"When game's can't develop under a subscription model, free-to-play gives them a second chance."
To be honest. I would rather have them die, instead of letting them live with another chance. They failed for a reason, and that's because players didn't want to support bad development, and bad game design.
Agreed.
Honestly, this article was painful for me to read. The author hits on some good points, but then goes on to derail his argument right into the weeds.
The biggie, for me, was this bit:
My favorite trend in all of this is lotteries. Usually these take the form of lockboxes which need real-money keys to open and offer the chance at random loot. Players are drawn to them like scratch-offs tickets and they earn developers a lot of money. They are also the definition of ignorable content, have little impact on gameplay, and don't take design time from the rest of the game. It's win-win. Some people hate them and I find it hard not to see them as busybodies who value concept over reality. Do they picket corner stores and Take-5 machines too? Lockboxes are, in my opinion, wholesale good news for free-to-play gaming
He's trying to compare in-game lotto boxes - which possibly reward virtual items with no real value... to lottery tickets sold by brick and mortar stores with the potential to win someone thousands, or millions of very real dollars.
No, people aren't picketing corner stores and Take-5 machines. Because the lottery tickets sold by those stores/machines offer the chance of real money rewards which can be used in real life, to pay for very real things.
There is no comparison between winning a piece of nice armor from a lotto-box in a MMO, and winning enough money to pay off all your bills, buy a nice home and retire for the rest of your life. Yet, that's the kind of comparison he's trying to draw between lottery tickets and lotto-boxes in a video game. Beyond absurd.
I seldom do this, but I literally said "what... the f@ck?" out loud when I read that part.
And while I consider that worst attempt at rationalizing the F2P model in the article, the author goes on to make other really bad arguments, posing some really weak rationalizations.
We're all nomadic now?
Umm.. No. We aren't. You know who's nomadic? The people who hop from one MMO to the next. And who are those people? Primarily the F2P'ers who check out a F2P MMO 'til they're bored with it, then bounce on to the next, play that 'til they're bored, then bounce on to the next. They're the nomads. Others prefer to have a single game they enjoy playing for the long-term.
The problem with people trying to wrap the situation in a neat little ball and then offer up an explanation for it, is that it's a very complex, very multi-faceted issue. There are many individual factors that come into play when you talk about why Sub-based MMOs seldom do well anymore, and why F2P seems to be "the new King". The problem is, people will pick one reason, and then use it to try and explain the entire picture, as though that one thing tells the entire story. The problem is, it doesn't.
An example of this is how people insist that when a sub-based MMO fails or goes F2P, that it's a failing of the subscription model. No. It's not a failing of the subscription model itself. It's a failing of the developers to make a game that enough people found worth paying a sub for. And beyond that, there's a reason so many didn't find it worth a sub, and that's often because (esp. since 2004) the games are designed to be "beaten" inside of a month. If you're designing a game where players have effectively run out of things to do before their initial free month is up, they ain't renewing come billing time. It should be obvious, but somehow it isn't, because developer after developer keeps making the same mistake. And even *that's* not the whole story, there's an entire aspect involving player expectations, player behavior and decreasing attention spans. And even *those* aspects don't tell the whole story.
People will pay for something if they find it worth the fee. If someone puts out a MMO that successfully does that, they will maintain a healthy subscriber base, and do just fine, whether it's now, 10 years ago, or 10 years down the road. Even while others around them are falling to the F2P/Cash Shop route.
^^This
I'm not an IT Specialist, Game Developer, or Clairvoyant in real life, but like others on here, I play one on the internet.
I appreciate everyone who has taken the time to discuss their thoughts. Agree or disagree. That's why I do this. Tinfoil hat accusations just seem silly in comparison.
Of course you will try to level the 'tin foil hat' accusation at anyone questioning motives or agendas for obvious puff pieces, it's a completely standard response.
I am sorry you found it silly, but I must say I found the entire article silly and just yet another attempt by this site to pump gas into a revenue model that is bad for games and bad for the gamer. Balance instead of justifying and rationalizing would have stopped me posting what I did, but expecting a critical look at the model in an official post seems to much to ask.
