It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Originally posted by DamonVile Originally posted by SpottyGekko ...
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.
A quick google search shows that Smedley was saying things like "F2P is SOE's future model" as far back as September 2011. DCUO was the first of the new direction revenue models, I believe. Not a glowing example of high revenue earning afaik. May be relatively profitable though, given the development cost.
But what will the rate of ROI be on something like EQN ? I've no doubt that Neverwinter makes good money, but I'd also imagine their development cost was a fraction of the final bill for EQN. Or ESO. Or Wildstar. It's almost as if the really simple and trivial F2P games are the ones making the really massive headline-grabbing earnings...
Originally posted by nariusseldon It works for me.
You know, I just never get the sense that you actyually believe what you are saying ... I've noticed that your thinking lacks a certain internal logical consistency and you take too much pleasure from trolling. Your posts always come out smelling like astroturf rather than discussion.
Originally posted by SpottyGekko
Obviously no one knows for sure about the ROI of EQN since it is not released yet.
But SOE has tons of f2p games including DCUO, and Planetside 2. DCUO is being released on PS4 soon. You don't think the f2p model is working for them if they are continuing to use it, particularly in their next big game EQN?
Originally posted by maplestone Originally posted by nariusseldon It works for me.
There are a lot of people like narius. There are also plenty of people who will spend a couple hundred over the course of a year in one F2P and zero in another. In any case, I much rather be under the impression that some people here don't completely believe what they are saying than the current scenario where I'd bet money that some of the people in this thread actually believe the things they're spouting in their rather extensive, self-righteous and hate-filled essays.
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
Originally posted by SpottyGekko Originally posted by DamonVile Originally posted by SpottyGekko ...
DCUO didn't do well because it didn't have mass appeal. I love super hero games but couldn't get into it. I tried twice and it just doesn't have what it takes to keep me playing. I would guess that goes for most ppl who played and had nothing to do with it's payment model. I actually think it has one of the best models out there.
As for how well EQN will do, will come down to the same factor for every game... is it fun to play and does it make you want to keep coming back. Their payment model is set up to make it as accesable as possible. In this market I think that's the smart play.
I don't think neverwinter is even in the same ballpark as those other games though. Like you said, I'd call it simple and trivial. EQN will be the first ( afaik) AAA that launches "f2p" so it will be interesting to see what a game that is designed from the ground up to run f2p can do. So far all we've really had experience with is games that converted to it.
Originally posted by SpottyGekko 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.
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"...
So it's fairly safe to say that EQN is very unlikely to launch before ESO or Wildstar.
What is so logically inconsistent about having 30 hours of fun with the story content in Marvel heroes? I said that, in fact, many times before.
However, this is the internet, it is not like there is definite proof of that happening. I said i have 30 hours of free fun with Marvel Heroes. You can interpret that anyway you want.
I'm not willing to pay 15 a month on top a box price, so the majority of the MMOs I play are F2P (I subbed to Tera, day one). Don`t get me wrong, there are a ton of shitty F2P MMOs, both content-wise and just how much the cash shop throws itself in your face as a necessity. There are also good F2P MMOs with cash shops that at some point become a barrier to further gameplay... like DDO, or at least how I remember it. I loved the game but at some point I began to hit walls; I couldn`t do this or that quest because I needed to adopt the preemium payment model, or buy this quest pack. There was very little left to do that was free. For me, that was a good game with a bad cash shop.
All that said, there are good F2P MMOs with non-intrusive cash shops. I'm speaking about MMOs such as Vindictus or Neverwinter, where the cash shops are hugely vanity-based or mount/pet-based - in the case of mounts, you may be getting a higher speed of travel, but you're not being penalized by barred content like other games.
So to answer your overall question, I think F2P games are just fine when done fairly. I've very rarely felt compelled to give them my money, but I know others who do give their money, and I don't think they've regretted it.
A payment model doesn't make a game bad, we have to remember. A lot of sub-gamers (not saying all, but I'm sure you notice the very vocal group on mmorpg.com) have that sort of superiority complex thing going on where they feel the need to shoot down the F2P model and all the games under it as immediately bad, which I find unfair. F2P gamers on the other hand can't say much about sub games as most of them haven't tried them.
EDIT: The above paragraph is my opinion, of course. I have subbed before, and if a game looks fun and worth the continuous fee, I'd do it again.
Box prices and subs to me are a barrier that I'm very cautious about crossing, especially if there's no sort of demo, which MMOs aren't fond of giving. A video won't tell me as much as first-hand experience. I'm super interested in WildStar, or at least the image it's portraying itself as, but I'm going to wait till the hype dies down and we get some less new-game-feel reviews.
Originally posted by Loktofeit In any case, I much rather be under the impression that some people here don't completely believe what they are saying than the current scenario where I'd bet money that some of the people in this thread actually believe the things they're spouting in their rather extensive, self-righteous and hate-filled essays.
