I wish folks would understand how buying in game rewards, even just vanity ones, changes the core nature of what defines a game.
I know it's an abstract concept and one that dosent appeal to notions of instant gratification or the laziness of users, but it's one that more people should try to understand because it effects everything. It requires seeing a bigger picture outside of the personal bubble though, and that isnt a strength in many.
The relabelling of games into the vague grey realm of 'entertainment products', and everything that means, should actually worry gamers everywhere.
But then I am a gamer, not a shopper, and I buy these games to play them, not to use a virtual mall to buy pretend product for real cash, so I guess I will never get it.
There are also people who have many hours to devote to playing games. They have an ingame advantage. So how do we come up with one system that addresses the imbalances of real world cash, game play time and other factors so that all are the same. If we address one we have to address them all. Otherwise it's just another case of attacking one style or preference to another style of play.
There is no sound reason why things have to be fair. We are talking about digital ENTERTAINMENT here. If it is fun, do people really care about if someone can buy their way into epic items, or that others would spend their entire life to get ahead?
Judging by the size of the player base, i would say people don't care.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
I will say that most of the F2P games that are made from scratch to be f2p (i.e. Perfect world games) are ... generic and unplayable to any REAL mmo vet..
But another example Lotro store is awesome and I am totally for it. No gamebreaking pay to win items. But plenty of things that someone who has money to spend on a hobby can buy and enjoy his gametime more then before, is a very good thing. Im not saying I support pay to win shops but a store with tons of fluff items and mounts and things are a good addition.. It allows players to have more fun and the devs and publishers to employ more people and make more patches for the games we love to play...
I wish folks would understand how buying in game rewards, even just vanity ones, changes the core nature of what defines a game.
I know it's an abstract concept and one that dosent appeal to notions of instant gratification or the laziness of users, but it's one that more people should try to understand because it effects everything. It requires seeing a bigger picture outside of the personal bubble though, and that isnt a strength in many.
The relabelling of games into the vague grey realm of 'entertainment products', and everything that means, should actually worry gamers everywhere.
But then I am a gamer, not a shopper, and I buy these games to play them, not to use a virtual mall to buy pretend product for real cash, so I guess I will never get it.
There are also people who have many hours to devote to playing games. They have an ingame advantage. So how do we come up with one system that addresses the imbalances of real world cash, game play time and other factors so that all are the same. If we address one we have to address them all. Otherwise it's just another case of attacking one style or preference to another style of play.
This is actually easily addressed, though you have to know from the start that you'll never make everyone happy.
If everything that is attainable by spending massive amounts of time in game is also attainable by cash, then you have your balance.
If you want to earn it, then play the game. If you're time is limitted but you still want to be able to experience as much as you can, fork over the cash. When two people meet in PvP, they won't even know how the other person got their gear, but the person who played and earned it will likely have the advatage of real experience.
Having developers code in hindrances that make you have to use the Cash Shop to get any real enjoyment out of our games. Is that really what MMO's are moving into?
Who asked for this? It sure as hell wasnt me!
Personally, I think the f2p/cash shop games are either:
dated and have lost a lot of their subscribers.
not a very good game so they're looking to make up for lost money/dev time.
targeted towards a younger audience.
What I'm looking for in an mmo is a game whose company thinks their game is worth a monthly subscription and that it's targeting an audience who can afford it (i.e. adult).
The problem is that the genre is stagnant. For each mmo that comes out, you feel like you're playing the same game only with a different skin. You can't charge monthly for that.
Create something new and exciting, that's based on exploration, survival, and socializing, and I'll gladly pay a monthly fee.
Having developers code in hindrances that make you have to use the Cash Shop to get any real enjoyment out of our games. Is that really what MMO's are moving into?
Who asked for this? It sure as hell wasnt me!
The reason cash shop might be better for certain mmos is because people actualy pay more then 14.99 a month well most people it's actually not free for those simple minded people they go play and those kids that use momy and daddies credit cards its good for them they dont care.
It's just like blizzard making wow all carebearish with no pvp loss and final fantasy making games like FFXIV and making ridiculous sequels like XIII-2 people just go along for the rideand dont think and still pay ..................break the continuity.
I wish folks would understand how buying in game rewards, even just vanity ones, changes the core nature of what defines a game.
I know it's an abstract concept and one that dosent appeal to notions of instant gratification or the laziness of users, but it's one that more people should try to understand because it effects everything. It requires seeing a bigger picture outside of the personal bubble though, and that isnt a strength in many.