The only true reason to like 'F2P' is if you buy shares in the company that owns the game and you gain a direct reason to enjoy the extra profit it generates from gambling mechanisms and other manipulations.
Btw, "Finally and centrally, we need to admit to ourselves when we've become nomadic"... We (you and others, not me so much) are nomadic now through design (or at least unforeseen side effects of design) so we just didn't just become anything through tastes changing naturally. A culture of MMORPG tourism is incredibly bad for the genre, despite any recent epiphany you have personally have had, and the 'F2P' revenue model is part of why it now exists to the level we see. I refuse to embrace a model because I have now rationalized the bad player practices it has created.
And you'd level the "but I am right and you're wrong so there!" argument.
I appreciate everyone who has taken the time to discuss their thoughts. Agree or disagree. That's why I do this. Tinfoil hat accusations just seem silly in comparison.
Of course you will try to level the 'tin foil hat' accusation at anyone questioning motives or agendas for obvious puff pieces, it's a completely standard response.
I am sorry you found it silly, but I must say I found the entire article silly and just yet another attempt by this site to pump gas into a revenue model that is bad for games and bad for the gamer. Balance instead of justifying and rationalizing would have stopped me posting what I did, but expecting a critical look at the model in an official post seems to much to ask.
The only true reason to like 'F2P' is if you buy shares in the company that owns the game and you gain a direct reason to enjoy the extra profit it generates from gambling mechanisms and other manipulations.
Btw, "Finally and centrally, we need to admit to ourselves when we've become nomadic"... We (you and others, not me so much) are nomadic now through design (or at least unforeseen side effects of design) so we just didn't just become anything through tastes changing naturally. A culture of MMORPG tourism is incredibly bad for the genre, despite any recent epiphany you have personally have had, and the 'F2P' revenue model is part of why it now exists to the level we see. I refuse to embrace a model because I have now rationalized the bad player practices it has created.
And you'd level the "but I am right and you're wrong so there!" argument.
I asked for balance.
But don't let that get in your way.
You ask for balance yet talk as if your opinion is factually correct which it isn't but don't let that get in your way ^^.
I appreciate everyone who has taken the time to discuss their thoughts. Agree or disagree. That's why I do this. Tinfoil hat accusations just seem silly in comparison.
Of course you will try to level the 'tin foil hat' accusation at anyone questioning motives or agendas for obvious puff pieces, it's a completely standard response.
I am sorry you found it silly, but I must say I found the entire article silly and just yet another attempt by this site to pump gas into a revenue model that is bad for games and bad for the gamer. Balance instead of justifying and rationalizing would have stopped me posting what I did, but expecting a critical look at the model in an official post seems to much to ask.
The only true reason to like 'F2P' is if you buy shares in the company that owns the game and you gain a direct reason to enjoy the extra profit it generates from gambling mechanisms and other manipulations.
Btw, "Finally and centrally, we need to admit to ourselves when we've become nomadic"... We (you and others, not me so much) are nomadic now through design (or at least unforeseen side effects of design) so we just didn't just become anything through tastes changing naturally. A culture of MMORPG tourism is incredibly bad for the genre, despite any recent epiphany you have personally have had, and the 'F2P' revenue model is part of why it now exists to the level we see. I refuse to embrace a model because I have now rationalized the bad player practices it has created.
And you'd level the "but I am right and you're wrong so there!" argument.
I asked for balance.
But don't let that get in your way.
You ask for balance yet talk as if your opinion is factually correct which it isn't but don't let that get in your way ^^.
I asked for balance in an MMORPG.com article or two when it comes the 'F2P'. I am surprised anyone could actually mind that, assuming they wanted to be an informed reader/ consumer.
Did I give an opposing opinion as well? Sure... But please don't quote me saying "but I am right and you're wrong so there!", because I didn't say that and representing me in that way I did with a false quote is infantile. It was opinion I was offering, not fact, just as the OP did. I guess you are you one of those guys that demands 'IMO' before every utterance to recognize an opinion for what it is?
