and the 5 most mentioned MMOs were P2P games from inception. and if you ask people, rarely they will mention a game that was F2P from the ground up in their top 10
F2P steadily gains success...
and you have well stablished F2P publishers like GPotato going down, Cryptic being purchased, .Frogster absorbed..and thats with a F2P market that isnt even remotely as competitive and overcrowded as the P2P market once was...just wait till it is, so we can sing along "let the bodies hit the floor"...
F2P steadily gains success...
and a F2P game goes busted every month without anyone ever caring, or hell, even noticing...and if you factor China, make that dozens that we'll never even hear about...
while a P2P going down is something you see maybe once every odd year, and it motivates discussions lasting for months...not to mention the bunch of P2P games older than 10 years and still going strong with their sub
F2P steadily gains success...
and the most expected games of the decade, Titan and EQNext, are going to be P2P
F2P steadily gains success...
and yet we have seen more B2P games in the last 2 years than in the 10 previous...that weirdos, why wouldnt they simply go F2P? they probably didnt know F2P its a better model...
F2P steadily gains success...
and the top (so called) "F2P" MMOs still retain their sub option instead of embracing the fully free model, and dont even seem to consider for just a second dropping it
F2P steadily gains success...
and more and more asian games reach Triple A standards of quality....just to release as P2P LOOOOL: B&S, ArchAge, Lineage 3, Wildstar, Black Desert
seriously, asian games going P2P. where is your god now?
F2P steadily gains...
wait, the bubble is gone.
dozens of MMO studios/publishers closing doors/laying off +85% of their staff
I would bet EQN will be freemium, based on all their other games. Titan - nothing has been mentioned, but I would bet my had it has a cs of some kind.
The f2p market has an order of magnitude more games than the p2p market does.
Lots of P2P mmo's have laid off many/most of their staff as well.
That is not a sign of p2p vs f2p. That is the sign of a genre that is still feeling it's way forward, and possibly oversaturation, IMO definatley oversatuation if you compare cost to develop vs reasonalbe return.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
OP the only reason F2P is working right now is to many MMO publishers thinks MMOS are the next gold rush. They built crappy ass games and went F2P because they could not keep enough subscriptions to keep open, period end of story. Do you even know how many MMOs are out there right now? Try over 4 dozen MMO, YES 48+ mmos so while the active MMO community has grown to about 10 to 15 Million players; there are too many mmos on the market right now for that few of a genera. So what did these publishers do make the game F2P with a cash shop to help make more money than the subscription can bring in because too few people want to pay a poorly designed and developed game for money. They would rather spend a few bucks here or there on the game and call it good.
P2P will be back at the top in the next Generation of MMO. Wait until 2014 when Titan and EQnext launch and change the MMO genera again. Thats when you will see a shift from people being spread out over 4 dozen games to 75%+ being in either EXNext or Titan. Yes CEO of SOE did gab about F2P in EQ2 however few people will see EQNext going F2P right out of the gate because its a fact that P2P players are the largest group of MMO players, F2P players are a very minor group. Dont believe me? 12 Million People subscribed to WoW at one time or another, No F2P game can ever say it had that many people paying for cash shop items. Just small percentage of players that spend money like it is water on the cash shop.
Dont get my wrong I dont mind the F2P games however they are F2P because they cannot keep the majority of MMO players active for a year or more.
I Subbed to UO for 4+ years
I subbed for WoW for almost 10+ years
I concur.
EVE Online 4+ years and loved it even if I sucked at the game.
LotRO beta, then subbed and then Lifer, then subb'd 2 more accounts to this day for Wife and a Daughter.
Wurm Online Premium off and on since 2008.
and several other MMOs, some I played for up to a year, almost all I subb'd to and prefer it that way. I even subb'd to WoW a couple of years ago for a month or two, but I have to say I just did not enjoy the "Cartoon" ingame environment of WoW. Great game but the Cartoon theme really got on my nerves. A subscription to WoW is worth it I do say though (even though I don't like it).
I have read the glowing repeorts of how good the f2ps are. At the behest of so many of you here, I just recently tried out SW:TOR as f2p and used the cash shop, and what a ripoff scam that was. Damn I now miss SWG badly. I tried STO last year, again another example of why I think f2p is crap. PWI? I saw what they had to offer.... and that is an even bigger scam in my opinion. The number one reason I won't try out that "new MMO" is because it's owned by PWI.
So if f2p is "mainstream" then I say NO to it.
If by 2015 there are no more subscription MMOs, then I will "retire" from MMOs.... but I seriously doubt I will have to make good on that boast.
