Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
How do you feel about sub MMOs going F2P afterwards?
mmoguy43
Member UncommonPosts: 2,770
With so many going F2P the odds are you've had a MMO you've played make the switch to F2P. Did the switch improve or harm your game experience? Were you glad to have played it in the time that it was subscription based or do you feel ripped off that you were part of it? Does the possibility of a F2P switch make you less interested?
Without a doubt the payment model they choose is a business decision but is making the switch worse for business than choosing F2P from the start?
Comments
Didn't like it in EQII when it was done. It created complicated tier schemes which I'm sure folks had to contact SOE to revoke payments for the new sub model, as they were that confusing.
It also fractured the community, as EQII kept sub and free in different sides of the game, and only one way transfers of toons.
If WoW ever goes that route, never ever make payment schemes like EQII had, nor isolate pay and free. If F2P is offered everyone is together, just the free guys won't have the same account perks (i.e., more toon slots and such).
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
Tera is the game I have the most experience with switching and it was almost all positives. I tried STO and really didn't like their set up so I quit playing. So I guess it really can go both ways and it's just a personal thing.
I think EQN is going to be the first real test of how well a game can do..or fail starting out f2p. Neverwinter is doing well I hear but I don't think it's hugely popular...although when you don't like a game you always tend to think that about it :P
That's how I feel as well.
F2P is a nice concept if it's a trial format (much like WoW is experimenting on), as it gives players a taste of the game. If they like it they'll play the free version and eventually sub. It's not nice when it's the whole game (as seen in browser games like Farmville2, where they aggressively push buying items over and over and over, to the point of frustration as it's worth isn't what the player think it's worth or need).
The other factor is cash shops and what they offer. Too often they sale things that really looks out of place in the game and cheapens it -- water guns; clown suits and junk like that, which in periodic games turns it into a visual mess -- want that do it in a true themepark style game, not a medieval one).
Just because it can be done and the companies can get money from it, doesn't mean it should be done. It needs to fit the game, and what the game is about. If WoW started offering cars in the game, for example (which they can as the Druids have some parked on the docks) it would be out of place, and I think they realized it after the chopper. They pulled back some and look like they're keeping more to the game theme, which is welcome, as the pets in itself are ridiculous enough.
So if a new game came out (like EQN and ESO) please for all things holy, if you go the cash shop way keep it theme based. Don't alienate the legacy for cheap frills.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
I am glad that I played LoTRO when it was a sub-game. I tried it after it went F2P but the implementation of the cash-shop felt heavy handed and intrusive and I just couldn't tolerate it. I sometimes miss the game but I will never go back to it.
With upcoming sub games like ESO, I am very conscious of the threat of F2P. Knowing that it is a possibility - even a likelihood - means that I would always be playing the game with one foot in the exit, ready to leave at the drop of a hat. That, more than any other single factor, is likely to keep me from buying the game when it releases.
Experiencing this in Rift I then went and played a ton of different F2P games to understand it more clearly and really I think it comes down to the model used and what Trion uses I really like - how much you can still get without spending real money.
I think having a player base that was there before F2P also creates a more helpful community as this loyal player base have already contributed to a game with subscription and remain loyal to it. (If that makes sense)
F2P at release also seems quieter on the community front which doesn't suit an MMORPG.
I never understood that "I was ripped off" statement from players...
Since all my games went f2p under me, I guess I'm used to the feeling
As for my game experience, it depends of the actual model the game implemented. But in overall I think I'm quite ok with the f2p switches.
Among those games which went f2p after I already cancelled (with the option of subbing back for a month occasionally if I'm in the mood), the result was two-fold:
-Either it was welcomed and bring me back for a bit more often into the game (mostly CO and the late CoH, but I'd put here Vanguard and Rift as well, Rift has an awesome f2p model, though I'm not very fond of the game),
-or, on the other hand, I was unaffected / had the "who cares"-effect (Tera and SW:TOR - but I went back to finish a class story
very lame f2p model, even after it got improved).
Among those games I was playing during the switch, I haven't felt any harm, strangely
With DCUO I was planned to cancel anyways, so it was a nice gift that I can keep log in without being Legendary (and later we've handed over to P7S1, so I haven't subbed back since then).
With TSW I was a bit worried about the b2p change, but it turned out it didn't harm my experience, and it was even benefitted the game decently.
With AoC, their initial model was so lame (maybe even worse than SW:TOR's initial model if that's possible
), that it didn't affect anything at all in game. True, I still play it as a sub, but if I'm in an another game with AoC cancelled, I still can hop in to greet the buddies, which is a good thing.
LotRO is a strange one, that was the first to switch f2p (after DDO), everyone was worried about the future. Checking back this more than 2 years, the game got easified, cash-shopped, in some parts even getting dangerously close to the border of PaytoWingdom. On the other hand it got 2 more servers, a lot of new players, 3 expansions (with decreasing quality, but still...), lots of new events, etc. My personal game experience is pretty much the same on the bottom line.
