p MMO's has been around longer than MMORPG, and just as long as MMO's have.

    And to your other comment at Lokto, saveral games went f2p not because they were garbage (which is completely subjective)  but because the developers believed they could make even more money with f2p than p2p.  EQ, EQ2 and LOTRO are 3.

    And there are many f2p games out there with just as much content, quality, depth and cs as p2p.  And there are p2p that don't have as much content, quality, depth and cs as some f2p.  There is no difference.  You are deluding yourself.

    If p2p means it's just as good as f2p, then why doesn't it always turn out that way?

    actually those mmos went f2p BECAUSE they were garbage and f2p was the only way the developers could continue to keep the game running because they clearly failed to make a decent enough game to warrant people spending a subscription on it.

     

    they didn't go f2p simply because they thought they would make even more money with f2p, it was literally the only way to keep the game running. a p2p game going f2p is like a last resort deal. there may be 1 or 2 exceptions to this rule, but that is the norm.

    image
    Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,316Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Sephiroso
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by Adalwulff
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by Adalwulff
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

    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.

     

    This is SO not true. Your not talking about mmos or any other "real" games.

    Even back in the early days of MUDS you had to pay by the hour, the only free games were arcade type games on web browsers.

    MIght be more accurate to say f2p MMO's have been around longer than p2p MMORPG, as Garriot in UO coined the term MMORPG.

     

    UO was not free, I wonder if you even know what your talking about.

     Good thing I never stated UO was free.  I stated f2p MMO's has been around longer than MMORPG, and just as long as MMO's have.

    And to your other comment at Lokto, saveral games went f2p not because they were garbage (which is completely subjective)  but because the developers believed they could make even more money with f2p than p2p.  EQ, EQ2 and LOTRO are 3.

    And there are many f2p games out there with just as much content, quality, depth and cs as p2p.  And there are p2p that don't have as much content, quality, depth and cs as some f2p.  There is no difference.  You are deluding yourself.

    If p2p means it's just as good as f2p, then why doesn't it always turn out that way?

    actually those mmos went f2p BECAUSE they were garbage and f2p was the only way the developers could continue to keep the game running because they clearly failed to make a decent enough game to warrant people spending a subscription on it.

     

    they didn't go f2p simply because they thought they would make even more money with f2p, it was literally the only way to keep the game running. a p2p game going f2p is like a last resort deal. there may be 1 or 2 exceptions to this rule, but that is the norm.

     Hmm actually no.  They were quite successfull, stable population and making profit. 

    Lotro went f2p because DDO did very well and they thought they could replicate this with LOTRO.

    EQ2 had one free to play server as an experiment, it proved very successfull and therefore all their games went f2p. 

    There was no danger at all of those 3 closing down. 

    Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  • SephirosoSephiroso Marietta, GAPosts: 1,160Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by Sephiroso
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by Adalwulff
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by Adalwulff
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

    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.

     

    This is SO not true. Your not talking about mmos or any other "real" games.

    Even back in the early days of MUDS you had to pay by the hour, the only free games were arcade type games on web browsers.

    MIght be more accurate to say f2p MMO's have been around longer than p2p MMORPG, as Garriot in UO coined the term MMORPG.

     

    UO was not free, I wonder if you even know what your talking about.

     Good thing I never stated UO was free.  I stated f2p MMO's has been around longer than MMORPG, and just as long as MMO's have.

    And to your other comment at Lokto, saveral games went f2p not because they were garbage (which is completely subjective)  but because the developers believed they could make even more money with f2p than p2p.  EQ, EQ2 and LOTRO are 3.

    And there are many f2p games out there with just as much content, quality, depth and cs as p2p.  And there are p2p that don't have as much content, quality, depth and cs as some f2p.  There is no difference.  You are deluding yourself.

    If p2p means it's just as good as f2p, then why doesn't it always turn out that way?

    actually those mmos went f2p BECAUSE they were garbage and f2p was the only way the developers could continue to keep the game running because they clearly failed to make a decent enough game to warrant people spending a subscription on it.

