The keyword Loktofeit is using here is monetization. It's how the game is designed to earn revenue after the initial account creation or box purchase in the case of B2P. Once you get past that point of entry, there is little difference in business models between F2P and B2P.
But there is a huge difference BEFORE you get past that point of entry.
F2P enables easy entry. $60 does not. That is a world of difference.
Not a bad criteria, but being an old MMO in MMO land used to be five years old. Now you are an old MMO if you have been out a year.
I always hold judgement on specific games until as close to the review as possible, so same for EQ next. I liked the way the interviewer Jess who must be what 25(?) liked the "new" ideas in PS2.
Originally posted by Sovrath Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by SovrathOriginally posted by RobokappOriginally posted by nariusseldonOriginally posted by WittenWhy are you buying into a game made to empty your wallet?
I do not. That is why i play F2P games. So far, i spent exactly zero on them.one modern philosopher once said that to understand if an idea or action is good or bad, simply imagine everyone in the world doing it at once and the answer will be obvious.yeah, I like that. Makes a lot of sense to me and is a pretty good way to frame things. No matter what the subject. If everyone in the world ate potatoes all at once, we'd run out of potatoes the first day and we wouldn't have any french fries until the next crop of potatoes came in. ** The point is that almost nothing is good if everyone does it, and almost anything can be good in small measures, especially if applied correctly. I think I'll take it as the thoughtful way it was intended. And not your thing.
Simplistic ideas are not necessarily thoughtful ideas. You would be amazed at the number of philosophical ideas that lead to very practical applications. The modern scientific method for one.
If this quote was actually made*, it would be very interesting to see the rest of the document it came from, to see the quote in context and understand what the person who said it really meant. I doubt it had anything to do with MMORPG business models.
But in the interest of being "thoughtful", let's apply the original quote to the subject of this thread. Everyone plays F2P games and nobody pays a dime. Well, of course what happens is that all the MMORPG go away, because nobody is playing any B2P, or P2P games either. That's not evil, that's just market dynamics. It's also an irrational way to look at the world, because it won't happen.
* Funny how this quote isn't attributable to anyone and apparently doesn't exist on Google. Could it be that the quote is actually, "Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it" - Augustine of Hippo?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The keyword Loktofeit is using here is monetization. It's how the game is designed to earn revenue after the initial account creation or box purchase in the case of B2P. Once you get past that point of entry, there is little difference in business models between F2P and B2P.
But there is a huge difference BEFORE you get past that point of entry.
F2P enables easy entry. $60 does not. That is a world of difference.
I agree with you in this regard.
But, with that "world of difference" I feel that players are entitled to a better experience over a standard F2P modeled game than what B2P currently offers. While I will say I got my $60 out of GW2 and I do enjoy the game, I don't like many of the overall impacts within the game, this model has offered.
(I've mentioned some in previous posts)
GW2 has solidified my dislike for Cash Shops. They may have the best one in the industry. And it may not be as obnoxious as others, but Real money injected into the game has ruined many aspects of MMOs I like. I am really looking forward to FF:ARR now that they have announced a Sub model with no CS.
But there is a huge difference BEFORE you get past that point of entry.
F2P enables easy entry. $60 does not. That is a world of difference.
I agree with you in this regard.
But, with that "world of difference" I feel that players are entitled to a better experience over a standard F2P modeled game than what B2P currently offers. While I will say I got my $60 out of GW2 and I do enjoy the game, I don't like many of the overall impacts within the game, this model has offered.
(I've mentioned some in previous posts)
GW2 has solidified my dislike for Cash Shops. They may have the best one in the industry. And it may not be as obnoxious as others, but Real money injected into the game has ruined many aspects of MMOs I like. I am really looking forward to FF:ARR now that they have announced a Sub model with no CS.
Players are not entitled to anything. It is a free market. The devs can make and charge his game as he pleases. A consumer can decide to participate or not. Anything else is just talk and positioning.
If you paid $60 for GW2, you don't dislike the cash shop enough (btw, it was common knowledge before launch) to vote with your feet. And you have nothing to complain about. It is not like GW2 defraud you.
But there is a huge difference BEFORE you get past that point of entry.
F2P enables easy entry. $60 does not. That is a world of difference.
I agree with you in this regard.
But, with that "world of difference" I feel that players are entitled to a better experience over a standard F2P modeled game than what B2P currently offers. While I will say I got my $60 out of GW2 and I do enjoy the game, I don't like many of the overall impacts within the game, this model has offered.
(I've mentioned some in previous posts)
GW2 has solidified my dislike for Cash Shops. They may have the best one in the industry. And it may not be as obnoxious as others, but Real money injected into the game has ruined many aspects of MMOs I like. I am really looking forward to FF:ARR now that they have announced a Sub model with no CS.
Players are not entitled to anything. It is a free market. The devs can make and charge his game as he pleases. A consumer can decide to participate or not. Anything else is just talk and positioning.
If you paid $60 for GW2, you don't dislike the cash shop enough (btw, it was common knowledge before launch) to vote with your feet. And you have nothing to complain about. It is not like GW2 defraud you.
I disagree. If I am paying $60 for a game, I believe I am entitled to a better experience than a game I did not pay a dime for. Regardless of how the game is designed to bring in continued revenue.
