Thoughts on free to play business model.

[Rambusted]

I payed for wow for years, I always felt as though 15 bucks a month was a fair price to pay for the entertainment I received. When Knight online, runes of magic and some other FTP rpgs started to pop up, I was pretty intrigued and optimistic about it. After playing quite a few of these I was always, 100% of the time, disappointed. Not one of them had the polish and refinement of blizzard's monster. But i just chalked it up to the fact that they were free because the devs knew no one would pay for a product that was vastly inferior to the paid variety of mmo, not just wow but EQ lotro etc.

But a funny thing happened along the way, blizzard's soul crushing omnipotence in this genre has bullied even the big budget quality games like lotro, eq2, into these convoluted ftp models. It looks like the new Planetside is going ftp, one of my all time favorite series Tribes is being resurrected but it too will be a "free" pay to win model. I hate it. Multiplayer games need to be played on even ground, I do not like this trend at all. I far prefer paying a small monthly fee for a fair and balanced, well produced game. Here's your 15 bucks and now I am starting at square one with the same exact opportunities in front of me as all the other nerds on this server! These "free" games feel like they are stuck in a perpetual beta.

But it could be just me, does anyone out there like this trend?

 

[dmoney1980]

I never played WoW so I can't really compare that to the FTP MMO's out there. From what I've seen, I have to say that the companies making these games should either go one way or the other, not both!

You can't have "Adventures of XYZ", have it FTP, with the option to purchase better weapons, armor, buffs, etc. That is not a level playing field. If they do that, then they should have 2 different versions of the game; one that's completely FTP, and everyone online has the same items. They can also have a paid version where everyone online is a subscriber. That would be in a perfect world though.

Truth is, it takes time and money to develop the games and maintain the servers. No one is going to take the time to make a game from scratch, just to put it out there for everyone to enjoy for free. I think that console based DLC has changed the way the industry views "game content" as a whole. A company like Bioware can take any leftover levels, items, characters, and subplots that were left on the cutting room floor and sell them as a DLC. That's exactly how the FTP models goes about business too. You want the cool items? Show me the money!

my 2 cents

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I dig games that are legitimately F2P (LoL). I make it a point not to play games that are pay to win though.

 

[RavenSEAL]

I dig games that are legitimately F2P (LoL). I make it a point not to play games that are pay to win though.

:thumbsup:

 

[veri745]

I dig games that are legitimately F2P (LoL). I make it a point not to play games that are pay to win though.

Too bad F2P is just a euphemism for pay-to-win...

 

[soccerballtux]

if they all go F@P then only best will survive

 

[KaOTiK]

I dig games that are legitimately F2P (LoL). I make it a point not to play games that are pay to win though.

x1000

 

[darkxshade]

The only business model I like is free to not play

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Why do you hate capitalism, comrade?

In FTP games, someone with an inordinate amount of skill might be a successful player, but its a helluva lot easier to just start with a truckload of money. Take your soviet style "everyone pays 15 bucks" redistributionalist propaganda somewhere else.

 

[MWink]

Well so far I've been pretty disgusted with some of the F2P games I've played (I'm looking at you Age of Empires Online!). Most of the F2P games feel more like modern demos or shareware. I remember 15 or so years ago you could get tons of fun out of shareware for free. Now companies just seem to use F2P to lure people in and then charge them more than they would have payed for a whole game in the past. DLC is another great scam but I won't get into that here.

The thing I don't get is why most online games seem to be either F2P (or pay to win) or $15/mo. I feel $15/mo is just too much for one game. If WOW was say $5/mo I would be much more likely to resubscribe. Why should I spend $15 for one month of WOW when I can buy a whole good game or two for the same amount from Steam or Amazon and keep it forever (well in theory at least).

 

[Rambusted]

Why do you hate capitalism, comrade?

In FTP games, someone with an inordinate amount of skill might be a successful player, but its a helluva lot easier to just start with a truckload of money. Take your soviet style "everyone pays 15 bucks" redistributionalist propaganda somewhere else.

Sorry I used to write for Pravda and can't seem to kick the habit.

 

[LurkerPrime]

I'm not a big fan of FtP on the traditional WoW type MMOs. I tried EQ2 when it went FtP and paying to unlock classes/races, sure thats ok. Nickel and dimeing me to post/buy stuff from the auction house. Fuck that. Cash for bag slots, to be able to use certain items, etc... The game is by no means FtP.