If FP2 were such an awesome model, people wouldn't spend so much time and energy trying to convince the world of its merits.
I P2P were such an awesome model it would be self-sustaining.
The debate here isn't actually between whether or not the sub model is self sustaining, because it has actually been proven that it is. Games have run for literally years on it alone.
The core issue here is not what generates profit, it is what generates *more* profit.
'F2P' simply generates more, especially when it is carried by a sub user base. As a gamer though, I care about games, not increased profit that benefits none but the VCs and the shareholders.
I asked for balance in an MMORPG.com article or two. I am surprised anyone could actually mind that, assuming they wanted to be an informed reader/ consumer.
Did I give an opposing opinion as well? Sure... But please don't quote me saying "but I am right and you're wrong so there!", because I didn't say that and representing me in that way I did with a false quote is infantile. It was opinion I was offering, not fact, just as the OP did. I guess you are you one of those guys that demands 'IMO' before every utterance to recognize an opinion for what it is?
What does balanced even mean? It's an opinion piece. They're all opinion pieces. Your opinion is laced with hyperbole and appeals to emotion and fear. That doesn't strike me as balanced.
I am not the mouthpiece for a industry news site. I don't have to be balanced if I don't feel like it. I do, as a consumer and reader, have a right to ask for it though.
I would expect MMORPG.com in general to be though, as an influential news site that many come to looking for (hopefully) impartial news.
Wouldn't you? Be honest. Or are you happy as long as they are touting a view you agree with? Surely if 'F2P' is so fantastic it can bear a little scrutiny?
If FP2 were such an awesome model, people wouldn't spend so much time and energy trying to convince the world of its merits.
I P2P were such an awesome model it would be self-sustaining.
The debate here isn't actually between whether or not the sub model is self sustaining, because it has actually been proven that it is. Games have run for literally years on it alone.
The core issue here is not what generates profit, it is what generates *more* profit.
'F2P' simply generates more, especially when it is carried by a sub user base. As a gamer though, I care about games, not increased profit that benefits none but the VCs and the shareholders.
Except the model itself is not self-sustaining.
Strong statement. Prove it?
I have the fact that plenty of games operated for literally years on a sub alone, generating profit and supporting ongoing development, to back me up.
Honestly, I sometimes wonder how you guys think EQ etc survived all that time before the addition revenue generator of the cash shop was forced over time in to up the profits... going by your thinking EQ should have been dead in a year.
If P2P were such an awesome model it would be self-sustaining.
Strong statement.
Prove it.
P2P ia a payment model.
F2P is also a payment model. Not better. Not worse. Just different.
The game design's compatibility with the model + the game's active popularity determines whether it will be self sustaining... not the model itself.
That said...
One drawback that F2P has in determining its popularity is that "registered free accounts" does not determine active membership- It is merely a cumulative value since the title's launch. That and F2P titles tend to not make their profit margins public.
Subs on the other hand have a fluctuating number of subscriptions, each of which provides a consistent monthly value for the title.
Indeed, we are all waiting to hear about some great F2P MMO's, I used the word games by mistake. I have no reason to think that you can't fund a decent online game via the F2P route, but MMO's cost a lot more.
Star Trek Online would be the first game I nominate for decent F2P MMO though it is former P2P, as for purpose built ones of the good to great kind (in my sandboxer mind) : Wurm Online (restrictive F2P system yes but you can trade your way out of it if you're a half decent survivalist/crafter), Salem (just get the standalone client made by one of the old guard players) and Albion Online (still in alpha but a damn good game by what I've seen).
Your first example STO was P2P, it does not count. Albion Online is not out yet, it does not count. Wurm and Salem seem fair examples, but I have played none of the games you have mentioned so it would be good if other posters would comment on what they think of them.
Now I would ask you to look at the production value of all the MMO's you mentioned. All but STO (which was P2P) have very simplistic graphics; some, maybe all are not 3D first person.