Really? Hmm. At least when a person starts off with an honest rant, there's at least hope of communication and understanding before it's over. Even if their interests and opinions contradict mine, there's a chance to learn something new by reading their attempts to rationalize their gut feelings into words.
When I read a post where the person has no interest in communication and is just gaming the anticipated responses ... I just feel like I come out of the conversation dumber than when I went into it.
i dont mind free to play i hate subs now after 20 something years of subs i prefer to buy the game play it im anoyed that eso is going to the old sub system it is vry anoying in times like we have today where are government is taking everything from us i work and have little left for extras nowdays sigh gaming is becoming the same
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by Jaedor While the sub option is arguably better for the player since costs are capped at ~$15/month, F2P with a cash shop does appear to be a win/win payment model for all the reasons the others have already mentioned.
It is not "capped". It is set at $15. There is a difference. You cannot spend less. And this provides less choice.
For those who want to play less (or not at all) to play part of the game, they cannot.
For those who want to spend MORE than $15 to buy stuff to win, or show off, or for whatever reasons, they cannot.
So it is a restrictive system that does not give as much freedom as a F2P system.
Underlined is truly a myth (in my opinion).
With so many goldscammer website's of almost any MMO/MMORPG with a subscription I am 100% sure those goldscammer ARE making money.
With F2P games atleast a large part of that extra money goes to the gamingcompany. But unfortunaly goldscamming websites even pick F2P games.
Well, I'm pleased to see a lot of reactions. 90% informative with the odd-one in a bad mood.
If the bad mood was referenced to me, I'm only giving my opinion. I feel a game with a cash shop is somebody giving me something and then saying... you want some more? Pay up!
My preference is is to buy the game and know that my fee is paid and I can enjoy the game as it's meant to be - not in a way that encourages (or worse, forces) you to buy in a cash shop. That's the main thing. I understand that I will pay less in many occasions, but should I ever find another game that I really love - I can't help but feel that the game will have a bitter taste if it has a cash shop, which has a "required" use to compete and usually, at the top level, you need every advantage you can get.
I don't play the likes of Dota 2, but their model is great for me. They know they have a great game and huge player base and they allow people to play for free and only pay when someone wants to distinguish themselves or make a name for themselves. There is no advantage in spending that money.
I DO see the point in MMOs, like LOTRO, moving to F2P as their numbers dwindle - which is only natural in a game over time. I can't help but wonder whether the likes of Neverwinter, DOTA 2 or Planetside 2 - all massive games did better with the free to play model vs a standard model. How many F2Pers does it take to come up with the money of all those 1 time buyers?
I also see the point in smaller companies going free to play to build a player-base that they could probably never do otherwise. A lot of these companies have the game at heart and want something that people enjoy - as well as making some money.
What I am surprised at, is there is no public information available about how successful the free to play model is - yet it becomes more and more prevalent!
Originally posted by Reklaw With F2P games atleast a large part of that extra money goes to the gamingcompany. But unfortunaly goldscamming websites even pick F2P games.
Why would that even work when the devs have a lock for in-game currency?
Originally posted by Reklaw Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by Jaedor While the sub option is arguably better for the player since costs are capped at ~$15/month, F2P with a cash shop does appear to be a win/win payment model for all the reasons the others have already mentioned.
The difference between F2P games and P2P games is not the MAXIMUM that you can pay... it is the MINIMUM.
With a P2P game, you can not play until you pay. This can be the purchase price, the monthly fee, or many other such offerings. The definition of P2P is that they take your money BEFORE you can play... and more often than not, take a lot more after as well.
With a F2P game, you get to play first, and then they have to convince you that you still WANT to spend money. This requires a combintation of both success, and failure. If there is not enough success, players just move on. If there is not enough failure, there isnt any reason to spend money.
The most common method to monetize F2P is via a monthly sub. This appeals to players that have less money than time. They find this a good value, because they can spend as much time as they feel is necessary, to get the value that they want
The most common method to monetize for P2P is the upfront payment. This appeals to players that dont have as much time, but have more money. They are willing to pay for a product that they have not yet seen, because they know that their time is limited.
Originally posted by NinjaGaz What I am surprised at, is there is no public information available about how successful the free to play model is - yet it becomes more and more prevalent!
There's lots of public information about how much money these huge companies make. They have publicly traded stock. Everything about their finances is available to the public IF..and that's a big IF someone wants to do a bit of research and look it up.
Most of the time people want to remain ignorant because they're happy with their opinion and don't want facts getting in the way.
Originally posted by NinjaGaz What I am surprised at, is there is no public information available about how successful the free to play model is - yet it becomes more and more prevalent!
Games such as Dungeons & Dragons Online and Team Fortress 2 have made more money by going F2P than they ever made when they were P2P/B2P. In TF2's case, quadrupled if I remember correctly.
