It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Originally posted by furbans Name one "quality" F2P MMO.
F2P games I have enjoyed: AOC, TERA, DDO, COH, EQ2, AO, Vindictus, Second Life, Vanguard, probably a couple more around that I'm not remembering.
My personal guess would be B2P, anything subscription in this economy with this competition will die before it releases. Even if it was amazing I doubt most people would even look at it. Personally I would be ok with a sub for a super amazing game.
It needs to be buy to play with paid dlc, Free to play with cash shop is really something I am not interested in, and I really don't want to pay a sub.
Originally posted by Kyleran Could the answer be.... both? Offer different tiers, including a sub model with access to most (if not all) content and then F2P models where you buy content packs, extra bag space, mounts etc? I think hybrid with multiple options is the way of the future.
Oh for sure. I was referring to them possibly just going straight subscription at launch and having to retrofit the game to handle an F2P (or Freemium, in your example, and as I noted in the article) post-launch.
Michael "MikeB" BittonCommunity ManagerTwitter: @eMikeB
Originally posted by Gravarg I would rather play a P2P game that is good like Rift. The problem with TSW and STWOR was that the majority of people bought the game expecting something totally different or better than they were. I'm not saying they are bad games, just for alot of the people that bought the game. If you have a good game that alot of people will play, then P2P still works...look at Rift. I know the EU servers are supposedly dead, but the NA servers are full. My desktop lags in Meridian since there are so many people there lol. P2P also lends itself to a sense of obligation to play and like the game. People that don't like the game won't pay, so they don't get to play. Something I noticed in F2P games, the general and world chats are full of people spamming how bad this game is (the game they're playing, not ESO). You rarely see that in games like Rift, WoW, DAoC which are P2P. Lotro and DDO is the only F2P title I've played that you don't get alot of "omg this game sucks" spam. Edit: P2P games don't feel like the developer is trying to milk you of your money either. There is no "You must by this item or be gimpy!" or "If you don't buy this item now, the price will go up and you'll be so lame! BUY NOW!" And P2P ends up being the cheapest model if you plan on spending any amount of good time in a game. F2P games usually tend to cost people that actually want to play the game two even three times as much in the end. I have no clue why people like F2P games, it's only negatives and no positives that a P2P with a free trial doesn't have.
I would say your logic applies to Rift as well. It's a good game, but people expected something better which is why it has only seen mediocre success especially after SL.
Early areas in most games, especially those with free trials has people that trash talk a lot. Rift had this when it first had the free 1-20. LotRO still has this in the very early areas and tutorial. Sub-free games have this in early areas. By the time a pleayer gets to mid levels or better people want to be there and belong to the community so those sorts of trolls are rarer or they've switched their attention troll tactics.
Every game feels like it has time sinks and monetary incentives to me. With Rift, there was a push to buy SL or you would be gimpy and left behind. It's not any different in sub-free games as well. Most of the big name sub-free games don't sell armour or end game items because they want you to stick around, play the game, keep the numbers up, and spend money - just like sub games. That's why there are time sinks in both sub-locked and sub-free games. I can't buy my way to success in Tera, GW2, TSW, EQ2, or even LotRO. Even in Cryptic/PWE games where you can buy item, purchasing your way to success doesn't really do anything for you. It's like a powerleveler in a sub-locked game, so their guild is raid complete on farm mode - okay so what?
I think we're in the middle of a transition and reimagining of how we pay for and access our entertainment. Some of our old concepts of f2p will go the way of the dodo because newer paradigms (Tera and GW2) are better than the old ones (some of the older Nexon and PWE games and that ilk). Competition between these companies for our attention and money will drive a friendlier environment for the consumer.
Eek, sorry it was so long winded. I'm having a problem being concise today.
Why TESO should be F2P or B2P at best?
Because "When you reach lvl 50 and do all the quests, you can always level up skills with other weapons" " Hurrr Durrr".
This is why
They don't have content after lvl 50.
People will stop playing after that. And it will take them a year to have something new.
Ps. No I don't want to play my Wizard with Bow and Arrows _!_
SWTOR should not be used as a good example, because it was designed as a single player centric game with cut scenes all over the place, with 90% of the missions shared with all classes. If each class had 100% their own missions, SWTOR could have lasted a lot longer.
If there is plenty to do to keep you playing, then a sub fee will work. SWTOR had very little to do, and EA/BW were shocked by the players getting through it so quick. EA/BW did not have a clue for MMO design and they excel at single player games. SWTOR failed because it lacked too much, and are really really slow at adding content, plus the worlds were all copied and pasted, and static, which Dallas Dickinson exlained to PC Gamer they had to cut loads out just to get the game released. Plus it cost a bomb to make and maintain, according to EA, as needs 500K subs, which most MMOs would be glad of those numbers, and if SWTOR did not cost a bomb to make, it would not have gone F2P with those numbers, not so quick anyway.
Star Trek Online - Best Free MMORPG of 2012
Originally posted by Quizzical Why would anyone pay a subscription for a game they like when there are a lot of games that you can play for free if you're willing to be crippled enough that you won't like them? The question nearly answers itself.