Bleh. I'm pretty sure that F2P is going to be how most MMOs operate, but my personal preference is B2P, the way TSW does it. You buy the game and then you can play the whole game from start to finish. There are things you can buy in the cash shop, but you don't need them at all.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
1 and the 5 most mentioned MMOs were P2P games from inception. and if you ask people, rarely they will mention a game that was F2P from the ground up in their top 10
2 and a F2P game goes busted every month without anyone ever caring, or hell, even noticing...and if you factor China, make that dozens that we'll never even hear about... while a P2P going down is something you see maybe once every odd year, and it motivates discussions lasting for months...not to mention the bunch of P2P games older than 10 years and still going strong with their sub
3 and the most expected games of the decade, Titan and EQNext, are going to be P2P
4 and yet we have seen more B2P games in the last 2 years than in the 10 previous...that weirdos, why wouldnt they simply go F2P? they probably didnt know F2P its a better model...
5 and the top (so called) "F2P" MMOs still retain their sub option instead of embracing the fully free model, and dont even seem to consider for just a second dropping it
6 and more and more asian games reach Triple A standards of quality....just to release as P2P LOOOOL: B&S, ArchAge, Lineage 3, Wildstar, Black Desert seriously, asian games going P2P. where is your god now?
1) On these forums, which are most certainly notindicative of the average MMO gamer
2) 12 out of 100 is still a better ratio than 1 out of 3.
3) Glad you're excited about those titles. I am, too, but making things up to support your position is silly.
4) Since "B2P" is just F2P with a charge for the client up front, yes, it's a better model. It's a model that is so absurd and so illogical that developers are overjoyed that the anti-F2P crowd handed it to them on a silver platter because there is no way any dev would have been able to try to sell that. YOU sold it to yourselves and YOU gave the green light to Richard Garriott and several others to now actually pitch that, to position against subscription and sell you the model that you despise. They arelaughing their way to the bank because not only are you soldily supporting the microtransaction model,but you are literally paying for the privilege to have it.
5) F2P is about choice. Sub is another choice. Removing that would be counterproductive.
6) The only one I see worshipping any particular business model is you, SS.
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
1) On these forums, which are most certainly notindicative of the average MMO gamer
2) 12 out of 100 is still a better ratio than 1 out of 3.
3) Glad you're excited about those titles. I am, too, but making things up to support your position is silly.
4) Since "B2P" is just F2P with a charge for the client up front, yes, it's a better model. It's a model that is so absurd and so illogical that developers are overjoyed that the anti-F2P crowd handed it to them on a silver platter because there is no way any dev would have been able to try to sell that. YOU sold it to yourselves and YOU gave the green light to Richard Garriott and several others to now actually pitch that, to position against subscription and sell you the model that you despise. They arelaughing their way to the bank because not only are you soldily supporting the microtransaction model,but you are literally paying for the privilege to have it.
5) F2P is about choice. Sub is another choice. Removing that would be counterproductive.
6) The only one I see worshipping any particular business model is you, SS.
1) here, in ten ton hammer and in massively, by and large the biggest (by a fair marging) online communities devoted to this little entertainment you and me both love.
but I can see you love to toss aside metrics when they dont fit your preconcieved ideas, so whatever...I'll keep using the three largest sites dealing with MMOs as my sources, and you can kep citing an invisible army of people that happen to disagree entirely with the majority's opinion but dont do it on public.
btw, since they are nowhere to be found and no record of their opinion is available......how exactly did you learn about their stance on the issue, again?
2) assuming we use you made on the spot metrics...
you defend a model that creates failed games at a rate of 12 monthly
me, one that goes 1 bi-yearly.
there are times when words arent necessary anymore.
this is one of them
3) making up? if you think for a second that blizzard is going to delve into the f2p territory with titan, you should have never stopped taking your medication. EQN, I can admit its a 50/50 due to Smed, but definetly will have a sub option. hence not fully free model, quod erat demostrandum
4) you are free2name (what I did there, did you see it?) a B2P game that has released with a cash shop that is widely percieved as intrusive, annoying or mandatory for progress. take your time, I have an extra comfy chair over here
the point of B2P games released as of late is to have extras on top of a working, enjoyable game where the cash shop is entirely avoidable with zero reprecussions for the flow of the gameplay...which is more than what the vast majority of fully-f2p-from-the-ground-up mmos can say...or shouldnt say. but we all know they dont have an atom of integrity or honor, so they would say it anyway
so yep, if (according to you) the industry is heavily shifting away from P2P and into the B2P/F2P realms, B2P is like a god sent compared to the levels of evilness that come with the fully free model. applied here, "the lesser of 2 evils" is the mother of all understatements.
anyway ,nice strawman there brother. the question was simple: if the F2P model is perfect beyond compare and everybody in the industry has seen its myriad of qualities, and it tops the charts of profits consistently since a coupleyears ago...why then the B2P?
must be that companies like earning less than they could. Yea, we all know that AneraNet and the likes arent exactly known for being intelligent professionals, right?
5) as a model in and on itself, free to play is all about...free to play. either you are free to play, or you arent, and you are a mixed model.
I know this hurts you, but sooner or later you will have to swallow that pill. the big games dont even consider for a second dropping that oh-so-demode (according to you) idea of subscriptions, no matter how many green "the f2p model steadily gains success" sentences you write here.
6) no counter-arguments. gotcha. this one was easy and short. me likes
Because there are more people playing those games. Seems like a pretty clear metric to me.
