Lol - And the op manages to leave out the main reason why alot of ppl turn to F2P MMOs.
They can play the game without paying for the CONNECTION to their characters. In other words... You can spend money for 2 months ... then dont play for next 4 - and come back without taking out the wallet again.
I especially like being told why "I should play F2P games" for reasons that directly contradict my own experieces. Many other posters have mentioned all the reasons, F2Ps often looks good on paper, but in practice they pretty much lose any redeeming qualities they had, as compared to P2P games, in almost all cases.
most of these games that are going f2p are like taking the generic hotdog anyhow.
SWG should go f2p... they don't get any quality updates, the servers are shit, and the devs really couldn't care less or there are not enough devs to care. These kind of games need to go f2p just to survive. f2p , that games population would explode and there would be tons of people playing it. Hell they already have MT's anyhow via the TCG system.
Right now people are sick of the crap and just unsubbing most of these games. Now there are some games that I would NOT like to see go f2p, only the games that are not worth my 15 dollars , but I wouldn't mind playing them as a time sink until my dream MMO comes out.
Personally I do not understand where this idea that F2P is cheaper then P2P comes from.
Compagnies want to increase profit. Not decrease it.
When you talk in terms of embracing something...sorry thats borderline religious drivel.
The way I see it with free2play is that publisher and developer now think they can have cake and pie at the same time. And most people have no problem with free2play.
The problem comes with talking heads like you, telling us that we must accept free2play.
Thats too fanatic for my tastes and feels extremely dictatorial. Signs of the time?
Or just the regular old lets fool the customer into thinking they are the ones who will benefit.
More options are what I really want. Be that in game or as payment/subscription offers.
I started playing DDO again and they have a fantastic model where you can get everything for free if you're really patient or get it faster if you want to pay. That's choice, it's not forced on me which of the two I select but up to me.
The whole notion that "you have to pay to compete" is also just a choice being offered. You (the customer) can just say no. If the game doesn't deliver the game experience you want for the money you think it is worth, then you just stop playing. That's no reason why the choice shouldn't be there for other people with other tastes and/or priorities.
P2P - The only motivation of the Development House is to design an experience that the user will enjoy. Why? Because that's how they make thier revenue. You enjoy the service you'll continue to subscribe in future. They pretty much don't care how much or how little you use the service or what you do when using the service...with the obvious exception of disrupting other users.... as long as you are enjoying yourself, you'll stay subscribed and they'll continue to get revenue from you. The only question the Dev needs ask himself when designing the game is "How can I make this fun for the users?"
F2P - The motivation of the Development House is to design an experience that will get the user to make a RMT purchase in the cash shop, and to make as many purchases as they are willing to tolerate. Yes, they want to get people in the door... but only because that leads to the opportunity for a cash shop purchase. Yes, they want people to ultimately enjoy thier experience...but only if they have done so by making cash shop purchases. Ultimately that's what it's all about, because that's how the business makes it's revenue. If people aren't making cash shop purchases, the game isn't making any revenue. The prime question the Dev asks himself is "How do I get people to make cash shop purchases?"
It really is that simple. Fundementaly a F2P's business model is really no different then a gambling Casino. What they want is not just to entice you in the door, but to manipulate your behavior toward spending activities (gambling/making purchases) once you are in the door. Thier entire design is based around that principle...it has to be in order for them to maximize revenue.
Now some people really do enjoy gambling Casino's... and as long as you know that's what you are walking into, aren't bothered by the level of manipulation and have the self-discipline to maintain a budget...fine. However for alot of people, it's a tawdry, hollow and soulless experience.
More options are what I really want. Be that in game or as payment/subscription offers.
I started playing DDO again and they have a fantastic model where you can get everything for free if you're really patient or get it faster if you want to pay. That's choice, it's not forced on me which of the two I select but up to me.
The whole notion that "you have to pay to compete" is also just a choice being offered. You (the customer) can just say no. If the game doesn't deliver the game experience you want for the money you think it is worth, then you just stop playing. That's no reason why the choice shouldn't be there for other people with other tastes and/or priorities.
