F2P vs P2P

Swollen_Beef

There is already a lively discussion on this matter on the offical forums, but it cant hurt to have multiple places discussing this matter.

 

 

So, as the title says. Which do you support?

 

 

My opinion, I like the P2P option. RMTs or Micro transactions just dont appeal to me. The whole "nickle and dimed to death" issue.  Think iTunes vs Zune. $.99 a song or $15/mo for unlimited songs. Sounds simple to me.

 

 

darwinator

P2P for me.  But if I have to pay it had better work and better be as advertised or I take my money some where else,

I have not really found F2P to be all that successful other then Guild Wars and that is a pretty stagnant world with nothing but preplanned zones or battle grounds.

XoRys

I consider RMT/MT should not be in game absolutely. The best variant - to pay for a month some dollars and to get thus the equal rights with other players. Certainly for real money it is impossible to buy skill but I consider there is a border for which quantity passes in quality if you understand me.

I for P2P

 

Sauronas

Heh, I don't care what they do.  This kind of game is long over due and I'll pay whatever. 

Hamilton-NEO

I will admit that we were going to go along the lines of a P2P with a RMT model in place and I think it could have worked (notice the past tense).

However, I am noticing a stigma being associated with the combination of P2P and RMT due to how some companies are doing so.  So even if we were to do things just right ... I think the stigma alone will drive people away. 

 

The other situation I am looking at is the "casualization" of games.  That is online games are being made more casual, simplified, browser based, free (well F2P) and integrated with social network sites.  So with that happening in the market, I see that as the direction of the F2P model, which P2P online games being more suited to the "dedicated gamer."  It is becoming more difficult to describe what is a hardcore gamer (spending a lot of hours or high details?) and a casual gamer (casual as in time or as in game play?).  By Dedicated Gamer I mean of those people who want a detailed game, with the amount of time not being considered.  So if one person spends 40 hours a week and another spends only 5 hours a week, but they both want a sophesticated game, then I consider them as Dedicated Gamers.

I do believe a market exists for Dedicated Gamers, even with the move towards casualization and socialization of online games.

So with that all said or typed, looking at going with a P2P plan for the 3D MMORPG while the F2P is geared more for the browser social network games.  There might be a free to play capability put into use, such as only able to use certain stock Mechs and fight at restricted areas (such as the warzones), but that would be it.  Essentially F2P is limited to Grunt Duty.  What to do something else, well then...

So why have Grunt Duty?  Because this is a very cost effective way to outsource the AI.  Players with F2P become the AI for paying players.

darwinator

I like the idea of using the F2P crowd for target practice....ugh...I mean AI.

scuubeedoo

P2P. You should have included a poll btw.

Daywolf

I’ve been peeking in on FoA now and then since MV went beta, and I think I’d agree with a f2p model even though in 95% of cases I prefer p2p. I played Planetside for a couple years on a subscription, up until they devalued the mechs/BFR’s (and other changes). The game tanked, became a ghost town, but then they went to a partial f2p model (without an item mall), and even though the game still had a foul odor, it was fun due to the many people that were playing again. When they ended that, it died again. I last logged in two months ago, it was deader than ever. I don’t know if this game is good or not, but in any case, it’ll probably be fun if there are targets to shoot at, and froob players make for excellent squishies