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!

Does the Free to Play model work?

2456

Comments

  • TorvalTorval Oregon CountryPosts: 7,221Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by DamonVile
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by NinjaGaz

    I have often wondered about this free to play model... why is everybody adopting it? What makes them think it's such a great idea? I could point you to an article where a girl spent over $400 on Candy Crush because of the model and most people know somebody that's spent over £100 on a game.

    Is that the target audience, though? The people who can't control themselves, or are spending other peoples money.

    You assume people who play free to play games can't control themselves or are spending someone else's money. Abandon the assumptions and bias, stick to facts, and you'll be a lot less puzzled about these things.

    Stop telling people that! If ppl didn't have these extreme assumptions and/or bias towards games we'd have nothing to talk about.

    In that case, let me share my view on paid expansion packs... :)

    Don't tease. Do tell! :p

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,672Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by SpottyGekko

    But it's a common misconception that F2P games make more than sub games.

    Since you claim it a misconception, I was wondering if you could share the source of your data for that. Yes, WOW works as a sub. Quite a few games do. I'd like to point out that is irrelevant to your claim before you go touting the anomaly.

    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: 13,672Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by DamonVile
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by NinjaGaz

    I have often wondered about this free to play model... why is everybody adopting it? What makes them think it's such a great idea? I could point you to an article where a girl spent over $400 on Candy Crush because of the model and most people know somebody that's spent over £100 on a game.

    Is that the target audience, though? The people who can't control themselves, or are spending other peoples money.

    You assume people who play free to play games can't control themselves or are spending someone else's money. Abandon the assumptions and bias, stick to facts, and you'll be a lot less puzzled about these things.

    Stop telling people that! If ppl didn't have these extreme assumptions and/or bias towards games we'd have nothing to talk about.

    In that case, let me share my view on paid expansion packs... :)

    Don't tease. Do tell! :p

    I'll keep it short, as it's only tangential to the conversation: 

    http://themess.com/gamestuff/2011/10/what-if-the-idea-of-paid-expansion-packs-only-showed-up-after-2009/

     

    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

  • NovusodNovusod Lakewood, NJPosts: 892Member Uncommon
    Free 2 Play works because it keeps small time games alive. In the days before F2P those games would have been forced to shut down completely or in many cases never made in the first place. Later on companies got greedy and changed even profitable games over to F2P in order to squeeze more money out of the player base. LoTR was probably the first game to go the "greed" route. Freeium where they offer a subscription and have a huge cash shop is really just pure greed.
  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,316Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Novusod
    Free 2 Play works because it keeps small time games alive. In the days before F2P those games would have been forced to shut down completely or in many cases never made in the first place. Later on companies got greedy and changed even profitable games over to F2P in order to squeeze more money out of the player base. LoTR was probably the first game to go the "greed" route. Freeium where they offer a subscription and have a huge cash shop is really just pure greed.

    Well Freemium is not just sub and a cs. Freemium also gives the option to not pay the sub and just use the cs.  So IMO it is the best model letting me choose I want want to play/pay.

    But for everything else I totally agree in principle, not necessarily with the idea that it is greed.  But with the idea that whatever sub model is chosen it is chosen because the devs feel they will make the most money with that model.

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

  • DamonVileDamonVile Vancouver, BCPosts: 4,818Member
    Originally posted by SpottyGekko

    Why do you think new AAA games keep on launching with a sub model (FFXIV, ESO, Wildstar) ? Surely, if "F2P makes more money than subscriptions", launching as F2P is a no-brainer. Even B2P with a Cash Shop (GW2) is an "obvious" better earning model.

     

    It appears that all these game devs and publishing companies simply cannot see the obvious truth that we can see. Either that, or the truth is not as "obvious" as it appears to be in these forums.

     

    The answer is pretty simple. They're taking advantage of human nature.

    Ever hear of a company called Apple...you know the guys that make billions selling a "new" phone that has features that should have been on the older version but they knew holding them back would get the same people that paid $500 for a IV to pay $500 for a V ? why ?...because it's new and people have to have it now.

    Same principle is being used when a new AAA game launches with a box price. They know there is going to be a large enough group of people that have to play the newest game, right now! so why not charge everyone $60 instead of nothing.

    And when the game is no longer the new kid on the block and people start to drift off, relaunch the game free to play and every gaming site will be talking about your game again and you get a second coming event free of charge.