The relabelling of games into the vague grey realm of 'entertainment products', and everything that means, should actually worry gamers everywhere.
But then I am a gamer, not a shopper, and I buy these games to play them, not to use a virtual mall to buy pretend product for real cash, so I guess I will never get it.
There are also people who have many hours to devote to playing games. They have an ingame advantage. So how do we come up with one system that addresses the imbalances of real world cash, game play time and other factors so that all are the same. If we address one we have to address them all. Otherwise it's just another case of attacking one style or preference to another style of play.
This is actually easily addressed, though you have to know from the start that you'll never make everyone happy.
If everything that is attainable by spending massive amounts of time in game is also attainable by cash, then you have your balance.
If you want to earn it, then play the game. If you're time is limitted but you still want to be able to experience as much as you can, fork over the cash. When two people meet in PvP, they won't even know how the other person got their gear, but the person who played and earned it will likely have the advatage of real experience.
I don't enjoy games that have real life cash inside the game world.
I enjoy games that do not have real life cash inside the game world.
Because, I want it to be a game, that is not like the real world, and for me, putting real life cash inside the game world ruins that experience.
It's not about a "balance".
It's about what I enjoy playing, which is a game with no real world cash insde the game world.
I don't mind that other people enjoy games with real life cash in the game world.
But I do not enjoy those kinds of games.
I would hope people that do enjoy those games don't mind if I do not.
I also prefer a barrier to entry, of at least 14.99 a month.
It is an incentive not to act like a jerkwad to the point you get banned, lose your character (that you paid to level up) and have to start over.
Free? Who cares, just be a jerkwad, and make new accounts.
I personally like the F2P format... it lets you try the game out and see if it is something you want to invest in, then you can invest as much or as little as you want to play. The hardcore types are going to be willing to pay for all the bells and whistles, and the casual players can pay for only the things they want. How is this a bad thing?
I personally hate f2p, because is destroyer of quality (not that p2p is guarantee for anything :-)). And not only. Tied in past many ... at the end of the month have spent more for crippled game than would for full game. And if want to try .. use trial. But im ok with f2p as long as they do not plan to ruin Wow or Rift. Rest actually I'm not sure if is qualified at all for p2p.
I think on balance Free to Play games like Guild Wars, Lord of the Rings Online and Dungeons and Dragons online. Are in fact better for the player. P2P is likely to be better for the shareholders of the companies. Games which ignore the fact that players may want to have bonuses with real money changing hands lead to gold sellers and inevitable problems with security. Games which embrace the ability to pay for in game bonuses are less plagued by the curse of the gold farmer.
As a gamer who enjoys playing lots of games I don't want to 'have-to' pay a subby or even a fee up front, if however I enjoy the game I may invest in 'VIP' servces such as you see in LOTRO and DDO, or in expansions to content and functional items such as in Guild Wars.
P2P games like WoW and Rift may seem to have the market 'cornered' but thats just wishful thinking - the marketplace in the far east dwarf's WoW's 'huge' subscriber base by 10's of millions.
I think we are at last reaching some form of maturity within the MMO scence, where 'pop' games such as WoW and Rift who angle their games in an unorignal world, a forumlaric methodology and quite shallow lore will inevtably succeed because the game playing public en-masse is quite a lazy beast and doesn't like to be challenged too much with anythig too complex or lore centric.
Games on the F2P frontier however can really innovate (and have too to keep people playing and paying for items in the item mall) and create games which attract a more refined taste, sadly this often means they shine brightly but not for long.
Bottom line is, there is room for every taste.. gone are the days of 'one game to rule them all'.. but F2P is where innovation and orignality sell the games, where P2P is stale, stagnant, forularic rubbish for the most part.
I think on balance Free to Play games like Guild Wars, Lord of the Rings Online and Dungeons and Dragons online. Are in fact better for the player. P2P is likely to be better for the shareholders of the companies. Games which ignore the fact that players may want to have bonuses with real money changing hands lead to gold sellers and inevitable problems with security. Games which embrace the ability to pay for in game bonuses are less plagued by the curse of the gold farmer.
As a gamer who enjoys playing lots of games I don't want to 'have-to' pay a subby or even a fee up front, if however I enjoy the game I may invest in 'VIP' servces such as you see in LOTRO and DDO, or in expansions to content and functional items such as in Guild Wars.
P2P games like WoW and Rift may seem to have the market 'cornered' but thats just wishful thinking - the marketplace in the far east dwarf's WoW's 'huge' subscriber base by 10's of millions.
