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!

Free to Play is the future of the MMO genre and pay to play is a scam

124

Comments

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,316Member Uncommon
    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.

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

  • SagasaintSagasaint Miami, FLPosts: 460Member
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

     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

     

    they would PREFER p2p.

     

     

     

  • shadow9d9shadow9d9 Boca Raton, FLPosts: 366Member

    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.

  • AeliousAelious Portland, ORPosts: 2,854Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    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.

     

    At a 6:1 ratio of players which doesn't look good.  With every title that comes out, especially good Freemium titles (EQN?), how far can the F2P base spread until there isn't enough money to go around? The player base overall is getting bigger but by what margin?

     

    P2P can keep up with a much smaller playerbase and x% of subscribers and money currently being tallied in the "F2P" column.  So really we don't know who is taking market share and by how much.

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

     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

     

    they would PREFER p2p.

     No.  It just means they may prefer that particular game.  The ones that said no, maybe they just didn't like that game.

     

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

  • SagasaintSagasaint Miami, FLPosts: 460Member

    the point Im tring to make here is that articles like the one in the OP cannot, and should not be used as a gauge to measure what the population favours for their gaming model of choice.

     

    many f2pers didnt choose anything. or to be more specific, they chose between playing f2p or not playing anything at all (mmo related, I mean)

     

    trying to make a leap of logic and infer from the numbers in the article that more people prefers f2p over p2p is wrong and false. thats not the choice that many of them were presented.

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

    the point Im tring to make here is that articles like the one in the OP cannot, and should not be used as a gauge to measure what the population favours for their gaming model of choice.

     

    many f2pers didnt choose anything. or to be more specific, they choose between playing f2p or not playing anything at all.

     

    trying to make a leap of logic and infer from the numbers in the article that more people prefers f2p over p2p is wrong and false. thats not the choice that many of them were presented.

     I'm sure many are presented a choice like that, but we have no numbers to state how significant they are. 

    The opposite, that people prefer p2p over f2p, is also false and has even less evidence. 

    edit - all we can state currently is that there are more f2p players than p2p.  Anything related to their motivation for playing that particular game and/or payment plan is sheer speculation.

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

  • RazperilRazperil Lewiston, MEPosts: 289Member
    Originally posted by danwest58

    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 

     

    Let me get this straight, if 20 or so million play a free to play game and at least half spend more than the $15 a month on whatever they buy in the cash shop (and most do so you wowkids know), I'd say that beats borecraft easily. Now if all 20 million people decide to pay the $15 or more, I'd say you would be in the crapper with your "used to be 12 million subs" junk. People love to throw random numbers out there; just like I did.

    What the OP meant was that free to play has a much larger piece of that "pie"; and no, not cake you dumb-founded kids. Which  you morons can't seem to grasp. If you think Borecraft has a large piece, you truly are delusional. If I wanted to be realistic and throw another number out there, I'd say that free to play own 90% of the market. Doubt it? Then where are all of these worthy pay to play titles hmmm? I know, your magic 8 ball ran out of batteries.. (Not directed at you, Dan). That was said in general.

    It doesn't matter how long you subbed, wasted your money or your parent's money on pay to play games, free to play has paved ways and will continue to do so. It does not take an intelligent person to see this throughout the years, it's just takes an intelligent one to admit it. I'd throw some more numbers out, but I'm sure you would have a better time finding Waldo. And honestly, I don't hop on the newest "Bandwagon" gigs, I leave that for the ones that have the need to think they "are" someone for doing so. As the Brits tend to say, Ta Ta for now. :)

  • SagasaintSagasaint Miami, FLPosts: 460Member
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

    The opposite, that people prefer p2p over f2p, is also false and has even less evidence. 

    cant say I agree with this

    at all

    edit - all we can state currently is that there are more f2p players than p2p.  Anything related to their motivation for playing that particular game and/or payment plan is sheer speculation.

    you call it speculation, I call it educated guess based on VERY realistic arguments

     

    but I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. good discussion nonetheless.

  • ariasaitchoariasaitcho Rapid City, SDPosts: 112Member

    f2p=nickel and dimed?

    pay $60 to pre-order the latest over-hyped game. spend $12-15 per mo to actually play said game. when new expansion comes out pay $35-45 to play said expansion. sure it isn't exactly nickel and dimeing but it amounts to the same thing. you're paying to much and getting too little. remember when this model first came out and we were told that the monthly fee was to pay for future expansions? then when the expansions came out we were told that the the monthly fees were really only paying for the servers, for GM's and other such bs.

     

    none of the f2p games that i play is it true that you must spend irl $$$ to "win". there is this thing called microtransaction, where one person spends irl $$ and another buys item from first player with in game gold. in fact by the time you actually start to really need said items is when you can afford to buy the items without having to buy gold from gold sellers. idiots who buy from gold sellers are lazy sobs who want op toons at low levels so they can "rule" low level pvp areana (lol).