     

    they didn't go f2p simply because they thought they would make even more money with f2p, it was literally the only way to keep the game running. a p2p game going f2p is like a last resort deal. there may be 1 or 2 exceptions to this rule, but that is the norm.

     Hmm actually no.  They were quite successfull, stable population and making profit. 

    Lotro went f2p because DDO did very well and they thought they could replicate this with LOTRO.

    EQ2 had one free to play server as an experiment, it proved very successfull and therefore all their games went f2p. 

    There was no danger at all of those 3 closing down. 

    Again, there may be 1 or 2 exceptions to the rule, but the norm is, failing games go f2p to stay afloat.

    SWTOR shining example. GW2 WOULD have been another shining example had it been P2P and not B2P. But Arenanet know their shit and picked the right business model for their game instead of biting more than they can chew and went P2P with a shitty game which is what most recent P2P mmos do.

     

    Another shining example, Tera. And if ESO is going P2P then it too will be yet another shining example. All these games are putting all their ships on 1 or 2 aspects of their game. Either the combat or the IP and expect that will "wow" people think thats all there is to it. lolnope.

    image
    Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!

  • Raithe-NorRaithe-Nor Moscow, IDPosts: 315Member
    Originally posted by Sephiroso

    actually those mmos went f2p BECAUSE they were garbage and f2p was the only way the developers could continue to keep the game running because they clearly failed to make a decent enough game to warrant people spending a subscription on it.

     they didn't go f2p simply because they thought they would make even more money with f2p, it was literally the only way to keep the game running. a p2p game going f2p is like a last resort deal. there may be 1 or 2 exceptions to this rule, but that is the norm.

    It's actually more complex than you have portrayed.  MMOs have certain architecture restrictions that many normal shooters don't have, they have to be able to deal with a large number of players inhabiting the same space (some so-called MMOs try to cheat these restrictions - but just wind up NOT being MMOs).  To many people this lowers the quality of gameplay, simply due to the restrictions.

    Next, we have the influence of the playerbase.  MMO playerbases have grown accustomed to demanding and directing development of their games.  Every MMO has at least a few thousand players willing to sit around and tell the developers what they are doing wrong and how to fix it.  Often, these vocal minorities are the very people that the developers should listen to the least.  The ultimate point, however, is that MMOs decline in quality due to player "blackmailing" - "if you don't change this, I'll QUIT!!!"

    Lastly, we have the grinding issue.  Gold farmers, insecure addicts, griefers, you name it.  MMOs have the worst playerbases of just about any online game, at least from my perspective.  What you blame on development is actually mostly attributable to disfunctional playerbases.  Most games have people playing whose goals and gameplay preferences are at least somewhat aligned.  MMOs have people that are in complete opposition to each other in life philosophy, not just gameplay motives.

    I haven't read this entire thread, but I think people may miss the point of "Free-to-Play."  F2P is not free, as even the EA exec was able to discern.  It's merely a business model in which they can extract excess money from the most insecure and non-gamer-like players.  They have taken the third-party gold farming market under their wing.  It worked in the past because the grinders didn't catch on that their games were taxing their insecurity.

    That is changing, and F2P is really no more viable than other marketing strategies if you have a decent product that won't get corrupted by online evils.

     

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,316Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Sephiroso
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by Sephiroso
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
     

     Hmm actually no.  They were quite successfull, stable population and making profit. 

    Lotro went f2p because DDO did very well and they thought they could replicate this with LOTRO.

    EQ2 had one free to play server as an experiment, it proved very successfull and therefore all their games went f2p. 

    There was no danger at all of those 3 closing down. 

    Again, there may be 1 or 2 exceptions to the rule, but the norm is, failing games go f2p to stay afloat.

    SWTOR shining example. GW2 WOULD have been another shining example had it been P2P and not B2P. But Arenanet know their shit and picked the right business model for their game instead of biting more than they can chew and went P2P with a shitty game which is what most recent P2P mmos do.