  • ArclanArclan Chicago, ILPosts: 1,494Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Abandon the assumptions and bias, stick to facts, and you'll be a lot less puzzled about these things.

    Lok, my good man, the F2P model IS puzzling, and intentionally so. A deceptive pricing model that can change any time at the whim of the maker.

    Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
    In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit

  • SpottyGekkoSpottyGekko RotterdamPosts: 3,845Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by SpottyGekko

    But it's a common misconception that F2P games make more than sub games.

    Since you claim it a misconception, I was wondering if you could share the source of your data for that. Yes, WOW works as a sub. Quite a few games do. I'd like to point out that is irrelevant to your claim before you go touting the anomaly.

    Neither you nor I can produce the figures to back our respective viewpoints. 

     

    I base my opinion on the fact that all the AAA MMO's launching in the near future will be subscription based. And trying to imply that they are only doing it to get more box sales is ridiculous. Why would the threat of sub-only access sell MORE boxes than B2P (with Cash Shop) ?

     

    So I'm guessing that industry figures show these publishers and game developers that the box sale + sub model makes more money than B2P + Cash Shop.

     

    If all the extensive market analysis and in-depth reporting from specialist companies like Newzoo and SuperData Research clearly showed that F2P was the most profitable model, do you REALLY REALLY think all these different games would be ignoring that fact ?

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,672Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by SpottyGekko
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by SpottyGekko

    But it's a common misconception that F2P games make more than sub games.

    Since you claim it a misconception, I was wondering if you could share the source of your data for that. Yes, WOW works as a sub. Quite a few games do. I'd like to point out that is irrelevant to your claim before you go touting the anomaly.

    Neither you nor I can produce the figures to back our respective viewpoints. 

     

    The difference however that I'm not posting that your view is a misconception. 

    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

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

    But it's a common misconception that F2P games make more than sub games.

    Since you claim it a misconception, I was wondering if you could share the source of your data for that. Yes, WOW works as a sub. Quite a few games do. I'd like to point out that is irrelevant to your claim before you go touting the anomaly.

    Neither you nor I can produce the figures to back our respective viewpoints. 

     

    I base my opinion on the fact that all the AAA MMO's launching in the near future will be subscription based. And trying to imply that they are only doing it to get more box sales is ridiculous. Why would the threat of sub-only access sell MORE boxes than B2P (with Cash Shop) ?

     

    So I'm guessing that industry figures show these publishers and game developers that the box sale + sub model makes more money than B2P + Cash Shop.

     

    If all the extensive market analysis and in-depth reporting from specialist companies like Newzoo and SuperData Research clearly showed that F2P was the most profitable model, do you REALLY REALLY think all these different games would be ignoring that fact ?

    EQN will be freemium.

    And I expect the others (only 2) are p2p at launch to take advantage of the millions sold.  In 6 months to a year when the levels drop to more traditional levels I would expect at least one of the two remaining to be ftp.

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

  • JaedorJaedor Denver, COPosts: 1,140Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by SpottyGekko

    Originally posted by Loktofeit

    Originally posted by SpottyGekko But it's a common misconception that F2P games make more than sub games.
    Since you claim it a misconception, I was wondering if you could share the source of your data for that. Yes, WOW works as a sub. Quite a few games do. I'd like to point out that is irrelevant to your claim before you go touting the anomaly.
    Neither you nor I can produce the figures to back our respective viewpoints. 

     

    I base my opinion on the fact that all the AAA MMO's launching in the near future will be subscription based. And trying to imply that they are only doing it to get more box sales is ridiculous. Why would the threat of sub-only access sell MORE boxes than B2P (with Cash Shop) ?

     

    So I'm guessing that industry figures show these publishers and game developers that the box sale + sub model makes more money than B2P + Cash Shop.

     

    If all the extensive market analysis and in-depth reporting from specialist companies like Newzoo and SuperData Research clearly showed that F2P was the most profitable model, do you REALLY REALLY think all these different games would be ignoring that fact ?



    I'd suggest that a launch with box and sub will make X amount of reliable money for Y reliable length of time, which appeals to investors and publishers. At some later date the developer can switch to a F2P model and anticipate Z amounts from an invested pool of players plus A amounts from new players attracted by F2P.

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,672Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Arclan

    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Abandon the assumptions and bias, stick to facts, and you'll be a lot less puzzled about these things.