Also, some games rely on the initial surge of players which is typical to a F2P release. Such abundance of opponents is crucial to a game that relies on PvP, because they need a critical mass of players before, say, the match making system starts to work as intended. Examples include World of Tanks and League of Legends.
Free to play model definitely works.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
You need to look at the business pages rather than fan sites. Links pop up from time to time with stats, although they tend to come packaged in a lot of disingenuous spin. If you want to really dive into the subject there are whole conferences on it , for example: http://www.videogamesintelligence.com/monetization/conference-agenda.php
F2P = dumbed down version of a MMORPG. Plain and simple. They dumb it down for a reason, to force people to buy all the goodies, extras, and things that should be made in a mmorpg not bought! 50 cents a day for unlimited entertainment, I prefer the 15/month price tag than wanting an item and the only way I can get it is to buy it. Rather be able to craft for these items, explore for them, or trade with fellow traders. It really kills the business, crafting, and exploration aspect for me when I play F2P games. Or atleast I have yet ot find a F2P mmorpg that was worth a turd, then again I am old school and set in my ways. Probably why I do not even bother with these newrer MMORPG's.
In no way am I against people that like this pay method, but for my personal preference and likes I go with subscription always.
They work in the sense that people are playing them and paying to get stuff from the cash shop. But from my point of view, as a gamer, I feel it does not work. I recently, out of boredom, downloaded Star Trek Online and altought it felt nice to be able to play for free, after a few weekends I had hit the cap and every single ship was either directly cash shop bought or indirectly in the sense that you needed item X, which is bought from the cash shop, to get that ship.
So it felt like the entire end game, which you reached after maybe 20-30 gaming hours, was centered around the cash shop. Be it new costumes or new ships. So altough you could grind to get a currency which can be converted to cash shop currency, it takes ALOT of mindless grinding to get a high end ship. So again it felt like the whole game was not around playing the game but rather either pony up with real cash or find out the way to grind to get cash shop currency.
For me this is an immersion killer. I want to play to get immersed into the game and not buy things from the cash shop. But since the cash shop is the only source of income for a F2P game then obviously the game will be centered around it, or it would go under.
Imagine Skyrim having a cash shop where you got all the neat spells, armor and weapons and you had to either pay for that or do some really excessive grinding. It would just kill the game immersion and that is what F2P is doing to MMOs. Take the focus of the game and on the cash shop.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by Reklaw With F2P games atleast a large part of that extra money goes to the gamingcompany. But unfortunaly goldscamming websites even pick F2P games.
Because many F2P games have a way to grind to get something which can be converted into in game currency. This is so they can claim that the game is not Pay 2 Win because you can get powerful item X, from the cash shop, but also from excessive grinding.
Originally posted by NinjaGaz There must be millions out there like me that do not like that and, in the end, it discourages you from playing the game.
There's the problem. Because there are tens of millions who play f2p.
There are hundreds of f2p games, but only a handful of sub games - that should tell you that f2p must 'work' for whatever purpose the publisher has decided must 'work'.
As you said, I believe the target IS the whale. I believe the purpose of a f2p game is to make the highest profit possible, and the sheer number of f2p out there indicates it is likely the biggest money maker.
But I also think you right....there are millions out there that want something different. And the beauty of capitalism, is that someone, somehow will eventually choose to tap that market and eventually one will be successful.
But if the handful out there with sub options don't float your boat - expect to be disappointed.
Unfortunately, the wait for your perfect game may take a long long time or may never happen, and don't be surprised if having a sub doesn't necessarily make it a game you'd like.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by SpottyGekko F2P obviously "works", otherwise there would be no F2P games around ! But it's a common misconception that F2P games make more than sub games. Sure, LOTRO made much more money after it went F2P. But before it was forced to go F2P to survive, the subscribing playerbase had dwindled significantly from it's first and second year levels. 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. If "F2P made more money than subscriptions", WoW would have converted to F2P years ago. If you believe for a second that Bobby Kotick isn't 100% focused on making the most money possible, then there's a bridge I'd like to sell you...
Naw. Lotro hada stable playerbase, it went ftp to make even more. Same with EQ and EQ2.
All AAA keep on launching with a sub model at first because they know they will sell 1-2 million boxes. Who wouldn't choose a sub model for that. They also know they will not maintain that (because only 2 or 3 ever have) and so when it drops below a certain point they will make more with a f2p.
F2p has 3 advantages.
1. customers - can try out a huge portion, in many of the new f2p, most of the game completely free.
2. Customrs again - they get to choose how much and where to spend their money. Customers like this is.
3. A cash shop (yes just saying cs and not limiting it to f2p, b2p or p2p cause they all have them now) allows the devs to get past the $15 dollar a month per person (ARPU for the ftp). They have always been limited in the amount they can get because of that. Games were increasing in costs to make and yet the price wasn't changing, they had to find a way to get past that limitation. they did, we have Cash Shops and by and large the market has overwhelmingly accepted them.