4) It's only less stress on the wallet for the disciplined. For those that are disciplined, F2P is a great thing and I agree with the author that the player won't always to have drop $15 to continue the adventure. It will be easy for the player to devote one month to a F2P, drop it for a few months, and then pick it up again without needing to pay for those dropped months in order to keep their character.
Unfortunately for the undisciplined, F2P will cost them much more than P2P as it is so easy to pop in a few more dollars to buy that item to increase the change of upgrading a piece of equipment.
3) There will always get people who are adament that all F2P quality is bad. However, nothing is absolete in the world and there are some real F2P gems out there. However, there are indeed many bad F2P out there so it's like finding a needle in a haystack.
For those who use the old adage of "you get what you pay for" against the F2P model, it directly conflicts with the argument that they use about F2P costing more than P2P. After all, if you're paying more for a F2P than a P2P and "you get what you pay for"...
2) I agree with this one. There's too many games out there trying to copy WoW. If a F2P game is hoping to survive by being a clone of another popular game, then it's not going to survive. Therefore, in order to survive F2P games need to offer something revolutionary. If the change happens to be bad, then that F2P game is lost and forgotten. If the change is good, then it will survive and live on.
The F2P model is like taking a shotgun approach. From the player's perspective, there will be a large number of F2P games released in a given year and a large percentage will be "bad" to that particular player. However, there is a slim chance that the player may find a F2P that they will enjoy. From the F2P publisher's point of view, there will be a massive number of players trying out their game since it's free and a small percentage of players may start paying for it long term. It doesn't matter if the playing population is small and no one in the general public has heard of it. Match the right player to the right game such that the game survives and you have a successful business.
The P2P model is more like taking a targeted approach. They have to design a game that appeals to the largest audience possible as that is how they can get the users to subscribe. They may result in a higher quality production but also lead to clones.
1) I agree with this too. Perhaps Tabula Rasa may have survived longer if it tried F2P instead of going down with the ship that is P2P. The MMO that I've been playing for the past 2.5 years started its life as a P2P. It was obviously not doing well with the P2P model so after a few months, it switched to F2P. Fast forward 2.5 years to the present day, the game is still thriving with new expansions coming out every couple of months. Personally, I've spent less in that game in a given year than if I had stayed with the traditional $15/month P2P route.
All valid forms of payment models for a game. I will not dispute the pros/cons of each because I feel it is definately up to the person purchasing the product as to what makes sense to them.
I also like the idea that their are options. For someone who does not play often a Pay for Time ( P4T ) played may make more sense than a P2P or F2P.
Do not tell me I should like something tho, just because you do or do not. And do not force one or the other down my throat and call it pie!
You want to take on the mantle of the F2P movement that is fine. Just understand that you will become the talking head at that point and not necessarily one who is looking at the different options objectively.
If your topic had been named "Discussions on Pros and Cons of F2P it would be a different story.
Say hello, To the things you've left behind. They are more a part of your life now that you can't touch them.
4. The point of F2P having RMT/MT is to get out of your wallet more than $15. After all recently converted F2P games were incapable of sustaining themselves on $15 per month.
3. No such thing as real quality for cheap.
2. Change can be for the worse and following the Murphy's Law, it usually is. at least for customers.
1. And that is a good thing? Third rate garbage keeps clinging to life thereby encouraging developers to peddle out more third rate garbage.
totally agree, if you take a bad and failing game and change the payment method from a subscription type model to a f2p one the game instantly becomes a success and a breath of fresh air.
/sarcasm off
F2p does not mean f2p and if you play the game to any decent level then u will be paying the same as a subscription fee anyhow, if you want to be competitive then u will be paying alot more generally. To say that it is less stress on the wallet is only corrent if you play the game very casually otherwise you are just plain wrong.
But as has been said elsewhere by alot of other people, changing a game from p2p to f2p doesn't make it a good game, it may make it last longer, but if a game is dying already then chances are it is failing for a reason.