     

    Another shining example, Tera. And if ESO is going P2P then it too will be yet another shining example. All these games are putting all their ships on 1 or 2 aspects of their game. Either the combat or the IP and expect that will "wow" people think thats all there is to it. lolnope.

     I would say it's starting to turn the other way around now.  Swtor is a shining example of what you propose.  Possibly TSW also, I don't think it was a bad game, or had very many problems, it just didn't appeal to a lot of people.

    What you stated about GW2 is just supposition.

    I would say there is more and more evidence of games that are stable going f2p to make more money and the days of it changing to survive is becoming less and less.

    CoH is another one, stable population went f2p.  Possibly not enough money for them to want to save it, but it was stable and reportedly in the black. 

    Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  • SephirosoSephiroso Marietta, GAPosts: 1,160Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Raithe-Nor
    Originally posted by Sephiroso

    actually those mmos went f2p BECAUSE they were garbage and f2p was the only way the developers could continue to keep the game running because they clearly failed to make a decent enough game to warrant people spending a subscription on it.

     they didn't go f2p simply because they thought they would make even more money with f2p, it was literally the only way to keep the game running. a p2p game going f2p is like a last resort deal. there may be 1 or 2 exceptions to this rule, but that is the norm.

    It's actually more complex than you have portrayed.  MMOs have certain architecture restrictions that many normal shooters don't have, they have to be able to deal with a large number of players inhabiting the same space (some so-called MMOs try to cheat these restrictions - but just wind up NOT being MMOs).  To many people this lowers the quality of gameplay, simply due to the restrictions.

    Next, we have the influence of the playerbase.  MMO playerbases have grown accustomed to demanding and directing development of their games.  Every MMO has at least a few thousand players willing to sit around and tell the developers what they are doing wrong and how to fix it.  Often, these vocal minorities are the very people that the developers should listen to the least.  The ultimate point, however, is that MMOs decline in quality due to player "blackmailing" - "if you don't change this, I'll QUIT!!!"

    Lastly, we have the grinding issue.  Gold farmers, insecure addicts, griefers, you name it.  MMOs have the worst playerbases of just about any online game, at least from my perspective.  What you blame on development is actually mostly attributable to disfunctional playerbases.  Most games have people playing whose goals and gameplay preferences are at least somewhat aligned.  MMOs have people that are in complete opposition to each other in life philosophy, not just gameplay motives.

    I haven't read this entire thread, but I think people may miss the point of "Free-to-Play."  F2P is not free, as even the EA exec was able to discern.  It's merely a business model in which they can extract excess money from the most insecure and non-gamer-like players.  They have taken the third-party gold farming market under their wing.  It worked in the past because the grinders didn't catch on that their games were taxing their insecurity.

    That is changing, and F2P is really no more viable than other marketing strategies if you have a decent product that won't get corrupted by online evils.

     

    I think i get the gist of what you're saying and for the most part i agree with you. Especially with the part where you say F2P is really just another business model and you're right, its not any more viable than the other models if you have a decent game, but therein lies my point.

     

    If we could just get a decent game, P2P is the best in terms of making the developers their money. The problem is the devs. I'm not saying its ONLY their fault cause i understand they're under pressure from investors and what not, but still, they're the ones that make the games, so they're the ones who take the brunt of the blame.

     

    The problem with most modern mmos coming out is like i said. They focus on 1 or 2 aspects of their game with the brunt of their workforce, but every single other aspect of the game suffers which is what causes people to start leaving in mass and thus starts the process of shifting into f2p. The only game that i saw that did not do this is GW2. GW2 is a polished piece of art. It fell short and you see alot of people giving it alot of flack because its boring once you get to 80 as you don't have much to do that you haven't already done aside from grind, grind, or pvp.