I think we are at last reaching some form of maturity within the MMO scence, where 'pop' games such as WoW and Rift who angle their games in an unorignal world, a forumlaric methodology and quite shallow lore will inevtably succeed because the game playing public en-masse is quite a lazy beast and doesn't like to be challenged too much with anythig too complex or lore centric.
Games on the F2P frontier however can really innovate (and have too to keep people playing and paying for items in the item mall) and create games which attract a more refined taste, sadly this often means they shine brightly but not for long.
Bottom line is, there is room for every taste.. gone are the days of 'one game to rule them all'.. but F2P is where innovation and orignality sell the games, where P2P is stale, stagnant, forularic rubbish for the most part.
I hate to burst your bubble, but P2W does not have anything to do with originality or innovation. All P2W is taking the same game mechanics and setting them up so that they can be easily monetized. I guess you could argue it is the exact opposite of originality, since game mechanics need to setup easily so that players can see the advantage of paying for that bonus.
I definitely do not like f2p games. They are all garbage or dying games. I prefer to pay monthly sub and get whole content for that.
This statement actually pertty much proves you don't have a clue what your talking about . Its just a generalisation . In some cases it may be true but certainly not in all . For expample Lord of the Rings had a strong player base when it went free to play . Since then its increased its income by a factor of 3 . So it made financial sence to change over to it after DDO increased its revenues . While it may not be to your taste its certainly not garbage . Again if you take a look at Forsaken World released as a free to play game it offers pretty strong gameplay when compared with a current pay to play game such as Aion . How many mmos are really worth a monthly fee . At present I can only think of three . WoW , Rift and EvE . In fact theres less decent pay to play games than there are decent free to play ones . When it comes to dying games I personally think it would have been better if the likes of Tabula Rasa had survived in a f2play form . You also don't seam to understanding of the freemium model that Lotro has . You can still pay a monthly sub and get the full content . In some ways what free to play amounts to in such games is a really long and absorbing free trial that is not time limited . I don't suppose you have anything against demos or free trials do you ?
I think F2P can work, but I don't like it in the current incarnation. I am of the belief that a game that is highly loot / trade based would do real well if player to player real money transactions were supported and "taxed" by the dev. That's a game I'd certainly hop on board with, assuming it was well made.
Originally posted by Adamantine F2P puts capitalism into my game, thats what I dont like. I want every player to have equal chances. The only difference should be their skill, including their social skills, and the time they have for playing.
That's my thoughts exactly. I deal with socioeconomic classes in real life. I really do not wish to deal with it in my free time. It's the principle of the models.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
To have this discussion you have to define what you mean by 'F2P'.
Do you mean;
A) the failed AAA games that have resorted to a 'Freemium' model because they cannot attract subs?
Or
true (so called) 'F2P' games that we see advertised all over that are designed from the ground up to promote cash shop use in the most insidious ways?
This is worth underlining because the industry, including this site, is deliberatly confusing the two and a lot of players who don't know better thinks F2P is cool because they play LotR or whatever
(To be clear, I am a fan of neither to say the least, I like to play for my in game rewards because I am a gamer and not a shopper, but many players use A to demonstrate the strengths of both models when in reality they are very different animals and should be talked about as seperate cases)
If you are talking about B then obviously I don't want 'games' like these within 1000 yards of my PC. They are exploitative, dishonest, and destroy the very essence of what makes a game a game. They are for the stupid and gullible that percieve a sub of £2.50 a week as 'too expensive' but will then spend that in multiples as their addiction driven impulse buys dictate.
Independent websites need to start talking about this whole subject more honestly and stop waving around the Freemium games as poster children of the F2P 'movement', because they are not the same thing at all and making out that they are is dishonest (making me wonder who are the paymasters behind the pro F2P shilling I see all over the net).
Folks should start asking themselves where the balanced 'official' critical discussion about this core issue is taking place, because right now I am not seeing it.
People need to grasp that the AAA MMORPGs that use a Freemium model would never have been made with the core mechanics and philosophy they were under the F2P model.
You sir, win this thread by a country mile.
I'm sick of seeing AAA titles dieing a death because the devs fucked up/released a sub par game and people left. Only for it to go F2P and be rescued when the "Freebie gang" take up residence. I'd prefer it if the game died like it would have done back in the day. Might teach devs they have one chance to release something worthy.
