Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

P2P -> F2P = Fail?

dhayes68dhayes68 Member UncommonPosts: 1,388

When subscription games suddenly decide to go f2p does that mean the game is failing?  I mean I know  it apparently did well for DDO but whenever I see an item about a p2p mmo going f2p, which is happening with increasing frequency, I just think "That game must not be doing well."

«1

Comments

  • arcdevilarcdevil Member Posts: 864

    yeah, going F2P means the game is failing/has failed to meet its expectatives, and in some extreme cases moving to F2P is its only way to survive on the market

     

    F2P supporters rejoice of this, because in spite of their empty claims that F2P games are any good, they know their only chance of playing a F2P that isnt vomitive would be a game that wasnt designed to be F2P from the ground up.

     

    they all know that the most mediocre or even plain shitty P2P >>>>>>> the best F2P hands down, and whats even better, P2P developers that are forced to go down the F2P road are a billion times more honest and less greedy than F2P devs, so their cash shops will always be incredibly more fair.

     

    funny that its the same people that keeps preaching P2P is dead and F2P is the way to go...

  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 28,410

    DDO was failing, that was true. I think for the games you are seeing it's all about the game comapnies seeing what a success that DDO became and wanting to capitalize on that same success.

    I don't believe LOTRO or EQ 2 were "failing". However, seeing that the DDO model brougth in quite a bit of money as well as more subscribers and just returning players in general, it made sense to move LOTRO to the hybrid f2p model. Sony saw the same thing and wanted to reap the same benefits.

    As far as Alganon I think that was a survival thing.

  • PapadamPapadam Member Posts: 2,102

    Originally posted by dhayes68

    When subscription games suddenly decide to go f2p does that mean the game is failing?  I mean I know  it apparently did well for DDO but whenever I see an item about a p2p mmo going f2p, which is happening with increasing frequency, I just think "That game must not be doing well."

    Not really, some companies have found better business model than forcing people paying monthly sub and are adapting to what people want.

    With EQ2, DDO and LotrO adding F2P options we now see a big shift in MMOs, that monthly subscription is not the only way if you want to play a high quality MMO.

    People hate F2P because in the past all of them have been cheap asian grinders but now we are seeing MMOs which are designed for western players and making F2P models that suit us better. This is a win win for both us players and the companies making the MMOs. 

    If WoW = The Beatles
    and WAR = Led Zeppelin
    Then LotrO = Pink Floyd

  • Gardavil2Gardavil2 Member Posts: 394


    Originally posted by Papadam


    Originally posted by dhayes68
    When subscription games suddenly decide to go f2p does that mean the game is failing?  I mean I know  it apparently did well for DDO but whenever I see an item about a p2p mmo going f2p, which is happening with increasing frequency, I just think "That game must not be doing well."

    Not really, some companies have found better business model than forcing people paying monthly sub and are adapting to what people want.
    With EQ2, DDO and LotrO adding F2P options we now see a big shift in MMOs, that monthly subscription is not the only way if you want to play a high quality MMO.
    People hate F2P because in the past all of them have been cheap asian grinders but now we are seeing MMOs which are designed for western players and making F2P models that suit us better. This is a win win for both us players and the companies making the MMOs. 

    Speak for yourself and others MMO Players that agree with your point of view. Not all Players find this switch in funding to F2P with MT to be superior to Subscription funded MMO.

    I am a Western MMO Player and F2P is NOT and NEVER WILL BE a "Win" for me, in fact I believe F2P is fundamentally altering MMOs in unacceptable ways.... because Devs design F2P MMOs in fundamentally different ways than a Subscription based MMO is designed. Many people have tried to tell me this isn't so, but I have played F2P MMOs as well as P2P and I know for a fact this is true.

    Do you like how F2P MMOs are designed? Great. I don't. Give me a Subscription funded MMO any day.

    DDO was failing, and I still do not agree with Turbine's decision to go F2P. LotRO wasn't or isn't failing financially, they are just jumping on the greed bandwagon due to how well DDO has financially succeeded. Even though DDO is now financially a success story it is Failure a MMO and so too will LotRO be a Failure as well IMHO.... because there is artificially now two classes of Players where before there was only one. Before all Players had full access. Before what mattered whas the Player's desire to experience the game in what ever manner they chose to do so, but all Players had for the most part the same opportunities ingame. That is now no longer the case in DDO and LotRO will be the same soon too. Once this happens in a MMO I no longer consider that game a MMO. There is much more to what a MMO is or isn't than just "massively multiplayer online". Some Players will understand what I am referring too, and some Players won't understand and never will.