Also, what was not common knowledge was the long term impact real money flowing into the game would have on the economic based meta-games. I can't even count how many times in the early months I heard or read people complaining about the game's economy and someone else would say, it's still too early and it will balance out in time. It never did. Saying "you should have known better" is a bit of a cop-out answer. Nor do I feel defrauded. I am saying it's a live and learn thing. Nothing more. I had higher expectations of a B2P game. And I also feel my expectations were reasonable.
I disagree. If I am paying $60 for a game, I believe I am entitled to a better experience than a game I did not pay a dime for. Regardless of how the game is designed to bring in continued revenue.
Also, what was not common knowledge was the long term impact real money flowing into the game would have on the economic based meta-games. I can't even count how many times in the early months I heard or read people complaining about the game's economy and someone else would say, it's still too early and it will balance out in time. It never did. Saying "you should have known better" is a bit of a cop-out answer. Nor do I feel defrauded. I am saying it's a live and learn thing. Nothing more. I had higher expectations of a B2P game. And I also feel my expectations were reasonable.
I suppose you can feel entitled, and clearly no one can stop you feeling what you feel. However, it is a free world, and no devs is obligated to do a thing just because you feel so. Let me put it this way .. even if you feel entitled, there is no guarantee in the world that your entitlement will be fulfilled.
What if you pay $60 and you don't get that experience you think you deserve? You have zero resource.
Secondly, i was NOT talking about long term impact. I am talking about the existence of a cash shop, and what they sell. It is pretty clear what GW2 has, and has not before you even purchase the game. In that sense, you have all the information that a dev can provide you.
It's because of time really, back then devs and/or publishers coul state because of server fee and/or content updates.
Now n days many great games are starting out B2P and/or f2p.
That and competition.
Logic is starting to be seen as "Why pay 15 dollars a month, plus paying for expansions on top of that and there is a cash shop? Why?!?"
Cause like I say many times, okay we can hate some of these B2P mmos, the game itself, but seriously the payment models are looking the best money wise and just common sense, all these P2P examples are turning into F2P the ones that aren't are only P2P because they
made.it.in.time(Read this 10xs repeatedly)
Wow can't just come out now nor any of the other P2P games and try to forced P2P down our throats, that will not work for a lot of people, especially if expansions aren't free, and in the end there are cash shops for wants.
The more B2P and F2P games with non pay to win cash shops, also ability to get cash shop items by playing the game to get in game currency for cash shop items, and the fact that most f2p and b2p cash shop mmos are including wants not needs, it's seriously hard to want P2P models or hard to justify p2p model period.
Come to thin of it like I said in another thread, pro p2p players are another reason p2p won't strive, becaus eof expectations these days and most of the expectations are over the top. Let's be in touch with reality a game can release with almost all the things that would keep a p2p player loving what he/she plays and wants, but I garuntee you that they will end their subs not long after, least the mass, why? Cuase all it takes is for there to be cheaper yet almost compariable experiences with different models, that an there is usually and always an issue with any game regarding quality or quantity, even if you fin a way to get both right it still won't be enough, there is always a want that is so big will cause a lot of people to unsub.
So to me the only way p2p could strive is if it becomes say 50 dollars a year or 2-5 dollars a month, cause 15 is honestly too much. Sure people will do it for their dream mmos but let's get real here, what are the chances of them being made and due to personnal preferences what is the chances of them remaining p2p? I'm not saying cope with suck ass mmos, because not every mmorpg is made for everyone.
People claim they want harder and complex mmos...yet once you master something complex or hard over time, it becomes easy, then complaints rise up. People talk as if P2P gives more updates and content, hate or not other mmos with different payment models are starting to match and exceed that.
P2P time is looking to run out at least 15 dollars a month p2p is. Server costs aren't so expensive and quality alongside quantity video games are being released. That's just how it is.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
You should certainly expect more from a P2P MMO and in nearly all cases you get more. The GW2 cash shop issue was played down, cash shops always are made to sound much better than they turn out to be. Currently words along the line of "you can get anything in game that you can buy in the cash shop" are to be found in every new MMO. These words disguise the grind needed to get a player cash shop items.
There is a PERCEPTION among the industry that F2P is the way to go for new releases because of higher earning potential. IMO, multiple factors lead into that perception. Some of which may be more valid then others....
- Some of the recent high profile sub-based games have NOT performed well financialy. Whether that performance really has very much to do with the payment model chosen for the game is irrelevent. Developers see those examples and thier perceptions are effected by them because they don't have much more of a crystal ball into what will make a successfull product then the rest of us do. However switching the payment model is the EASIEST and most defininitive change they can try to enact. Trying to make a product that is "good" or "enticing" or "attractive" enough to get a big sub-base is alot more ephemeral and hard to define/control then simply dictating a payment model.
- With as many games as there are currently on the market and some of them very well entrenched it can be very difficult to attract new gamers to try a new product. Requiring payment up front is a barrier to entry for many folks so if Developers make the game free to play it lowers the barrier to entry and gets more users who might be willing to try the game and at least potentialy convert into customers.
- With the RMT cash shop which is an integral part of the F2P model there is no upper limit to the amount they can get an individual to spend each month at least offering them the opportunity to get more money out of an individual user then the fixed fee models.
