It's a wave already. Cash shops and DLC are immensely popular, it has been proven that people do not mind paying a little for a little extra, even if it is superfluous stuff like a vanity pet.
If you're exchanging cash for something, then it's not free.
Which is why I asked for clarification.
If F2P simply means you don't pay a monthly fee, but there's other components of the game that require cash payments, then I would not define that model as F2P.
So you're discussing semantics. F2P is a marketing word. You'll never see "pay to play!" in the advertisements for a P2P game, because it's not something that will attract people. "Free to play!" is going to attract people, even if it's technically not correct. I guess the term we could use is "micro-transactions based". Good luck putting that on your ads, though.
And it goes back to my original argument. Are we judging the quality of the game based on the pricing model, or the game itself? I would argue that if a key selling point of the game is the pricing model, then the game lacks an inherent quality capable of making it a long term success, both in terms of profitability and customer sustainability.
In other words, WoW has 10 million active accounts because its a tremendous game with wide appeal. Any game that doesn't match WoW in terms of quality and apparel, regardless of its pricing model, simply has no chance at meeting or exceeding WoW's level of success, in both dollars and players.
I agree with you that most free MMOs are utter shit and should be removed from the internet right away. There are also good games that use the micro-transactions model.* The free MMO market is big now, games are trying harder to get your attention. They point you to their other virtues and mainly use the F2P argument as a "and you can't argue against something that's free. Come on, give it a try. It won't cost you a thing" and not as a "hey this game has no qualities, but it's free so you know give it a try if you want to".
Also: WoW's appeal is equal to Farmville's appeal. It's easy to get in to, everyone else is playing it and it's addictive to keep playing to get another reward.
*You will probably not like them, because you already play WoW and playing more than one MMO at a time is just hard for our braincells to deal with. This is why every new MMO will have discussions about WoW in all chat channels for the first few months: people are so hooked into their MMO of choice that they can't look at another game in the genre without thinking about "their" MMO.
So your argument is that "Free" is the wave of the future?
Nothing is free. But if a game wants to succeed on the same level as WoW it'll have to be even more accessible than WoW. And if it cost less that'd be a good start.
I don't understand how people can say U.S. MMOs are moving towards cash shops as the payment model. LOTRO is going to try this, yeah. But just because Blizzard is willing to sell you Blingee the magic sparkle pony and charge you in anal trauma rape dollars for a character transfer doesn't mean they aren't still charging a monthly fee to play the actual game.
My point is that theory dictates you build something (like a MMO) and then price it based on the value it offers to your target consumer. Not the other way around. Any game that is design around a pricing model, I believe, is doomed to failure, whether the intentions are good or not. The reason being, while price is always a component, I just don't feel there's enough evidence to support it as a top driving factor towards long-term success of a game.
Furthermore, you have to consider whether or not your pricing model is a hinders the overall enjoyment of the game. I feel very strongly that a game based on a model that constantly reminds the player they're paying for everything a la carte, whether its the latest content patch or a new vanity item, will detract from the overall enjoyment of the game.
I think you're either end up in a system where the added value of in game transactions are so small that you have multitudes of free accounts, but barely any paying members (such as Second Life) or you'll hit a spot where the items are so inherent to the game that your pricing becomes sub-optimal compared to other subscription based games, which eventually alienates any sort of player base.
EDIT: And to add to Jeepguy's point, LOTOR is going to a Free Play with Micro Transactions model because it failed to attract a core base to support the game on subscriptions. In other words, LOTOR is an example of a failed pricing scheme, not a success. And I will bet a lifetime subscription to WoW that over the course of the next year, LOTOR will continue to fail, not because of its pricing scheme, but because it just isn't a very good game.
The bottom line is many of these other pricing options exist as a band-aid to help promote niche, or very poorly executed games, and not the other way around.
The bottom line is many of these other pricing options exist as a band-aid to help promote niche, or very poorly executed games, and not the other way around.
Do you think the number of people for whom a subscription is a barrier to entry is insignificant, or only made up of poor people or children? I know plenty of people, just in a random sampling of friends, who like gaming but think it's ridiculous to pay a monthly sum just to access a game, and while you feel that being reminded that you have to buy the next content pack ruins your fun (does your game of choice offer paid expansions? If so, does it ruin your fun to know you'll have to buy it?), there is someone else who is buying that content precisely because they know that they will always be able to come back to it for free, forever.
I don't expect that the market will ever become totally F2P or powered by microtansactions. I suspect there are two markets here, and never the twain shall meet. Some people will just never pay a sub for a game (myself included, though I have paid for a sub before I won't do it again, no matter how much I loved EQ2). Others will never want to buy content except for, uh, expansions, which everyone charges for (and nobody seems to mind paying for), except, say, Runes of Magic. And EVE. Others will find ways to experiment with this, offer hybrid models, go B2P/Play for Free, etc.
The monthly fee is only a cost if you are still consuming the same number of other video games.
I used to buy one or two new games a month, as well as having to upgrade console systems occasionally.
Now I subscribe to a few MMOs, didn't buy a 360/PS3/WII and buy a handful of new games a year.
It's probably cheaper to be an MMO gamer, but once you add in micro-transactions for crap it's a bit more expensive, but not much (I do some WoW character transfers here and there, the cost is not insubstantial).
The monthly fee is only a cost if you are still consuming the same number of other video games.
I used to buy one or two new games a month, as well as having to upgrade console systems occasionally.
Now I subscribe to a few MMOs, didn't buy a 360/PS3/WII and buy a handful of new games a year.
It's probably cheaper to be an MMO gamer, but once you add in micro-transactions for crap it's a bit more expensive, but not much (I do some WoW character transfers here and there, the cost is not insubstantial).
What? No, the monthly fee is a cost if you can play an MMO for free. How on earth is it not? I'm talking about MMO gamers exclusively; all of my friends only play games on the PC. Most of them ask me for advice and recommendations about F2P games because they think it's absurd to buy a game and then have to continue to pay for it for as long as you play it.
In 15 years of gaming (MUDs included) I've spent exactly $5 outside of buying boxed expansions, on the GW Bonus Mission Pack. Not every F2P game is Pay to Win - especially on this side of the pond - and most people don't buy vanity items/pets/etc.