Now devs have been given more room to release shit. I can just hear them say "we need more polish and depth", "naaaa lets not, we can rake in the box sales then when people leave we can go F2P and get the Freebie Gang's money" Mwhahahaha
I also have a problem with the games (as this man above said) that are built and released with F2P in mind. They are a pox on the internet. Spreading like a cash hungry disease across social networking sites to pull in the kiddies and dopey adults. I have yet to see even one F2P game I would play beyond a few days. I have tried a few so I have no problem voicing my opinion. Its born of trying this pish out..
I don't enjoy games that have real life cash inside the game world.
I enjoy games that do not have real life cash inside the game world.
Because, I want it to be a game, that is not like the real world, and for me, putting real life cash inside the game world ruins that experience.
It's not about a "balance".
It's about what I enjoy playing, which is a game with no real world cash insde the game world.
I don't mind that other people enjoy games with real life cash in the game world.
But I do not enjoy those kinds of games.
I would hope people that do enjoy those games don't mind if I do not.
I also prefer a barrier to entry, of at least 14.99 a month.
It is an incentive not to act like a jerkwad to the point you get banned, lose your character (that you paid to level up) and have to start over.
Free? Who cares, just be a jerkwad, and make new accounts.
All the stuff about you PREFER P2P .. fine .. that is your money.
The last point .. very much off-base.
P2P, who cares, just be a jerkwad and make new toons. It is not like people are abundantly courteous on WOW, the biggest P2P games. In fact, when I do dungeons, I do not see a point of being ultraly nice. The beauty about an online GAME is that one can be mean if one wants to .. whether that is because it is a bad day, or any other reason.
Personally, I think the f2p/cash shop games are either:
dated and have lost a lot of their subscribers.
not a very good game so they're looking to make up for lost money/dev time.
targeted towards a younger audience.
What I'm looking for in an mmo is a game whose company thinks their game is worth a monthly subscription and that it's targeting an audience who can afford it (i.e. adult).
The problem is that the genre is stagnant. For each mmo that comes out, you feel like you're playing the same game only with a different skin. You can't charge monthly for that.
Create something new and exciting, that's based on exploration, survival, and socializing, and I'll gladly pay a monthly fee.
The trouble with assuming that only/all adults can afford monthly subs, and only/all "kiddies" play F2P/B2P games is that it often falls down.
For example, I am an adult. Two children, house to clean, bills to pay, etc. I had more money when I was 17 and could spend all my wages on crap because I still lived at home. The last thing I want to do with my money now is spend it on a sub for a game I might get to play once a week.
You're absolutely right that the genre has stagnated though. The phenomenal success of WoW has spawned a whole host of copycats - not just WoW clones, but other MMOs which assume that you can make a moderately-sized world, slap some quests and mobs in, add a bit of overaching storyline and a gear-treadmill endgame, and you're done. Slap on a box fee, plug in the subscription line, and drink merry profits for the long haul, while occasionally throwing out a couple of new areas for people's trouble. I've played WoW, and it was fun (and had I the time I'd pay a sub for a few months to play through the level element), but I wouldn't want to play a host of other games which were also more or less just a static world with mobs and lore.
The mechanics of these games might be different, the storylines innovative, they might look and feel completely new for a while, but they all still demand what amounts to a heck of a lot of money for a game which is only going to get progressively more stale and bunched up at the elite end. Charging a fee for that seems wrong to me now, and a lot of other people too, and that's why alternative models now have an opening which they are filling.
The trouble with the F2P model is that where P2P has a good press from the likes of WoW, it only has bad press from the likes of Asian grindsters which either hole you up in cheapskateville until you unlock the ferry to the rest of the game, or kill you, repeatedly, until you fork out cash for some decent equipment. Or they just make the game borderline tedious in terms of progression, but with the hint of new and exciting things around the corner to lure you into paying out for a xp/speed boost. Not all F2P games have to be like that - greed is greed whether you pay for it in monthly installments or indivudual chunks. It's just that P2P came first, and has a big brand name to hide behind, and F2P is still evolving and has some massive PR issues. Maybe it will sort itself out and companies will reign in the greed. Maybe the hybrid freemium model will win out. It's too early to tell really. But it certainly isn't going away, because it's easier to try out a F2P game and decide it's not for you than it is to buy into a P2P and risk wasting money. And that is the mentality a lot of people have nowadays.