- It's part of human nature that people will often be willing to spend in small but frequent payments what they would never tolerate in a single larger payment. Thus allowing the Developers to exploit the psychology associated with micro-transactions.
- There are people who would legitimately be willing to spend SOMETHING on a game...say $5....that wouldn't be willing to pay the regular sub fee...by not offering an alternate payment model the Developer would loose all that potential business.
- A larger user base simply LOOKS better from a PR standpoint when discussing a product with potential investors, stockholders, etc...
So there are alot of reasons why the F2P model looks attractive to Developers/Publishers. The one real danger in the model for them is that each USER of thier product is an actual operating COST to them as each user consumes a certain amount of resources (RAM, CPU, Storage, Bandwidth, etc) even though that cost may be relatively low on an individual basis. It's only by converting that user to a PAYING customer that they can operate at a proffit each month. If they aren't converting enough of thier FREE USERS into paying customers each month then they run the risk of operating at a loss even though they might have a huge user base. Additionaly they are subject to all the sorts of risks that any business which operates on tight margins are. The fixed payment model avoids that since you assure yourself that each user is producing more revenue then it costs to support in operating costs.
The economics are what they are, despite my personal preferences as a gamer. However, it IS a mistake to believe that the F2P model alone is a silver bullet to financial success....it is getting hyped as that currently as it is a BUZZWORD for the industry....however like pretty much all BUZZWORDS in all industries, the truth is quite a bit different then the hype. There is no magic pixie dust for financial success.....you've still got to produce a decent enough product that enough people will want to pay something for and do all the things that any other business has to do (like watching budgets) in order to get a decent shot at success.
Most (but not all) MMO's use the service model vs the sale model. The classic exception would be Guild Wars, which is classic P2P, with the box sale being the only revenue model used. Guild Wars 2 is a hybrid model, where they try to get additional revenue after the fact with microtransactions.
The MAJOR advantage that F2P has over P2P is cost of aquisition. If players do not have to pay anything, they are more likley to try the game, than if they have to pay for it first. This lower cpa cost allows for the game to be marketted in a much cheaper, and more long term fashion. Word of mouth is more powerful, and even simple content updates become ways to bring in more players. This increase in the active playerbase, and very low cost of marketting allows for a lower cost per paying customer.
Most (western) F2P games make their money with a monlthy sub. The same monthly sub that they would charge for P2P. However, by going F2P they have significantly lowered the marketting expense, and increased the margin per user. They can either take this as an immediate return or re-invest this to increase the amount of users fror better long turn profits.
You should certainly expect more from a P2P MMO and in nearly all cases you get more. The GW2 cash shop issue was played down, cash shops always are made to sound much better than they turn out to be. Currently words along the line of "you can get anything in game that you can buy in the cash shop" are to be found in every new MMO. These words disguise the grind needed to get a player cash shop items.
Only if you compare ONE p2p MMO to ONE f2P MMO. But i don't play ONE F2P MMOs. If you add them up, i got much more from F2P just because there are more of them, and one can hardly justify the value of subbing to more than one or two MMOs.
I'm not against P2P and I'm not against F2P I like all models(to some extent).
But I hear it tossed around a lot, that P2P games make more money and get more updates and are hence better. If this is true, why are almost all the P2P games going F2P? Do they just hate money?
Even Rift, which was every P2P die hard's anthem. "Look at Rift! That game pumps out so much content because it is P2P!" well...they went F2P. Were they tired of making all that money?
Other than WoW, Eve is one of the only hold outs with a sub. But even that game allows players to basically buy in game currency through the plex system. (buy tons of plex and sell it all in game) so it's not a pure P2P game with everyone equal regardless of money spent.
I am just curious what the reasoning here is. The P2P games are better, because they make more money, yet they all have to go F2P. Something feels off...
Simple answer: they create an entry barrier
I sometimes make spelling and grammar errors but I don't pretend it's because I'm using a phone
It is a better style for the player...not the company. F2P is a better model for the company.
P2P put everyone on a even playing field. equal access to everything. If you dont like something the company does....you can cancel your subscription....aka...vote with your wallet. This gets their attention.
F2P benefits the company...they dont have to be responsive to the community...you're not paying for anything. They can bilk you with nickle and dime impulse purchases instead of supplying actual content for the game. It's a turn and burn kinda of strategy, instead of having 10 15.00 a month subs expecting new quests et.al. , they would rather have 30 10.00 a month players who buy reskinned hats and horses.
F2P is a curse upon gamers who want a level playing field for everyone but it plays well with those who just want to be able to buy their way to the top of the ranks instead of work for it.
Indeed competition does not always lead to the best version of something. The Ford Model T opened the roads to the middle class, but it was a rather ugly beast and you could only get it in black. It was the way it was produced and therefore lower price it could be sold at that made it the winner of that age.
That's what we have in MMO's. They became built on a "best fit" WoW template and the free aspect of F2P has drowned out the competition. Having one design template for MMO's is not good for gaming. And having a F2P revenue model which creates MMOs with limited funding for launch and makes them reliant on cash shop sales creates P2W shallow MMOs.