Forums have always been a minority of gamers.
Pretty darn sure Titan will have a cs. EQN will be freemium.
He's right. B2p games have all the issues of microtranscation games but you paid for the priveledge to have them.
The industry is shifting away, that is obvious. P2p will not go away, but it has lost it's dominance. Whether that continues remains to be seen.
Why the B2P? Because the devs make even more money. Again B2p games have all the issues of microtranscation games but you paid for the priveledge to have them. If people buy it, devs will do it. Why wouldn't they. So it makes all the money of f2p, with an initial cost.
Many of the big games have allready dropped the p2p only model. In fact there are only a few p2p only left.
You haven't realy presented any counter arguments. Just a stick head in the sand mentality.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Not a cop out at all, it is directly related to your point
You stated, “ and the 5 most mentioned MMOs were P2P games from inception. and if you ask people, rarely they will mention a game that was F2P from the ground up in their top 10”
Lokto stated "On these forums, which are most certainly notindicative of the average MMO gamer"
You responded by saying here and ten ton hammer and massively. Then stated he loves to toss aside metrics, then went on to talk about an invisible army of people that disagree, and asked how he learned there stance
It seems to me you are tossing aside the biggest metrics.
Forum users are a minority, and p2p has more people playing them. Those are the metrics. More people playing show that more people disagree, they are the people that disagree.
Ignore them all you want. That is the biggest metric of all.
They are and have been counted. They have actively chosen. That is the army that you ignore and say "cop out"
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Not a cop out at all, it is directly related to your point
You stated, “ and the 5 most mentioned MMOs were P2P games from inception. and if you ask people, rarely they will mention a game that was F2P from the ground up in their top 10”
Lokto stated on these forums
You responded by saying here and ten ton hammer and massively. Then stated he loves to toss aside metrics, then went on to talk about an invisible army of people that disagree, and asked how he learned there stance
It seems to me you are tossing aside the biggest metrics.
Forum users are a minority, and p2p has more people playing them. Those are the metrics. More people playing show that more people disagree, they are the people that disagree.
Ignore them all you want. That is the biggest metric of all.
They are and have been counted. They have actively chosen. That is the army that you ignore and say "cop out"
I'll be willing to accept your point as soon as you prove me, empirically, how it is statistically possible that the people that favors P2P (lets call them A) prefers to post on forums over playing their games, while the people that favors f2p (call them do the polar opposite.
my maths are a bit rusty, so please, comment each step of your formulas
Not a cop out at all, it is directly related to your point
You stated, “ and the 5 most mentioned MMOs were P2P games from inception. and if you ask people, rarely they will mention a game that was F2P from the ground up in their top 10”
Lokto stated on these forums
You responded by saying here and ten ton hammer and massively. Then stated he loves to toss aside metrics, then went on to talk about an invisible army of people that disagree, and asked how he learned there stance
It seems to me you are tossing aside the biggest metrics.
Forum users are a minority, and p2p has more people playing them. Those are the metrics. More people playing show that more people disagree, they are the people that disagree.
Ignore them all you want. That is the biggest metric of all.
They are and have been counted. They have actively chosen. That is the army that you ignore and say "cop out" It actually shows it somewhere, or at one time it did.
It is only a cop out if it does not address the point. It does, and directly refutes it.
I'll be willing to accept your point as soon as you prove me, empirically, how it is statistically possible that the majority of the P2P population (lets call it A) prefers to post on forums over playing their games, while the majority of the f2p population (call them do the polar opposite.
my maths are a bit rusty, so please, comment each step of your formulas
The majority of neither population posts on forums. Forum goers, of any game or type, are a minority. So using forums as a representation of what gamers think/want and extrapolating that to the general market is frought with peril.
It doesn't matter what people say here or on ten ton or massively, if the exact opposite is occuring.
In this case p2p vs f2p gamers. The forums are against it, but f2p has many many more people playing them than p2p, therefore the gamers themselves have actively chosene f2p over p2p, despite what the forum goers say.
The numbers are again evident, this forum has about a million registered users. There are 50 million MMO gamers in north america.
edit sorry - this site has Members:2,359,170.
and the link nari provided (disputed or not, no one else has provided any data at all) says 50 million in US alone.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
"forum communities are a minority" is yet another well known cop out. unless you have studies that back up that, dont use it as a premise.
also, your assuming that everybody chooses, when thats patently false.
we can only be sure that all p2p players choose.
theres a significant (I wont dare say a %, lets leave it at "significant" and that will suffice) amount of f2p players that play f2p because they cannot afford otherwise.
if somenone offered to pay them for the box and a subscription to a P2P game of their choice, do you affirm that they'd prefer to stay with the f2p games?
"forum communities are a minority" is yet another well known cop out. unless you have studies that back up that, dont use it as a premise.
also, your assuming that everybody chooses, when thats patently false.
we can only be sure that all p2p players choose.
theres a significant (I wont dare say a %, lets leave it at "significant" and that will suffice) amount of f2p players that play f2p because they cannot afford otherwise.
if somenone offered to pay them for the box and a subscription to a P2P game of their choice, do you affirm that they'd prefer to stay with the f2p games?