     

    But as a whole, you can tell GW2 did not leave anything lacking. The combat is good, the skill system is good(i know there's still bugs), gear design is good(could be more), the world is amazing, lots of mob diversity, the events had alot of work put into them. In Tera, only thing you can say about it is that its beautiful, and the combat is good. Thats it. I'd be surprised if Tera had more than 30 mob types in the game. Thats how much they reuse models. And the crafting is one of the most worthless crafting systems i've had the displeasure of using.

    image
    Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!

  • XoshuaXoshua St. Catharines, ONPosts: 127Member

    The f2p model sucks.  F2p is only good for asian microtransaction games that don't give actual value to players other than the casual player.  Maybe we need to divide mmorpg's into two categories.  Microtransaction mmo wannabes and real mmos with p2p.  Don't be cheap, get a job, pay the 12-16 a month and play the game the way you want to.  I think the kids are the ones complaining about p2p because their parents won't pay it for them and they're too lazy to get a job. 

     

    I'd rather play an MMO with 18+ players than kids who can't even afford the game themselves.  We need more P2p games with devs that work on new content like they use to.  DAoC, FFXI, EQ, these are perfect examples of P2P games that offered players value.  It wasn't meant for the casual players because quite frankly, MMO's aren't meant for casual players.  MMO's are meant for players wanting an experience, they can spend hours apon hours playing like gamer geeks not some douche bag who comes on for an hour to say hi and leaves.  This is what is destroying the MMO genre, it's casual players and the devs that are catouring to the casual players.  Go play LoL or some casual game, stay away from MMO's, it's for the big boys who want to game.

    Time to fix this genre.

  • Raithe-NorRaithe-Nor Moscow, IDPosts: 315Member
    Originally posted by Sephiroso

    The problem with most modern mmos coming out is like i said. They focus on 1 or 2 aspects of their game with the brunt of their workforce, but every single other aspect of the game suffers which is what causes people to start leaving in mass

    No, that's not what causes people to leave in mass.  That was my point about disfunctional playerbases - they are the cause of mass exodii.  I am currently playing GW2, and there is VERY little difference from my GW2 experience and say... Warhammer Online.  The chief differences is that PvP is structured differently (Warhammer Online was much more free-form and depended on the imagination of the playerbase, which was its best and worst feature in one) and paying for Warhammer Online was done over an extended period of time - though I'll probably end up spending similar amounts on both.  GW2 is extremely buggy, and most of the features that I observe being touted are actually just work-arounds for having freakishly bad communities.

    Don't get me wrong - I think the GW2 developers did an amazing job of packaging three entirely different games (PvP, Open World PvP (WvW), and PvE) and selling them in a single package with multiple pricing mechanisms.  I'm just afraid that their efforts were entirely in vain, because they ultimately conformed to a variety of failed MMO models.  They probably should have just stuck to the mold of their first game, I think they will find that longterm success was better focused there.

    F2P market failure is a rather complex and interesting phenomenon itself.  A simplified description would go something like this:  grinders who spend way too much money on the game become disenfranchised and leave, the developers make it harder to play the game without purchasing RMT ammenities, then truly free players start to leave for better game structures.  The people left playing are mostly the worst of the worst, and fresh blood entering the game trickles to a halt.  The game dies.

    Many online games are now over two decades old.  MMOs, which should have some of the BEST longevity of the entire online gaming scene actually have the worst.  F2P hasn't changed that in the least - it's mostly a non-issue that is being used as a smoke screen for keeping people like you from seeing what is actually going on.

  • ArclanArclan Chicago, ILPosts: 1,494Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Sephiroso
    actually those mmos went f2p BECAUSE they were garbage and f2p was the only way the developers could continue to keep the game running because they clearly failed to make a decent enough game to warrant people spending a subscription on it. they didn't go f2p simply because they thought they would make even more money with f2p, it was literally the only way to keep the game running. a p2p game going f2p is like a last resort deal. there may be 1 or 2 exceptions to this rule, but that is the norm.