And finally STO. In STO's case it's obvious, the f2p change (and every other change around that period) pushed the game onto the right track. True, that track has a bunch of frikkin' lockboxes on the side, but still, the game is in a much better state now than it was before the switch.
Terrible If I was made to buy a gamebox first, and then lateron have to pay manually for the content once again.
like swtor, its completely rubbish.
"You resist. You cling to your life as if it actually matters. You will learn."
Hundreds of hours of playtime only? I had days (months actually) of playtime in one WoW expansion alone! I'm past 1 year of playtime, not just sitting AFK ingame.
Hundreds of hours is what you can get out of an offline RPG like Skyrim, but for a MMO, it has to have a year worth of content to keep people busy (and not painfully behind grinds).
It's why to wait on MMOs to play them, as the first expansion never has enough content. You'll max out, get bored and leave despite taking time to level.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
It's a massive bait and switch. Over the last 5 or so years, it appears that it's becoming common practice. Release with full price + sub, have a cash shop in place and convert to F2P in order to maximize early profits.
There are so many people starving for a sub model and they appear to be almost proud to pay one. "Look, I'm paying a sub, that means it's going to be a great game with a ton of support" and all that nonsense. It's a really strange thing to watch because every time they are rewarded with another F2P.
The really crazy situations happen when they offer "lifetime subs" and then promptly go F2P. I would feel bad for lifetime subscribers that drop like $300 on a new MMO in this market, but they should have seen it coming at this point.
It's just a life raft for a sinking ship.
Don't care to write a business report.
Here to play games.
What happens when you log off your characters????.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFQhfhnjYMk
Dark Age of Camelot
To me the mark of a F2P game (or going F2P) is when the developers don't have enough confidence in their product to be a long term game. Instead they want to move to a model that will allow for impulse purchases to pad out the game and to allow for a lower barrier of entry for the 'tourist' type gamer.
I will stand by the statement saying that the only reason why F2P is popular, is because the mediocre quality of the games we've had lately and the general gaming populace is tired of having their money wasted. If the quality of the subscription games went up, and stayed up for a period of time then the idea of F2P, in the west at least, would drop drastically.
I've never experienced the change from Sub to F2P, mostly for the reason that I've already seen the writing on the wall and may my way out of the game by that point. To me the idea of playing a F2P game is the same as pirating a movie. "I'm bored and I want to play something so I'll play this, but I don't actually like this enough to pay for it."
Couldn't agree more. They just cash in on box + sub promising all the while they will never go free to play then switch within the first year like it was the plan all along. There's the same song and dance with every bait and switch. It's so predictable now it's like the sun coming up.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/It is excusable for older games, but the new games coming out its a pretty blatant bait and switch. The CEO of Pathfinder even came out and said he was planning on doing box + subscription and then moving on to F2P (in a recent Massively article, for some reason I cant copy and paste onto this website so you'll have to look it up yourselves). I personally think that is dishonest and mean spirited to early adopters who want to support the game.
I don't think that deliberate bait and switch tactics foster community or trust from the customer, and will result in most of those early adopters leaving the game.
I think a new game that starts with a sub fee and goes free very quickly is just a money grab. I think something like TSW makes some sort of sense though, changing to B2P with no sub after they start losing a lot of players.
So long as I can play the game in the same fashion with the same benefits for the same- or less- payment per month I could care less whether it's subscription or RMT.
Great.
I don't play games that requires a sub. This give me more games to play.
I stopped playing SWToR after a month or two of subbing, and when it went F2P, I tried it out and still didn't want to play, so I didn't.
I played TSW in beta, but didn't play it when it released. After it went B2P, I picked it up and played for awhile, enjoying the game, but the combat really kind of got to me, so I stopped playing it again.
I didn't go back to playing Rift, Champions Online or Star Trek Online. When I was done with those games, I was done, no real need to go back.
So I guess overall my view of games that go F2P is that if I'm not interested in paying a subscription for a game, I'm not really interested in playing the game for free with a cash shop. If I'm interested in playing a game, going F2P or getting rid of the subscription is a good way to get me to play the game, but I still need to enjoy it regardless of the status of the subscription.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
SWToR did it poorly
people say tera did it well but is pay to win, they just don't want to admit it. (alkahests and spellbinds people... and "elite" sub benefits)
AoC is like, dead... last I checked 2x low servers.
DCUO is... idk i tried it and did not like the slam the keys and gravitate the nearest baddie so i did not really go much farther
lotro locks character upgrades behind paywalls and cash shop says hello a lot.
rift, have not gone back since it changed but it too has points you can buy which is never good.....
I just do not like a game where you spend $ on a currency for their games outside their games, and the developers creating new costumes for 10-20$ often (cough tera cough) and like a dungeon a year.
thats al
Interesting perspective. Subscribers probably do make a better loyal fanbase.
I now I have a mental image of subscription players being happily chin linked to their MMO as if they belong to it. Along with players that are chained to an MMO, burdened by it. F2P- no burden and not entirely belonging to it.