    I began playing MMOs because I oppose the idea that it is OK in real life to structure human society according to financial status. IMHO it is NOT acceptable to judge others according to how much money they have in real life. People are people no matter how they put their pants on or what pants they wear. MMO Gaming under a subscription funded system allows all Players to interact on a equal basis regardless of real life financial status. This is why I enjoyed MMO gaming for so many years because when I logged in I could be playing the game with People from all over the world regardless of what there real life was like, because as I discovered in real life I had also discovered in MMO gaming... People are People and deserve respect regardless.

    F2P with MT cash shop destroys what I loved most about MMO gaming... NO financial class system. As long as you could afford to pay the subscription you were ingame and after that it never mattered how much or how little a Player was "worth" in real life. F2P with MT blows this completely to pieces and as far as I am concerned it also makes a MMO into just an "Interactive Video Game". I don't play MMOs for the "game" alone, I also play them for the Community and how I can enjoy the game with other real People.


    I am the Player that wonders... "What the %#*& just happened?!"
    ...............
    "I Believe... There should be NO financial connection or portals between the Real World and the Virtual in MMOs. "
    __Ever Present Cockroach of the MMO Verses__
    ...scurrying to and fro... .munching on bits of garbage... always under foot...

  • Sain34Sain34 Member UncommonPosts: 293

    In LOTRO's case I would say no, LOTRO wasnt failing. In the case of others I would say its the last gasp or they are just trying to copy Turbine's DDO lighting in a bottle.

    image

  • rwmillerrwmiller Member Posts: 472

    Well the simple answer is that failing is failing trying something different is simply an attempt to avoid failing.

     

    The problem of course is that free to play is not really an accurate term and that free to trial or free to play but not very seriously would be more accurate. People bemoan the greed of developers and producers but the fact of the matter is that they need money to stay in business and to run the servers and produce new content and it has to come from the players one way or another.

     

    You can argue which is better or which costs less but the issue really boils down to how regular the payments come in and how they are controlled. With a subscription model the developers have an idea of how much money will come in each month and can budget accordingly but the player has to know that they will have that amount going out every month or they lose access to their characters and friends. With a pay as you play design the player retains access to the game and the characters at some level another as far as being able to log on but is running with a feature set that will require payments for access to content and/or materials in the game. For the developers the advantage to this is that if they can create desire in the hearts of the players they will spend a lot more money than if they were simply subscribing and getting an all you can eat buffet. The disadvantage is that predicting their revenue is now quite difficult. For players it means that if they don't have any money available that  they can still log in and play around though possibly be limited until they do have some more money.

     

    Neither solution is ideal for both parties and each has advantages and disadvantages.

     

    As to it being a sign of failure that all depends on if it works or not as you could equally argue that the subscription model was a failure. And of course all of this totally ignores if the game is playable and of any interest to a large enough player population to prove viable.

  • rwmillerrwmiller Member Posts: 472

    Originally posted by Sain34

    In LOTRO's case I would say no, LOTRO wasnt failing. In the case of others I would say its the last gasp or they are just trying to copy Turbine's DDO lighting in a bottle.

     

    In my case I had purchased the lifetime subscription to LotRO so it had not cost me any additional money for a long time but it also I wasn't generating any additional revenue for them either. A large number of people that I play with also had lifetime subscriptions. Maybe too many.

  • OzmodanOzmodan Member EpicPosts: 9,721

    Turbine is the only company that has been successfully converting.  Mainly because they don't offer stat enhancing items in the item shop and the cost of what you need to play the game is reasonable.  So it is a different model than your normal f2p.  SOE on the other hand, you can expect to spend significant money on an enhanced character in EQ2 with no chance of playing on the subscription servers.

    Turbine's model is successful and will generate more revenue.  SOE's on the other hand is just a cash grab and I take pity on anyone fool enough to try their f2p version.

  • Gardavil2Gardavil2 Member Posts: 394


    Originally posted by Ozmodan
    Turbine is the only company that has been successfully converting.  Mainly because they don't offer stat enhancing items in the item shop and the cost of what you need to play the game is reasonable.  So it is a different model than your normal f2p.  SOE on the other hand, you can expect to spend significant money on an enhanced character in EQ2 with no chance of playing on the subscription servers.
    Turbine's model is successful and will generate more revenue.  SOE's on the other hand is just a cash grab and I take pity on anyone fool enough to try their f2p version.