And just wanted to say I lol'd at the fact you think a failing game changing its payment method from p2p to f2p to try to survive a bit longer will have any effect on the gaming industry as a whole or the payment models in particular. Thats the equivalent of a "suit" (as you put it) walking past a homeless begger on the street and thinking "Hmm, why the hell am I a CEO of a major company with a massive bank balance? That guy there is doing fine begging for scraps. Perhaps I should sell my house, burn my money and start living like him!"
Well im not sure where this f2p s**t storm orginiated at, nm i remember now. But it has gotten some larger media attention. The Wall Street Journal was one of those. Im not going to commont on their article but, what was clear is that F2P make the company more money. You wanna know why there is a push for F2P .. its easy game companies want more than $15 a month from you and in F2P games they get it. Now i have clearly stated that there are some real f2p games out there, very few but a few SB was one, Lol (not an mmo) was one etc.
A few people do not want to admit that F2P is a simple rip off. thats fine but i just want to stress to most of the people out there are are no positives to this system, as most often its FAKE and not F2P at all. Even those pro F2P in this forum addmit that they had to switch to sub to actually play the game (well that not their take but its the truth, once they did that they are now playing a P2P game, ill say that agian. They are not playing a F2P game they are playing a P2P game with a open trial w/ strong limits. This is fine but don't pretend its F2P cause its not, even tho DDO is one of the most free to play). Cash shops w/o subs (P2P options) are the worst type of payment models. In most cases requires $50-$100+ a month just to play.
I do agree with the advantage of testing the game before paying for it. P2P game have these they are called trials. By many standards and statement of what F2P is by a few pro F2P people WAr is more of a F2P game than wizards 101. This is rather odd a F2P game is less F2P and a P2P game. Why? Well easy F2P is rarely F2P. if you want to play Wizards 101 or WAR past a defined earily point (WAR is later ability and game wise than Wizards) then you have to P2P; until then you can play all you like.
There is definatly an effort in parts of the industry to encourgae adaptation to F2P models to make more money. Thats what this is all about. Don't believe me look up the articles.
You beat me to it, as I was just about to post this exact point. If anyone really believes that all the F2P propaganda is from noble freedom-loving game publishers who just want to bring free gaming to the oppressed masses, then they should PM me. I have some Nevada seafront property for sale.
Sorry guys, but the fact is the publishers are tired of only getting $15/month from their customers, "F2P" means that you're be "free to pay" much more than that.
Basically the aggressive f2p games, those that sell items that enhance or speed up game play, usually figure on $50 a month for their paying customers. It is expensive to be uber. So much for your cheap theories.
Nice to see some actual numbers instead of endless speculation provided in these articles about f2p.
"Never met a pack of humans that were any different. Look at the idiots that get elected every couple of years. You really consider those guys more mature than us? The only difference between us and them is, when they gank some noobs and take their stuff, the noobs actually die." - Madimorga
Comments
I especially like being told why "I should play F2P games" for reasons that directly contradict my own experieces. Many other posters have mentioned all the reasons, F2Ps often looks good on paper, but in practice they pretty much lose any redeeming qualities they had, as compared to P2P games, in almost all cases.
The article totally misses the "reality" boat.
most of these games that are going f2p are like taking the generic hotdog anyhow.
SWG should go f2p... they don't get any quality updates, the servers are shit, and the devs really couldn't care less or there are not enough devs to care. These kind of games need to go f2p just to survive. f2p , that games population would explode and there would be tons of people playing it. Hell they already have MT's anyhow via the TCG system.
Right now people are sick of the crap and just unsubbing most of these games. Now there are some games that I would NOT like to see go f2p, only the games that are not worth my 15 dollars , but I wouldn't mind playing them as a time sink until my dream MMO comes out.
Personally I do not understand where this idea that F2P is cheaper then P2P comes from.
Compagnies want to increase profit. Not decrease it.
When you talk in terms of embracing something...sorry thats borderline religious drivel.
The way I see it with free2play is that publisher and developer now think they can have cake and pie at the same time. And most people have no problem with free2play.
The problem comes with talking heads like you, telling us that we must accept free2play.
Thats too fanatic for my tastes and feels extremely dictatorial. Signs of the time?