Indeed competition does not always lead to the best version of something. The Ford Model T opened the roads to the middle class, but it was a rather ugly beast and you could only get it in black. It was the way it was produced and therefore lower price it could be sold at that made it the winner of that age.
That's what we have in MMO's. They became built on a "best fit" WoW template and the free aspect of F2P has drowned out the competition. Having one design template for MMO's is not good for gaming. And having a F2P revenue model which creates MMOs with limited funding for launch and makes them reliant on cash shop sales creates P2W shallow MMOs.
The Model T Ford was manufactured from October 1, 1908 to May 27, 1927. The car was not available in black until 1914 but rather only grey, green, blue, and red.
Green was available for the touring cars, town cars, coupes, and Landaulets. Grey was only available for the town cars, and red only for the touring cars. By 1912, all cars were being painted midnight blue with black fenders. It was only in 1914 that the "any color so long as it is black" policy was finally implemented.
In a strange way this parallels the transition from Subscription to F2P, but not in the way you suggest.
You certainly know your automobile history, I never realised it did not start as black, but the comparison stands. We are not all still driving Model T's are we, diversity was the result of automobile competition?. In the MMO world, one template stills rules all. There have been MMO like games, e.g MMOFPS, but they are quite different games, I applaud that, but they are not MMO's. MMO's got stuck in a rut and F2P is the cheap production model that is winning.
Personally, I think GW2 while not a perfect game is definitely proving that a game without a subscription can be high quality. In my opinion, it has the most polish and attention to detail of any MMO since WoW.
Originally posted by Scot You certainly know your automobile history, I never realised it did not start as black, but the comparison stands. We are not all still driving Model T's are we, diversity was the result of automobile competition?. In the MMO world, one template stills rules all. There have been MMO like games, e.g MMOFPS, but they are quite different games, I applaud that, but they are not MMO's. MMO's got stuck in a rut and F2P is the cheap production model that is winning.
MMOFPS, instanced pvp games, MOBAs, online ARPGs with MMO features.
There are tons of new innovations. Yes, they are different games .. that is why it is innovative and exciting. The definition of MMO is so narrow that some innovation in play style, and suddenly the game is no longer a MMO.
If the definition of MMO is not broaden, it will get stuck forever. Personally, it is just semantics to me, and i don't really care. There are enough new games to play. Don't let a definition limit your fun.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by ScotYou certainly know your automobile history, I never realised it did not start as black, but the comparison stands. We are not all still driving Model T's are we, diversity was the result of automobile competition?. In the MMO world, one template stills rules all. There have been MMO like games, e.g MMOFPS, but they are quite different games, I applaud that, but they are not MMO's. MMO's got stuck in a rut and F2P is the cheap production model that is winning.
MMOFPS, instanced pvp games, MOBAs, online ARPGs with MMO features.
There are tons of new innovations. Yes, they are different games .. that is why it is innovative and exciting. The definition of MMO is so narrow that some innovation in play style, and suddenly the game is no longer a MMO.
If the definition of MMO is not broaden, it will get stuck forever. Personally, it is just semantics to me, and i don't really care. There are enough new games to play. Don't let a definition limit your fun.
The definition of "MMO" is pretty broad, and covers everything you've listed up there. The definition is broad enough that is can be used in the general sense, but also to mean "MMORPG".
Talking about MMORPGs is when you start getting into people saying that games aren't "true" MMORPGs because they've deviated from the definition a little bit, while at the same time complaining that MMORPGs haven't deviated from the definition at all.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by ScotYou certainly know your automobile history, I never realised it did not start as black, but the comparison stands. We are not all still driving Model T's are we, diversity was the result of automobile competition?. In the MMO world, one template stills rules all. There have been MMO like games, e.g MMOFPS, but they are quite different games, I applaud that, but they are not MMO's. MMO's got stuck in a rut and F2P is the cheap production model that is winning.
MMOFPS, instanced pvp games, MOBAs, online ARPGs with MMO features.
There are tons of new innovations. Yes, they are different games .. that is why it is innovative and exciting. The definition of MMO is so narrow that some innovation in play style, and suddenly the game is no longer a MMO.
If the definition of MMO is not broaden, it will get stuck forever. Personally, it is just semantics to me, and i don't really care. There are enough new games to play. Don't let a definition limit your fun.
The definition of "MMO" is pretty broad, and covers everything you've listed up there. The definition is broad enough that is can be used in the general sense, but also to mean "MMORPG".
Talking about MMORPGs is when you start getting into people saying that games aren't "true" MMORPGs because they've deviated from the definition a little bit, while at the same time complaining that MMORPGs haven't deviated from the definition at all.
Really? I distinctly remember some posters here are arguing that D3 (online APRG), LoL (MOBA), WoT (instanced pvp) are not MMOs.
Personally i don't care .. it is just a label .. either way is fine with me.
Those games are close enough, even if they are not, MMOs to me. I am more than happy to refer them as MMOs (easier than listing several genre every time) in the future.
The OP is begging the question here. Do sub games make more money? We don't have much in the way of statistics to investigate this, and even so it would difficult to draw such a sweeping conclusion. WoW makes a lot of money. EVE seems to make some money. Is it because they're subscription based or because they're good games? I have a couple of theories as to why F2P is proving more marketable in certain cases at least...