You have no idea how significant that number is, or really if it even is significant.
I would agree there is some percentage that can't afford. I don't think it is very high. But I have no numbers for that either.
If someone offered to pay for their subscription many would take it. That is a red herring argument. Not many people would turn down someone else paying for their entertainment.
I'm saying if given a choice between playing a game for free, and paying for it, more people would choose to play it for free. About 6:1 more apparently.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I remember a game Requiem , it's a free to play but what I like about this game is their strategy, it free yes but it's like playing a subscription game. because you need to buy in the item mall shop some necessity items that you think its realyl a big help in the game. And those items last for 1 month. then you need to buy again next month. but at the same time even if you are spending it's not that hard for you because it's worth it/.
"forum communities are a minority" is yet another well known cop out. unless you have studies that back up that, dont use it as a premise.
also, your assuming that everybody chooses, when thats patently false.
we can only be sure that all p2p players choose.
theres a significant (I wont dare say a %, lets leave it at "significant" and that will suffice) amount of f2p players that play f2p because they cannot afford otherwise.
if somenone offered to pay them for the box and a subscription to a P2P game of their choice, do you affirm that they'd prefer to stay with the f2p games?
You have no idea how significant that number is, or really if it even is significant.
I would agree there is some percentage that can't afford. I don't think it is very high. But I have no numbers for that either.
If someone offered to pay for their subscription many would take it. That is a red herring argument. Not many people would turn down someone for someone else's entertainment.
I'm saying if given a choice between playing a game for free, and paying for it, more people would choose to play it for free. About 6:1 more apparently.
what we'r discussing here is about people that favors one model over the other
if you admit that most would change their pick if given the chance to get rid of the monetary restrictions, then that people arent really favoring the f2p model. its obvious that circumstances beyond their taste shft them towards it.
if you notice, the inverse isnt true. people that favor the p2p model could effortlessly swich to f2p, it would be a simple matter of taste. and yet they decide against it.
"forum communities are a minority" is yet another well known cop out. unless you have studies that back up that, dont use it as a premise.
also, your assuming that everybody chooses, when thats patently false.
we can only be sure that all p2p players choose.
theres a significant (I wont dare say a %, lets leave it at "significant" and that will suffice) amount of f2p players that play f2p because they cannot afford otherwise.
if somenone offered to pay them for the box and a subscription to a P2P game of their choice, do you affirm that they'd prefer to stay with the f2p games?
You have no idea how significant that number is, or really if it even is significant.
I would agree there is some percentage that can't afford. I don't think it is very high. But I have no numbers for that either.
If someone offered to pay for their subscription many would take it. That is a red herring argument. Not many people would turn down someone for someone else's entertainment.
I'm saying if given a choice between playing a game for free, and paying for it, more people would choose to play it for free. About 6:1 more apparently.
what we'r discussing here is about people that favors one model over the other
if you admit that most would change their pick if given the chance to get rid of the monetary restrictions, then that people arent really favoring the f2p model. its obvious that circumstances beyond their taste shft them towards it.
If most change their game if given the chance to get rid of the monetary fee, that does not mean that circumstances beyond their taste or control is stopping them.
Maybe they jsut feel it's a rip off.'
Maybe they don't like paying extra money for a game.
There are many many reasons why people would choose a free game over a paid game. Just assuming they can't afford it, is IMO, an extremely arrogant position.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
and you have well stablished F2P publishers like GPotato going down, Cryptic being purchased, .Frogster absorbed..and thats with a F2P market that isnt even remotely as competitive and overcrowded as the P2P market once was...just wait till it is, so we can sing along "let the bodies hit the floor"...
F2P steadily gains success...
and a F2P game goes busted every month without anyone ever caring, or hell, even noticing...and if you factor China, make that dozens that we'll never even hear about...
while a P2P going down is something you see maybe once every odd year, and it motivates discussions lasting for months...not to mention the bunch of P2P games older than 10 years and still going strong with their sub
F2P steadily gains success...
and the most expected games of the decade, Titan and EQNext, are going to be P2P
Did you really just say the F2P market isn't as competitive as the P2P market? Are you looking at a different MMORPG genre than I am?
Did you really just cite the growing number of B2P games in a world where the number of F2P games has grown by a much larger number?
Have you failed to understand that B2P games (P2P ones) live or die based on hype? The B2P model is marketing driven: with hype you can get players to drop a fat wad of cash up-front before they've played. The F2P model is gameplay driven: everyone gets to try your game and if it isn't fun you don't get a penny. So yeah, Titan and EQNext are some of the most anticipated games (although in Titan's case it's more because the company has released hit after hit for multiple decades.)
Was all of that just trying to drive home my "players have their heads in the sand" point?