Well I can only speak for myself, but prior to playing MMOs I dropped $100 on new video games a month (on average) and comparing that to $50 once + $15 a month is obviously a substantial savings.
My point is that theory dictates you build something (like a MMO) and then price it based on the value it offers to your target consumer. Not the other way around. Any game that is design around a pricing model, I believe, is doomed to failure, whether the intentions are good or not. The reason being, while price is always a component, I just don't feel there's enough evidence to support it as a top driving factor towards long-term success of a game.
Furthermore, you have to consider whether or not your pricing model is a hinders the overall enjoyment of the game. I feel very strongly that a game based on a model that constantly reminds the player they're paying for everything a la carte, whether its the latest content patch or a new vanity item, will detract from the overall enjoyment of the game.
I think you're either end up in a system where the added value of in game transactions are so small that you have multitudes of free accounts, but barely any paying members (such as Second Life) or you'll hit a spot where the items are so inherent to the game that your pricing becomes sub-optimal compared to other subscription based games, which eventually alienates any sort of player base.
EDIT: And to add to Jeepguy's point, LOTOR is going to a Free Play with Micro Transactions model because it failed to attract a core base to support the game on subscriptions. In other words, LOTOR is an example of a failed pricing scheme, not a success. And I will bet a lifetime subscription to WoW that over the course of the next year, LOTOR will continue to fail, not because of its pricing scheme, but because it just isn't a very good game.
The bottom line is many of these other pricing options exist as a band-aid to help promote niche, or very poorly executed games, and not the other way around.
I'm not sure where you're getting your theories from, but do you think Maple Story and Runescape are doomed to fail? I mean, I'm arguing here from the point of view of someone who has seen this market grow over the past few years with more and more high quality titles coming out. When I started with my MMO list a few years ago it was mostly companies rereleasing insanely successful Korean games, now I'm actually seeing games being made for a western audience and in some cases Asian titles are changed around to make them more enjoyable for westerners. Now companies like EA are releasing their games on a F2P model as well.
Where did you get the idea from that LOTRO was not doing well, by the way? I've never heard anything about it and you seem confident in your claims. Do you have any sources I can check out?
The bottom line is many of these other pricing options exist as a band-aid to help promote niche, or very poorly executed games, and not the other way around.
Do you think the number of people for whom a subscription is a barrier to entry is insignificant, or only made up of poor people or children? I know plenty of people, just in a random sampling of friends, who like gaming but think it's ridiculous to pay a monthly sum just to access a game, and while you feel that being reminded that you have to buy the next content pack ruins your fun (does your game of choice offer paid expansions? If so, does it ruin your fun to know you'll have to buy it?), there is someone else who is buying that content precisely because they know that they will always be able to come back to it for free, forever.
I don't expect that the market will ever become totally F2P or powered by microtansactions. I suspect there are two markets here, and never the twain shall meet. Some people will just never pay a sub for a game (myself included, though I have paid for a sub before I won't do it again, no matter how much I loved EQ2). Others will never want to buy content except for, uh, expansions, which everyone charges for (and nobody seems to mind paying for), except, say, Runes of Magic. And EVE. Others will find ways to experiment with this, offer hybrid models, go B2P/Play for Free, etc.
I'd say the people who refuse to play a monthly fee for a game has substantial cross-section with the people who wouldn't play MMOs alot anyway.
Well I can only speak for myself, but prior to playing MMOs I dropped $100 on new video games a month (on average) and comparing that to $50 once + $15 a month is obviously a substantial savings.
Which is precisely why I think the sub model can work for some, and isn't right for others. It obviously doesn't work for someone like me; why should someone like me pay a sub for a game if I can save money playing something just as fun that doesn't charge me a sub? Fun is relative, and so are tastes. I can accept that Guild Wars is not to everyone's preferred style, meanwhile I hated every second I was playing the WoW trial. YMMV etc.
The trend of games experimenting with pricing models can only increase the choices of those who play in certain ways and not in others. What's puzzling to me is the attacks on the supposed quality of F2P games as inherently inferior/niche/failed just because they have been relatively untried in the West.
I will bet my LOTRO lifetime subscription that we will see an increase in F2P-model games of comparable quality to prominent P2P titles in the near future, and will further wager that GW2 will be one of those titles to challenge the mold.
What? No, the monthly fee is a cost if you can play an MMO for free. How on earth is it not? I'm talking about MMO gamers exclusively; all of my friends only play games on the PC. Most of them ask me for advice and recommendations about F2P games because they think it's absurd to buy a game and then have to continue to pay for it for as long as you play it .
In 15 years of gaming (MUDs included) I've spent exactly $5 outside of buying boxed expansions, on the GW Bonus Mission Pack. Not every F2P game is Pay to Win - especially on this side of the pond - and most people don't buy vanity items/pets/etc.
And this is exactly my point. This is an example of a MMO's worst nightmare. There is a percentage of people who do nothing but consume the free content, moving like locust from one free game to the next, never throwing a dime in the pot. In my mind, this is a failure.
If I'm a developer, I want to bring out a game that people value enough to pay for. Yes, you can go all over the Internet, playing games to your heart's content without paying a dime for anything. The flip side of this is you have people who are pouring money to develop and maintain these games, who are doing it with the hopes that enough people will find the game valuable enough to actually give them money for a product. Hence I see any game where the F2P component dominates the portion of people actually paying for that content as a failure, whether it's subscription, pay per minute, micro-transaction or otherwise.
The breakthrough is going to come when someone develops a pricing model that reigns in the free play locust in a such a way that they contribute monetarily to the game.
What? No, the monthly fee is a cost if you can play an MMO for free. How on earth is it not? I'm talking about MMO gamers exclusively; all of my friends only play games on the PC. Most of them ask me for advice and recommendations about F2P games because they think it's absurd to buy a game and then have to continue to pay for it for as long as you play it .
In 15 years of gaming (MUDs included) I've spent exactly $5 outside of buying boxed expansions, on the GW Bonus Mission Pack. Not every F2P game is Pay to Win - especially on this side of the pond - and most people don't buy vanity items/pets/etc.