Single-playerism: As many AAA MMOs have move toward a style of gameplay less focused on world persistence and more focused on single-player campaigns, there's less of a perogative to spend more than a month or two with a given game. Why continue to pay for something when you've already played through all the content? You can always resub when the next expansion comes out. F2P forces you to actually pay to complete the game. In fact, there's nothing about the way these F2P models work that's MMO specific - the same could reasonably implemented in a single-player game (whereas a subscription model for a single-player game would seem absurd). Instead of charging you a box price, you can start the game for free but have to pay to keep unlocking different sections of the content. Might seem like 6 of one, half-dozen the other, but the difference is by letting people start the game with no or minimal investment, you're allowing more players to give it a try and potentially turn into buyers. The downside is that so people may decide early that they don't like the game enough to keep paying for the remaining content.
Rarity of experience: In years gone by, being in an MMO was kind of like being part of a club. It was exclusive on some level. You were experiencing online connectedness in a way that wasn't as prevalent as it is now. You paid your dues and you got to hang out at the clubhouse and have access to this online social portal, as well as play a few rounds of raid-the-dungeon. The social aspect of MMOs feel less exclusive now becuase socializing online is such a part of the regular fabric of our lives. The difference between experiencing content in a persistent world MMO and hub-based online multiplayer isn't that great. We've already got our guild teamspeak, Facebook, Twitter, etc. The whole "world" part of an MMO doesn't seem as exciting. I actually think that WoW is truly a dinosaur in this way. I don't think a themepark style game could ever again achieve anything approaching their level of success with a subscription model. That experience doesn't feel exclusive enough to warrant the expenditure, maybe their critical mass of playerbase excepted. However, I do think the subscription model could work for the kind of game that offers something more rarified - a more dynamic persistent world that players affect and build over time. That kind of experience is directly predicated on sharing and is still unique to persistent world games, and thus feels more exclusive and warranting of monthly investment.
Originally posted by ScotYou certainly know your automobile history, I never realised it did not start as black, but the comparison stands. We are not all still driving Model T's are we, diversity was the result of automobile competition?. In the MMO world, one template stills rules all. There have been MMO like games, e.g MMOFPS, but they are quite different games, I applaud that, but they are not MMO's. MMO's got stuck in a rut and F2P is the cheap production model that is winning.
MMOFPS, instanced pvp games, MOBAs, online ARPGs with MMO features.There are tons of new innovations. Yes, they are different games .. that is why it is innovative and exciting. The definition of MMO is so narrow that some innovation in play style, and suddenly the game is no longer a MMO.If the definition of MMO is not broaden, it will get stuck forever. Personally, it is just semantics to me, and i don't really care. There are enough new games to play. Don't let a definition limit your fun.
The definition of "MMO" is pretty broad, and covers everything you've listed up there. The definition is broad enough that is can be used in the general sense, but also to mean "MMORPG". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_gamehttp://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/MMO Talking about MMORPGs is when you start getting into people saying that games aren't "true" MMORPGs because they've deviated from the definition a little bit, while at the same time complaining that MMORPGs haven't deviated from the definition at all.
Really? I distinctly remember some posters here are arguing that D3 (online APRG), LoL (MOBA), WoT (instanced pvp) are not MMOs.
Personally i don't care .. it is just a label .. either way is fine with me.
Those games are close enough, even if they are not, MMOs to me. I am more than happy to refer them as MMOs (easier than listing several genre every time) in the future.
People on this site argue lots of things, with nothing to back it up besides their own thoughts. The rest of the internet, which has a lot more people is coming to an agreement on the definitions of these words whether or not people here buy into it. Even if I don't agree with the sources, I'd prefer having sources to refer to rather than trying to convince people that stuff I made up on my own is "right". Unless I'm actually right of course. :-)
That doesn't really have anything to do with the catch 22 developers have when trying to bring innovation to the genre instead of trying to recycle the past. If they innovate, they run the risk of not being an MMORPG, if they don't innovate, they get yelled at for not doing anything. The only way I can resolve this is that the people calling for innovation are largely asking for recycling of much older games, not innovation.
**
Sorry, this post is way off topic. Total brain f@rt on my part.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
But there is a huge difference BEFORE you get past that point of entry.
F2P enables easy entry. $60 does not. That is a world of difference.
Originally posted by Caldrin
There are two main reasons games go f2p..
1. They are bad
2. They are old
its more involved than that
SOE has adopted the business strategy that *all their games* including future games will be ftp
March PAX 2013 video interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wVIIIZ6ETtY#at=129
Not a bad criteria, but being an old MMO in MMO land used to be five years old. Now you are an old MMO if you have been out a year.
I always hold judgement on specific games until as close to the review as possible, so same for EQ next. I liked the way the interviewer Jess who must be what 25(?) liked the "new" ideas in PS2.
one modern philosopher once said that to understand if an idea or action is good or bad, simply imagine everyone in the world doing it at once and the answer will be obvious.
yeah, I like that. Makes a lot of sense to me and is a pretty good way to frame things. No matter what the subject.
If everyone in the world ate potatoes all at once, we'd run out of potatoes the first day and we wouldn't have any french fries until the next crop of potatoes came in. ** The point is that almost nothing is good if everyone does it, and almost anything can be good in small measures, especially if applied correctly.