Personally, I favour B2P. GW1 was (and GW2 is being) designed to accomodate the best of both. The box fee accounts for most of the initial profit, and recoups a lot of the development costs, if not all ( in the case of GW2 this will depend on its success, but GW1 sold 7million boxes, so I'd say it did well). So the game can afford to have a normal rate of progression, and good storyline and balanced mechanics, like offline games do with their one-off fees. The money needed to maintain an online game is then made by having a cash shop which focuses on ancilliary things like vanity items and extra character slots. GW1 sells skill unlock packs for players who want to go straight to PvP without unlocking the skills through PvE gameplay, but that's a pretty minor shortcut, considering how easy it is to get the skills through normal gameplay.
And then, every now and then you get an expansion, which in the case of GW1 came in a box which you bought, and was large enough to be worthy of the box fee given that you can perfectly easily play the game without visiting the shop at all. In the four or five years Ive been playing GW1, I've bought three character slots because I'm an altoholic, and a storage pane when they were half price. I've spent less than £20 in the shop, and, okay, I've bought all four boxes, which probably comes to about... £150, but for four years of paly, with, admittedly a couple of gaps, that's not bad. It's certainly a model I trust enough to buy GW2 on release.
Personally, I think the f2p/cash shop games are either:
dated and have lost a lot of their subscribers.
not a very good game so they're looking to make up for lost money/dev time.
targeted towards a younger audience.
What I'm looking for in an mmo is a game whose company thinks their game is worth a monthly subscription and that it's targeting an audience who can afford it (i.e. adult).
The problem is that the genre is stagnant. For each mmo that comes out, you feel like you're playing the same game only with a different skin. You can't charge monthly for that.
Create something new and exciting, that's based on exploration, survival, and socializing, and I'll gladly pay a monthly fee.
The trouble with assuming that only/all adults can afford monthly subs, and only/all "kiddies" play F2P/B2P games is that it often falls down.
For example, I am an adult. Two children, house to clean, bills to pay, etc. I had more money when I was 17 and could spend all my wages on crap because I still lived at home. The last thing I want to do with my money now is spend it on a sub for a game I might get to play once a week.
...
I'm in total agreement here- I have my own busy schedules to keep, so forking out anything over £4 a month (for myself) would be a stupid thing to do.
I'll try listing the pros and cons I can see of each type:
With a P2P game, there is a guaranteed income from a fairly wide consumer base, assuming that the game takes hold (of course, introducing the game with a cheap subscription and then increasing this accordingly with new content could work well). For already established games, or games which can be deemed suitably popular, this is a good model- but you NEED that hook to begin with. On top of this, the subscription needs to be set at the right level, to maximise profit.
With a F2P game, there is no guaranteed income, and you need to build the incentive into the player to purchase additional content. This has led to the 'cash shop' idea: you find a lot of games hook you into playing for about 30 hours or so with content, consistent level ups, and unlocking of new skills/weapons in accordance with that. However, once you get passed a certain barrier, I have yet to see a single F2P game which doesnt have a certain staleness to it. In order to remedy the staleness, those who have money will spend money on a cash shop, in order to make the game more enjoyable, or to brag, or to help to alleviate the grind.
With a B2P game, there is still no guaranteed income: there's still the initial start-up cost, and guild wars already has a good hold on that niche. On top of this, because there's almost no income WHILE the person is playing the game, you could reach a server which is a money sink. By this time, one would hope that the business model runs the servers very well on investment of the money they've already made.
I'd like to introduce an idea that I havn't seen done properly yet: taxing.
In 'markets' that games undoubtedly have, introduce a real-life currency, which can then be used to buy (attainable) items in-game. Rather than giving someone all of the cash 'points', take a minimal fee (say, 5%) of the transfer. The player buying the item has no advantage over players with time, the player selling the item has received currency which they can buy other items with, and those running the server have taken a profit.
Consider it a way of having micro-transactions without a cash shop. (As an example, I would sell any exp bonus items, because the monetary gain would be more worthwhile to spend on something permanent)
With a F2P model, the game gives a market that runs itself (with some minor tweaks) as it's own economy, without giving any particular characters an unattainable bonus.
With a P2P model, the player selling the item doesnt spend as much real-life money for the best items.
With a B2P model, after the initial cost of the game, the game is self-sustaining.
Comments
Then pay to win is a fair thing.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
I will say that most of the F2P games that are made from scratch to be f2p (i.e. Perfect world games) are ... generic and unplayable to any REAL mmo vet..
But another example Lotro store is awesome and I am totally for it. No gamebreaking pay to win items. But plenty of things that someone who has money to spend on a hobby can buy and enjoy his gametime more then before, is a very good thing. Im not saying I support pay to win shops but a store with tons of fluff items and mounts and things are a good addition.. It allows players to have more fun and the devs and publishers to employ more people and make more patches for the games we love to play...