You just contradicted yourself there. If F2P always makes more than a sub they would release it as a F2P game and not block all those free players that allegedly make them so much money. You can't have it both ways. A F2P game might make more if the game sucks and couldn't survive otherwise or maybe make more as a way to invigorate a dying/dwindling playerbase (or fleeing playerbase in the case of SWTOR) but that isn't saying much. I'm sure there might be a F2P MMO out there that launched that way and doesn't suck but I haven't seen one. NW is the biggest MMO title I can think of that launched as F2P and it's complete garbage. It might make money but it's a shit MMO with a shit pay model. If that's what the freeloaders want they can have it.
As for the OP I couldn't agree more. The whole F2P model sucks. If you pay in these games you are either a "whale" or a sucker while the large bulk of the playerbase skates along for free. Really a terrible, inequitable system. Until a F2P MMO actually materializes that doesn't suck and doesn't have a shit pay structure I'm avoiding them like the plague. People use LoL as an example but it's not an MMO and I haven't seen an MMO use their system so as far as I'm concerned it doesn't count. Maybe EQNext will be the F2P game that changes my mind but considering it's SoE and Dave Georgeson we're talking about I'm not holding my breath. The B2P model of GW2 is at least a reasonable compromise so I wouldn't mind seeing more of that but I hate the constant reminders of buying things like keys for chests and other such immersion breaking garbage.
The other thing that really bugs me with these discussions are when people say "there are too many games out there for subs" or something similar. Like it's normal for people to play 3 or 4 MMOs at a time. The nature of most MMORPGs is commitment and progression. If you are playing multiple MMOs at the same time they must not be that great if they are not engaging you to the point of wanting to play them or maybe you have no life/job and spend all your waking hours playing. Actually, I have been unemployed and spent all my time for a while gaming and I still played one game primarily (EQ) because it was engaging and made you want to play, grind, raid, group..you know, progress your character and guild. I can't imagine any F2P game doing that and maybe there are tons of MMOs to choose from because most of them suck or are played out. That isn't a very valid reason to make all MMOs F2P.
"You just contradicted yourself there. If F2P always makes more than a sub they would release it as a F2P game and not block all those free players that allegedly make them so much money. You can't have it both ways. A F2P game might make more if the game sucks and couldn't survive otherwise or maybe make more as a way to invigorate a dying/dwindling playerbase (or fleeing playerbase in the case of SWTOR) but that isn't saying much. I'm sure there might be a F2P MMO out there that launched that way and doesn't suck but I haven't seen one. NW is the biggest MMO title I can think of that launched as F2P and it's complete garbage. It might make money but it's a shit MMO with a shit pay model. If that's what the freeloaders want they can have it."
How did I contradict myself again?
I never stated, ever, not once, anywhere that F2P always makes more money than a sub. The only thing that came close to that is I said, when it drops below a certain point they will make more. That is not always though, not anywhere close.
Originally posted by Yamota Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by Reklaw With F2P games atleast a large part of that extra money goes to the gamingcompany. But unfortunaly goldscamming websites even pick F2P games.
a) Not all F2P currency is grindable.
b) even if it is, grinding it is very inefficient and can't make money, particularly when the dev can create an unlimited amount and undercut anyone who tries.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar "You just contradicted yourself there. If F2P always makes more than a sub they would release it as a F2P game and not block all those free players that allegedly make them so much money. You can't have it both ways. A F2P game might make more if the game sucks and couldn't survive otherwise or maybe make more as a way to invigorate a dying/dwindling playerbase (or fleeing playerbase in the case of SWTOR) but that isn't saying much. I'm sure there might be a F2P MMO out there that launched that way and doesn't suck but I haven't seen one. NW is the biggest MMO title I can think of that launched as F2P and it's complete garbage. It might make money but it's a shit MMO with a shit pay model. If that's what the freeloaders want they can have it." How did I contradict myself again? I never stated, ever, not once, anywhere that F2P always makes more money than a sub. The only thing that came close to that is I said, when it drops below a certain point they will make more. That is not always though, not anywhere close.
That may not have been your intention but there is a clear inference that a AAA title would not launch as F2P so they can sell boxes/subs but that sort of flies in the face of the theory that F2P makes more than box + subs. If F2P really did make more than the sub model they would release that way and the flood of extra free players at launch would make up for the lost box sales. What AAA MMO has launched as F2P that didn't suck? What AAA MMO switched to F2P that wasn't failing or floundering? I would be interested to know of one but I can't think of any.
I will agree that going F2P is a way to invigorate a struggling game but that doesn't mean it's a better model or even a good one. Until MMOs start releasing as F2P and not sucking that will remain the case IMO.