The Trend Towards Microtransactions and F2P games

[Kyero Fox]

Just you wait, WoW'll turn into that crappy TOR F2P sooner or later.

[Sassarai]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Yes, but the difference here is you're paying nothing, and you get a barebones experience. This is how all F2P games work--they have to work this way. If you got the full experience from a free account, they would never make money. You have to pay to get the full game, even if you don't notice it. I can't be content with a half-ass watered-down version. I want the whole damn game. When there's a subscription fee and no item mall, that $15 a month always gets me the whole damn game. When the game is a microtransaction model... fuck, the sky's the limit. Horror stories of MapleStory where players are literally required to sink hundreds of dollars in real-world, cold hard cash PER MONTH if they want to progress at all through the endgame content.

My comparison would be it's like playing a extremely good demo of a game. Eventually you'll have to pay to get the full experience of the game so it's not really "f2p".

[ArchmageXin]

Let me play the horned' one's advocate here as well.

What is wrong with the F2P model?

I run my own business, I make decent money, but when I get home I have like...a hour and half after deducting dinner, calling the girlfriend, shower, study.

If I choose, I could blow some cash on a new set of gear of OMG PWN. The people who play the game for free, I am effectively subsiding their cost. They can spend their 10+ hours to grind for the gear by taking down the epic dragon, so can I for my 10 hours using a different method.

The F2P/Item mall let me stay in the game same as the gear grinders. Nothing un-ethical about that.

I want to pay a set montly fee for the full game... with timely content updates, bugfixes and balance adjustments, well-staffed and friendly customer service, and a community of loyal, long-term players--min-maxers, roleplayers, PvP fiends, casual collectors, girls who use the game as a pretty chat client... the list goes on.

The F2P player wants to pay nothing... for a glorified trial version of a game with slow content updates, lots of bugs, mediocre technical support, an item mall that none-too-subtly pushes you to constantly buy crap... and a community made up of illegal RMT farmers, botters, hackers, trolls and people who don't speak a word of English.

In a perfect world these things wouldn't be at cross purposes, but this is the real world. It is not possible for a "free to play" game to make money without being shit-terrible. They have to cut corners somewhere because only less than five percent of their player base is paying--and in order to entice the "whales" to pay enough to support the game (even in F2P maintenance mode) they have to grossly compromise game mechanics and allow bigger wallets unfair, anti-competitive advantages.

The question is this. How do you expect a company to *GASP* MAKE MONEY? If a company has less than 5% paying customers, I would never, as a Banker, actually loan money to support such an business model. No Cash? Watch the gaming firm to go belly up in 10 minutes.

That is all come down to. A lot of MMO now days compete for your attention. They all want to be WoW, but all of them are willing to settle just to have a stable base to BREAK even.

Bug fixes cost money, customer support cost money, IT cost HUGE amount of money. The F2P model it self is really an gamble, it HOPE enough people spend on their item malls/content malls so they can AFFORD to bring you more content, if no one pays, and the item mall sell items easily grindable else where, then the company will go belly up. Easy.

If they go for subscription of $15/month or $30/month model, they have to pick fight with WoW the 20 ton truck in the room. And so far in the last 10 years, not a single firm came even close.

So how would you do it? Enlighten me.


Disclaimer: I actually stopped WoW and MMO type of games years ago.

[Sassarai]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

If they go for subscription of $15/month or $30/month model, they have to pick fight with WoW the 20 ton truck in the room. And so far in the last 10 years, not a single firm came even close.

So how would you do it? Enlighten me.


Disclaimer: I actually stopped WoW and MMO type of games years ago.

Make a great game that people would want to sub to play. They don't don't need to come remotely close WoW to be considered sucessful. FFXI is S.E's biggest money maker and the population never even got close to WoW. Problem with all these new mmos that try to compete with WoW are simply clones

[Westlo]

Lets get one thing clear.... Guild Wars 2 is Buy to Play not Free 2 Play.