And this is exactly my point. This is an example of a MMO's worst nightmare. There is a percentage of people who do nothing but consume the free content, moving like locust from one free game to the next, never throwing a dime in the pot. In my mind, this is a failure.
If I'm a developer, I want to bring out a game that people value enough to pay for. Yes, you can go all over the Internet, playing games to your heart's content without paying a dime for anything. The flip side of this is you have people who are pouring money to develop and maintain these games, who are doing it with the hopes that enough people will find the game valuable enough to actually give them money for a product. Hence I see any game where the F2P component dominates the portion of people actually paying for that content as a failure, whether it's subscription, pay per minute, micro-transaction or otherwise.
The breakthrough is going to come when someone develops a pricing model that reigns in the free play locust in a such a way that they contribute monetarily to the game.
Sure, except that I pre-order or buy all the boxed expansions and campaigns when new at full price. I'll also pre-order the GW2 collector's edition, because I'm a leech that way, too. You know where I game-hopped? In the pay to play titles. My two most steadfast games were StrangeMUD and Guild Wars, the latter of which I have been playing for 4.5 years now. The games I spent a month or three in were games like LOTRO and EQII.
I thought your argument was that the inherent quality of F2P games was grossly inferior to P2P games. Now it's that no game can be successful outside of a niche if most people don't pay? The fact is that in sub games, casual players subsidize the hardcore; in F2P games, the hardcore subsidize the casuals.
Edit: I am getting such a strange vibe from anti-F2P gamers in the fallout of Turbine's announcement. Reading the blogs is a similar experience. It's like there's simultaneously an elitist vs. hoi polloi thing going on, along with a weird moral judgement feel. Like, either what F2P gamers like and play is utter shite, or we're bad people for not wanting to pay more to game (or, alternately, we're suckers for paying far more than a sub on content/items). It's as though F2P is a miasma that you can catch.
I thought your argument was that the inherent quality of F2P games was grossly inferior to P2P games. Now it's that no game can be successful outside of a niche if most people don't pay? The fact is that in sub games, casual players subsidize the hardcore; in F2P games, the hardcore subsidize the casuals.
It still is.
The price people are willing to pay for something is directly related to how valuable they see that product or service. Hence, if people are only willing to pay nothing for something, what does that tell you about how valuable it is?
And again, looking at it from a business model standpoint, why would I want to go with a model where only a few people are paying, but a large number of people are taking advantage of the service? Why wouldn't I want to create something valuable enough that everyone is willing to pay for it?
I thought your argument was that the inherent quality of F2P games was grossly inferior to P2P games. Now it's that no game can be successful outside of a niche if most people don't pay? The fact is that in sub games, casual players subsidize the hardcore; in F2P games, the hardcore subsidize the casuals.
It still is.
The price people are willing to pay for something is directly related to how valuable they see that product or service. Hence, if people are only willing to pay nothing for something, what does that tell you about how valuable it is?
And again, looking at it from a business model standpoint, why would I want to go with a model where only a few people are paying, but a large number of people are taking advantage of the service? Why wouldn't I want to create something valuable enough that everyone is willing to pay for it?
That equates value with inital cost and not long term cost.
While I might not be willing to spend any initial cost on DDO, I sure gave them a decent amount of money for the time I played. Why is that?
I percieved the value for my money as higher. I bought something tangible that I can use at anypoint the game is running. To me that holds more value than leasing server time.
Seidkona on
Mostly just huntin' monsters.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
That equates value with inital cost and not long term cost.
While I might not be willing to spend any initial cost on DDO, I sure gave them a decent amount of money for the time I played . Why is that?
I percieved the value for my money as higher. I bought something tangible that I can use at anypoint the game is running. To me that holds more value than leasing server time.
You played DDO, and decided the product was valuable enough to exchange money for, right?
That's what I'm talking about.
If the game is F2P, and no one is moving beyond that, then that's a failure on the part of the game.
That equates value with inital cost and not long term cost.
While I might not be willing to spend any initial cost on DDO, I sure gave them a decent amount of money for the time I played . Why is that?
I percieved the value for my money as higher. I bought something tangible that I can use at anypoint the game is running. To me that holds more value than leasing server time.
You played DDO, and decided the product was valuable enough to exchange money for, right?
That's what I'm talking about.
If the game is F2P, and no one is moving beyond that, then that's a failure on the part of the game.
I'm not sure I am following your logic here. Are you debating that they didn't make the money I gave them because they call the game free 2 play?
Seidkona on
Mostly just huntin' monsters.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
Ironzerg, where the hell do you get the idea from that the current F2P MMOs are not profitable?
First, I never said this.
Second, look at it this way.
What's a bigger "success"?
A) Game with 10 million accounts, 100,000 of which are paying an average of $10 to play.
b) Game with 100,000 accounts, 100,000 of which are paying an average of $10 to play.
That equates value with inital cost and not long term cost.
While I might not be willing to spend any initial cost on DDO, I sure gave them a decent amount of money for the time I played . Why is that?
I percieved the value for my money as higher. I bought something tangible that I can use at anypoint the game is running. To me that holds more value than leasing server time.
You played DDO, and decided the product was valuable enough to exchange money for, right?
That's what I'm talking about.
If the game is F2P, and no one is moving beyond that, then that's a failure on the part of the game.
I'm not sure I am following your logic here. Are you debating that they didn't make the money I gave them because they call the game free 2 play?
But if you're giving them money, then for you, it's no longer free to play as far as you're concerned, which is why I asked a couple pages ago what really is the distinction between "free" to play and free to play?
DDO had enough quality for you to move beyond the Free 2 Play component, hence it's the quality of the game, not necessarily the pricing model that is providing the true value to you.
That equates value with inital cost and not long term cost.
While I might not be willing to spend any initial cost on DDO, I sure gave them a decent amount of money for the time I played . Why is that?
I percieved the value for my money as higher. I bought something tangible that I can use at anypoint the game is running. To me that holds more value than leasing server time.
You played DDO, and decided the product was valuable enough to exchange money for, right?
That's what I'm talking about.
If the game is F2P, and no one is moving beyond that, then that's a failure on the part of the game.