    "Mainly because they don't offer stat enhancing items in the item shop"

    They do now. They are called "Stat Tomes". DDO has them and so too will LotRO F2P according to what we know from Beta so far.

    I am the Player that wonders... "What the %#*& just happened?!"
    ...............
    "I Believe... There should be NO financial connection or portals between the Real World and the Virtual in MMOs. "
    __Ever Present Cockroach of the MMO Verses__
    ...scurrying to and fro... .munching on bits of garbage... always under foot...

  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 28,410

    Originally posted by Gardavil2

     




    Originally posted by Ozmodan

    Turbine is the only company that has been successfully converting.  Mainly because they don't offer stat enhancing items in the item shop and the cost of what you need to play the game is reasonable.  So it is a different model than your normal f2p.  SOE on the other hand, you can expect to spend significant money on an enhanced character in EQ2 with no chance of playing on the subscription servers.

    Turbine's model is successful and will generate more revenue.  SOE's on the other hand is just a cash grab and I take pity on anyone fool enough to try their f2p version.




    "Mainly because they don't offer stat enhancing items in the item shop"

    They do now. They are called "Stat Tomes". DDO has them and so too will LotRO F2P according to what we know from Beta so far.

    It is important to note, at least with LOTRO that those tomes can be acquired through regular game play. Personally I don't believe in the tomes but they will be there for people who just want to play for them. They are also not bind on acquire so I believe they can be sold in the auction house.

  • FalcanFalcan Member Posts: 36

    What I like about F2P is that you can play as much or as little a month as you want.  If you only want to play for a week, then you can.  If you quit playing for awhile but one day decide you want to log back in to run around for a little while, you can just log back in instead of having to pay for an entire month.  I prefer that to being locked into something for a month.

  • RobsolfRobsolf Member RarePosts: 4,597

    Ever consider that companies might make a similar decision for different reasons?

    For example, Eve Online sells their client for next to nothing... free, technically.  Does that mean they're failing?  After all, most game clients still cost money, even for failing games like WAR.

    STO's client got deeply discounted in the first month.  Matter of fact, they gave you 3 free months, and it was less than $45, so technically it was free.  Do you think they did it for the same reason that Eve did?  Do you think they had the same motivating factors?

    LotRO was NOT failing.  It wasn't really growing, either.  Going F2P will definitely change that.  The same could probably be said of EQII, though I'm not as familiar.

  • IhmoteppIhmotepp Member Posts: 14,495

    Originally posted by dhayes68

    When subscription games suddenly decide to go f2p does that mean the game is failing?  I mean I know  it apparently did well for DDO but whenever I see an item about a p2p mmo going f2p, which is happening with increasing frequency, I just think "That game must not be doing well."

     

    EQ2 added F2P servers. So they are BOTH P2P and F2P.

    What does this mean?

    image

  • IhmoteppIhmotepp Member Posts: 14,495

    Originally posted by Falcan

    What I like about F2P is that you can play as much or as little a month as you want.  If you only want to play for a week, then you can.  If you quit playing for awhile but one day decide you want to log back in to run around for a little while, you can just log back in instead of having to pay for an entire month.  I prefer that to being locked into something for a month.

     

    I don't find any value in playing an MMORPG for a week, or just running around a while. If I'm playing it that little, it's not worth playing at all.

    So I dont' mind paying for a month at a time. Either I'm involved in teh game enough that this is a good vaule, or I am no longer interested in the game, and I'm fine with canceling my subscription.

    image

  • uquipuuquipu Member Posts: 1,516


    Originally posted by dhayes68
    When subscription games suddenly decide to go f2p does that mean the game is failing?  I mean I know  it apparently did well for DDO but whenever I see an item about a p2p mmo going f2p, which is happening with increasing frequency, I just think "That game must not be doing well."

    .
    I generally play WoW but I've gotten bored of it from time to time.
    .
    I bought LotRO when it came out. I would play it, get bored around level 20-30 and quit.
    And then I would pick up the game again from time to time. Get bored around level 20-30 and quit again.
    .
    Then LotRO came out with expansions. I couldn't justify buy the expansions when I knew I'd never get high enough level to play them.
    .
    Then I never subbed to LotRO again. Why? Because I couldn't get to end game and to get to end game I'd have to buy expansions which I didn't want to buy.
    .
    LotRO can't compete in a WoW universe. Free to play is the best way to go for LotRO.