    Yes, exactly. Better to get a few dollars from players before they conclude the game sucks. News of DDO and LOTR's suckage is very public. But a lot of people do not do their homework and will download a free game as long as it has a cool brand (like LOTR or D&D). And maybe they don't feel guilty about spending $5 in the cash shop.

    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

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Arclan

     


    Yes, exactly. Better to get a few dollars from players before they conclude the game sucks. News of DDO and LOTR's suckage is very public. But a lot of people do not do their homework and will download a free game as long as it has a cool brand (like LOTR or D&D). And maybe they don't feel guilty about spending $5 in the cash shop.

    you don't like it so others can't?

    And why do anyone has to pay anything?

    STO is fun for a while and it is free. Any problem if i want to play it?

  • BladestromBladestrom edinburghPosts: 4,946Member Uncommon
    You must do your homework for a sub game because you pay in advance, whereas a f2p offers a free trial for as long as you need. No brainer, only a mug would choose the former if they had the choice of payment method for the same game.

    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

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,316Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Arclan

     


    Originally posted by Sephiroso
    actually those mmos went f2p BECAUSE they were garbage and f2p was the only way the developers could continue to keep the game running because they clearly failed to make a decent enough game to warrant people spending a subscription on it.

     

     

    they didn't go f2p simply because they thought they would make even more money with f2p, it was literally the only way to keep the game running. a p2p game going f2p is like a last resort deal. there may be 1 or 2 exceptions to this rule, but that is the norm.


     

     

    Yes, exactly. Better to get a few dollars from players before they conclude the game sucks. News of DDO and LOTR's suckage is very public. But a lot of people do not do their homework and will download a free game as long as it has a cool brand (like LOTR or D&D). And maybe they don't feel guilty about spending $5 in the cash shop.

     News of LOTRO enjoyability and stability is very public. 

    Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  • VesaviusVesavius BristolPosts: 7,645Member Uncommon

    Well, if the OP is going to be able to use an article on mobile gaming as a basis on which to talk about the F2P market as a whole without challenge, then I guess this is relevant as well...

    It's a piece on how the F2P model is being investigated by the Office of Fair Trading to see "whether these games include 'direct exhortations' to children – a strong encouragement to make a purchase, or to do something that will necessitate making a purchase, or to persuade their parents or other adults to make a purchase for them".

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/apr/12/smartphone-games

    Seems like what 'F2P' really stands for is starting to hit a wider awareness.

     

  • JemcrystalJemcrystal Champaign, ILPosts: 1,554Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Vesavius

    Well, if the OP is going to be able to use an article on mobile gaming as a basis on which to talk about the F2P market as a whole without challenge, then I guess this is relevant as well...

    It's a piece on how the F2P model is being investigated by the Office of Fair Trading to see "whether these games include 'direct exhortations' to children – a strong encouragement to make a purchase, or to do something that will necessitate making a purchase, or to persuade their parents or other adults to make a purchase for them".

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/apr/12/smartphone-games

    Seems like what 'F2P' really stands for is starting to hit a wider awareness.

     

    Umm, I think that's been done everywhere not just f2p.  It's called marketing.  Don't believe me just look at all those ugly women on the magazines at the check out.  Right next to ten tons of candy goodness right at a toddler's eye level.

  • GroovyFlowerGroovyFlower RdamPosts: 1,245Member
    Originally posted by Loktofeit

    Title is quote from an EA exec on the free to play model.

     

    Full article: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-04-02-ea-mobile-boss-freemium-haters-a-vocal-minority

    Free 2 play in total free to play no cash/itemshop ?

    Free 2 play with cash/itemshop?

    I have the felling most spent more in free 2 play games then subscription games.

    Played GW2 with friend who never played SUB games and he spent more on cashshop a month then you spent in half a year on sub game.

    So far all these years not one free 2 play game opened my wallet or spent money in cashshop and i very doub it ever will seems im only one that companys can't get money from free for me is free and not spent on DLC or cashshops period.