But you don't have to purchase DDO in order to play it; it's free to download and start playing immediately. Paying $50 into the game at that point is no different than buying a box and playing it free.
Another example would be Wizard101. It's free to download and play through the first 7 levels or so (OR, you could subscribe and get access to the whole game for the duration of your sub). After that, if one doesn't want to subscribe, one can buy access to the next tier of content, a la carte, or in bulk. Similarly, one can buy modules in DDO that are extra content, thus, I guess, making it not F2P in your eyes?
There's a different between a game having a low overhead or initial investment, versus actually being free to play. It's almost like saying, "Free 2 Play!" is a sort of bait and switch, as you get all set up only to find out if you want to play the "real" game, you have to fork over cash.
Hence, why I disagree with the name "Free 2 Play". I think any game that's primary subscription driver is the fact that it's free is a failure.
There's a different between a game having a low overhead or initial investment, versus actually being free to play. It's almost like saying, "Free 2 Play!" is a sort of bait and switch, as you get all set up only to find out if you want to play the "real" game, you have to fork over cash.
Hence, why I disagree with the name "Free 2 Play". I think any game that's primary subscription driver is the fact that it's free is a failure.
Semantics though. I mean it's all marketing speech and it just clouds the issue on the validity of the buisness mode.
The marketing speak has little to do with whether people are willing to pay for content in chunks as opposed to leasing access to all of it.
Seidkona on
Mostly just huntin' monsters.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
There's a different between a game having a low overhead or initial investment, versus actually being free to play. It's almost like saying, "Free 2 Play!" is a sort of bait and switch, as you get all set up only to find out if you want to play the "real" game, you have to fork over cash.
Hence, why I disagree with the name "Free 2 Play". I think any game that's primary subscription driver is the fact that it's free is a failure.
Holy shit, we've converged on something I think we can agree on! :rotate:
However, I'm not sure what could possibly replace the term now, being that it is so entrenched, and other terms just don't flow very well (microtransaction-based is a mouthful, velvet-rope model is a bit weird - though I like it - B2P is already in use for games like Guild Wars, but due to the low sample size isn't well-known, etc.). It seems we just have to keep on using F2P and explain our terms after the fact.
Holy shit, we've converged on something I think we can agree on! :rotate:
However, I'm not sure what could possibly replace the term now, being that it is so entrenched, and other terms just don't flow very well (microtransaction-based is a mouthful, velvet-rope model is a bit weird - though I like it - B2P is already in use for games like Guild Wars, but due to the low sample size isn't well-known, etc.). It seems we just have to keep on using F2P and explain our terms after the fact.
Sorry, had to look outside to make sure the sky wasn't falling...
Which goes back to my original question about game design versus pricing design.
I think any game that focuses on being F2P (in any sense of the term) while hoping that they can somehow find someway to infuse cash into the game is putting itself at an extreme disadvantage, while a game that is developed with the intentions of everyone exchanging cash to play it, philosophically has a distinct advantage. My reasoning is, given the discussion over the last few pages, I still really believe that it's the quality of the game that drives people to play it, with the pricing model being secondary.
In other words, people will play a shit game, for free, while commercially successful games like WoW and GW prove that given a quality product, millions of people will exchange millions of dollars, whether it's the WoW subscription based model, or the GW "Just Buy the Box" model.
But again, both games are ultimately designed on the premise that everyone, in some way, is going to pay for the service.
I agree ironzerg. When you talk about "people who don't wanna pay subscriptions", there's already been a game that converted alot of those people. It's called WoW.
And they did this not with a fancy pricing model, but with a quality product.
And I think the subscription model leads to this more. Not only because of better cash flow, but because of priorities. A system relying on micro-transactions is philosophically at a disadvantage.
A micro-transaction game is developed to make people pay for more stuff.
A subscription based game is developed to make the people already paying have a good experience.
Ironzerg, where the hell do you get the idea from that the current F2P MMOs are not profitable?
First, I never said this.
Second, look at it this way.
What's a bigger "success"?
A) Game with 10 million accounts, 100,000 of which are paying an average of $10 to play.
b) Game with 100,000 accounts, 100,000 of which are paying an average of $10 to play.
Well that's how I was reading it. :whistle:
And you can't ask it like that because I dunno how much it costs to keep the game running and to develop it. I mean, for all we know both games are just as expensive. It's not like a company automatically loses money on freebooters.
Actually, a line of logic I heard from - I think - Perfect World is that it's the freebooters that make the game more enjoyable for the people who do pay in to the game. The freebooters are often the ones who buy the items from the others, they're the teammates they play with or the PvP enemy they fight against or the ones who will go "oooooooh" when looking at the paying player's new horse.
I agree ironzerg. When you talk about "people who don't wanna pay subscriptions", there's already been a game that converted alot of those people. It's called WoW.
And they did this not with a fancy pricing model, but with a quality product.
And I think the subscription model leads to this more. Not only because of better cash flow, but because of priorities. A system relying on micro-transactions is philosophically at a disadvantage.
A micro-transaction game is developed to make people pay for more stuff.
A subscription based game is developed to make the people already paying have a good experience.
And a buy-to-play game is developed to be a self-contained complete game, with possible voluntary modules of content and/or game expansions making up the post-purchase costs.
And a hybrid model such as DDO or LOTRO's models offers all of these things to anyone interested depending on how they prefer to pay.
PC Games: "How do you plan to do this? Building such a complex world which is shared by all players without having monthly fees?"
Strain: (laughing) "A very good question! Interestingly many people believe that the completely instantiated world was the reason for Guild Wars 1 to not need monthly fees. This is completely wrong! The existence or lack of a persistent world is totally unrelated to the running expenses which are needed to maintain an online roleplaying game."
PC Games: "What do you mean by that?"
Strain: "Really important are the innovative technologies which we developed for Guild Wars 1. They allow us to keep the running costs very low which then results in the huge advantage for the player: the absence of fees. We continue with that principle for Guild Wars 2: as soon as the game is available, we will begin our work on new content. Such content for which the player is free to decide if he wants to have it or not. Maybe that will be add-ons or complete campaigns or online-extensions with costs, we don't know. But one thing is very certain: we will again have in Guild Wars 2 the comprehensive support our fans are already familiar with!"