I mean I don't even feel F2P is the greatest fit for MMORPGs because nobody's really adopted a particularly great payment model for it, but in the bigger picture of gaming F2P is one of the best things to happen for gamers (and for companies not wanting to go bankrupt.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If most change their game if given the chance to get rid of the monetary fee, that does not mean that circumstances beyond their taste or control is stopping them.
I dont understand you. Your holding one position and the contrary at the same time.
first you admit that the vast majority of people would change their pick, from f2p wo p2p, without hesitation, on the spot, simply by removing the costs upfront. You even saw it was such a glaring truth, that quicky dismissed it as a red hearring.
but on the next line you say that doesnt mean said costs are the sole reason why they favor one model over the other, when by premise, is the ONLY thing we are removing from the equation.
Hmmm. Strange post. All I can think of is...an I quote. "......am I too understand that you have dinosaurs in this park..." I would rather pay a monthly fee to see ALL the dinos than pay for individual ones. F2P just simply does not work. Sub and pay to get nice vanity items does. I paid 3 years for EQ and I would pay too play the old EQ again < not Project 99 cause that ain't EQ>
The only ones that cry are the cheap asses who think everything should be free and kids who can't get mom to pay the sub. Kids play your ftp game...I will pay for a sub game just too keep yo dumb asses out of it
Jymm Byuu Playing : Blood Bowl. Waiting for 2. Holding breath for Archeage and EQN.
If most change their game if given the chance to get rid of the monetary fee, that does not mean that circumstances beyond their taste or control is stopping them.
I dont understand you. Your holding one position and the contrary at the same time.
first you admit that the vast majority of people would change their pick, from f2p wo p2p, without hesitation, on the spot, simply by removing the costs upfront. You even saw it was such a glaring truth, that quicky dismissed it as a red hearring.
but on the next line you say that doesnt mean said costs are the sole reason why they favor one model over the other, when by premise, is the ONLY thing we are removing from the equation.
I did not state that the vast majority would change. I did not state that the majority would change. I said many would change, and many would not.
and having someone else pay for your sub is a red herring, for the person playing it then becomes a f2p.
edit - and even if most did change, once again that does not mean that circumstances in their life have made them unable to pay for it. It could just be they don't want to pay for it, that they feel paying for a game is silly.
edit - and once again you changed the argument. First you said circumstances caused them to not pay it, then you said cost was the sole reason. Those are different arguments. Someone can afford to pay it, but still not want to pay it.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
It's a little tough to gauge F2P vs. P2P, in regards to future development, mearly by what is more popular to players. Everyone loves free stuff. The question is, how long? Even though F2P MMOs are gaining market share there seems to be very convoluted information about the specifics. There looks to be a 6:1 ratio of players in F2P but how many of those are paying a sub in their "F2P" game of choice?
The answer to that question matters because at 17% of the MMO player base P2P is close to F2P revenue wise, right? That already tells me that if I make a good game I can get just as much money with a sub model with a lot less people. Going farther, how many of those 83% F2P players are actually subbing? If I'm the decision maker looking to make an MMO I'll be adding those people into my 17% pool of potential cusomers since they are already paying for a sub. If you were to move that population % to the correct side alog with a equal portion of revenue it would be pretty obvious P2P still makes more per player.
I'm not saying F2P isn't popular or will go away. What I am saying is that F2P and P2P are often in the same game but one is more reliant on the other for survival.
I agree Aelious. Eventually there will be more concrete information. As you stated the only thing we can really say for sure is f2p has gained market share.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I did not state that the vast majority would change. I did not state that the majority would change. I said many would change, and many would not.
many would not? be honest here
and having someone else pay for your sub is a red herring, for the person playing it then becomes a f2p.
thats irrelevant. the divide between f2p and p2p goes further than a monthly sub or lack thereof. its about cash shops and the lenght they interfere in the gameplay, about the company running the game, the prospects of game lifespawn, the expected quality of the title ...the very community that surrounds you.
they would be in a P2P environment. for them its f2p, but the game itself remains as p2p, its model is p2p...just someone else is paying, be it you, me, or their daddy.it doesnt matter
It is funny how people seem to ignore the fact that there hasn't been a game WORTHY of P2P released in the last half decade or more. A ton of wow clones, sure... but nothing new and nothing that even approaches a MMO like Asheron's Call with modern graphics. I don't play F2P because the games are garbage imo, with terribly slow content cycles, and I don't like to be asked for money in the middle of my gaming. I am not interested in more wow clones, barbie dressup microtransactions, or pay to win transactions.
Release a game like Asheron's Call or something else that doesn't have classes, a level cap you will ever reach, with a huge world without zones, and I will gladly pay a subscription fee.
Comments
F2P steadily gains success...
and the 5 most mentioned MMOs were P2P games from inception. and if you ask people, rarely they will mention a game that was F2P from the ground up in their top 10
F2P steadily gains success...
and you have well stablished F2P publishers like GPotato going down, Cryptic being purchased, .Frogster absorbed..and thats with a F2P market that isnt even remotely as competitive and overcrowded as the P2P market once was...just wait till it is, so we can sing along "let the bodies hit the floor"...