Just my 2 cents :P
This is actually easily addressed, though you have to know from the start that you'll never make everyone happy.
If everything that is attainable by spending massive amounts of time in game is also attainable by cash, then you have your balance.
If you want to earn it, then play the game. If you're time is limitted but you still want to be able to experience as much as you can, fork over the cash. When two people meet in PvP, they won't even know how the other person got their gear, but the person who played and earned it will likely have the advatage of real experience.
Personally, I think the f2p/cash shop games are either:
dated and have lost a lot of their subscribers.
not a very good game so they're looking to make up for lost money/dev time.
targeted towards a younger audience.
What I'm looking for in an mmo is a game whose company thinks their game is worth a monthly subscription and that it's targeting an audience who can afford it (i.e. adult).
The problem is that the genre is stagnant. For each mmo that comes out, you feel like you're playing the same game only with a different skin. You can't charge monthly for that.
Create something new and exciting, that's based on exploration, survival, and socializing, and I'll gladly pay a monthly fee.
The reason cash shop might be better for certain mmos is because people actualy pay more then 14.99 a month well most people it's actually not free for those simple minded people they go play and those kids that use momy and daddies credit cards its good for them they dont care.
It's just like blizzard making wow all carebearish with no pvp loss and final fantasy making games like FFXIV and making ridiculous sequels like XIII-2 people just go along for the rideand dont think and still pay ..................break the continuity.
This has became a redundant argument again. If not quite cyclical the King deems. Look, F2P is B2P in chunks.
And it's fine that way. You save a little cash and can cut the fat from a title. Nothing wrong with no fatties.
Im waiting for the $2.99/month mmos to surface with no cash shops and free game DL. That would be amazing.
The problem is the the drop rate is effect by the FTP model and it just becomes a grind.
I don't enjoy games that have real life cash inside the game world.
I enjoy games that do not have real life cash inside the game world.
Because, I want it to be a game, that is not like the real world, and for me, putting real life cash inside the game world ruins that experience.
It's not about a "balance".
It's about what I enjoy playing, which is a game with no real world cash insde the game world.
I don't mind that other people enjoy games with real life cash in the game world.
But I do not enjoy those kinds of games.
I would hope people that do enjoy those games don't mind if I do not.
I also prefer a barrier to entry, of at least 14.99 a month.
It is an incentive not to act like a jerkwad to the point you get banned, lose your character (that you paid to level up) and have to start over.
Free? Who cares, just be a jerkwad, and make new accounts.
I personally hate f2p, because is destroyer of quality (not that p2p is guarantee for anything :-)). And not only. Tied in past many ... at the end of the month have spent more for crippled game than would for full game. And if want to try .. use trial. But im ok with f2p as long as they do not plan to ruin Wow or Rift. Rest actually I'm not sure if is qualified at all for p2p.
Would you buy more shoe strings if they were only 10 cents?
Sometimes a lower price does not encourage more purchases, depending on the product.
I'm not sure anyone not willing to pay 14.99 a month, is willing to pay 2.99 a month.
Or at least, not a significant amount of players to make the price reduction worthwhile.
Eh?
I've not seen that to be the case in any game from Scions of Fate to LotRO. Sounds like hyperbole and a scare thought against the F2P model.
The King dubs that a poor argument.
I want buy to play with optional DLC and expansions.
Kinda like guildwars.
I enjoy many mmos and i hate that i have to pay 10-15 bucks a months for all of them even if i only spend 5 hours in a game a month.
Playing: Nothing
Looking forward to: Nothing
I think on balance Free to Play games like Guild Wars, Lord of the Rings Online and Dungeons and Dragons online. Are in fact better for the player. P2P is likely to be better for the shareholders of the companies. Games which ignore the fact that players may want to have bonuses with real money changing hands lead to gold sellers and inevitable problems with security. Games which embrace the ability to pay for in game bonuses are less plagued by the curse of the gold farmer.
As a gamer who enjoys playing lots of games I don't want to 'have-to' pay a subby or even a fee up front, if however I enjoy the game I may invest in 'VIP' servces such as you see in LOTRO and DDO, or in expansions to content and functional items such as in Guild Wars.
P2P games like WoW and Rift may seem to have the market 'cornered' but thats just wishful thinking - the marketplace in the far east dwarf's WoW's 'huge' subscriber base by 10's of millions.