I think I'll take it as the thoughtful way it was intended. And not your thing.
Simplistic ideas are not necessarily thoughtful ideas. You would be amazed at the number of philosophical ideas that lead to very practical applications. The modern scientific method for one.
If this quote was actually made*, it would be very interesting to see the rest of the document it came from, to see the quote in context and understand what the person who said it really meant. I doubt it had anything to do with MMORPG business models.
But in the interest of being "thoughtful", let's apply the original quote to the subject of this thread. Everyone plays F2P games and nobody pays a dime. Well, of course what happens is that all the MMORPG go away, because nobody is playing any B2P, or P2P games either. That's not evil, that's just market dynamics. It's also an irrational way to look at the world, because it won't happen.
* Funny how this quote isn't attributable to anyone and apparently doesn't exist on Google. Could it be that the quote is actually, "Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it" - Augustine of Hippo?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I agree with you in this regard.
But, with that "world of difference" I feel that players are entitled to a better experience over a standard F2P modeled game than what B2P currently offers. While I will say I got my $60 out of GW2 and I do enjoy the game, I don't like many of the overall impacts within the game, this model has offered.
(I've mentioned some in previous posts)
GW2 has solidified my dislike for Cash Shops. They may have the best one in the industry. And it may not be as obnoxious as others, but Real money injected into the game has ruined many aspects of MMOs I like. I am really looking forward to FF:ARR now that they have announced a Sub model with no CS.
Players are not entitled to anything. It is a free market. The devs can make and charge his game as he pleases. A consumer can decide to participate or not. Anything else is just talk and positioning.
If you paid $60 for GW2, you don't dislike the cash shop enough (btw, it was common knowledge before launch) to vote with your feet. And you have nothing to complain about. It is not like GW2 defraud you.
I disagree. If I am paying $60 for a game, I believe I am entitled to a better experience than a game I did not pay a dime for. Regardless of how the game is designed to bring in continued revenue.
Also, what was not common knowledge was the long term impact real money flowing into the game would have on the economic based meta-games. I can't even count how many times in the early months I heard or read people complaining about the game's economy and someone else would say, it's still too early and it will balance out in time. It never did. Saying "you should have known better" is a bit of a cop-out answer. Nor do I feel defrauded. I am saying it's a live and learn thing. Nothing more. I had higher expectations of a B2P game. And I also feel my expectations were reasonable.
I suppose you can feel entitled, and clearly no one can stop you feeling what you feel. However, it is a free world, and no devs is obligated to do a thing just because you feel so. Let me put it this way .. even if you feel entitled, there is no guarantee in the world that your entitlement will be fulfilled.
What if you pay $60 and you don't get that experience you think you deserve? You have zero resource.
Secondly, i was NOT talking about long term impact. I am talking about the existence of a cash shop, and what they sell. It is pretty clear what GW2 has, and has not before you even purchase the game. In that sense, you have all the information that a dev can provide you.
It's because of time really, back then devs and/or publishers coul state because of server fee and/or content updates.
Now n days many great games are starting out B2P and/or f2p.
That and competition.
Logic is starting to be seen as "Why pay 15 dollars a month, plus paying for expansions on top of that and there is a cash shop? Why?!?"
Cause like I say many times, okay we can hate some of these B2P mmos, the game itself, but seriously the payment models are looking the best money wise and just common sense, all these P2P examples are turning into F2P the ones that aren't are only P2P because they
made.it.in.time(Read this 10xs repeatedly)
Wow can't just come out now nor any of the other P2P games and try to forced P2P down our throats, that will not work for a lot of people, especially if expansions aren't free, and in the end there are cash shops for wants.
The more B2P and F2P games with non pay to win cash shops, also ability to get cash shop items by playing the game to get in game currency for cash shop items, and the fact that most f2p and b2p cash shop mmos are including wants not needs, it's seriously hard to want P2P models or hard to justify p2p model period.
Come to thin of it like I said in another thread, pro p2p players are another reason p2p won't strive, becaus eof expectations these days and most of the expectations are over the top. Let's be in touch with reality a game can release with almost all the things that would keep a p2p player loving what he/she plays and wants, but I garuntee you that they will end their subs not long after, least the mass, why? Cuase all it takes is for there to be cheaper yet almost compariable experiences with different models, that an there is usually and always an issue with any game regarding quality or quantity, even if you fin a way to get both right it still won't be enough, there is always a want that is so big will cause a lot of people to unsub.
So to me the only way p2p could strive is if it becomes say 50 dollars a year or 2-5 dollars a month, cause 15 is honestly too much. Sure people will do it for their dream mmos but let's get real here, what are the chances of them being made and due to personnal preferences what is the chances of them remaining p2p? I'm not saying cope with suck ass mmos, because not every mmorpg is made for everyone.
People claim they want harder and complex mmos...yet once you master something complex or hard over time, it becomes easy, then complaints rise up. People talk as if P2P gives more updates and content, hate or not other mmos with different payment models are starting to match and exceed that.