    Lok, my good man, the F2P model IS puzzling, and intentionally so. A deceptive pricing model that can change any time at the whim of the maker.

    Actually, the points he is making are not about the model, but rather sweeping generalizations about the players. There is nothing puzzling about that. Throughout this thread you have people stating their personal made up biases as facts and in some cases using that to tell others their view is incorrect as a result. 

    If there's any deception here, it's by those who are trying to pass off opinion as truth in order to prove they are correct about their assumptions. 

    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: 13,672Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Jaedor

     


    Originally posted by SpottyGekko

    Originally posted by Loktofeit

    Originally posted by SpottyGekko But it's a common misconception that F2P games make more than sub games.
    Since you claim it a misconception, I was wondering if you could share the source of your data for that. Yes, WOW works as a sub. Quite a few games do. I'd like to point out that is irrelevant to your claim before you go touting the anomaly.
    Neither you nor I can produce the figures to back our respective viewpoints. 

    I base my opinion on the fact that all the AAA MMO's launching in the near future will be subscription based. And trying to imply that they are only doing it to get more box sales is ridiculous. Why would the threat of sub-only access sell MORE boxes than B2P (with Cash Shop) ?

    So I'm guessing that industry figures show these publishers and game developers that the box sale + sub model makes more money than B2P + Cash Shop.

    If all the extensive market analysis and in-depth reporting from specialist companies like Newzoo and SuperData Research clearly showed that F2P was the most profitable model, do you REALLY REALLY think all these different games would be ignoring that fact ?

    I'd suggest that a launch with box and sub will make X amount of reliable money for Y reliable length of time, which appeals to investors and publishers. At some later date the developer can switch to a F2P model and anticipate Z amounts from an invested pool of players plus A amounts from new players attracted by F2P.

    Agreed. Also, there is no one model that is universally best. Some games just work better with subscription - either as the sole model or mixed with a F2P option - as a gating and maintenance mechanism, especially those where players have an impact on the game world or can alter the game world. 

     

    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

  • worldalphaworldalpha Milton, ONPosts: 403Member
    It is working for us.  Not sure any other model that would have allowed us to get the player-base we have now.

    Thanks,
    Mike
    Working on Social Strategy MMORTS (now Launched!) http://www.worldalpha.com

  • rodingorodingo Posts: 2,346Member Uncommon

    Apparently it does or else MMOs wouldn't be converting would they?  Of course not every game that converts over from paid sub to f2p does it with decent success (Swtor).  However some do well or at least did during their initial conversion such as DDO, LOTRO, or to a certain extent Rift.  Then some games that are designed from the ground up as f2p such as Neverwinter and Age of Wushu seem to be struggling and probably not hitting their projected goals.  That last statement is assumption though and maybe they knew full well it was just a cash grab.

    EDIT: So what am I saying?  Yes and no that it works  image

    "If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor

  • NephaeriusNephaerius Baltimore, MDPosts: 1,539Member Uncommon

    Since the guy that made LotRO f2p is my best friend's uncle, he also happened to be responsible for Earth and Beyond by the way, he has shared with me repeatedly that all of Turbines MMO's had an increase in the number of subs when the games went F2P compared to when they were sub only.  This means the peak of LotRO's subscription population was actually post-F2P despite other folks' anecdotal evidence. 

    More OT: F2P works.  Yep.  Sure does.  Different games require different business models to function and one model is not superior across all products.  Hence why you continue to see sub, F2P, and B2P games released rather than the industry using a singular model for all products.  This isn't rocket science.  It's pretty simple.

    Steam: Neph

  • SpottyGekkoSpottyGekko RotterdamPosts: 3,845Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by SpottyGekko
    ...

    EQN will be freemium.

    And I expect the others (only 2) are p2p at launch to take advantage of the millions sold.  In 6 months to a year when the levels drop to more traditional levels I would expect at least one of the two remaining to be ftp.

    Correct, there are only 2 upcoming AAA MMO's that are launching as sub-only. However, seeing as there are NO other AAA MMO's launching in the same timeframe, that would mean that ALL upcoming AAA launches will be sub-only. FFXIV launched sub-only just a month ago.

     

    EQNext will be interesting in many ways. It will be the first AAA MMORPG in the western market to launch as F2P.