I think we are at last reaching some form of maturity within the MMO scence, where 'pop' games such as WoW and Rift who angle their games in an unorignal world, a forumlaric methodology and quite shallow lore will inevtably succeed because the game playing public en-masse is quite a lazy beast and doesn't like to be challenged too much with anythig too complex or lore centric.
Games on the F2P frontier however can really innovate (and have too to keep people playing and paying for items in the item mall) and create games which attract a more refined taste, sadly this often means they shine brightly but not for long.
Bottom line is, there is room for every taste.. gone are the days of 'one game to rule them all'.. but F2P is where innovation and orignality sell the games, where P2P is stale, stagnant, forularic rubbish for the most part.
I hate to burst your bubble, but P2W does not have anything to do with originality or innovation. All P2W is taking the same game mechanics and setting them up so that they can be easily monetized. I guess you could argue it is the exact opposite of originality, since game mechanics need to setup easily so that players can see the advantage of paying for that bonus.
This statement actually pertty much proves you don't have a clue what your talking about . Its just a generalisation . In some cases it may be true but certainly not in all . For expample Lord of the Rings had a strong player base when it went free to play . Since then its increased its income by a factor of 3 . So it made financial sence to change over to it after DDO increased its revenues . While it may not be to your taste its certainly not garbage . Again if you take a look at Forsaken World released as a free to play game it offers pretty strong gameplay when compared with a current pay to play game such as Aion . How many mmos are really worth a monthly fee . At present I can only think of three . WoW , Rift and EvE . In fact theres less decent pay to play games than there are decent free to play ones . When it comes to dying games I personally think it would have been better if the likes of Tabula Rasa had survived in a f2play form . You also don't seam to understanding of the freemium model that Lotro has . You can still pay a monthly sub and get the full content . In some ways what free to play amounts to in such games is a really long and absorbing free trial that is not time limited . I don't suppose you have anything against demos or free trials do you ?
I think F2P can work, but I don't like it in the current incarnation. I am of the belief that a game that is highly loot / trade based would do real well if player to player real money transactions were supported and "taxed" by the dev. That's a game I'd certainly hop on board with, assuming it was well made.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
I do not like f2p or pay to win personally but the compnays will do what suites them the best and what makes them more money its always about money.
You sir, win this thread by a country mile.
I'm sick of seeing AAA titles dieing a death because the devs fucked up/released a sub par game and people left. Only for it to go F2P and be rescued when the "Freebie gang" take up residence. I'd prefer it if the game died like it would have done back in the day. Might teach devs they have one chance to release something worthy.
Now devs have been given more room to release shit. I can just hear them say "we need more polish and depth", "naaaa lets not, we can rake in the box sales then when people leave we can go F2P and get the Freebie Gang's money" Mwhahahaha
I also have a problem with the games (as this man above said) that are built and released with F2P in mind. They are a pox on the internet. Spreading like a cash hungry disease across social networking sites to pull in the kiddies and dopey adults. I have yet to see even one F2P game I would play beyond a few days. I have tried a few so I have no problem voicing my opinion. Its born of trying this pish out..
Peace..
All the stuff about you PREFER P2P .. fine .. that is your money.
The last point .. very much off-base.
P2P, who cares, just be a jerkwad and make new toons. It is not like people are abundantly courteous on WOW, the biggest P2P games. In fact, when I do dungeons, I do not see a point of being ultraly nice. The beauty about an online GAME is that one can be mean if one wants to .. whether that is because it is a bad day, or any other reason.
The trouble with assuming that only/all adults can afford monthly subs, and only/all "kiddies" play F2P/B2P games is that it often falls down.
For example, I am an adult. Two children, house to clean, bills to pay, etc. I had more money when I was 17 and could spend all my wages on crap because I still lived at home. The last thing I want to do with my money now is spend it on a sub for a game I might get to play once a week.
You're absolutely right that the genre has stagnated though. The phenomenal success of WoW has spawned a whole host of copycats - not just WoW clones, but other MMOs which assume that you can make a moderately-sized world, slap some quests and mobs in, add a bit of overaching storyline and a gear-treadmill endgame, and you're done. Slap on a box fee, plug in the subscription line, and drink merry profits for the long haul, while occasionally throwing out a couple of new areas for people's trouble. I've played WoW, and it was fun (and had I the time I'd pay a sub for a few months to play through the level element), but I wouldn't want to play a host of other games which were also more or less just a static world with mobs and lore.
The mechanics of these games might be different, the storylines innovative, they might look and feel completely new for a while, but they all still demand what amounts to a heck of a lot of money for a game which is only going to get progressively more stale and bunched up at the elite end. Charging a fee for that seems wrong to me now, and a lot of other people too, and that's why alternative models now have an opening which they are filling.
