Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
General: Two F2P Shortcomings
SBFord
Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
In the Free Zone this week, MMORPG.com columnist Richard Aihoshi springboards off of Garrett Fuller's recent article about Where MMOs Go Wrong. Richard centers his discussion on the free to play aspect of the MMO universe and outlines two specific shortcomings endemic to the genre. Check out Richard's thoughts and then add your own to the mix in the comments below.
For starters, I totally agree with Garrett's first point about games not making strong enough initial impressions. This is something that has annoyed me for years, all the way back to the days of UO, EQ and AC. To use the last of these as an example - not that the others or Korean counterparts of their generation were meaningfully better - how much fun was it to kill bunnies by the warren or to explore those areas where newbies could survive, which were largely empty? At that time, we could tell ourselves that since these games were pioneers, their designers had no real way to know better. But this was a partial justification, not a complete reason or explanation. And it didn't magically make the early play more enjoyable.
Read more of Richard Aihoshi's The Free Zone: Two F2P Shortcomings .
)
Comments
Huh?
Why would a f2p drop something like crafting? Have you ever even thought how they fund these games? Half the revenue they generate comes through crafting gimmicks that improve equipment that are only available only through the item shop. Secondly without some crafting ability many would just quit these games because of the upper end grind. Sometimes I wonder why you report on this area of the genre, you seem to be lacking knowledge of how these games operate.
It's interesting... I responded to Garrett's article to say that I disagreed with all three of his points, the "first impressions" point most of all. But I was thinking about it from the subscription-based side of the fence. On the F2P side, it actually does make sense that such a mistake could sink an otherwise capable game. When the client software doesn't cost you anything except the time it took to download and install it, it's much easier to say "Not interested!" and uninstall within the first hour or two. You certainly do not see people doing that with games that they paid $50 for, no matter how bad the level 1-5 play experience is.
I will agree with Richard on Point #1
Barriers to Entry/Exit. F2P games are all about removing the barriers. This means that the easier that people can get into the game, and start having fun... the better they will do. However, it also means that if they do not quickly get 'hooked' on the game, they will be gone just as fast.
The best example of this is Farmville. It takes literally seconds to get into this game, and Zynga does a very good job at makeing the game engaging (sticky) from the first click. They also do a very good job at regularly providing reasons to return (via social motivations). If a F2P MMORPG could do this as well, it would be a HUGE hit...
(Note: WoW does a very good job at this, and it is one of the reasons it is such a sucess)
He isn't saying to remove crafting from f2p games. Do you even read? He is saying that when your game is designed towards a very specefic goal that including sup-par secondary features in order to gain slightly more users is a bad idea. He used a "badly implemented crafting" system in a guild pvp mmo as an example. Then you go on to insult him, internet fascists these days.
This was directed at Ozmodan by the way.
The graphics are what turns me off---example---after all the ballyhoo over LOTRO--i find the graphics at least second rate--looks almost cartoonish in the movements
Common Sense.....Isn't
Pisces333: I can agree on graphics being a turn off. I'm curious though - what do you consider to have better graphics/animations than LOTRO? I've been using LOTRO as my "standard" and am looking for something as good or better.
^^ That didn't post the way I thought it would, sorry...
I like decent graphics but will live with slightly less stunning graphics if the gameplay is good. Some graphics I just couldn't get used to. Wow was one though I realy have to try it for a while. Ten million people can't be wrong...the game obviously has appeal!
I have a love/hate thing with crafting. Its great to pull off a triple proc and get a exeptional piece of armor or weapon but its NOT fun gathering 2000 pieces of unobtainium, converting them to useable ingots, adding other equaly as time consuming or pricey to get and spending the better part of a night to maybe get the piece hoped for. It was a simple but effective system.
The piece itself can be an issue to. If its a PVP setting you now have a real advantage over those not lucky enough to get the procs needed or would rather play the game..