     

    as many have pointed out, f2p isn't the second coming either. it is far too easy for f2p to shift into p2w mode. and in large part the shelf life of a f2p game is largely dependant on how long the devs hold out on shifting into that mode.

     

    oh, and for those of you who say that it's the 90% for f2p players getting a free ride off the 10%. look, simply put, i'd be playing a game with a sub if i could afford to, but i can't. i can afford to pay about 20 avery 2-3 months, and that's it. $12-15 per mo is simply out of the question. i'm certain that this doesn't put me in the 10%, but it also means that i'm not in the 90%. and i'm certain that i'm not the only person in this boat, so the "freeloaders" living off the largess of the "rich" doesn't exactly hold true. while i don't have a whole lot of money i do have a lot of time. i use that time to earn in game gold, and spend that gold on items that i couldn't other wise get with what little money I can put into the game.

     

    there are good games that just happen to be f2p, just like there are crappy games that happen to be p2p. just because a game uses a particular payment model doesn't automatically make it good or bad.

    image
  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,680Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by shadow9d9

    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.

    As some many of today's MMO gamers have not played Asheron's Call, if that was released today - same game, updated graphics - it would probably wow the crap out of a lot of people. However, I wonder how many of the people who have a preference for paying a subscription it would appeal to as it lacks the trinity, an auction house and other features that many of them consider necessary for an MMO.

    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

  • zymurgeistzymurgeist Pittsville, VAPosts: 5,215Member Uncommon
    If you really want to gauge the popularity of "F2P"  count only the people who are paying to play. The rest contribute nothing but warm bodies to the equation.

    "Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause" ~Victor Hugo

  • HatefullHatefull Posts: 774Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Jerek_
    lets say thats all true and pay to play will be very niche.  So, just like it was before the invasion wow and f2p players?  Greatest thing that coud possibly happen.  MMO players can go back to doing our thing the way we want and the f2p masses can move along.  Even better, MMORPG could then make a f2p site like they have for rts and fps and we can all be seperate communities that don't have to listen to each other.

    Exactly.  The F2P crowd moves along like a swarm of locusts ruining game after game.  If I had the ability, I would make a game and use the subscription model just to avoid that type of crowd.  Unfortunately I have neither the skill nor the cash to do such a venture.

    I completely disagree that subscriptions will go away.  There will always be people willing to subscribe.  The F2P games I have played usually have horrid CS, terrible conetent updates and a general cookie cutter junk feel to them.  The only exception s that come to mind is Planetside 2, and The Secret World.  PS2 is so inbalanced that I can't be bothered to play it, and TSW puts me to sleep.  However, I digress.

    Subscriptions aren't going anywhere, they may not be as popular as they once were, but they won't be leaving.  IMO

    If you want a new idea, go read an old book.

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,680Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    If you really want to gauge the popularity of "F2P"  count only the people who are paying to play. The rest contribute nothing but warm bodies to the equation.

    Are you suggesting they are playing games they don't enjoy?

    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

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,680Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Hatefull

    Subscriptions aren't going anywhere, they may not be as popular as they once were, but they won't be leaving.  IMO

    I think you're spot on. If anything, subscription as an option in F2P games may even become more popular over time.

    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

  • HatefullHatefull Posts: 774Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Hatefull

    Subscriptions aren't going anywhere, they may not be as popular as they once were, but they won't be leaving.  IMO

    I think you're spot on. If anything, subscription as an option in F2P games may even become more popular over time.

    You are mis-quoting me.  I don't support subscription as an option to F2P though that is a likely possibility, I mean stand alone subscription models.  To be clear, I absolutely disagree with the OP.

    If you want a new idea, go read an old book.

  • zymurgeistzymurgeist Pittsville, VAPosts: 5,215Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    If you really want to gauge the popularity of "F2P"  count only the people who are paying to play. The rest contribute nothing but warm bodies to the equation.

    Are you suggesting they are playing games they don't enjoy?

    I'm suggesting they play games they do not and will not pay for. All they prove is many people like anything that is free not the popularity of a game.

    "Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause" ~Victor Hugo

  • VorchVorch Somewhere, FLPosts: 800Member

    I think subscription models will simply become F2P with Freemium subscription.

    Pure F2P always scares me b/c of the mandatory cash shop.

    I feel that B2P or TERA's F2P are the best options.

    "As you read these words, a release is seven days or less away or has just happened within the last seven days— those are now the only two states you’ll find the world of Tyria."...Guild Wars 2

  • KuviskiKuviski KajaaniPosts: 214Member

    The only alternative to the traditional subscription model I would be willing to try would be a model where:

    1. The game would be buy-to-play
    2. You would pay for expansions or content patches
    3. There was no cash shop.
    I don't play cash shop games out if principle, and I know there's a crowd out there that thinks alike. I am not willing to pay for items, nor am I willing to pay for pay-to-win features such as faster progression or powerful equipment.
     