The trouble with the F2P model is that where P2P has a good press from the likes of WoW, it only has bad press from the likes of Asian grindsters which either hole you up in cheapskateville until you unlock the ferry to the rest of the game, or kill you, repeatedly, until you fork out cash for some decent equipment. Or they just make the game borderline tedious in terms of progression, but with the hint of new and exciting things around the corner to lure you into paying out for a xp/speed boost. Not all F2P games have to be like that - greed is greed whether you pay for it in monthly installments or indivudual chunks. It's just that P2P came first, and has a big brand name to hide behind, and F2P is still evolving and has some massive PR issues. Maybe it will sort itself out and companies will reign in the greed. Maybe the hybrid freemium model will win out. It's too early to tell really. But it certainly isn't going away, because it's easier to try out a F2P game and decide it's not for you than it is to buy into a P2P and risk wasting money. And that is the mentality a lot of people have nowadays.
Personally, I favour B2P. GW1 was (and GW2 is being) designed to accomodate the best of both. The box fee accounts for most of the initial profit, and recoups a lot of the development costs, if not all ( in the case of GW2 this will depend on its success, but GW1 sold 7million boxes, so I'd say it did well). So the game can afford to have a normal rate of progression, and good storyline and balanced mechanics, like offline games do with their one-off fees. The money needed to maintain an online game is then made by having a cash shop which focuses on ancilliary things like vanity items and extra character slots. GW1 sells skill unlock packs for players who want to go straight to PvP without unlocking the skills through PvE gameplay, but that's a pretty minor shortcut, considering how easy it is to get the skills through normal gameplay.
And then, every now and then you get an expansion, which in the case of GW1 came in a box which you bought, and was large enough to be worthy of the box fee given that you can perfectly easily play the game without visiting the shop at all. In the four or five years Ive been playing GW1, I've bought three character slots because I'm an altoholic, and a storage pane when they were half price. I've spent less than £20 in the shop, and, okay, I've bought all four boxes, which probably comes to about... £150, but for four years of paly, with, admittedly a couple of gaps, that's not bad. It's certainly a model I trust enough to buy GW2 on release.
Reality Bites. I'm only Barking
I'm in total agreement here- I have my own busy schedules to keep, so forking out anything over £4 a month (for myself) would be a stupid thing to do.
I'll try listing the pros and cons I can see of each type:
With a P2P game, there is a guaranteed income from a fairly wide consumer base, assuming that the game takes hold (of course, introducing the game with a cheap subscription and then increasing this accordingly with new content could work well). For already established games, or games which can be deemed suitably popular, this is a good model- but you NEED that hook to begin with. On top of this, the subscription needs to be set at the right level, to maximise profit.
With a F2P game, there is no guaranteed income, and you need to build the incentive into the player to purchase additional content. This has led to the 'cash shop' idea: you find a lot of games hook you into playing for about 30 hours or so with content, consistent level ups, and unlocking of new skills/weapons in accordance with that. However, once you get passed a certain barrier, I have yet to see a single F2P game which doesnt have a certain staleness to it. In order to remedy the staleness, those who have money will spend money on a cash shop, in order to make the game more enjoyable, or to brag, or to help to alleviate the grind.
With a B2P game, there is still no guaranteed income: there's still the initial start-up cost, and guild wars already has a good hold on that niche. On top of this, because there's almost no income WHILE the person is playing the game, you could reach a server which is a money sink. By this time, one would hope that the business model runs the servers very well on investment of the money they've already made.
I'd like to introduce an idea that I havn't seen done properly yet: taxing.
In 'markets' that games undoubtedly have, introduce a real-life currency, which can then be used to buy (attainable) items in-game. Rather than giving someone all of the cash 'points', take a minimal fee (say, 5%) of the transfer. The player buying the item has no advantage over players with time, the player selling the item has received currency which they can buy other items with, and those running the server have taken a profit.
Consider it a way of having micro-transactions without a cash shop. (As an example, I would sell any exp bonus items, because the monetary gain would be more worthwhile to spend on something permanent)
With a F2P model, the game gives a market that runs itself (with some minor tweaks) as it's own economy, without giving any particular characters an unattainable bonus.
With a P2P model, the player selling the item doesnt spend as much real-life money for the best items.
With a B2P model, after the initial cost of the game, the game is self-sustaining.
lol at callling guild wars niche game with its sales being in top of best selling games ever .......