Or just the regular old lets fool the customer into thinking they are the ones who will benefit.
Go peddle your snake oil somewhere else.
I like the choice.
More options are what I really want. Be that in game or as payment/subscription offers.
I started playing DDO again and they have a fantastic model where you can get everything for free if you're really patient or get it faster if you want to pay. That's choice, it's not forced on me which of the two I select but up to me.
The whole notion that "you have to pay to compete" is also just a choice being offered. You (the customer) can just say no. If the game doesn't deliver the game experience you want for the money you think it is worth, then you just stop playing. That's no reason why the choice shouldn't be there for other people with other tastes and/or priorities.
The difference is very simple:
P2P - The only motivation of the Development House is to design an experience that the user will enjoy. Why? Because that's how they make thier revenue. You enjoy the service you'll continue to subscribe in future. They pretty much don't care how much or how little you use the service or what you do when using the service...with the obvious exception of disrupting other users.... as long as you are enjoying yourself, you'll stay subscribed and they'll continue to get revenue from you. The only question the Dev needs ask himself when designing the game is "How can I make this fun for the users?"
F2P - The motivation of the Development House is to design an experience that will get the user to make a RMT purchase in the cash shop, and to make as many purchases as they are willing to tolerate. Yes, they want to get people in the door... but only because that leads to the opportunity for a cash shop purchase. Yes, they want people to ultimately enjoy thier experience...but only if they have done so by making cash shop purchases. Ultimately that's what it's all about, because that's how the business makes it's revenue. If people aren't making cash shop purchases, the game isn't making any revenue. The prime question the Dev asks himself is "How do I get people to make cash shop purchases?"
It really is that simple. Fundementaly a F2P's business model is really no different then a gambling Casino. What they want is not just to entice you in the door, but to manipulate your behavior toward spending activities (gambling/making purchases) once you are in the door. Thier entire design is based around that principle...it has to be in order for them to maximize revenue.
Now some people really do enjoy gambling Casino's... and as long as you know that's what you are walking into, aren't bothered by the level of manipulation and have the self-discipline to maintain a budget...fine. However for alot of people, it's a tawdry, hollow and soulless experience.
F2P lIKS
I like the choice.
More options are what I really want. Be that in game or as payment/subscription offers.
I started playing DDO again and they have a fantastic model where you can get everything for free if you're really patient or get it faster if you want to pay. That's choice, it's not forced on me which of the two I select but up to me.
The whole notion that "you have to pay to compete" is also just a choice being offered. You (the customer) can just say no. If the game doesn't deliver the game experience you want for the money you think it is worth, then you just stop playing. That's no reason why the choice shouldn't be there for other people with other tastes and/or priorities.
KEY LORD OF THE RING PLIS
4) It's only less stress on the wallet for the disciplined. For those that are disciplined, F2P is a great thing and I agree with the author that the player won't always to have drop $15 to continue the adventure. It will be easy for the player to devote one month to a F2P, drop it for a few months, and then pick it up again without needing to pay for those dropped months in order to keep their character.
Unfortunately for the undisciplined, F2P will cost them much more than P2P as it is so easy to pop in a few more dollars to buy that item to increase the change of upgrading a piece of equipment.
3) There will always get people who are adament that all F2P quality is bad. However, nothing is absolete in the world and there are some real F2P gems out there. However, there are indeed many bad F2P out there so it's like finding a needle in a haystack.
For those who use the old adage of "you get what you pay for" against the F2P model, it directly conflicts with the argument that they use about F2P costing more than P2P. After all, if you're paying more for a F2P than a P2P and "you get what you pay for"...
2) I agree with this one. There's too many games out there trying to copy WoW. If a F2P game is hoping to survive by being a clone of another popular game, then it's not going to survive. Therefore, in order to survive F2P games need to offer something revolutionary. If the change happens to be bad, then that F2P game is lost and forgotten. If the change is good, then it will survive and live on.