Now LoL is a true FtP. It takes 0 cash to play that game just like anyone else. Paying gives you zero advantage in a match.

World of Tanks unfortunately does have a slight pay to win feature for ammunition. Good thing though is that its decently expensive (if your using cash to buy gold, and not winning gold through contest/clan wars). Due to the expense this ammo is rarely used in regular pub matches and reserved for use in clan wars matches. Also if one person on a team of 15 is using this ammo, its overall effect is very little.

edit: It does seem the FtP model brings people in, and some people end up spending way more money than a normal subscription. Games like WoT and LoL wouldn't survive on a subscription basis since not enough people would play the game, and the time to get matches would take too long. On the other hand, I think games like WoW would be better served with a much lower fee ($5 per month), or a fewbucks to unlock levels ($5/10 levels or something).

 

[Anarchist420]

I think they should have a different business model. I think they should do something like receive funding from people or businesses who want a certain game made and then they could accept donations. They could make a profit without IP if they were really good. The problem is that IP has made it so the devs don't give a damn because they know they're more likely to get a profit.

 

[zokudu]

I think proper F2P is the future of online games like MMO's. LoL is a great example of a quality F2P system that doesn't truly interfere with gameplay in a negative way. Tribes is another good example. Everything can be bought using in game currency you get from playing the game.

There are just too many benefits for developers and players with a good F2P system. For Devs it gets more people playing your game, builds a better online community and many will be willing to pay for things be it characters or skins. Can you play LoL for free? Yes. Do you instantly lose to someone who has paid money? No. How many players have bought things in the Riot Store? Tons.

Another model is look at the original Guild Wars (and maybe GW2 but thats up in the air on what they will have in their cash shop). Pay for the box and get a solid game. The gameplay wasn't for everyone but the game played well and I would say it didn't feel "cheap" to me. In the cash shop you can buy additional character slots, vanity outfits, minipets etc. Nothing preventing you from succeeding in the game.

The subscription model will be buried in 5 years there will just be no need. Blizzard puts out a new mount and makes something like 20 million dollars in 2 days. If they built a game without a subscription and put those mounts in every few months they could afford to stay afloat. I don't think they will do this with WoW soon just because they still have 10m subscribers but a proper F2P model works.

 

[darkewaffle]

I almost have to go with lose/lose.

I think it's attractive in ways but negative overall. Free to play often means that developers are encouraged to constantly do something to keep interest up; resulting in situations like LoL where you have this extreme over-saturation of champions (although in their defense I feel like it has been slowing done recently) or Eden Eternal where every weekend is "Super Kawaii Promo Zed!". When people aren't paying for something they don't have that 'vested' interest in so people need other incentives to keep them 'corralled'. It's not always negative, but I think it results in a lot of 'change for the sake of change' as well as content recycling.

On the other hand when games aren't free to play, it engenders this absolutely zealous sense of entitlement in the players because they feel like $14 a month is enough to give a company infinite resources to produce content, bug fixes, and balance simultaneously and instantly.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

im a junky for competition, but also a cheap bastard. i dont like that i may end up in a competitive environment with people that can buy a significant advantage. the line definitely blurs with mmos, and buying 3rd party gold/weapons. so you could argue that element will always be there. i guess it just seems more apparent in the F2P model, where it feels you cant even compete unless you pay. buying gold and stuff surely gives an advantage, but its just a shortcut, doesnt give ability beyond what i could acheive myself.

i like the way LoL has done it... can get champs faster and other non game changing stuff like skins for free. but nothing game breaking.

 

[Ns1]

Ikariam/TribalWars F2P = fun for a while then wack

WoT F2P = awesome for me, cuz I don't care about grinding. It'll just play my L4 tank FO-EVA and not pay a cent. I don't feel real $$$ players have a huge advantage over F2P players - it just saves real $$$ players grinding time.

 

[Cerb]

I think that console based DLC has changed the way the industry views "game content" as a whole. A company like Bioware can take any leftover levels, items, characters, and subplots that were left on the cutting room floor and sell them as a DLC. That's exactly how the FTP models goes about business too. You want the cool items? Show me the money!