Ironzerg, where the hell do you get the idea from that the current F2P MMOs are not profitable?
First, I never said this.
Second, look at it this way.
What's a bigger "success"?
A) Game with 10 million accounts, 100,000 of which are paying an average of $10 to play.
b) Game with 100,000 accounts, 100,000 of which are paying an average of $10 to play.
Assuming option A is still making a profit. A.
It is still making a profit, but has a far larger user base to give its paying customers more people to play and interact with, which will cause them, in general, to stick around and keep paying that monthly fee for a longer period of time.
B will find itself more quickly running out of paying subscribers, that will quickly landslide as the remaining sub's will realise there aren't a lot of people left to play with, whereas option A can keep up the illusion of lots of subscribers with their free user base filling out group slots, allowing for new subscribers to join in the still populated world.
Written quickly during break at work so may be a little disjointed.
It seems pretty unlikely that game A would be making as much money as game B.
Profit per month, no. But it is more likely to remain profitable for a longer period of time. Games that last for longer periods of time are also more likely to have a sequel to make even more money on, meanwhile the game that did will initially but then quickly tanked is not likely to get another chance.
It seems pretty unlikely that game A would be making as much money as game B.
Profit per month, no. But it is more likely to remain profitable for a longer period of time. Games that last for longer periods of time are also more likely to have a sequel to make even more money on, meanwhile the game that did will initially but then quickly tanked is not likely to get another chance.
Why? I would venture that a game where everyone is paying has a much better chance of surviving than a game that is reliant on 100,000 to support 10 million.
For example, say something happens in the environment, and each game loses half it's paying accounts. Now you have 50,000 people support 10 million, while the other game goes down to 50,000 people supporting 50,000 people.
It seems pretty unlikely that game A would be making as much money as game B.
Profit per month, no. But it is more likely to remain profitable for a longer period of time. Games that last for longer periods of time are also more likely to have a sequel to make even more money on, meanwhile the game that did will initially but then quickly tanked is not likely to get another chance.
Why? I would venture that a game where everyone is paying has a much better chance of surviving than a game that is reliant on 100,000 to support 10 million.
For example, say something happens in the environment, and each game loses half it's paying accounts. Now you have 50,000 people support 10 million, while the other game goes down to 50,000 people supporting 50,000 people.
I don't know, ironzerg. I'm thinking of Warhammer specifically when I say that having more warm bodies in-game amounts to a lot. If Warhammer were to go free-to-play (or, rather, if they extended their T1 free trial to cover all three pairings of T1, or if they sold permanent access to each Tier for a fixed rate, or some other velvet rope or MT) it might breathe some more life into the game. I know I and my fiance would be back, and purchase content, if there were always enough people around to do scenarios and run any given public quest with, for example.
I get that obviously for Mythic/EA they have budgeted to get a certain amount of $ in for subscriptions, and without it they're on maintenance mode. But what if that hadn't been the case? What if they could afford to open up their model and just let more people in, with little or no commitment? There might be a minority footing the bill for a majority, but keep in mind, your scenario of 100,000 people paying $10 is not actually how most MT games work, because those spenders? Are often BIG, HUGE spenders - try more like $500 each for 100,000 paying customers.
Note that I'm not a huge fan of having to spend big in such a game, either. But if it puts asses in game, the world comes alive instead of feeling empty. That's worth something.
It seems pretty unlikely that game A would be making as much money as game B.
Profit per month, no. But it is more likely to remain profitable for a longer period of time. Games that last for longer periods of time are also more likely to have a sequel to make even more money on, meanwhile the game that did will initially but then quickly tanked is not likely to get another chance.
Why? I would venture that a game where everyone is paying has a much better chance of surviving than a game that is reliant on 100,000 to support 10 million.
For example, say something happens in the environment, and each game loses half it's paying accounts. Now you have 50,000 people support 10 million, while the other game goes down to 50,000 people supporting 50,000 people.
Obviously just my opinion, and based on the fact that option A remains profitable.
But in option A, even though you have lost 50k people, your server population has not really diminished, which still gives the remaining 50k people a large pool of people to play from and keep enjoying the game. It also doesn't look like a dead game with them having to close servers down, which keeps the general non-playing/paying audience interested, and may cause them to subscribe and increase the user base again.
In option B, as soon as they have dropped to 50k people, they have just halved their server populations, which makes it harder for the remaining 50k people to find groups/do content. They will also more than likely close servers which gives the outward appearance that the game is dying, and will prevent new users from playing/subscribing.
e:
Not on topic, but also if you had 10 million free users, I would expect some sort of cash shop to be in position for them to be bringing in supplemental income, similar to DDO.
It seems pretty unlikely that game A would be making as much money as game B.
Profit per month, no. But it is more likely to remain profitable for a longer period of time. Games that last for longer periods of time are also more likely to have a sequel to make even more money on, meanwhile the game that did will initially but then quickly tanked is not likely to get another chance.
Why? I would venture that a game where everyone is paying has a much better chance of surviving than a game that is reliant on 100,000 to support 10 million.
For example, say something happens in the environment, and each game loses half it's paying accounts. Now you have 50,000 people support 10 million, while the other game goes down to 50,000 people supporting 50,000 people.
Obviously just my opinion, and based on the fact that option A remains profitable.
But in option A, even though you have lost 50k people, your server population has not really diminished, which still gives the remaining 50k people a large pool of people to play from and keep enjoying the game. It also doesn't look like a dead game with them having to close servers down, which keeps the general non-playing/paying audience interested, and may cause them to subscribe and increase the user base again.
In option B, as soon as they have dropped to 50k people, they have just halved their server populations, which makes it harder for the remaining 50k people to find groups/do content. They will also more than likely close servers which gives the outward appearance that the game is dying, and will prevent new users from playing/subscribing.
e:
Not on topic, but also if you had 10 million free users, I would expect some sort of cash shop to be in position for them to be bringing in supplemental income, similar to DDO.
Except that kind of thing will bite you in the ass.
In both cases, you've lost 50% of your revenue.