I rather pay 15 dollars a month and have unlimited access to the game and enjoy a game that is not deliberately crippled to force people into the Cash Shop!
F2P games are the plague! Litterly! Nothing is FREE! People really need to get over that idea and that in the end you end up spending more money in F2P games, then in Subscription based games. Period!
I would prefer to pay a subscription if it's a great game.
I don't like wasting time with micro-transactions, just send me a monthly bill.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
Originally posted by JeroKane Originally posted by Quizzical Why would anyone pay a subscription for a game they like when there are a lot of games that you can play for free if you're willing to be crippled enough that you won't like them? The question nearly answers itself.
I've never spent more money in sub-free games. I've spent over $300 on Rift over the last 2 years. I've spent $30 on STO, $30 on TSW, $60 or $70 on GW2. In sub games you spend a minimum of approximately $150 - $230 per year for rented access. Even if I spent $300 per year on a F2P game I would at least be able to play it anytime without have to fork over more cash.
And please, P2P games are just as crippled with time sinks to keep you subbing for longer - raid locks, dungeon locks, daily reward caps, etc.
Originally posted by Torvaldr Originally posted by JeroKane Originally posted by Quizzical Why would anyone pay a subscription for a game they like when there are a lot of games that you can play for free if you're willing to be crippled enough that you won't like them? The question nearly answers itself.
But P2P games are way more significantly better quality. F2P games is your cheap budgeted B movies that went straight to DVD while P2P games are the movies you would go see at the theateres.
Here is a list of P2P MMOs that released after 2004 and were successful:
DAoC - Excalibur & Camlann
Originally posted by furbans Originally posted by Torvaldr Originally posted by JeroKane Originally posted by Quizzical Why would anyone pay a subscription for a game they like when there are a lot of games that you can play for free if you're willing to be crippled enough that you won't like them? The question nearly answers itself.
Rift, EVE, and WoW are all good games, but aren't better to me than my sub-free options. You can run around shouting second rate all you want but it isn't true. There are plenty of people that like sub-free games as much or more. GW2 is considered a better game than Rift by some people and is far more successful.
A payment model doesn't make a game better and that's true for any game and any payment model. TOR wasn't better because it was sub-locked. It's not better now that it's sub-free. It's the same regardless of the payment model.
Budget, team experience, and creativity are what make good games. How they're monetized afterwards has nothing to do with the quality. When ESO comes out it will be good, bad, or somewhere in the middle regardless of its payment model.
Originally posted by dgarbini Originally posted by furbans Name one "quality" F2P MMO.
Except the argument there would be that most of those games started a p2p.
I think he's referring to games that started as f2p.
And if he isn't then his argument isn't valid based on your examples.
F2P is some really saving any money tbh. If you pay $15.00 a month for a game you get everything you want, you log on and play. in F2P you log on and get restricked and temped to buy silly in game items, most people end up paying $40-100 on average. The ones that dont end up paying are also those they buy the game for $59.99 and quit in a few weeks, so money is even made off them but they are not using server space.
For all those that say I never spend any money on F2P models games you are straight up lieing about that period or you are a very casual player and might play 2 hours every other day.
Originally posted by Sovrath Originally posted by dgarbini Originally posted by furbans Name one "quality" F2P MMO.
I don't really buy into the "it started p2p" argument. What does that have to do with the quality? The production budget and the team make it quality. You could probably make an argument that publishers were only willing to fund a AAA budget for the established revenue model due to comfort with what it can deliver. That was shortsighted on their part because it hasn't panned out well for them.
Most AAA games released recently started several years ago when p2p was the primary revenue paradigm. AAA games have big budgets regardles of their payement model.
In this discussion, in Mike's column, he doesn't distinguish between b2p and f2p - just sub-locked and sub-free. GW2 is a perfect example of a good game that isn't sub-locked and was developed that way. Neverwinter is a quality sub-free mmo. Allods has been f2p in Russia and they are offering a sub-locked server which shows that the revenue model can move both ways with a little adjustment. These games will become more prevalent as time passes and newer mmo releases are developed with regards to the shifting climate.
With competition increasing I think we'll see a more dramatic evolution of the revenue models. Traditional f2p and p2p concepts are outdated and we're going to see new innovative variations and options like Tera.
I don't get this article.... Basing your opinion off the "next genre" of games is a pretty lame idea when its not working (SWTOR sucked and didn't deserve a paid subscription). If you really want to see how those Microtransaction F2P games are going, actually go and play them. Most suck and have terrible extended content that is boring after a few days of playing them (Guild Wars 2).
Most subscription based MMO's I have played, I play for years.
honestly, i dont care.
The only good f2p game i know is aoc because you almost have no restrictions to lv 80.
so f2p == f2p
you cant just put all f2p in on hat. swtor f2p is the best or worst example. compare aoc with swtor f2p.
Originally posted by danwest58 Because F2P games suck and get little development when they are F2P. Look at DDO and LOTRO, it takes them forever to get expansions and fixes because they do not have the money to pay developers.
Lol, right... maybe you should hop over to the LotRO forum and tell your thoughts above in the "New expansion already?!" thread where they complaining that expansions are coming so fast that they don't have enough time to finish everything on T2