This is what I am getting at, F2P from launch cannot match P2P on production values. I agree with Chris Coke that B2P can match those values, but if the industry goes down the F2P at launch route, we are going to see MMO's become increasingly second rate.
Originally posted by Torvaldr I P2P were such an awesome model it would be self-sustaining, but time has shown it's not.
Wow. No literally WoW and of course Everquest and a lot of other games for years. Hell Darkfall was self sustaining if only barely. Bad games are not self sustaining under any business model.
Its funny but most P2P games are kind of going away. And that's because those companies that are doing them now are doing a terrible job. Their games are terrible or very short. And with the amount of competition out there....players can find better games or other things to play.
Some of the P2P companies are so bad at misinformation about how well they are doing....that its an easy thing for them to make web sites that are run by them to show bad numbers...but when you do a public search for fiscal earnings you find the company didn't even make enough even if its players paid 25 cents per month.
I don't think the Free to Play models are the greatest and most games that use them are not that great. But there are games that use the model that do a very good job and are a lot of fun.
Originally posted by eddieg50 the great thing about F2P games are you can spend little or no money or sub if you want, I love it because it gives you that option
F2P games that have subscriptions are generally not your typical f2p game. Generally if you like the game, gameplay is much better if you subscribe. Games like that are generally free to try, pay to play. You are trying to lump all f2p games into one folder when there are many different varieties.
F2P games that have subscriptions are generally not your typical f2p game. Generally if you like the game, gameplay is much better if you subscribe. Games like that are generally free to try, pay to play. You are trying to lump all f2p games into one folder when there are many different varieties.
All cash shop games come from the same mold. The only differences is what you buy in their cash shop.
i.e. Mcdonald's, Arby's, and Subway are all fast food restaurants, but they each sell different products.
Originally posted by eddieg50 the great thing about F2P games are you can spend little or no money or sub if you want, I love it because it gives you that option
The great thing about a P2P game is that if they are capable of sustaining P2P with regular updates, it is a strong indicator that the title is successful. The same cannot be not said for an F2P title.
Originally posted by Torvaldr I P2P were such an awesome model it would be self-sustaining, but time has shown it's not.
Wow. No literally WoW and of course Everquest and a lot of other games for years. Hell Darkfall was self sustaining if only barely. Bad games are not self sustaining under any business model.
If everquest released in 2013 it would be different story and same goes for WOW.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.' -Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid." -Luke McKinney
Originally posted by Boneserino Worst analogy ever?
you love mcdonalds ? sorry
Sometimes.
But your analogy is the worst! :P
p2p are the good looking girl ( who can be a fucking bitch and end up f2p ) or the best girl in the world , where you subs all life , you dont know , but it worth the try !!
LOL
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Originally posted by Torvaldr I P2P were such an awesome model it would be self-sustaining, but time has shown it's not.
Wow. No literally WoW and of course Everquest and a lot of other games for years. Hell Darkfall was self sustaining if only barely. Bad games are not self sustaining under any business model.
If everquest released in 2013 it would be different story and same goes for WOW.
Finally, the distortion of time & space argument. Now we're getting somewhere! I'll try one.
If free to play games were released in 1957, not s single one would be played at all. Zero player base & zero money earned.
Originally posted by Torvaldr I P2P were such an awesome model it would be self-sustaining, but time has shown it's not.
Wow. No literally WoW and of course Everquest and a lot of other games for years. Hell Darkfall was self sustaining if only barely. Bad games are not self sustaining under any business model.
If everquest released in 2013 it would be different story and same goes for WOW.
Finally, the distortion of time & space argument. Now we're getting somewhere! I'll try one.
If free to play games were released in 1957, not s single one would be played at all. Zero player base & zero money earned.
Ignore it all you like but the time period makes a big difference. Gamers have changed over the years. What was relevant during times of Everquest isn't relevant anymore. And this goes not only for MMOS but ever changing trend in all other sources for entertainment as well.
After the news of Arch Age going F2P i know for sure now that 'people pay for quality' MMO is nothing more than some pipe dream in 2013.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.' -Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid." -Luke McKinney
If FP2 were such an awesome model, people wouldn't spend so much time and energy trying to convince the world of its merits.