In Case B, you only need to support 50% of the people though. So reduced revenue isn't as nasty.
In Case A, you are supporting essentially the same number of people, but at half the profit.
In my opinion, Puzzle Pirates had the best "micropayments" model I've seen. Maybe partially because they started with subscriptions and decided to try micropayments as an alternative.
Anyway, without going into details, the big point is that you have a way to buy the micropayment currency from other players using in-game money, and there's a specific market set up for it. So, it's easy for people who want to play for free to not pay a penny because they just buy the micropayment currency from other players, and for players who want to buy a bunch of stuff to trade their real money for in-game money.
It seems pretty unlikely that game A would be making as much money as game B.
Profit per month, no. But it is more likely to remain profitable for a longer period of time. Games that last for longer periods of time are also more likely to have a sequel to make even more money on, meanwhile the game that did will initially but then quickly tanked is not likely to get another chance.
Why? I would venture that a game where everyone is paying has a much better chance of surviving than a game that is reliant on 100,000 to support 10 million.
For example, say something happens in the environment, and each game loses half it's paying accounts. Now you have 50,000 people support 10 million, while the other game goes down to 50,000 people supporting 50,000 people.
Obviously just my opinion, and based on the fact that option A remains profitable.
But in option A, even though you have lost 50k people, your server population has not really diminished, which still gives the remaining 50k people a large pool of people to play from and keep enjoying the game. It also doesn't look like a dead game with them having to close servers down, which keeps the general non-playing/paying audience interested, and may cause them to subscribe and increase the user base again.
In option B, as soon as they have dropped to 50k people, they have just halved their server populations, which makes it harder for the remaining 50k people to find groups/do content. They will also more than likely close servers which gives the outward appearance that the game is dying, and will prevent new users from playing/subscribing.
e:
Not on topic, but also if you had 10 million free users, I would expect some sort of cash shop to be in position for them to be bringing in supplemental income, similar to DDO.
Except that kind of thing will bite you in the ass.
In both cases, you've lost 50% of your revenue.
In Case B, you only need to support 50% of the people though. So reduced revenue isn't as nasty.
In Case A, you are supporting essentially the same number of people, but at half the profit.
Correct, obviously losing half your paying user base sucks regardless.
But Case A has a far greater chance of recovering from it and gaining those subscribers back. While B is pretty much screwed and on a death spiral.
Case A really revolves around finding a sweet spot for covering costs and still making a profit, while being able to keep a large user base available to keep the paying people, paying.
Posts
And unless I'm mistaken Guild Wars still sold more boxed copies than most MMOs can say they ever had subscriptions.
I agree with you that most free MMOs are utter shit and should be removed from the internet right away. There are also good games that use the micro-transactions model.* The free MMO market is big now, games are trying harder to get your attention. They point you to their other virtues and mainly use the F2P argument as a "and you can't argue against something that's free. Come on, give it a try. It won't cost you a thing" and not as a "hey this game has no qualities, but it's free so you know give it a try if you want to".
Also: WoW's appeal is equal to Farmville's appeal. It's easy to get in to, everyone else is playing it and it's addictive to keep playing to get another reward.
*You will probably not like them, because you already play WoW and playing more than one MMO at a time is just hard for our braincells to deal with. This is why every new MMO will have discussions about WoW in all chat channels for the first few months: people are so hooked into their MMO of choice that they can't look at another game in the genre without thinking about "their" MMO.
Nothing is free. But if a game wants to succeed on the same level as WoW it'll have to be even more accessible than WoW. And if it cost less that'd be a good start.
Furthermore, you have to consider whether or not your pricing model is a hinders the overall enjoyment of the game. I feel very strongly that a game based on a model that constantly reminds the player they're paying for everything a la carte, whether its the latest content patch or a new vanity item, will detract from the overall enjoyment of the game.
I think you're either end up in a system where the added value of in game transactions are so small that you have multitudes of free accounts, but barely any paying members (such as Second Life) or you'll hit a spot where the items are so inherent to the game that your pricing becomes sub-optimal compared to other subscription based games, which eventually alienates any sort of player base.
EDIT: And to add to Jeepguy's point, LOTOR is going to a Free Play with Micro Transactions model because it failed to attract a core base to support the game on subscriptions. In other words, LOTOR is an example of a failed pricing scheme, not a success. And I will bet a lifetime subscription to WoW that over the course of the next year, LOTOR will continue to fail, not because of its pricing scheme, but because it just isn't a very good game.
The bottom line is many of these other pricing options exist as a band-aid to help promote niche, or very poorly executed games, and not the other way around.
Do you think the number of people for whom a subscription is a barrier to entry is insignificant, or only made up of poor people or children? I know plenty of people, just in a random sampling of friends, who like gaming but think it's ridiculous to pay a monthly sum just to access a game, and while you feel that being reminded that you have to buy the next content pack ruins your fun (does your game of choice offer paid expansions? If so, does it ruin your fun to know you'll have to buy it?), there is someone else who is buying that content precisely because they know that they will always be able to come back to it for free, forever.
I don't expect that the market will ever become totally F2P or powered by microtansactions. I suspect there are two markets here, and never the twain shall meet. Some people will just never pay a sub for a game (myself included, though I have paid for a sub before I won't do it again, no matter how much I loved EQ2). Others will never want to buy content except for, uh, expansions, which everyone charges for (and nobody seems to mind paying for), except, say, Runes of Magic. And EVE. Others will find ways to experiment with this, offer hybrid models, go B2P/Play for Free, etc.
I used to buy one or two new games a month, as well as having to upgrade console systems occasionally.
Now I subscribe to a few MMOs, didn't buy a 360/PS3/WII and buy a handful of new games a year.
It's probably cheaper to be an MMO gamer, but once you add in micro-transactions for crap it's a bit more expensive, but not much (I do some WoW character transfers here and there, the cost is not insubstantial).
What? No, the monthly fee is a cost if you can play an MMO for free. How on earth is it not? I'm talking about MMO gamers exclusively; all of my friends only play games on the PC. Most of them ask me for advice and recommendations about F2P games because they think it's absurd to buy a game and then have to continue to pay for it for as long as you play it.