    Well shave my back and call me an elf! -- Oghren

  • PhilbyPhilby Member Posts: 849

    Originally posted by Ihmotepp

    Originally posted by dhayes68

    When subscription games suddenly decide to go f2p does that mean the game is failing?  I mean I know  it apparently did well for DDO but whenever I see an item about a p2p mmo going f2p, which is happening with increasing frequency, I just think "That game must not be doing well."

     

    EQ2 added F2P servers. So they are BOTH P2P and F2P.

    What does this mean?

    It means you can still play EQ2 the way it was designed if you do not like the P2W model.  LOTRO and DDO on the other hand integrated servers so cash shop items are being used in the game whether you pay a sub or not.  There is another thread asking why P2P advocates were against choice. Looks to me like Turbine is the one against choice.

    WOW isnt great because it has 12 million players. WOW has 12 million players because its great.

  • IhmoteppIhmotepp Member Posts: 14,495

    Originally posted by Philby

    Originally posted by Ihmotepp


    Originally posted by dhayes68

    When subscription games suddenly decide to go f2p does that mean the game is failing?  I mean I know  it apparently did well for DDO but whenever I see an item about a p2p mmo going f2p, which is happening with increasing frequency, I just think "That game must not be doing well."

     

    EQ2 added F2P servers. So they are BOTH P2P and F2P.

    What does this mean?

    It means you can still play EQ2 the way it was designed if you do not like the P2W model.  LOTRO and DDO on the other hand integrated servers so cash shop items are being used in the game whether you pay a sub or not.  There is another thread asking why P2P advocates were against choice. Looks to me like Turbine is the one against choice.

     

    I agree. The ultimate "choice" is to be able to choose to play a game on a Cash shop server, or a Subscription server with no cash shop.

    image

  • nAAtimusnAAtimus Member Posts: 342

    I don't count a game as "fail" until the servers are shut down.

    I'm not here to complete my forum PVP dailies.

  • Redline65Redline65 Member Posts: 486

    I think it's a smart move. A hybrid model that gives players choices... either subscribe and get it all, pay no monthly fee and buy things piecemeal, or play entirely for free and never spend a dime. MMOs have always excluded one or more of these groups of players, so in theory this model should appeal to everybody. It wouldn't surprise me if the hybrid model is prevalent in the future.

  • ReaperUkReaperUk Member UncommonPosts: 735

    Originally posted by Ihmotepp

    Originally posted by Philby

    It means you can still play EQ2 the way it was designed if you do not like the P2W model.  LOTRO and DDO on the other hand integrated servers so cash shop items are being used in the game whether you pay a sub or not.  There is another thread asking why P2P advocates were against choice. Looks to me like Turbine is the one against choice.

     

    I agree. The ultimate "choice" is to be able to choose to play a game on a Cash shop server, or a Subscription server with no cash shop.

     I don't know about the other games but it would be a pretty pointless choice for LotRO. Whichever payment model you choose, you get to experience the same content as other players and nobody else would even  know whether you're a monthly, lifetime or F2P player as it has no impact on anyone else.

    I've been in the beta for a while and now the NDA is lifted, I can tell you the F2P model is working really well. Turbine and Codemasters must be confident of its success too, as they're planning on launching extra servers when it launches later this year.

    The only problem is that F2P is a misleading description. Although it's theoretically possible to play the game infinitum for free, in practice your going to have to cough up some real life money pretty soon after starting if you want to have a normal mmorpg experience. I predict a huge surge in new players but some of them are going to lose interest when they find its not as free as they thought. It's still a very good option for lots of people though.

  • arcdevilarcdevil Member Posts: 864

    Originally posted by reaperuk

    Originally posted by Ihmotepp


    Originally posted by Philby

    It means you can still play EQ2 the way it was designed if you do not like the P2W model.  LOTRO and DDO on the other hand integrated servers so cash shop items are being used in the game whether you pay a sub or not.  There is another thread asking why P2P advocates were against choice. Looks to me like Turbine is the one against choice.

     

    I agree. The ultimate "choice" is to be able to choose to play a game on a Cash shop server, or a Subscription server with no cash shop.

     I don't know about the other games but it would be a pretty pointless choice for LotRO. Whichever payment model you choose, you get to experience the same content as other players and nobody else would even  know whether you're a monthly, lifetime or F2P player as it has no impact on anyone else.

    yes, you get to experience the same content, however the communities would be different.