I P2P were such an awesome model it would be self-sustaining.
The debate here isn't actually between whether or not the sub model is self sustaining, because it has actually been proven that it is. Games have run for literally years on it alone.
The core issue here is not what generates profit, it is what generates *more* profit.
'F2P' simply generates more, especially when it is carried by a sub user base. As a gamer though, I care about games, not increased profit that benefits none but the VCs and the shareholders.
Except the model itself is not self-sustaining.
Strong statement. Prove it?
I have the fact that plenty of games operated for literally years on a sub alone, generating profit and supporting ongoing development, to back me up.
Honestly, I sometimes wonder how you guys think EQ etc survived all that time before the addition revenue generator of the cash shop was forced over time in to up the profits... going by your thinking EQ should have been dead in a year.
The very status quo proves it. What recently released AAA game has been able to do P2P? How many coming down the pipeline will be able to pull it off? I explained in the previous posts that niche games will be able to succeed on a form of sub-lock, but not AAA games. Again, EVE can do this and thrive because no one else delivers exactly what they do.
I don't think ESO will be able to. I'm going to watch FFXIV closely. There are a lot of FF fans and could be enough to support that, but other huge IPs like Star Wars, Conan, and Lord of the Rings haven't been able to do so. Why would FFXIV be able to do this? Some IPs like this might try the sub+box fee route for the first year or two and then convert, but I don't think people will go for this long term. Would you want to support a game that you knew was going to switch to f2p 9 - 18 months down the road?
I'm saying the model isn't self-sustaining because it hasn't been able to add any new entrants into its group. Even the giant WoW, as people mentioned above citing its success, has lost a huge chunk of their subscriber base over the last couple of quarters. They can afford to, but the other games can not. As that pool ages it will eventually be marginalized.
So as a counter example what games recently released or coming up on the horizon can you point to that will shift this perception that F2P/B2P is a more favored payment model?
Proves "it", by "It" do you mean that the definition of AAA has changed? That Player attention spans and general game loyalty have ceased to be relevant? Or perhaps that the market is merely overflowing with games designed for quick cash grabs, rather than consistent pay for continued development?
Just because so few MMORPGS can go P2P does not mean that they do not want to. The financial stability of P2P is just one of those pipe dreams for many developers. Ideal, but out of reach due to other factors.
GameByNightHardware and Technology EditorMMORPG.COM Staff, MemberRarePosts: 793
Originally posted by duuude007
Originally posted by GameByNight @Vesavius: This is a column. It is my opinion. So no, you don't have a right to demand impartiality. Like most sites of our type, we maintain separate wings for editorials and news reporting. If you're looking for an fair and balanced, I would advise you scroll just a little further down and read the news.
To be perfectly accurate, he has the right to demand, and you have the right to ignore said demand ^^;
Comments
I'm not an IT Specialist, Game Developer, or Clairvoyant in real life, but like others on here, I play one on the internet.
Awesome..lol!!
+1
I asked for balance.
But don't let that get in your way.
You ask for balance yet talk as if your opinion is factually correct which it isn't but don't let that get in your way ^^.
I asked for balance in an MMORPG.com article or two when it comes the 'F2P'. I am surprised anyone could actually mind that, assuming they wanted to be an informed reader/ consumer.
Did I give an opposing opinion as well? Sure... But please don't quote me saying "but I am right and you're wrong so there!", because I didn't say that and representing me in that way I did with a false quote is infantile. It was opinion I was offering, not fact, just as the OP did. I guess you are you one of those guys that demands 'IMO' before every utterance to recognize an opinion for what it is?
The debate here isn't actually between whether or not the sub model is self sustaining, because it has actually been proven that it is. Games have run for literally years on it alone.
The core issue here is not what generates profit, it is what generates *more* profit.
'F2P' simply generates more, especially when it is carried by a sub user base. As a gamer though, I care about games, not increased profit that benefits none but the VCs and the shareholders.