P2P time is looking to run out at least 15 dollars a month p2p is. Server costs aren't so expensive and quality alongside quantity video games are being released. That's just how it is.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
You should certainly expect more from a P2P MMO and in nearly all cases you get more. The GW2 cash shop issue was played down, cash shops always are made to sound much better than they turn out to be. Currently words along the line of "you can get anything in game that you can buy in the cash shop" are to be found in every new MMO. These words disguise the grind needed to get a player cash shop items.
There is a PERCEPTION among the industry that F2P is the way to go for new releases because of higher earning potential. IMO, multiple factors lead into that perception. Some of which may be more valid then others....
- Some of the recent high profile sub-based games have NOT performed well financialy. Whether that performance really has very much to do with the payment model chosen for the game is irrelevent. Developers see those examples and thier perceptions are effected by them because they don't have much more of a crystal ball into what will make a successfull product then the rest of us do. However switching the payment model is the EASIEST and most defininitive change they can try to enact. Trying to make a product that is "good" or "enticing" or "attractive" enough to get a big sub-base is alot more ephemeral and hard to define/control then simply dictating a payment model.
- With as many games as there are currently on the market and some of them very well entrenched it can be very difficult to attract new gamers to try a new product. Requiring payment up front is a barrier to entry for many folks so if Developers make the game free to play it lowers the barrier to entry and gets more users who might be willing to try the game and at least potentialy convert into customers.
- With the RMT cash shop which is an integral part of the F2P model there is no upper limit to the amount they can get an individual to spend each month at least offering them the opportunity to get more money out of an individual user then the fixed fee models.
- It's part of human nature that people will often be willing to spend in small but frequent payments what they would never tolerate in a single larger payment. Thus allowing the Developers to exploit the psychology associated with micro-transactions.
- There are people who would legitimately be willing to spend SOMETHING on a game...say $5....that wouldn't be willing to pay the regular sub fee...by not offering an alternate payment model the Developer would loose all that potential business.
- A larger user base simply LOOKS better from a PR standpoint when discussing a product with potential investors, stockholders, etc...
So there are alot of reasons why the F2P model looks attractive to Developers/Publishers. The one real danger in the model for them is that each USER of thier product is an actual operating COST to them as each user consumes a certain amount of resources (RAM, CPU, Storage, Bandwidth, etc) even though that cost may be relatively low on an individual basis. It's only by converting that user to a PAYING customer that they can operate at a proffit each month. If they aren't converting enough of thier FREE USERS into paying customers each month then they run the risk of operating at a loss even though they might have a huge user base. Additionaly they are subject to all the sorts of risks that any business which operates on tight margins are. The fixed payment model avoids that since you assure yourself that each user is producing more revenue then it costs to support in operating costs.
The economics are what they are, despite my personal preferences as a gamer. However, it IS a mistake to believe that the F2P model alone is a silver bullet to financial success....it is getting hyped as that currently as it is a BUZZWORD for the industry....however like pretty much all BUZZWORDS in all industries, the truth is quite a bit different then the hype. There is no magic pixie dust for financial success.....you've still got to produce a decent enough product that enough people will want to pay something for and do all the things that any other business has to do (like watching budgets) in order to get a decent shot at success.
Most (but not all) MMO's use the service model vs the sale model. The classic exception would be Guild Wars, which is classic P2P, with the box sale being the only revenue model used. Guild Wars 2 is a hybrid model, where they try to get additional revenue after the fact with microtransactions.
The MAJOR advantage that F2P has over P2P is cost of aquisition. If players do not have to pay anything, they are more likley to try the game, than if they have to pay for it first. This lower cpa cost allows for the game to be marketted in a much cheaper, and more long term fashion. Word of mouth is more powerful, and even simple content updates become ways to bring in more players. This increase in the active playerbase, and very low cost of marketting allows for a lower cost per paying customer.
Most (western) F2P games make their money with a monlthy sub. The same monthly sub that they would charge for P2P. However, by going F2P they have significantly lowered the marketting expense, and increased the margin per user. They can either take this as an immediate return or re-invest this to increase the amount of users fror better long turn profits.
Only if you compare ONE p2p MMO to ONE f2P MMO. But i don't play ONE F2P MMOs. If you add them up, i got much more from F2P just because there are more of them, and one can hardly justify the value of subbing to more than one or two MMOs.
This made me smile lol
http://i.imgur.com/eX5jbD2.jpg
Simple answer: they create an entry barrier
I sometimes make spelling and grammar errors but I don't pretend it's because I'm using a phone
It isnt that the P2P makes more money.
It is a better style for the player...not the company. F2P is a better model for the company.
P2P put everyone on a even playing field. equal access to everything. If you dont like something the company does....you can cancel your subscription....aka...vote with your wallet. This gets their attention.
F2P benefits the company...they dont have to be responsive to the community...you're not paying for anything. They can bilk you with nickle and dime impulse purchases instead of supplying actual content for the game. It's a turn and burn kinda of strategy, instead of having 10 15.00 a month subs expecting new quests et.al. , they would rather have 30 10.00 a month players who buy reskinned hats and horses.
F2P is a curse upon gamers who want a level playing field for everyone but it plays well with those who just want to be able to buy their way to the top of the ranks instead of work for it.
Indeed competition does not always lead to the best version of something. The Ford Model T opened the roads to the middle class, but it was a rather ugly beast and you could only get it in black. It was the way it was produced and therefore lower price it could be sold at that made it the winner of that age.