F2P steadily gains success...
and a F2P game goes busted every month without anyone ever caring, or hell, even noticing...and if you factor China, make that dozens that we'll never even hear about...
while a P2P going down is something you see maybe once every odd year, and it motivates discussions lasting for months...not to mention the bunch of P2P games older than 10 years and still going strong with their sub
F2P steadily gains success...
and the most expected games of the decade, Titan and EQNext, are going to be P2P
F2P steadily gains success...
and yet we have seen more B2P games in the last 2 years than in the 10 previous...that weirdos, why wouldnt they simply go F2P? they probably didnt know F2P its a better model...
F2P steadily gains success...
and the top (so called) "F2P" MMOs still retain their sub option instead of embracing the fully free model, and dont even seem to consider for just a second dropping it
F2P steadily gains success...
and more and more asian games reach Triple A standards of quality....just to release as P2P LOOOOL: B&S, ArchAge, Lineage 3, Wildstar, Black Desert
seriously, asian games going P2P. where is your god now?
F2P steadily gains...
wait, the bubble is gone.
dozens of MMO studios/publishers closing doors/laying off +85% of their staff
I would bet EQN will be freemium, based on all their other games. Titan - nothing has been mentioned, but I would bet my had it has a cs of some kind.
The f2p market has an order of magnitude more games than the p2p market does.
Lots of P2P mmo's have laid off many/most of their staff as well.
That is not a sign of p2p vs f2p. That is the sign of a genre that is still feeling it's way forward, and possibly oversaturation, IMO definatley oversatuation if you compare cost to develop vs reasonalbe return.
I concur.
EVE Online 4+ years and loved it even if I sucked at the game.
LotRO beta, then subbed and then Lifer, then subb'd 2 more accounts to this day for Wife and a Daughter.
Wurm Online Premium off and on since 2008.
and several other MMOs, some I played for up to a year, almost all I subb'd to and prefer it that way. I even subb'd to WoW a couple of years ago for a month or two, but I have to say I just did not enjoy the "Cartoon" ingame environment of WoW. Great game but the Cartoon theme really got on my nerves. A subscription to WoW is worth it I do say though (even though I don't like it).
I have read the glowing repeorts of how good the f2ps are. At the behest of so many of you here, I just recently tried out SW:TOR as f2p and used the cash shop, and what a ripoff scam that was. Damn I now miss SWG badly. I tried STO last year, again another example of why I think f2p is crap. PWI? I saw what they had to offer.... and that is an even bigger scam in my opinion. The number one reason I won't try out that "new MMO" is because it's owned by PWI.
So if f2p is "mainstream" then I say NO to it.
If by 2015 there are no more subscription MMOs, then I will "retire" from MMOs.... but I seriously doubt I will have to make good on that boast.
Bleh. I'm pretty sure that F2P is going to be how most MMOs operate, but my personal preference is B2P, the way TSW does it. You buy the game and then you can play the whole game from start to finish. There are things you can buy in the cash shop, but you don't need them at all.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
1) On these forums, which are most certainly notindicative of the average MMO gamer
2) 12 out of 100 is still a better ratio than 1 out of 3.
3) Glad you're excited about those titles. I am, too, but making things up to support your position is silly.
4) Since "B2P" is just F2P with a charge for the client up front, yes, it's a better model. It's a model that is so absurd and so illogical that developers are overjoyed that the anti-F2P crowd handed it to them on a silver platter because there is no way any dev would have been able to try to sell that. YOU sold it to yourselves and YOU gave the green light to Richard Garriott and several others to now actually pitch that, to position against subscription and sell you the model that you despise. They arelaughing their way to the bank because not only are you soldily supporting the microtransaction model,but you are literally paying for the privilege to have it.
5) F2P is about choice. Sub is another choice. Removing that would be counterproductive.
6) The only one I see worshipping any particular business model is you, SS.
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
1) here, in ten ton hammer and in massively, by and large the biggest (by a fair marging) online communities devoted to this little entertainment you and me both love.
but I can see you love to toss aside metrics when they dont fit your preconcieved ideas, so whatever...I'll keep using the three largest sites dealing with MMOs as my sources, and you can kep citing an invisible army of people that happen to disagree entirely with the majority's opinion but dont do it on public.
btw, since they are nowhere to be found and no record of their opinion is available......how exactly did you learn about their stance on the issue, again?