     

     

    that said If microtransactions are really that profitable , I'd totally support this idea.

    In my server I'd play the real game as it was intended to be and have fun

    and then on the other server the developers would have free reign to milk the poor idiots willing to spend 3 grands on a cash shop to subdue the pitful freeloaders willing to endure countless humilliations and punishment just for a free meal.

    And the F2P server income would pay better support for the P2P one, since F2P players seem to be fine with recieving practically zero support in their games anyway....

     

     

     

     

    I wouldnt mind the idea of a game with 2 different models and a server for each model ( F2P+cash shop on one side, P2P on the other)  as long as I dont have to deal with the scumbags that plague F2P servers.

    Keep them in their own ghetto I say, and we'll all get along...

  • ryuga81ryuga81 Member UncommonPosts: 351


    Originally posted by Philby

    It means you can still play EQ2 the way it was designed if you do not like the P2W model.  LOTRO and DDO on the other hand integrated servers so cash shop items are being used in the game whether you pay a sub or not.  There is another thread asking why P2P advocates were against choice. Looks to me like Turbine is the one against choice.

    On the other hand, both DDO and LOTRO are PVE games. So technically there is no "win" at all. Technically you can just play only with players that don't buy anything and the others will never affect you. That's even more true considering the game economy is almost totally planned.

  • PhilbyPhilby Member Posts: 849

    Originally posted by arcdevil

    Originally posted by reaperuk


    Originally posted by Ihmotepp


    Originally posted by Philby

    It means you can still play EQ2 the way it was designed if you do not like the P2W model.  LOTRO and DDO on the other hand integrated servers so cash shop items are being used in the game whether you pay a sub or not.  There is another thread asking why P2P advocates were against choice. Looks to me like Turbine is the one against choice.

     

    I agree. The ultimate "choice" is to be able to choose to play a game on a Cash shop server, or a Subscription server with no cash shop.

     I don't know about the other games but it would be a pretty pointless choice for LotRO. Whichever payment model you choose, you get to experience the same content as other players and nobody else would even  know whether you're a monthly, lifetime or F2P player as it has no impact on anyone else.

    yes, you get to experience the same content, however the communities woudl be different.

     

    I wouldnt mind the idea of a game with 2 different models and a server for each model ( F2P+cash shop on one side, P2P on the other)  as long as I dont have to deal with the scumbags that plague F2P servers.

    Keep them in their own ghetto I say, and we'll all get along...

    Community is an issue but even with the P2P servers content is going to suffer.  I cant see companies making grindy, CS dependant content for the P2W servers and at the same time making good content for the P2P servers. So the P2P servers will suffer the problem of dilluted content due to time and resources needed  to develop P2W content and cash shop items.

    WOW isnt great because it has 12 million players. WOW has 12 million players because its great.

  • PhilbyPhilby Member Posts: 849

    Originally posted by ryuga81

     




    Originally posted by Philby



    It means you can still play EQ2 the way it was designed if you do not like the P2W model.  LOTRO and DDO on the other hand integrated servers so cash shop items are being used in the game whether you pay a sub or not.  There is another thread asking why P2P advocates were against choice. Looks to me like Turbine is the one against choice.




    On the other hand, both DDO and LOTRO are PVE games. So technically there is no "win" at all. Technically you can just play only with players that don't buy anything and the others will never affect you. That's even more true considering the game economy is almost totally planned.

    This would be true if games were non competitive which some say PVE games are. To me earning things that not everyone has is a form of competitiion. For example making Rep items available in the CS (which LOTRO is doing) removes this competition and the item is no longer desireable thus taking something away from the game that many enjoy.

    WOW isnt great because it has 12 million players. WOW has 12 million players because its great.

  • ReaperUkReaperUk Member UncommonPosts: 735

    Originally posted by Philby

    Community is an issue but even with the P2P servers content is going to suffer.  I cant see companies making grindy, CS dependant content for the P2W servers and at the same time making good content for the P2P servers. So the P2P servers will suffer the problem of dilluted content due to time and resources needed  to develop P2W content and cash shop items.

     I don't know whether everyone is aware that Codemasters have already stated that they'll be guiding new F2P players to the quieter ones of the existing servers. That doesn't sound like they'll be splitting servers into P2P and F2P ones. I'm guessing that's Turbine's intention too?

Sign In or Register to comment.