In 15 years of gaming (MUDs included) I've spent exactly $5 outside of buying boxed expansions, on the GW Bonus Mission Pack. Not every F2P game is Pay to Win - especially on this side of the pond - and most people don't buy vanity items/pets/etc.
I'm not sure where you're getting your theories from, but do you think Maple Story and Runescape are doomed to fail? I mean, I'm arguing here from the point of view of someone who has seen this market grow over the past few years with more and more high quality titles coming out. When I started with my MMO list a few years ago it was mostly companies rereleasing insanely successful Korean games, now I'm actually seeing games being made for a western audience and in some cases Asian titles are changed around to make them more enjoyable for westerners. Now companies like EA are releasing their games on a F2P model as well.
Where did you get the idea from that LOTRO was not doing well, by the way? I've never heard anything about it and you seem confident in your claims. Do you have any sources I can check out?
I'd say the people who refuse to play a monthly fee for a game has substantial cross-section with the people who wouldn't play MMOs alot anyway.
Which is precisely why I think the sub model can work for some, and isn't right for others. It obviously doesn't work for someone like me; why should someone like me pay a sub for a game if I can save money playing something just as fun that doesn't charge me a sub? Fun is relative, and so are tastes. I can accept that Guild Wars is not to everyone's preferred style, meanwhile I hated every second I was playing the WoW trial. YMMV etc.
The trend of games experimenting with pricing models can only increase the choices of those who play in certain ways and not in others. What's puzzling to me is the attacks on the supposed quality of F2P games as inherently inferior/niche/failed just because they have been relatively untried in the West.
I will bet my LOTRO lifetime subscription that we will see an increase in F2P-model games of comparable quality to prominent P2P titles in the near future, and will further wager that GW2 will be one of those titles to challenge the mold.
Well, my anecdotal evidence and your anecdotal evidence will just have to do a duel to the death, then. :P
And this is exactly my point. This is an example of a MMO's worst nightmare. There is a percentage of people who do nothing but consume the free content, moving like locust from one free game to the next, never throwing a dime in the pot. In my mind, this is a failure.
If I'm a developer, I want to bring out a game that people value enough to pay for. Yes, you can go all over the Internet, playing games to your heart's content without paying a dime for anything. The flip side of this is you have people who are pouring money to develop and maintain these games, who are doing it with the hopes that enough people will find the game valuable enough to actually give them money for a product. Hence I see any game where the F2P component dominates the portion of people actually paying for that content as a failure, whether it's subscription, pay per minute, micro-transaction or otherwise.
The breakthrough is going to come when someone develops a pricing model that reigns in the free play locust in a such a way that they contribute monetarily to the game.
Sure, except that I pre-order or buy all the boxed expansions and campaigns when new at full price. I'll also pre-order the GW2 collector's edition, because I'm a leech that way, too. You know where I game-hopped? In the pay to play titles. My two most steadfast games were StrangeMUD and Guild Wars, the latter of which I have been playing for 4.5 years now. The games I spent a month or three in were games like LOTRO and EQII.
I thought your argument was that the inherent quality of F2P games was grossly inferior to P2P games. Now it's that no game can be successful outside of a niche if most people don't pay? The fact is that in sub games, casual players subsidize the hardcore; in F2P games, the hardcore subsidize the casuals.
Edit: I am getting such a strange vibe from anti-F2P gamers in the fallout of Turbine's announcement. Reading the blogs is a similar experience. It's like there's simultaneously an elitist vs. hoi polloi thing going on, along with a weird moral judgement feel. Like, either what F2P gamers like and play is utter shite, or we're bad people for not wanting to pay more to game (or, alternately, we're suckers for paying far more than a sub on content/items). It's as though F2P is a miasma that you can catch.
It still is.
The price people are willing to pay for something is directly related to how valuable they see that product or service. Hence, if people are only willing to pay nothing for something, what does that tell you about how valuable it is?
And again, looking at it from a business model standpoint, why would I want to go with a model where only a few people are paying, but a large number of people are taking advantage of the service? Why wouldn't I want to create something valuable enough that everyone is willing to pay for it?
That equates value with inital cost and not long term cost.
While I might not be willing to spend any initial cost on DDO, I sure gave them a decent amount of money for the time I played. Why is that?
I percieved the value for my money as higher. I bought something tangible that I can use at anypoint the game is running. To me that holds more value than leasing server time.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
You played DDO, and decided the product was valuable enough to exchange money for, right?
That's what I'm talking about.
If the game is F2P, and no one is moving beyond that, then that's a failure on the part of the game.
I'm not sure I am following your logic here. Are you debating that they didn't make the money I gave them because they call the game free 2 play?
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
First, I never said this.
Second, look at it this way.
What's a bigger "success"?
A) Game with 10 million accounts, 100,000 of which are paying an average of $10 to play.
b) Game with 100,000 accounts, 100,000 of which are paying an average of $10 to play.
But if you're giving them money, then for you, it's no longer free to play as far as you're concerned, which is why I asked a couple pages ago what really is the distinction between "free" to play and free to play?
DDO had enough quality for you to move beyond the Free 2 Play component, hence it's the quality of the game, not necessarily the pricing model that is providing the true value to you.
But you don't have to purchase DDO in order to play it; it's free to download and start playing immediately. Paying $50 into the game at that point is no different than buying a box and playing it free.
Another example would be Wizard101. It's free to download and play through the first 7 levels or so (OR, you could subscribe and get access to the whole game for the duration of your sub). After that, if one doesn't want to subscribe, one can buy access to the next tier of content, a la carte, or in bulk. Similarly, one can buy modules in DDO that are extra content, thus, I guess, making it not F2P in your eyes?
There are a myriad of ways to handle F2P games.
There's a different between a game having a low overhead or initial investment, versus actually being free to play. It's almost like saying, "Free 2 Play!" is a sort of bait and switch, as you get all set up only to find out if you want to play the "real" game, you have to fork over cash.
Hence, why I disagree with the name "Free 2 Play". I think any game that's primary subscription driver is the fact that it's free is a failure.
Semantics though. I mean it's all marketing speech and it just clouds the issue on the validity of the buisness mode.