     

    Smedley is betting SOE's bank on EQN in a way. It will be supported by EQ:Landmark of course, so they will have two avenues for monetization. But I'm dying to see what they are going to do to recoup their considerable investment in the flagship title for their major IP. No pressure there, I'm sure... *cough*

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Arclan

    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Abandon the assumptions and bias, stick to facts, and you'll be a lot less puzzled about these things.

    Lok, my good man, the F2P model IS puzzling, and intentionally so. A deceptive pricing model that can change any time at the whim of the maker.

    Actually, the points he is making are not about the model, but rather sweeping generalizations about the players. There is nothing puzzling about that. Throughout this thread you have people stating their personal made up biases as facts and in some cases using that to tell others their view is incorrect as a result. 

    If there's any deception here, it's by those who are trying to pass off opinion as truth in order to prove they are correct about their assumptions. 

    Yeah

    and assumptions or not, F2P clear works .. otherwise why would so many games switched to it?

    Plus, f2p games require little commitment, and players can leave whenever they encounter anything they don't like. I doubt deception will work in an environment when a player can just leave at any time, for any reason.

     

  • maplestonemaplestone Ottawa, ONPosts: 3,099Member

    It doesn't work *for me* because I've noticed I don't enjoy games where developers are focused on efficient monitization rather than efficient service.   

    However, that doesn't mean it doesn't work better for publishers.  If my dollar is lost and two dollars are gained from other players who are more monitizable, then it sucks to be me,

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

    EQN will be freemium.

    And I expect the others (only 2) are p2p at launch to take advantage of the millions sold.  In 6 months to a year when the levels drop to more traditional levels I would expect at least one of the two remaining to be ftp.

    Correct, there are only 2 upcoming AAA MMO's that are launching as sub-only. However, seeing as there are NO other AAA MMO's launching in the same timeframe, that would mean that ALL upcoming AAA launches will be sub-only. FFXIV launched sub-only just a month ago.

     

    EQNext will be interesting in many ways. It will be the first AAA MMORPG in the western market to launch as F2P.

     

    Smedley is betting SOE's bank on EQN in a way. It will be supported by EQ:Landmark of course, so they will have two avenues for monetization. But I'm dying to see what they are going to do to recoup their considerable investment in the flagship title for their major IP. No pressure there, I'm sure... *cough*

    Well.

    If EQN is freemium and it's launch is upcoming (expected to be 2013) then the statement ALL upcoming AAA MMO launches will be sub only is false. 

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

  • DamonVileDamonVile Vancouver, BCPosts: 4,818Member
    Originally posted by SpottyGekko
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by SpottyGekko
    ...

    EQN will be freemium.

    And I expect the others (only 2) are p2p at launch to take advantage of the millions sold.  In 6 months to a year when the levels drop to more traditional levels I would expect at least one of the two remaining to be ftp.

    Correct, there are only 2 upcoming AAA MMO's that are launching as sub-only. However, seeing as there are NO other AAA MMO's launching in the same timeframe, that would mean that ALL upcoming AAA launches will be sub-only. FFXIV launched sub-only just a month ago.

     

    EQNext will be interesting in many ways. It will be the first AAA MMORPG in the western market to launch as F2P.

     

    Smedley is betting SOE's bank on EQN in a way. It will be supported by EQ:Landmark of course, so they will have two avenues for monetization. But I'm dying to see what they are going to do to recoup their considerable investment in the flagship title for their major IP. No pressure there, I'm sure... *cough*

    What he's betting on is that more people are willing to pay the freemium price than people willing to pay a box+ sub price. I would say that's not as big of a gamble as people think. The $60 paywall of that box price does have an impact on numbers. If you're really looking long term for your game you want numbers and money month after month. Not a big price tag at the beginging.

    A sub that gets you everything the game offers with the ability to play for free on the months you really don't want, or can't pay with no box price is probably the best pay model out there.

  • SpottyGekkoSpottyGekko RotterdamPosts: 3,845Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by SpottyGekko
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by SpottyGekko
    ...

    EQN will be freemium.

    And I expect the others (only 2) are p2p at launch to take advantage of the millions sold.  In 6 months to a year when the levels drop to more traditional levels I would expect at least one of the two remaining to be ftp.

    Correct, there are only 2 upcoming AAA MMO's that are launching as sub-only. However, seeing as there are NO other AAA MMO's launching in the same timeframe, that would mean that ALL upcoming AAA launches will be sub-only. FFXIV launched sub-only just a month ago.

     

    EQNext will be interesting in many ways. It will be the first AAA MMORPG in the western market to launch as F2P.