Except that the DLC model just means they lose out on a $50-60 release sale, because we're just going to wait for the GOTYE or equivalent to come out at $40. I'm not sure that FTP MMOs have that.

Why do you hate capitalism, comrade?

In FTP games, someone with an inordinate amount of skill might be a successful player, but its a helluva lot easier to just start with a truckload of money. Take your soviet style "everyone pays 15 bucks" redistributionalist propaganda somewhere else.

That all depends on whether the game has a market for virtual currency, and in-game needs that are not satisfied by the cash shop. If it does, then yes, you can take advantage of players spending money that need what players spending time can offer them.

If no such market exists, then your skill is irrelevant.

 

[drebo]

I don't mind free to play if it's done right. What I mean is that the microtransactions in a free to play game should not define the game, but rather enhance it. And they should do so not in an overbearing way.

Dungeons and Dragons Online is, in my opinion, the best implemented free to play game. You can buy stuff that allows you to cut out some monotomy (buying health potions, for instance), but it doesn't necessarily provide you a free pass on actually having to play the game. And, if you don't want to, you never have to buy anything from the ingame store...it might take you longer to do certain things because you have to farm for whatever. You can also buy content packs, which are pretty cheap and provide a few new quests. LOTRO is a lot like this, too.

The free to play games I don't like are those that ask for money at every turn or provide an undue benefit to paying for things. Those are toxic to the free-to-play business model. A free to play game should make you WANT to spend money on things, rather than force you to.

 

[JTsyo]

Ikariam/TribalWars F2P = fun for a while then wack

WoT F2P = awesome for me, cuz I don't care about grinding. It'll just play my L4 tank FO-EVA and not pay a cent. I don't feel real $$$ players have a huge advantage over F2P players - it just saves real $$$ players grinding time.

this. I feel the model for F2P should be give people that pay savings in time instead of items that other can't get. Throw is some cosmetic features or UI for a few bucks and see if you can turn a small profit.

For games like Planetside 2, they'll want to be sure not to chase away all the free players since having populated servers will keep those paying playing for longer. From what I've read, PS1 had a free mode too and it wasn't too gimped.

 

[gothamhunter]

lotro = right way to do f2p

 

[Ns1]

this. I feel the model for F2P should be give people that pay savings in time instead of items that other can't get. Throw is some cosmetic features or UI for a few bucks and see if you can turn a small profit.

definitely this. In Ikariam pay players had such a huge advantage over F2P it wasn't even funny.

 

[thespyder]

I think the problem is that most people don't understand the underlying marketing behind the F2P business model. It is based on what Drug dealers do (no seriously). Give the public a free taste of something with the intent to get them hooked. Then charge through the nose when they have no other option to sate the addiction.

On a more serious note, it is the same as fishing, or offering a free sample of food in the food court. Give them enough to know what they are missing and then reel them in for the purchase.

Unfortunately, in order for the business model to work financially, there has to be a hard cap on what you can get out of the game without paying. Otherwise, casual players will simply leech off of the product and become non-performing assets that cost money for the company.

How this translates in the MMO market is you have to hard cap either level or equipment or area (or some form of content) so that F2P players will be enticed to pay to get to that next level or that higher content item. And you can't separate F2P players from paying customers because then you don't get the peer pressure to cough up the cash.

 

[Infraction Jack]

The best part for me about F2P games is no DRM.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I think the problem is that most people don't understand the underlying marketing behind the F2P business model. It is based on what Drug dealers do (no seriously). Give the public a free taste of something with the intent to get them hooked. Then charge through the nose when they have no other option to sate the addiction.

On a more serious note, it is the same as fishing, or offering a free sample of food in the food court. Give them enough to know what they are missing and then reel them in for the purchase.

Unfortunately, in order for the business model to work financially, there has to be a hard cap on what you can get out of the game without paying. Otherwise, casual players will simply leech off of the product and become non-performing assets that cost money for the company.

How this translates in the MMO market is you have to hard cap either level or equipment or area (or some form of content) so that F2P players will be enticed to pay to get to that next level or that higher content item. And you can't separate F2P players from paying customers because then you don't get the peer pressure to cough up the cash.

There are f2p that follow this and ones that don't. LoL is doing fine business wise despite the only thing that must cost money is graphics. Other optional purchases purely save some time; there is no hard cap.