2) assuming we use you made on the spot metrics...
you defend a model that creates failed games at a rate of 12 monthly
me, one that goes 1 bi-yearly.
there are times when words arent necessary anymore.
this is one of them
3) making up? if you think for a second that blizzard is going to delve into the f2p territory with titan, you should have never stopped taking your medication. EQN, I can admit its a 50/50 due to Smed, but definetly will have a sub option. hence not fully free model, quod erat demostrandum
4) you are free2name (what I did there, did you see it?) a B2P game that has released with a cash shop that is widely percieved as intrusive, annoying or mandatory for progress. take your time, I have an extra comfy chair over here
the point of B2P games released as of late is to have extras on top of a working, enjoyable game where the cash shop is entirely avoidable with zero reprecussions for the flow of the gameplay...which is more than what the vast majority of fully-f2p-from-the-ground-up mmos can say...or shouldnt say. but we all know they dont have an atom of integrity or honor, so they would say it anyway
so yep, if (according to you) the industry is heavily shifting away from P2P and into the B2P/F2P realms, B2P is like a god sent compared to the levels of evilness that come with the fully free model. applied here, "the lesser of 2 evils" is the mother of all understatements.
anyway ,nice strawman there brother. the question was simple: if the F2P model is perfect beyond compare and everybody in the industry has seen its myriad of qualities, and it tops the charts of profits consistently since a coupleyears ago...why then the B2P?
must be that companies like earning less than they could. Yea, we all know that AneraNet and the likes arent exactly known for being intelligent professionals, right?
5) as a model in and on itself, free to play is all about...free to play. either you are free to play, or you arent, and you are a mixed model.
I know this hurts you, but sooner or later you will have to swallow that pill. the big games dont even consider for a second dropping that oh-so-demode (according to you) idea of subscriptions, no matter how many green "the f2p model steadily gains success" sentences you write here.
6) no counter-arguments. gotcha. this one was easy and short. me likes
Because there are more people playing those games. Seems like a pretty clear metric to me.
Forums have always been a minority of gamers.
Pretty darn sure Titan will have a cs. EQN will be freemium.
He's right. B2p games have all the issues of microtranscation games but you paid for the priveledge to have them.
The industry is shifting away, that is obvious. P2p will not go away, but it has lost it's dominance. Whether that continues remains to be seen.
Why the B2P? Because the devs make even more money. Again B2p games have all the issues of microtranscation games but you paid for the priveledge to have them. If people buy it, devs will do it. Why wouldn't they. So it makes all the money of f2p, with an initial cost.
Many of the big games have allready dropped the p2p only model. In fact there are only a few p2p only left.
You haven't realy presented any counter arguments. Just a stick head in the sand mentality.
officially nominated for the "cop out of the year" award
Not a cop out at all, it is directly related to your point
You stated, “ and the 5 most mentioned MMOs were P2P games from inception. and if you ask people, rarely they will mention a game that was F2P from the ground up in their top 10”
Lokto stated "On these forums, which are most certainly notindicative of the average MMO gamer"
You responded by saying here and ten ton hammer and massively. Then stated he loves to toss aside metrics, then went on to talk about an invisible army of people that disagree, and asked how he learned there stance
It seems to me you are tossing aside the biggest metrics.
Forum users are a minority, and p2p has more people playing them. Those are the metrics. More people playing show that more people disagree, they are the people that disagree.
Ignore them all you want. That is the biggest metric of all.
They are and have been counted. They have actively chosen. That is the army that you ignore and say "cop out"
I'll be willing to accept your point as soon as you prove me, empirically, how it is statistically possible that the people that favors P2P (lets call them A) prefers to post on forums over playing their games, while the people that favors f2p (call them
do the polar opposite.
my maths are a bit rusty, so please, comment each step of your formulas
The majority of neither population posts on forums. Forum goers, of any game or type, are a minority. So using forums as a representation of what gamers think/want and extrapolating that to the general market is frought with peril.
It doesn't matter what people say here or on ten ton or massively, if the exact opposite is occuring.
In this case p2p vs f2p gamers. The forums are against it, but f2p has many many more people playing them than p2p, therefore the gamers themselves have actively chosene f2p over p2p, despite what the forum goers say.
The numbers are again evident, this forum has about a million registered users. There are 50 million MMO gamers in north america.
edit sorry - this site has Members:2,359,170.
and the link nari provided (disputed or not, no one else has provided any data at all) says 50 million in US alone.
"forum communities are a minority" is yet another well known cop out. unless you have studies that back up that, dont use it as a premise.
also, your assuming that everybody chooses, when thats patently false.
we can only be sure that all p2p players choose.
theres a significant (I wont dare say a %, lets leave it at "significant" and that will suffice) amount of f2p players that play f2p because they cannot afford otherwise.
if somenone offered to pay them for the box and a subscription to a P2P game of their choice, do you affirm that they'd prefer to stay with the f2p games?
You have no idea how significant that number is, or really if it even is significant.
I would agree there is some percentage that can't afford. I don't think it is very high. But I have no numbers for that either.
If someone offered to pay for their subscription many would take it. That is a red herring argument. Not many people would turn down someone else paying for their entertainment.
I'm saying if given a choice between playing a game for free, and paying for it, more people would choose to play it for free. About 6:1 more apparently.
what we'r discussing here is about people that favors one model over the other
if you admit that most would change their pick if given the chance to get rid of the monetary restrictions, then that people arent really favoring the f2p model. its obvious that circumstances beyond their taste shft them towards it.
if you notice, the inverse isnt true. people that favor the p2p model could effortlessly swich to f2p, it would be a simple matter of taste. and yet they decide against it.