I prefer a GW type 'crafting' system. If it were a bow it had the same max dmg as any bow of equal level and it was up to you to add a bow string for extended poison duration, damage type, enchants duration etc. Now the grip...+health, mana ........ It was a very personanized weapon and could be a situational or general use item. Best IMO was a recurve with extended poison string, grip..depends but usualy health. OH, yeah, bow type mattered to. Recurve was mid distance and pretty near impossible to dodge. And it didn't take 4 hours of sitting at a craft station to make.
My statements from the subscription standpoint in the "Where Do MMORPGs Go Wrong?" article stand just as equally with F2P, such as are necessary.
Lotro and DDO had really good graphics. Lord of the rings and DDO were Pay to play . I think its rubbish for someone to complain about graphics when in fact some of the F2P games have really good graphics like Alliods. F2P is nothing more than a bait and switch teqnuique. I say this because the Free is going to attract a gamer. When they progress in the game they are going to buy so they can progress futher. When they finally do the math and figure it out that being a subscriber would be cheaper they subscribe. There is no differnce in f2p and p2p. Its not about graphics its really about content and how deep a game is.
Edgar F Greenwood
Oh thanks. I did not find this article any more elucidating than any of his others. As usual, he used a bad example and I just pointed it out. Even a badly implemented crafting system is still a cash cow for a f2p game. Even suggesting eliminating it is a bit of a stretch. Perhaps I owe him an apology for being overly critical. Granted it is a hard subject to cover as it encompasses so many games and is basically in flux most of the time.
Well, first impression is very importat. I loved Allod's Online, one of the most impressive F2P ever. But now, with mail.ru, is impossible to play it. All impressions are important, if you want servers always full. Now AO has a few players compared 6 mounths ago.
My blog about (no more)MMORPG Addicted - a bog about videogames, cinema, politics and other things (in Italian)
Going to stop reading your articles because I really cant take them seriously.
I believe that any content that isn't up to snuff shouldn't be included. If it is an important feature than delay your game and release something people will care about.
My argument would be why include a bad crafting system with the intent of increasing cash flow when you could have added more interesting items to the cash shop or fleshed out a main design feature and thus have improved your game and maintained the same probable income.
Although I do agree this article was a bit... badly designed. I understand where he is coming from and what he is saying... but he could have said it a lot better.
Less double negatives, please.
Crafting is in F2P, and its popular...
There is also the belief many have that if you do not PAY a subscription to play an MMORPG, that it must be a bad game you will play and if you pay a subscription that a placebo effect will hit the player believing that IT must be good since it COSTS MONEY TO PLAY.
Due to the majority of games originally being subscription based games, it makes F2P look like cheap knock-offs of "pay to play" games. Unfortunately saturation does exist there too like in the rest of the genre...
The blame isn't on the companies as there is far more content being delivered in a patch by patch basis rather than pay tons for an expansion. In this case, its on the community who loves to act like little unpaid corporate employees spending fandom and ultimatums along with indirect threats about making another's life a hell if they play a different kind of game than they are used to.
I play Civilization V and I get enough people who give me the "oh you must be a lesser gamer" attitude. The same happens when I play F2P, P2Ps, etc. Anywhere you GO these worms exist, spreading lies and holier-than-thou attitude.
Of course it sounds like a full blown accusation and label im placing on others...But I don't see the majority have 20 years gaming experience with enough Logic and Reasoning to form a statement or the Education and Experience in the industry to quote something real and not some ill-backed conjecture. Specially if most gamers are 12 - 20 year olds throwing comments without education.
Good Luck ^_^
Most of the time I read the F2P articles here and don't put a lot of weight into them. Not because the articles aren't well written, but because I simply haven't ever found a F2P game that I played longer than a week or so... before going back to a retail/subscription based game.
This article made some good points... solid points.
I would personally like to see some of the F2P gaming companies respond to this article and see what feedback they provide. That would most certainly be interesting.