That's what we have in MMO's. They became built on a "best fit" WoW template and the free aspect of F2P has drowned out the competition. Having one design template for MMO's is not good for gaming. And having a F2P revenue model which creates MMOs with limited funding for launch and makes them reliant on cash shop sales creates P2W shallow MMOs.
The Model T Ford was manufactured from October 1, 1908 to May 27, 1927. The car was not available in black until 1914 but rather only grey, green, blue, and red.
Green was available for the touring cars, town cars, coupes, and Landaulets. Grey was only available for the town cars, and red only for the touring cars. By 1912, all cars were being painted midnight blue with black fenders. It was only in 1914 that the "any color so long as it is black" policy was finally implemented.
In a strange way this parallels the transition from Subscription to F2P, but not in the way you suggest.
MMOFPS, instanced pvp games, MOBAs, online ARPGs with MMO features.
There are tons of new innovations. Yes, they are different games .. that is why it is innovative and exciting. The definition of MMO is so narrow that some innovation in play style, and suddenly the game is no longer a MMO.
If the definition of MMO is not broaden, it will get stuck forever. Personally, it is just semantics to me, and i don't really care. There are enough new games to play. Don't let a definition limit your fun.
There are tons of new innovations. Yes, they are different games .. that is why it is innovative and exciting. The definition of MMO is so narrow that some innovation in play style, and suddenly the game is no longer a MMO.
If the definition of MMO is not broaden, it will get stuck forever. Personally, it is just semantics to me, and i don't really care. There are enough new games to play. Don't let a definition limit your fun.
The definition of "MMO" is pretty broad, and covers everything you've listed up there. The definition is broad enough that is can be used in the general sense, but also to mean "MMORPG".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_game
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/MMO
Talking about MMORPGs is when you start getting into people saying that games aren't "true" MMORPGs because they've deviated from the definition a little bit, while at the same time complaining that MMORPGs haven't deviated from the definition at all.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Really? I distinctly remember some posters here are arguing that D3 (online APRG), LoL (MOBA), WoT (instanced pvp) are not MMOs.
Personally i don't care .. it is just a label .. either way is fine with me.
Those games are close enough, even if they are not, MMOs to me. I am more than happy to refer them as MMOs (easier than listing several genre every time) in the future.
The OP is begging the question here. Do sub games make more money? We don't have much in the way of statistics to investigate this, and even so it would difficult to draw such a sweeping conclusion. WoW makes a lot of money. EVE seems to make some money. Is it because they're subscription based or because they're good games? I have a couple of theories as to why F2P is proving more marketable in certain cases at least...
Single-playerism: As many AAA MMOs have move toward a style of gameplay less focused on world persistence and more focused on single-player campaigns, there's less of a perogative to spend more than a month or two with a given game. Why continue to pay for something when you've already played through all the content? You can always resub when the next expansion comes out. F2P forces you to actually pay to complete the game. In fact, there's nothing about the way these F2P models work that's MMO specific - the same could reasonably implemented in a single-player game (whereas a subscription model for a single-player game would seem absurd). Instead of charging you a box price, you can start the game for free but have to pay to keep unlocking different sections of the content. Might seem like 6 of one, half-dozen the other, but the difference is by letting people start the game with no or minimal investment, you're allowing more players to give it a try and potentially turn into buyers. The downside is that so people may decide early that they don't like the game enough to keep paying for the remaining content.
Rarity of experience: In years gone by, being in an MMO was kind of like being part of a club. It was exclusive on some level. You were experiencing online connectedness in a way that wasn't as prevalent as it is now. You paid your dues and you got to hang out at the clubhouse and have access to this online social portal, as well as play a few rounds of raid-the-dungeon. The social aspect of MMOs feel less exclusive now becuase socializing online is such a part of the regular fabric of our lives. The difference between experiencing content in a persistent world MMO and hub-based online multiplayer isn't that great. We've already got our guild teamspeak, Facebook, Twitter, etc. The whole "world" part of an MMO doesn't seem as exciting. I actually think that WoW is truly a dinosaur in this way. I don't think a themepark style game could ever again achieve anything approaching their level of success with a subscription model. That experience doesn't feel exclusive enough to warrant the expenditure, maybe their critical mass of playerbase excepted. However, I do think the subscription model could work for the kind of game that offers something more rarified - a more dynamic persistent world that players affect and build over time. That kind of experience is directly predicated on sharing and is still unique to persistent world games, and thus feels more exclusive and warranting of monthly investment.
People on this site argue lots of things, with nothing to back it up besides their own thoughts. The rest of the internet, which has a lot more people is coming to an agreement on the definitions of these words whether or not people here buy into it. Even if I don't agree with the sources, I'd prefer having sources to refer to rather than trying to convince people that stuff I made up on my own is "right". Unless I'm actually right of course. :-)
That doesn't really have anything to do with the catch 22 developers have when trying to bring innovation to the genre instead of trying to recycle the past. If they innovate, they run the risk of not being an MMORPG, if they don't innovate, they get yelled at for not doing anything. The only way I can resolve this is that the people calling for innovation are largely asking for recycling of much older games, not innovation.
**
Sorry, this post is way off topic. Total brain f@rt on my part.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.