  • JemcrystalJemcrystal Champaign, ILPosts: 1,554Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by GroovyFlower
    Originally posted by Loktofeit

    Title is quote from an EA exec on the free to play model.

     

    Full article: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-04-02-ea-mobile-boss-freemium-haters-a-vocal-minority

    Free 2 play in total free to play no cash/itemshop ?

    Free 2 play with cash/itemshop?

    I have the felling most spent more in free 2 play games then subscription games.

    Played GW2 with friend who never played SUB games and he spent more on cashshop a month then you spent in half a year on sub game.

    So far all these years not one free 2 play game opened my wallet or spent money in cashshop and i very doub it ever will seems im only one that companys can't get money from free for me is free and not spent on DLC or cashshops period.

     

    I agree f2p can cost more.  Of course there is no such thing as free.  It was a poor choice of wording.  They should have been called Share Play Games.

     

    I am pro f2p model.  What offends me is mixed models.  If you are box then do not make a cash shop.  If you sub - no cash shop.  If you are free, cash shop away.  

     

    At least with "free" to play you get to sample your game before finding out if it is worth spending money on or giving your credit card number out online.  Unlike box that has your money even if you get in and hate the game and uninstall one minute later.  Sub just isn't in the budget for some who have bills to pay and want to date, etc, and that dating costs different from one month to the next.  Maybe next month I don't want to spend my money gaming.  I'd rather buy a tennis racket and get a work out or pay for Christmas for relatives.  Of course that living from pay check to pay check mentality is beyond a lot of gamers who let corporate mom and/or dad pay for their basement "apartment."  Not that I have a problem with that life style - just don't judge mine based around your daft economic bliss.

     

    Imagine if one game had the three pay models of itself.  

  • MethiosMethios Brandywine, MDPosts: 157Member
    How about developers actually make a good MMO and stop putting out crap games!!  As for a model it doesn't matter really if the game is worth it I will pay a sub if not well I just won't play it.
  • VesaviusVesavius BristolPosts: 7,645Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Jemcrystal
    Originally posted by Vesavius

    Well, if the OP is going to be able to use an article on mobile gaming as a basis on which to talk about the F2P market as a whole without challenge, then I guess this is relevant as well...

    It's a piece on how the F2P model is being investigated by the Office of Fair Trading to see "whether these games include 'direct exhortations' to children – a strong encouragement to make a purchase, or to do something that will necessitate making a purchase, or to persuade their parents or other adults to make a purchase for them".

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/apr/12/smartphone-games

    Seems like what 'F2P' really stands for is starting to hit a wider awareness.

    Umm, I think that's been done everywhere not just f2p.  It's called marketing.  Don't believe me just look at all those ugly women on the magazines at the check out.  Right next to ten tons of candy goodness right at a toddler's eye level.

     

    Marketing isn't bad by definition, but bodies like The OFT recognise the difference between ethical open marketing that informs the customer in an attractive package and unethical 'marketing' that includes exhortion, hidden costing, and right out lieing, as well as the targetting of the vulnerable (children in a game, for example).

    If you, as a consumer, do not recognise a line between the acceptable and unacceptable and just continously rationalise all behaviour as being 'what everyone does', then there is no reason to expect any industry to draw any lines for itself in how it sees and treats you.

    Anyhow, all this aside, my simple point is that the 'F2P' model is starting to get noticed by official bodies, and not in a good way.

  • darkedone02darkedone02 Louisville, KYPosts: 552Member

    I don't mind playing a F2P game and later if I like the game or so and want access to some exclusive contant, either buy a good pack that unlock most of it for a meager 30 bucks, depending if it's a size of a expansion, or if it's a lowly dlc that only add in a few, i don't mind throwing out 5-10 bucks depending on the size of it. The price must be reasonable for me to actually want to spend money on a game that I want to get into, if I don't get into it, i won't spend much money on it.