I am not the mouthpiece for a industry news site. I don't have to be balanced if I don't feel like it. I do, as a consumer and reader, have a right to ask for it though.
I would expect MMORPG.com in general to be though, as an influential news site that many come to looking for (hopefully) impartial news.
Wouldn't you? Be honest. Or are you happy as long as they are touting a view you agree with? Surely if 'F2P' is so fantastic it can bear a little scrutiny?
Strong statement. Prove it?
I have the fact that plenty of games operated for literally years on a sub alone, generating profit and supporting ongoing development, to back me up.
Honestly, I sometimes wonder how you guys think EQ etc survived all that time before the addition revenue generator of the cash shop was forced over time in to up the profits... going by your thinking EQ should have been dead in a year.
P2P ia a payment model.
F2P is also a payment model. Not better. Not worse. Just different.
The game design's compatibility with the model + the game's active popularity determines whether it will be self sustaining... not the model itself.
That said...
One drawback that F2P has in determining its popularity is that "registered free accounts" does not determine active membership- It is merely a cumulative value since the title's launch. That and F2P titles tend to not make their profit margins public.
Subs on the other hand have a fluctuating number of subscriptions, each of which provides a consistent monthly value for the title.
Your first example STO was P2P, it does not count. Albion Online is not out yet, it does not count. Wurm and Salem seem fair examples, but I have played none of the games you have mentioned so it would be good if other posters would comment on what they think of them.
Now I would ask you to look at the production value of all the MMO's you mentioned. All but STO (which was P2P) have very simplistic graphics; some, maybe all are not 3D first person.
This is what I am getting at, F2P from launch cannot match P2P on production values. I agree with Chris Coke that B2P can match those values, but if the industry goes down the F2P at launch route, we are going to see MMO's become increasingly second rate.
Quoted for truth.
Its funny but most P2P games are kind of going away. And that's because those companies that are doing them now are doing a terrible job. Their games are terrible or very short. And with the amount of competition out there....players can find better games or other things to play.
Some of the P2P companies are so bad at misinformation about how well they are doing....that its an easy thing for them to make web sites that are run by them to show bad numbers...but when you do a public search for fiscal earnings you find the company didn't even make enough even if its players paid 25 cents per month.
I don't think the Free to Play models are the greatest and most games that use them are not that great. But there are games that use the model that do a very good job and are a lot of fun.
Exactly.
F2P games that have subscriptions are generally not your typical f2p game. Generally if you like the game, gameplay is much better if you subscribe. Games like that are generally free to try, pay to play. You are trying to lump all f2p games into one folder when there are many different varieties.
All cash shop games come from the same mold. The only differences is what you buy in their cash shop.
i.e. Mcdonald's, Arby's, and Subway are all fast food restaurants, but they each sell different products.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
If everquest released in 2013 it would be different story and same goes for WOW.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'
-Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid."
-Luke McKinney
Sometimes.
But your analogy is the worst! :P
p2p are the good looking girl ( who can be a fucking bitch and end up f2p ) or the best girl in the world , where you subs all life , you dont know , but it worth the try !!
LOL
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Finally, the distortion of time & space argument. Now we're getting somewhere! I'll try one.
If free to play games were released in 1957, not s single one would be played at all. Zero player base & zero money earned.
Ignore it all you like but the time period makes a big difference. Gamers have changed over the years. What was relevant during times of Everquest isn't relevant anymore. And this goes not only for MMOS but ever changing trend in all other sources for entertainment as well.
After the news of Arch Age going F2P i know for sure now that 'people pay for quality' MMO is nothing more than some pipe dream in 2013.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'
-Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid."
-Luke McKinney
Proves "it", by "It" do you mean that the definition of AAA has changed? That Player attention spans and general game loyalty have ceased to be relevant? Or perhaps that the market is merely overflowing with games designed for quick cash grabs, rather than consistent pay for continued development?
Just because so few MMORPGS can go P2P does not mean that they do not want to. The financial stability of P2P is just one of those pipe dreams for many developers. Ideal, but out of reach due to other factors.
Hah. Touche.