The marketing speak has little to do with whether people are willing to pay for content in chunks as opposed to leasing access to all of it.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
Holy shit, we've converged on something I think we can agree on! :rotate:
However, I'm not sure what could possibly replace the term now, being that it is so entrenched, and other terms just don't flow very well (microtransaction-based is a mouthful, velvet-rope model is a bit weird - though I like it - B2P is already in use for games like Guild Wars, but due to the low sample size isn't well-known, etc.). It seems we just have to keep on using F2P and explain our terms after the fact.
Sorry, had to look outside to make sure the sky wasn't falling...
Which goes back to my original question about game design versus pricing design.
I think any game that focuses on being F2P (in any sense of the term) while hoping that they can somehow find someway to infuse cash into the game is putting itself at an extreme disadvantage, while a game that is developed with the intentions of everyone exchanging cash to play it, philosophically has a distinct advantage. My reasoning is, given the discussion over the last few pages, I still really believe that it's the quality of the game that drives people to play it, with the pricing model being secondary.
In other words, people will play a shit game, for free, while commercially successful games like WoW and GW prove that given a quality product, millions of people will exchange millions of dollars, whether it's the WoW subscription based model, or the GW "Just Buy the Box" model.
But again, both games are ultimately designed on the premise that everyone, in some way, is going to pay for the service.
And they did this not with a fancy pricing model, but with a quality product.
And I think the subscription model leads to this more. Not only because of better cash flow, but because of priorities. A system relying on micro-transactions is philosophically at a disadvantage.
A micro-transaction game is developed to make people pay for more stuff.
A subscription based game is developed to make the people already paying have a good experience.
Well that's how I was reading it. :whistle:
And you can't ask it like that because I dunno how much it costs to keep the game running and to develop it. I mean, for all we know both games are just as expensive. It's not like a company automatically loses money on freebooters.
Actually, a line of logic I heard from - I think - Perfect World is that it's the freebooters that make the game more enjoyable for the people who do pay in to the game. The freebooters are often the ones who buy the items from the others, they're the teammates they play with or the PvP enemy they fight against or the ones who will go "oooooooh" when looking at the paying player's new horse.
And a buy-to-play game is developed to be a self-contained complete game, with possible voluntary modules of content and/or game expansions making up the post-purchase costs.
And a hybrid model such as DDO or LOTRO's models offers all of these things to anyone interested depending on how they prefer to pay.
Oh, and I finally found the quote to source:
- you will pay for new content
- we're being non-committal on whether the new game will be like WoW or like GW
Assuming option A is still making a profit. A.
It is still making a profit, but has a far larger user base to give its paying customers more people to play and interact with, which will cause them, in general, to stick around and keep paying that monthly fee for a longer period of time.
B will find itself more quickly running out of paying subscribers, that will quickly landslide as the remaining sub's will realise there aren't a lot of people left to play with, whereas option A can keep up the illusion of lots of subscribers with their free user base filling out group slots, allowing for new subscribers to join in the still populated world.
Written quickly during break at work so may be a little disjointed.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Profit per month, no. But it is more likely to remain profitable for a longer period of time. Games that last for longer periods of time are also more likely to have a sequel to make even more money on, meanwhile the game that did will initially but then quickly tanked is not likely to get another chance.
Why? I would venture that a game where everyone is paying has a much better chance of surviving than a game that is reliant on 100,000 to support 10 million.
For example, say something happens in the environment, and each game loses half it's paying accounts. Now you have 50,000 people support 10 million, while the other game goes down to 50,000 people supporting 50,000 people.
I don't know, ironzerg. I'm thinking of Warhammer specifically when I say that having more warm bodies in-game amounts to a lot. If Warhammer were to go free-to-play (or, rather, if they extended their T1 free trial to cover all three pairings of T1, or if they sold permanent access to each Tier for a fixed rate, or some other velvet rope or MT) it might breathe some more life into the game. I know I and my fiance would be back, and purchase content, if there were always enough people around to do scenarios and run any given public quest with, for example.
I get that obviously for Mythic/EA they have budgeted to get a certain amount of $ in for subscriptions, and without it they're on maintenance mode. But what if that hadn't been the case? What if they could afford to open up their model and just let more people in, with little or no commitment? There might be a minority footing the bill for a majority, but keep in mind, your scenario of 100,000 people paying $10 is not actually how most MT games work, because those spenders? Are often BIG, HUGE spenders - try more like $500 each for 100,000 paying customers.
Note that I'm not a huge fan of having to spend big in such a game, either. But if it puts asses in game, the world comes alive instead of feeling empty. That's worth something.
Obviously just my opinion, and based on the fact that option A remains profitable.
But in option A, even though you have lost 50k people, your server population has not really diminished, which still gives the remaining 50k people a large pool of people to play from and keep enjoying the game. It also doesn't look like a dead game with them having to close servers down, which keeps the general non-playing/paying audience interested, and may cause them to subscribe and increase the user base again.
In option B, as soon as they have dropped to 50k people, they have just halved their server populations, which makes it harder for the remaining 50k people to find groups/do content. They will also more than likely close servers which gives the outward appearance that the game is dying, and will prevent new users from playing/subscribing.
e:
Not on topic, but also if you had 10 million free users, I would expect some sort of cash shop to be in position for them to be bringing in supplemental income, similar to DDO.
Except that kind of thing will bite you in the ass.
In both cases, you've lost 50% of your revenue.
In Case B, you only need to support 50% of the people though. So reduced revenue isn't as nasty.
In Case A, you are supporting essentially the same number of people, but at half the profit.
Anyway, without going into details, the big point is that you have a way to buy the micropayment currency from other players using in-game money, and there's a specific market set up for it. So, it's easy for people who want to play for free to not pay a penny because they just buy the micropayment currency from other players, and for players who want to buy a bunch of stuff to trade their real money for in-game money.
Correct, obviously losing half your paying user base sucks regardless.
But Case A has a far greater chance of recovering from it and gaining those subscribers back. While B is pretty much screwed and on a death spiral.
Case A really revolves around finding a sweet spot for covering costs and still making a profit, while being able to keep a large user base available to keep the paying people, paying.