    I still love that sub fee to unlock all the contant in the game, and i wish there was something that actually give me a great reward for subscribing for x amount of months, for example, i've been on for a whole year, they reduce my subscription fee to 10 bucks instead of 15 bucks for being a loyal customer, i've gain a free expansion back as well, and a unique mount dedicated for loyal members. Something to make me want to stay as a subscribing member. Maybe there should also be alternative rewards for your customers that purchase a certain amount of your products just so they won't feel they getting a fair treatment.

    However to make your customer throw money at you litterly, you need to make contant that they really like, and possibly shitlaods of it and one blow if possible, don't hold anything back or released a half-ass expansion as well, so you won't appear to  be like EA or NCsoft and their greedy ways, be honest and the people will treat you all nice and warm like the developers of Borderlands 2 and EVE Online (EVE online made a mistake once, but they actually made it up in a short while, i've hardly heard anything negative coming back ever since of the outrageous pricing for avatar goods).

    image

  • BladestromBladestrom edinburghPosts: 4,946Member Uncommon
    Nothing wrong with subs if it's at a competitive price. Right now sub price is > double than (quality) f2p but does not offer double the content.

    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

  • BladestromBladestrom edinburghPosts: 4,946Member Uncommon
    Example : in 4 months you pay say £40 on subs, for that money you get a new quest hub and perhaps 1 new instance. Take away running costs and you are talking £25 for an instance and a few quests. That's a rip off.

    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

  • DamediusDamedius Calgary, ABPosts: 346Member
    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.

    Your a freebie seeker. The worst kind of customer possible.

    No company in their right mind would care what you think. In fact most companies wouldn't want you anywhere near their products. They want customers who have money and are willing to spend it. 

    Avoiding freebie seekers is marketing 101.

  • WizardryWizardry Ontario, CanadaPosts: 8,461Member Uncommon

    I just tried 4 f2p titles and unloaded them all in the same day,all utter junk.

    While i was surfing i also noticed MANY titles have gone defunct,no support at all,shut down.

    This happens on RARE occasions in the sub market.

    The investment is super low,the cost to operate is super low and they are still closing down .That is the problem it takes one small investor to get  these games into the market,flood the market then make the  entire industry/genre look bad.

    When you see sub based games it is 100% commitment,EVERY player is spending,f2p games the % has to be around 5% or less,based on their numbers and assumed cost compared to other sub based games.

    One thing is FACT,the industry is liek the real world ,full of GREED,if they are not charging a sub fee it is becuase they KNOW they will not get it.


    Samoan Diamond

  • itgrowlsitgrowls newport news, VAPosts: 2,951Member
    Originally posted by Bladestrom
    Example : in 4 months you pay say £40 on subs, for that money you get a new quest hub and perhaps 1 new instance. Take away running costs and you are talking £25 for an instance and a few quests. That's a rip off.

    Completely agree but in America it's even worse since most games charge $15 a month so in 4 months time you're spending the cost for a B2P/F2P game title. 

    What most sub supporters forget and don't take into account is not only are they not getting as much content as a B2P game title they are also victims of the company that's doing the subbing artificially handing out the content. Blizzard is well known for this. the delays between major content patches are enormous and when they don't seem to be it's because that content is already there they just haven't released it to the public. so there's a large amount of time where they could be adding some great content to the game but they aren't. After the launch they have content that's just sitting in the database so it's usually more then a year before they actually start making new content for their next release, all the while they are just sitting on content waiting to be released.

    Rarely do we ever see a company make important and requested changes to a game title until they lose en masse a large number of players.

    We've seen this as well with WoW.

    Arenanet might have been highly disappointing post launch with the way they managed their GW2 title but there's one thing they were not wrong about, and that's exactly where your sub money is going. It's fluff and it's rarely used for anything constructive.

    It's not used for maintenance because that's cheap now, it's not used for support because there's other ways of paying for that, and it's not used for new content until it's time to mass develope an expansion so where does it go.

Sign In or Register to comment.