If you sold 10 million copies @ $60 that's a lot more profit than 10 million people singing up accounts...

Different model completely.

Originally Posted by Solace

The PS4 can render an old man head with amazing realism, but if it needs to sell 20 million copies to recoup the costs of that development just to break even, what good is all of that work?

Listen here chicken little, the PS4 is pretty much a PC in terms of development (with improvements!), why don't you take a look @ what CD Projekt (Witcher 2) have been able to accomplish with a small team and budget on that sort of platform, instead of worrying about a tech demo. The Ps4 being a streamlined PC is pretty much the reason that Witcher 3 is confirmed for it.

Also smh @ the Nintendo propaganda, they should worry about themselves, 3DS is only going crazy in Japan, the Wii U is getting the "meh" reaction everywhere, lol @ 50 thousand Nintendo Wii U's being returned to stores in Jan in America. (so the Wii U might've actually sold 107k in Jan but due to 50k in returns the sales figure is 57k), Iwata's actually offered to step down if certain targets aren't met... shares have free falled...

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by Sassarai

Make a great game that people would want to sub to play. They don't don't need to come remotely close WoW to be considered sucessful. FFXI is S.E's biggest money maker and the population never even got close to WoW. Problem with all these new mmos that try to compete with WoW are simply clones

WRONG. There are plenty of innovative games over the years that could had matched WOW in many time in its history. (Remember, WoW had like hundreds of updates by now)

What is preventing people from succeeding is the whole concept of "CAPTIVE AUDIENCE"

You know, the old hamster in a wheel looking for the reward that is right out the reach.

Oh, if you quit, your friends who is playing will miss you.

Oh, if you quit, your level 80 Orc DK, and all the time you spent on it is meaningless. So people who often join a new MMO go back

Oh, if you quit, you will miss the chance to go raiding with your guildies...

And so forth. MMO is amazing as a captive audience system, unlike games such as Command and Conquer that gather dust after you finish with them, at your own pace. It is literally the "addiction" that keep you in WoW.

As for your argument of games copying WoW's system...well, to be honest, people always copy whats work in business and add some improvements, because the cost to develop an MMO is HUGE.

Trying to find out if your game can appeal is even tougher. That is why you are seeing HALO XXX, Assassin's Creed YYY, Final Fantasy ZZZ and Elder Scroll BBB and titles from the 10-20 years ago re-hashed than a brand in Franchise.

Trying to find a stable base to break even is also no joke. I believe Star Wars Old Republic dev once said he wished for even 1/10 of WoW's base and he will praise the lord. He ended up with 200K, not even enough to cover telecom cost.

[Tyabann]

Originally Posted by Westlo

Listen here chicken little, the PS4 is pretty much a PC in terms of development (with improvements!), why don't you take a look @ what CD Projekt (Witcher 2) have been able to accomplish with a small team and budget on that sort of platform, instead of worrying about a tech demo. The Ps4 being a streamlined PC is pretty much the reason that Witcher 3 is confirmed for it.

CD Projekt are good, conscientious developers (for now). Doesn't mean that most other developers are going to be able to take advantage of the system outside of making the graphics shinier.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

WRONG. There are plenty of innovative games over the years that could had matched WOW in many time in its history. (Remember, WoW had like hundreds of updates by now)

What is preventing people from succeeding is the whole concept of "CAPTIVE AUDIENCE"

Trying to find a stable base to break even is also no joke. I believe Star Wars Old Republic dev once said he wished for even 1/10 of WoW's base and he will praise the lord. He ended up with 200K, not even enough to cover telecom cost.

It's called "critical mass," and it's the reason Facebook is such a dominating force in the social networking business.

Also, TOR would have had to sell over three million copies, just to break even at launch. It probably could have done so with less than three million sales--I think it sold around one million to start with, but subs then tanked fairly rapidly and it was all downhill from there.