You sir, win the LoLIRL award for getting an audible laugh out of me.
Here's your cookie, hope you aren't allergic to nuts.
If most change their game if given the chance to get rid of the monetary fee, that does not mean that circumstances beyond their taste or control is stopping them.
Maybe they jsut feel it's a rip off.'
Maybe they don't like paying extra money for a game.
There are many many reasons why people would choose a free game over a paid game. Just assuming they can't afford it, is IMO, an extremely arrogant position.
Did you really just say the F2P market isn't as competitive as the P2P market? Are you looking at a different MMORPG genre than I am?
Did you really just cite the growing number of B2P games in a world where the number of F2P games has grown by a much larger number?
Have you failed to understand that B2P games (P2P ones) live or die based on hype? The B2P model is marketing driven: with hype you can get players to drop a fat wad of cash up-front before they've played. The F2P model is gameplay driven: everyone gets to try your game and if it isn't fun you don't get a penny. So yeah, Titan and EQNext are some of the most anticipated games (although in Titan's case it's more because the company has released hit after hit for multiple decades.)
Was all of that just trying to drive home my "players have their heads in the sand" point?
I mean I don't even feel F2P is the greatest fit for MMORPGs because nobody's really adopted a particularly great payment model for it, but in the bigger picture of gaming F2P is one of the best things to happen for gamers (and for companies not wanting to go bankrupt.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I dont understand you. Your holding one position and the contrary at the same time.
first you admit that the vast majority of people would change their pick, from f2p wo p2p, without hesitation, on the spot, simply by removing the costs upfront. You even saw it was such a glaring truth, that quicky dismissed it as a red hearring.
but on the next line you say that doesnt mean said costs are the sole reason why they favor one model over the other, when by premise, is the ONLY thing we are removing from the equation.
Hmmm. Strange post. All I can think of is...an I quote. "......am I too understand that you have dinosaurs in this park..." I would rather pay a monthly fee to see ALL the dinos than pay for individual ones. F2P just simply does not work. Sub and pay to get nice vanity items does. I paid 3 years for EQ and I would pay too play the old EQ again < not Project 99 cause that ain't EQ>
The only ones that cry are the cheap asses who think everything should be free and kids who can't get mom to pay the sub. Kids play your ftp game...I will pay for a sub game just too keep yo dumb asses out of it
Jymm Byuu
Playing : Blood Bowl. Waiting for 2. Holding breath for Archeage and EQN.
I did not state that the vast majority would change. I did not state that the majority would change. I said many would change, and many would not.
and having someone else pay for your sub is a red herring, for the person playing it then becomes a f2p.
edit - and even if most did change, once again that does not mean that circumstances in their life have made them unable to pay for it. It could just be they don't want to pay for it, that they feel paying for a game is silly.
edit - and once again you changed the argument. First you said circumstances caused them to not pay it, then you said cost was the sole reason. Those are different arguments. Someone can afford to pay it, but still not want to pay it.
It's a little tough to gauge F2P vs. P2P, in regards to future development, mearly by what is more popular to players. Everyone loves free stuff. The question is, how long? Even though F2P MMOs are gaining market share there seems to be very convoluted information about the specifics. There looks to be a 6:1 ratio of players in F2P but how many of those are paying a sub in their "F2P" game of choice?
The answer to that question matters because at 17% of the MMO player base P2P is close to F2P revenue wise, right? That already tells me that if I make a good game I can get just as much money with a sub model with a lot less people. Going farther, how many of those 83% F2P players are actually subbing? If I'm the decision maker looking to make an MMO I'll be adding those people into my 17% pool of potential cusomers since they are already paying for a sub. If you were to move that population % to the correct side alog with a equal portion of revenue it would be pretty obvious P2P still makes more per player.
I'm not saying F2P isn't popular or will go away. What I am saying is that F2P and P2P are often in the same game but one is more reliant on the other for survival.
many would not? be honest here
thats irrelevant. the divide between f2p and p2p goes further than a monthly sub or lack thereof. its about cash shops and the lenght they interfere in the gameplay, about the company running the game, the prospects of game lifespawn, the expected quality of the title ...the very community that surrounds you.
they would be in a P2P environment. for them its f2p, but the game itself remains as p2p, its model is p2p...just someone else is paying, be it you, me, or their daddy.it doesnt matter
they would PREFER p2p.
It is funny how people seem to ignore the fact that there hasn't been a game WORTHY of P2P released in the last half decade or more. A ton of wow clones, sure... but nothing new and nothing that even approaches a MMO like Asheron's Call with modern graphics. I don't play F2P because the games are garbage imo, with terribly slow content cycles, and I don't like to be asked for money in the middle of my gaming. I am not interested in more wow clones, barbie dressup microtransactions, or pay to win transactions.
Release a game like Asheron's Call or something else that doesn't have classes, a level cap you will ever reach, with a huge world without zones, and I will gladly pay a subscription fee.