    The problem I see with B2P-only games, then, is that unless they're sandboxes that focus on player-created content or something similar, there isn't a way of maintaining people's interest in the game when they run out of content. Because you know, when players only pay you the box price and nothing else, you don't have much motivation to continue pumping out new, quality content, nor do you have the finance to support it.
     
    I am willing to pay for content, and I rarely look at the price a game is going to cost me. If a game is good, I'd be willing to pay up to, say, 50 dollars a month for it's subscription. But I am not willing to play a cash-shop game, at all, because I am not the game-hopper type that plays one MMO for a month and moves to another. I want longetivity in my game experience, I want there to be motivation for me to spend years on the game, and  this is something buy-to-play does not tend to support, and something free-to-play very rarely supports because devs of these games tend to sell items and P2W services instead of actual content.
     
    To conclude, I'll say that sure, "F2P" might become even more dominant in the future, but there are players who do not find the model acceptable, and there are games which the model simply does not suit. Hence I'm quite sure there will always be subscription games out there, even if only in the small minority.
  • syntax42syntax42 Columbus, OHPosts: 1,306Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Kuviski
     
    I don't play cash shop games out of principle, and I know there's a crowd out there that thinks alike. I am not willing to pay for items, nor am I willing to pay for pay-to-win features such as faster progression or powerful equipment.

    It isn't the principle for me to avoid cash shop games.  The quality tends to be lower and the games often shove the cash shop in your face until you get sick of it.  It is just like dealing with ads on the internet.  A few are okay, but the quantity and distraction became too much, so I installed an ad blocker.

    I will admit to buying items in cash shop games.  I think it is fine when the items only involve increased progression rate.  If you've played Warframe, you know almost all of the weapons are available through grinding, or you can pay a small amount of money to unlock them.  Even that model has its flaws, though.  EA proved that if you charge too much for progression-boosting items, people will see the blatant greed.

  • DSWBeefDSWBeef phoenix, AZPosts: 791Member

    This has to be like the 100th time ive said this. P2P is not dying. Half assed wow clones are. For example if an upcoming mmo turns out to be THE MESSIAH and gets wow like pruchase numbers and it has sub it will retain those numbers. ITS NOT THE MODEL. ITS THE GAME. If GW2 was truly amazing (wow killer) and had a sub you would see millions upon millions of players. 

     

    When a game such as AoC, Aion, VG, ect ect. Go F2P its just another way of saying "we failed copying wow or failed pushing a half finshed game and we are trying to recover" If Swtor was truly amazing and kept 2 mil plus active players it would have stayed sub. P2P is by far the easiest to develop for. You make a game, your players pay a sub per month and they GET IT ALL. You dont have to worry about cash shop balancing or different accoutn statuses (free > Elite > Premium). I will always be a HUGE advocate for P2P as its the most BALANCED model.

    Playing: War Thunder, World of Warcraft, and Grim Dawn
    Waiting on:Everquest Next and The Black Desert

  • simsalabim77simsalabim77 Somewhere, CAPosts: 628Member Uncommon
    Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't a game offer a F2P option and a sub option? Some people like subbing. Others don't want to pay the sub, but would rather spend their money on al a carte content. Why is everything on these forums so damn polarizing? Sandbox vs Themepark. Sub vs F2P. Open world PVP vs Instanced. Why can't we have a little of coumn A and a little of columb B? Oh, that would get in the way of MMORPG.com forum PVP. Nevermind. 
  • ksternalksternal Hainesport, NJPosts: 81Member
    Sounds to me like a whiny free loader to me.
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by DSWBeef

    This has to be like the 100th time ive said this. P2P is not dying. Half assed wow clones are. For example if an upcoming mmo turns out to be THE MESSIAH and gets wow like pruchase numbers and it has sub it will retain those numbers. ITS NOT THE MODEL. ITS THE GAME. If GW2 was truly amazing (wow killer) and had a sub you would see millions upon millions of players. 

    "Dying" is always subject to interpretatinon. Here are facts.

    The P2P-only MMO market is losing players recently. The revenue share of F2P MMOs (that may have a sub option) has increased, and now is more than twice as big as P2P-only MMOs.

    So P2P is in decline. Dying ... is a matter of interpretation.

  • Aldous.HuxleyAldous.Huxley Monticello, MNPosts: 418Member
    The main reason F2P is popular right now is because it's a way to make money on what would otherwise be a failed game. All it does is artificially prop up mediocre MMO's.

    These titles prey on the hopes & optimism of a gaming culture that has outgrown games like EQ & WoW. Gamers are lookimg for someone to step up & make the next evolution to MMO's. Not put out some hyped, cookie cutter clone, up front cash grab.

    Some games still has subs for 2 reasons. One: It's a good game. Two: Gamers will pay a sub for a game that is good.

    F2P splits communities & in my opinion is not good for gamers. It only serves as a cash grab for straw-men MMO companies.

    Just my opinion.
Sign In or Register to comment.