But now it's F2P, and now it's making money again. But the game and the playerbase is even worse than it was before.

How does this keep happening? HOW?

[felix]

You want to know what's wrong with the whole F2P model (these days),

1. in games with "boosters," kiddies with unlimited money and unlimited time; for a game to be healthy it needs to reward "the good people" not the really shitty ones. If it rewards the shitty ones then what exactly are you playing for? to become them? to hell with that...
   
   
2. in games with "accessories" the whole trend of "shopping mall MMO," no seriously, it's not nikle and dime anymore it's "how much of this 'buy our crap' do I have to filter though to get to 'the game'", eg. AoEO, completely free to play, wanna play decent PVP? guess what, everything else in the game is working against you, you can't even play decent single player strategy.
   
   
3. the progression grind. I don't mind spending money on some money-only "gear," (assuming not overpowered gear), or spending time to get where I want to be, but I hate it when I'm being lead by the nose into "you can just get this by yourself <insert progression pyramid scheme>" and then presented with the buy option. The most common offender of this are shitty unlock systems that take ages. When I spend days on your game and got bored before even unlocking basic stuff you've failed hard on your "play to unlock" model.

F2P is really good. No really, stuff like Path of Exile are awesome examples of F2P (and to their credit they designed their game to be F2P from the start), but in all honesty a lot of the garbage on the market at the moment is not F2P it's "iF2P" or to be more exact: $120+ shitty games with a glorified unlimited demo (ie. the F2P part) who's only purpose is to not only milk your sorry ass out of your money, but all your time as well. A moment of silence while we appreciate the great good (sarcasm) the all mighty appstore has done to the industry.

and have even shown regret on gameplay impact when reflecting on the D3 RMAH

Where? Last time I checked out the D3 forums all I saw was dev "answers to questions" which made me cringe.

[Sassarai]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

WRONG. There are plenty of innovative games over the years that could had matched WOW in many time in its history. (Remember, WoW had like hundreds of updates by now)

Like what?

[Ak3mi]

I hate DLC. I just want to buy the game and know its finished to the best extent.The only time I like Micro transactions is when the game is free like Dota2. DLC could be acceptable at the right price, but I would prefer it to be a expansion.

[frivolity]

F2P doesn't always mean a watered-down/trial-versionesque experience for a free player as long as:

1. All item mall items are tradable in-game.
2. The item mall items are non-essential in a very loose sense.

Point 2 above is very loose depending on the extent of point 1. The less tradable IM items are, the more non-essential they have to be.

Atlantica Online is one of the games where every IM item is tradable in-game. They sell all kinds of stuff that players generally see as essential. Stronger mercenaries, powerful weapons, and mounts with good stats. But to me, that's not a problem since everything is tradable, meaning that free players have access to them. Over the last 2.5 years, I have amassed over $500 worth of IM items without paying a single cent, which is equivalent to $15 a month that I've saved from not having to pay a subscription.

I think Duo Maxwell pretty much hit the nail on the head. The problem lies with game management, and not the F2P model.

[hyl]

Originally Posted by frivolity

F2P doesn't always mean a watered-down/trial-versionesque experience for a free player as long as:

1. All item mall items are tradable in-game.
2. The item mall items are non-essential in a very loose sense.

Point 2 above is very loose depending on the extent of point 1. The less tradable IM items are, the more non-essential they have to be.

I don't mind paying for untradable services for games that i like, like extra character or bag slots or something similar like that

[kenjiharima]

Example Devil May Cry3 if it had micro transactions. We all know DMC3 when you start it's a hard game and you die frequently, then there will be an option for you to play it on an easier level with just a press of a button ok you're now on easy. With micro transactions they will probably offer you like in phone apps, power ups for just $0.99. LOL I see this coming a mile away.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Duo Maxwell

That's where you are wrong. I'm playing the whole game without paying anything. The only thing I spend more than others is time. This works in World of Tank, Sword Girls Online and League of Legends. The model isn't a problem. In those games you could get everything if you keep playing.