The F2P model is like taking a shotgun approach. From the player's perspective, there will be a large number of F2P games released in a given year and a large percentage will be "bad" to that particular player. However, there is a slim chance that the player may find a F2P that they will enjoy. From the F2P publisher's point of view, there will be a massive number of players trying out their game since it's free and a small percentage of players may start paying for it long term. It doesn't matter if the playing population is small and no one in the general public has heard of it. Match the right player to the right game such that the game survives and you have a successful business.
The P2P model is more like taking a targeted approach. They have to design a game that appeals to the largest audience possible as that is how they can get the users to subscribe. They may result in a higher quality production but also lead to clones.
1) I agree with this too. Perhaps Tabula Rasa may have survived longer if it tried F2P instead of going down with the ship that is P2P. The MMO that I've been playing for the past 2.5 years started its life as a P2P. It was obviously not doing well with the P2P model so after a few months, it switched to F2P. Fast forward 2.5 years to the present day, the game is still thriving with new expansions coming out every couple of months. Personally, I've spent less in that game in a given year than if I had stayed with the traditional $15/month P2P route.
F2P, P2P, P4T
All valid forms of payment models for a game. I will not dispute the pros/cons of each because I feel it is definately up to the person purchasing the product as to what makes sense to them.
I also like the idea that their are options. For someone who does not play often a Pay for Time ( P4T ) played may make more sense than a P2P or F2P.
Do not tell me I should like something tho, just because you do or do not. And do not force one or the other down my throat and call it pie!
You want to take on the mantle of the F2P movement that is fine. Just understand that you will become the talking head at that point and not necessarily one who is looking at the different options objectively.
If your topic had been named "Discussions on Pros and Cons of F2P it would be a different story.
Say hello, To the things you've left behind. They are more a part of your life now that you can't touch them.
4. The point of F2P having RMT/MT is to get out of your wallet more than $15. After all recently converted F2P games were incapable of sustaining themselves on $15 per month.
3. No such thing as real quality for cheap.
2. Change can be for the worse and following the Murphy's Law, it usually is. at least for customers.
1. And that is a good thing? Third rate garbage keeps clinging to life thereby encouraging developers to peddle out more third rate garbage.
totally agree, if you take a bad and failing game and change the payment method from a subscription type model to a f2p one the game instantly becomes a success and a breath of fresh air.
/sarcasm off
F2p does not mean f2p and if you play the game to any decent level then u will be paying the same as a subscription fee anyhow, if you want to be competitive then u will be paying alot more generally. To say that it is less stress on the wallet is only corrent if you play the game very casually otherwise you are just plain wrong.
But as has been said elsewhere by alot of other people, changing a game from p2p to f2p doesn't make it a good game, it may make it last longer, but if a game is dying already then chances are it is failing for a reason.
And just wanted to say I lol'd at the fact you think a failing game changing its payment method from p2p to f2p to try to survive a bit longer will have any effect on the gaming industry as a whole or the payment models in particular. Thats the equivalent of a "suit" (as you put it) walking past a homeless begger on the street and thinking "Hmm, why the hell am I a CEO of a major company with a massive bank balance? That guy there is doing fine begging for scraps. Perhaps I should sell my house, burn my money and start living like him!"
You beat me to it, as I was just about to post this exact point. If anyone really believes that all the F2P propaganda is from noble freedom-loving game publishers who just want to bring free gaming to the oppressed masses, then they should PM me. I have some Nevada seafront property for sale.
Sorry guys, but the fact is the publishers are tired of only getting $15/month from their customers, "F2P" means that you're be "free to pay" much more than that.
Give me liberty or give me lasers
Read this article to basically refute some of your reasoning.
http://www.edery.org/2010/08/debating-f2p-monetization/
Basically the aggressive f2p games, those that sell items that enhance or speed up game play, usually figure on $50 a month for their paying customers. It is expensive to be uber. So much for your cheap theories.
Nice to see some actual numbers instead of endless speculation provided in these articles about f2p.
Stopped reading at 'less stress on the wallet.'
"Never met a pack of humans that were any different. Look at the idiots that get elected every couple of years. You really consider those guys more mature than us? The only difference between us and them is, when they gank some noobs and take their stuff, the noobs actually die." - Madimorga