     

    Smedley is betting SOE's bank on EQN in a way. It will be supported by EQ:Landmark of course, so they will have two avenues for monetization. But I'm dying to see what they are going to do to recoup their considerable investment in the flagship title for their major IP. No pressure there, I'm sure... *cough*

    Well.

    If EQN is freemium and it's launch is upcoming (expected to be 2013) then the statement ALL upcoming AAA MMO launches will be sub only is false. 

    There is no defined timeframe for EQN's launch. Landmark will launch before EQN, and the best we have gotten on that score from Dave Georgeson is "winter", which is any time between now and next "spring"... image

     

    So it's fairly safe to say that EQN is very unlikely to launch before ESO or Wildstar.

  • VoqarVoqar Phoenix, AZPosts: 498Member

    Obviously it works to some degree or it wouldn't be so popular.

     

    But, IMO, you have to ask, who does it work for?

     

    It works for companies that can't make a damn game worth a sub, for one.

     

    It works for companies who want to appeal to players that don't want to commit or who want to flit between many games, and as such, it works well for those types of players who don't want a monthly fee for something they may not even play every month.

     

    IMO, if you have a quality MMORPG, and your game is worth playing for years, then F2P is a crappy model, because it makes for a much lower quality gaming experience.  In fact, I really doubt any serious players would stay with a FP2 game for years and years the way we used to with the classic/older MMORPGs.

     

    My personal problem with F2P for MMORPGs is that it inevitably involves some kind of pay 2 win, or worse, outright facilitating of cheating.  MMORPGs at the heart are all about acquiring crap or achieving crap, and if you can grease the wheels with cash or worse, just BUY the rewards for cash, then the system is BROKEN.  Even worse are games like GW2 or Rift where you can effectively buy in-game currency for cash - something that is usually the realm of RMT and considered cheating.  When did cheating become not only ok, but something for the hosting companies to skim a profit off of?  Lame.  Lamer still is people who condone this.  Lamer even more are the losers who participate in this.  Play to win.  Not pay to win.  If you can't be bothered to actually play, then...don't play?

     

    F2P is horrible for MMORPGs if you're a player that gives a crap.  It's great if you're casual and don't give a crap, or want to cheat your way thru games with cash.

     

    Some people may be confused and think F2P is to benefit you, the player.  It's not.  It's all about profits for companies - corporations and business people don't do stuff to do anybody favors but themselves.  They don't care about your quality of game experience.  They care about profit margins.  The spin F2P to make you think it's some kind of great thing for players when, in fact, the quality of gameplay is far lower due to the incessant cash shop in your face thing, the pay 2 win, and the blatant cheaters and losers buying their way thru games.

     

    F2P is great for a game like LOL or other similar games, where they can be profitable without EVER doing pay 2 win.  Selling skins, extra heroes out of the 100+ (nobody gives a crap whether you buy a hero or not in LOL, because it has nothing to do with winning - all the crap you need to WIN comes ONLY thru gameplay (and/or from your own skill)).  Big difference.  F2P, fluff crap for players in a game where NO FLUFF CRAP COMES FROM gameplay.  Loot doesn't drop in LOL.  There are no boss fights.  There is no crafted gear, no mats to gather, no world drop epics.  There's nothing a scumbag can do with cash to shortcut the game.

     

    In MMORPGs, the cash angle ALWAYS undermines the game.  P2W or blatant cheating.  It allows useless and lazy non-players to buy their way thru the game.  They can buy those world drop epics.  They can buy mats from the in-game economy with their cash obtained in-game currency.  They can shortcut the game by obtaining items without earning them.

     

    F2P in MMORPGs may work for some people, but I hate it.  I want games where everybody earns their accomplishments by playing the game, not by throwing cash at the game.  I much prefer subs where EVERYBODY pays the same amount, always, and everybody has equal potential to succeed, and where success is based on how you play, without influence based on how much you're willing to pay.

     

    So yeah, F2P works, for the greedy bean counting schmucks who don't care about players, or gaming, and only care about profits.  It works for players who'd rather pay their way than earn their way via their gameplay.  IMO, it does not work for people who want the highest quality gaming, particularly in a genre like MMORPGs where it's all about playing to achieve.