Personally I wouldn't use World of Pay to Win Tanks to tout the advantages of the F2P model...

You're blaming the model for what should be the company's policies.

When a large percentage of companies that utilizes said model have the same shitty policies...

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

If they go for subscription of $15/month or $30/month model, they have to pick fight with WoW the 20 ton truck in the room. And so far in the last 10 years, not a single firm came even close.

So how would you do it? Enlighten me.

Wrong. It would be the developer's CHOICE if they went to pick fight with WoW. Eve Online just recently broke 500k subscribers, which while certainly much less than WoW, it is nevertheless a successful MMO. It has consistently grew in the nearly 10 years since it went live.

FF11, as syn mentioned above, is also very much a success. A MMO doesn't need to reach WoW's stature to be successful, that'd be akin to saying all game studios that aren't the size of EA are failures.

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

Trying to find a stable base to break even is also no joke. I believe Star Wars Old Republic dev once said he wished for even 1/10 of WoW's base and he will praise the lord. He ended up with 200K, not even enough to cover telecom cost.

'cause they overspent while developing an over-hyped single player game, which ended up being a crappy MMO.

[Wild Goose]

I'd just note that World of Tanks isn't that bad; my bros and I were running with free accounts and doing decently; this is because once you grind up to Level 5 tanks, your win-effort-rewards ratio is at the best spot in the game, allowing comfortable playing and grinding.

I was going to talk about Mass Effect 3's MP model, but then I realised that it's not exactly F2P, on account of playings having bought the singleplayer game first (best RM160 I spent last year. And because I spent that much, I had to like the game ). On the other hand, MP-wise, I think ME3 has shown a great model of things; the ingame store is perfectly doable without microtransactions. A buddy of mine managed to grind 2 million credits in 3 days, which would have cost him US$ 12 if he used the microtransaction feature. And from what I know, all server maintennance and DLC updates - Resurgence, Rebellion, Earth, Retaliation, Reckoning - have been supported by microtransactions. So I wouldn't say that the F2P model itself is inherently flawed.

At the end of the day, microtransactions and F2P are just tools. The real issue is how they're employed by the developers, company, and corporate overlords. A spanner can be used to tighten bolts and nuts, and can be used to bash someone's head in. A syringe can be used to inject vaccine to innoculate, or inject air to kill.

[Sassarai]

Ughh I swear Bioware take out part of their games after they are complete and make fans purchase them as dlc.

[Duo Maxwell]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Personally I wouldn't use World of Pay to Win Tanks to tout the advantages of the F2P model...

What part of it is Pay to Win Tanks? The Premium tanks? That's funny. Gold ammo? It's purchasable with credits. The game is just "pay to grind less". And I moved to tier 9 without touching a single gold coin (aside from the Churchill I got as gift from my brother, which I hardly use).

[Wild Goose]

Originally Posted by Sassarai

Ughh I swear Bioware take out part of their games after they are complete and make fans purchase them as dlc.

Perhaps, but consider that if they released Omega, Leviathan and Citadel as part of the main game, you'd probably only really get to play it this year, instead of last year.

And I've got no problems with the MP updates, because it keeps the game fresh, and they're free.

...that said, Citadel is the only SP DLC that I'll be buying. I don't even need the weapons packs. Once I have Jessie, I shall need no other rifle!

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Duo Maxwell

What part of it is Pay to Win Tanks? The Premium tanks? That's funny. Gold ammo? It's purchasable with credits. The game is just "pay to grind less". And I moved to tier 9 without touching a single gold coin (aside from the Churchill I got as gift from my brother, which I hardly use).

Just because you have not personally utilized the system, or consider the advantages that are bought significant enough, doesn't change the fact that the game mechanic allows players to purchase in-game advantages with real money, which is the essence of P2W.