     

    There has never been an MMORPG F2P system that didn't undermine the game.  They'll sell stuff like mounts, outfits, boosters, whatever - stuff they SAY you don't need and that isn't pay to win, but ultimately ALL stuff that you obtain in an MMORPG *should* be tied to rewards for gameplay.  That mount you just bought for $10?  Should be a drop or quest reward or something you earn - not buy.  Same for outfits - should be crafted, dropped - something.  So while you often don't NEED the crap they sell for cash, it's still usually cool stuff (has to be cool or nobody would buy it) that people want, and that should be EARNED BY PLAYING, not PAYING.

     

    If devs made real MMORPGs worth playing and paying a sub for, we wouldn't need F2P anyways.  The old/classic MMORPGs are still sub-based.  They are games you can play for years easily and always have been.  The newer MMORPGs that are designed more like weak and easy single player MMORPGs with optional grouping and minimal endgame are what has driven the genre to F2P - because those games are not worth a sub.  Stop trying to cater so much to casuals who don't want to sub and design for real MMORPG players and maybe you wouldn't need to consider F2P?

     

    To me, F2P for MMORPGs is a sign or admission of failure.  It's saying, our game isn't worthy of a sub and you're not likely to want to play it in any meaningful way other than casually.  The best MMORPGs aren't casual.   Good MMORPGs by their nature are not casual.  If people can't handle them - bummer.  Some people can't handle chess either and it's one of the best games in the history of mankind.  Nobody said, lets dumb down chess to make it more accessible.  You play or you don't play.  Simple.

     

    How do you rate success for MMORPGs?  Would you say the games like EQ, DAoC, WoW - the ones that have never waivered from having subs and that have been going for years are a success?  What about just about or all MMORPGs since WoW that started sub-based and had to switch to F2P - you know, all the glorified single player games that ended up not having the balls of the classics.  Failures because they had to go F2P?  Limited success because they all paid for their dev, had sexy releases and decent numbers before slipping into F2P sewage?

     

    A lot of the MMORPGs that slip to F2P will say they're doing better financially than they were before F2P (I guess they take their lowest point after release as the point of comparison)...so they can stay afloat and/or profit...but...how's the gameplay?  How do players like it?  Do you have lots of players sticking around consistently?  Do you have community?  Or do you still have server merges, a flighty population that comes and goes, mostly goes, until the next micro dose of content, then things are busy for a few days, rinse and repeat?

     

    This is why a game like EQN, that should be a gangbuster supernova of a game carrying on the name of the godfather of MMORPGs, looks pathetic to me, for the simple reason that they're PLANNING to be F2P - which is like saying up front, we know we can't design a game good enough for you to sub to, so we surrender in advance.  Whatever cool things they come up with will be tainted by the stink of F2P hooks, and that is truly sad.  EQN doesn't even look like an MMORPG with the way they're going consolitis/simplified/dumbed down as hell/arcady but at the same time they are trying to innovate, especially with content, and that could be something special...but to me it won't matter much as long as cheaters can pay their way thru the game, and if there's F2P, in an MMORPG, there will be lower quality players and rampant pay 2 win cheating going on.

     

     

     

     

    Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by maplestone

    It doesn't work *for me* because I've noticed I don't enjoy games where developers are focused on efficient monitization rather than efficient service.   

    However, that doesn't mean it doesn't work better for publishers.  If my dollar is lost and two dollars are gained from other players who are more monitizable, then it sucks to be me,

    Well, you are not the only player in the world.

    It works for me.

    I had good fun in the 30 hours story missions of Marvel Heroes.

    I enjoy a story mission in STO from time to time (and no where close to finishing the content).

     

  • HarikenHariken Brighton, MAPosts: 984Member Uncommon
    Why is it that sub.players think they are worth more to a game? They pay a flat 15 a month. A f2p player might spend double or even triple that in a month if they really like the game. If f2p sucks so bad,why are some AAA game's adding it as an option?  You guy and your flawed logic and math kill me.  Whats more valuable a 15 a month player or the player that likes the game and spend more but is a f2p gamer. And let's even look at that, F2P means this player would rather not pay a monthly but would gladly spend more money in a good cash shop. Look at GW2 no monthly but players spend real money for gems to turn into gold in their cash shop. You guys need to get over yourselves. F2P gamer's bring in more money and game companies know this. You know why most f2p gamer's chose that option. They chose it for the freedom it give's them to play when they want. If they don't login for awhile then its OK no obligation. 
Sign In or Register to comment.