Wada ResignsFollow

At the end of the day, most games that were designed as P2P models that have transitioned to F2P were games that didn't fare too well. LotRO did better under the F2P model, but I think many consider that an outlier. We simply have too much history that big budget P2P games haven't made the F2P transition well at all, either because the game was crap to begin with, or became crap afterwards. It is entirely possible that ARR will not live up to FF fans' expectations. It's also possible that Yoshi and team could knock out a home run with the reboot. However, with FFXIV: ARR being a P2P now it doesn't bode well for its F2P chances and while the P2P proponents need to accept that it is a possibility for ARR down the road, the F2P advocates need to quit thinking it will be the sure-fire silver bullet for the game also.

That looks a lot like GW2, in that once you buy the game, all of the meaningful content is free. The cash shop is for things like vanity items, keys to unlock treasure chests that you find in the game, server transfers, etc.

However, the downside to F2P is that it often causes a large influx of players, followed by a steep decline. The people who often would play for free aren't usually the players who will stick around for many years. That's why I think SE is absolutely doing the right thing by advertising FFXIV as P2P, to bring in the demographic of gamer with the income/interest to remain invested in the game for years.

I could actually see this game having microtransactions someday, but NOT being F2P. Like, a monthly subscription fee combined with optional vanity items from a cash shop would be really cool. It would be even more effective if there weren't many vanity items, which would make them more special.

EDIT: It really bothers me in GW2 that I need to buy keys with real money in order to unlock chests I collect in the game. I hope nothing like this ever appears in FFXIV.

Edited, Mar 30th 2013 1:48pm by Thayos

F2P isn't necessarily a bad thing. But once it turns into a Pay-to-Win model, it's all over. Then it just becomes a game where actual skill and accomplishment is something to be by-passed by adding extra dollars to your account.

Ultimately, it's simply a last-ditch cash grab by the publisher to soak whatever money they can from whatever whales they can catch before shutting the game off for good. Maybe some people like that, but it's a 100% turn-off for me. If FFXIV goes in this direction, it's dead to me. I want to play a game, not be pressured to buy the next victory.

Yes, apparently all the the free to play supporters never address this. I have yet to see any of them comment on the pay to win aspect. One platitude after another. "The ignorance of free to play is quite astounding." Sure, but there are fundamental issues that will never change. I will now ignorantly type a wall o' text. I enjoy keeping things as basic as possible, as we can all relate to human behavior. People love to win, and people will even pay to make it happen. People also like shiny new things, and the feeling of being special or superior. These things will never change. I'm under this silly notion that people create business where there is a market. So if I were to spend time and finance creating a product, I'm not doing it because I'm just that sweet. In the end I want my money back, and then some. Building a business model around the petty negatives of human behavior? Why not. (Yes I know many businesses do this, but lets stick to F2P, OK?)

People are free to do whatever they want with the money they earn. However, I feel like it's irresponsible to create a product under the guise of "free", then lure people into spending real money on useless items. Free to play, but not free to enjoy unless you spend money. Yes, they don't HAVE to, nor is anyone forcing them. However, you created the situation in order to encourage said behavior. Preying on people's propensity to spend recklessly is something I frown on. This is where my own opinions and values come in. If you're going to create a game, have some integrity. Create a good product that has merit and then let people decide if they wish to spend money on it. It's called taking a risk yes, and that should give you more incentive to put everything you can into it. I know we're comfortable in expelling half *** for profit today, but I think the P2P and even B2P model are the best at keeping developers "honest." Half *** product should give you half *** profits. That commitment between the consumer and the company is important. As long as you keep delivering, I'll continue to give you a fee. It's as simple as that. There is zero need to change that. You worked hard to deliver this to me, I don't mind paying you for your work if it retains a quality to my liking.

I may or may not be alone in this, but I'm glad that SE is in the position they're in right now. I love the Final Fantasy series, but they need to learn that people don't want to spend money on crap anymore. I have faith in ARR not because of my love for the series, but because if it doesn't do well, its over. That kind of pressure has a chance of making them deliver, or crash and burn. I'm hoping for the former, not because of my love for SE, but because I want to be entertained for a prolonged period. The sate 1.0 was release in was all the proof we needed that SE stopped caring. Notice how they started charging a fee again after several patches? That's because the quality of the game went up. You notice how the legacy program encouraged you to pay for 90 days for discounts, exclusive stuff, and that special feeling? It was for the loyal fans, but I suspect that it was aimed at those people who weren't satisfied with the quality yet, but wanted to feel special later. So many flocked back to the game, not to play, but to just drop 90 day's worth for future rewards. 10 of my college friends did that. Those were the one's lucky enough to be told. There are far too many threads on non FF sites that people are still complaining about legacy. Some may even chose to not play ARR just because of that lol.

I'll reiterate, that people will dish out money for a quality product, they also hope that quality products are free, dish out money to win and get ahead, dish out money to avoid work, and also spend money to feel special. They will not typically spend money on a product that lacks quality, unless it helps them win or feel special in some way *Dat Legacy*. I'll leave it to you to figure out which business model caters to particular types of behaviors. Free to play encourages more negatives than positives. Wasting money is bad. Encouraging businesses to prey on our ever growing poor spending habits is also bad.

I'm asking any of you Free to Play supporters, would you spend money on your free to play game? If so, how much? If not, why not? You're arguing from the position, "I don't want to spend money on a sub," I don't really see you contributing financially to a free to play model. We're always looking for something free that's this huge "win." It's just not going to happen, you're going to pay for it. You can claim that there are many games that are successful. So far I have only heard of LoL(and maybe 2-3 others. That's far from "many"), and from what you people explained it to be, people pay for things that other people can put in the work in game to get (we're very predictable yea?). I wonder though, if LoL is popular because it's free, or because it's actually a quality product. If someone can answer that, I'd be grateful.

... that article is actually extremely forgiving. Many of the games listed as "this one's not so bad," have huge pay-to-win elements that aren't acknowledged by the writer.

You don't need to tell me that a lot of free-to-play games turn out pay-to-win because of greed (or desperation). I was just making the point that they don't have to be that way.

In other words, if XIV is announced as free-to-play, it wouldn't necessarily be the end of the world, or cause for panic... just proceed with caution and hope Square Enix doesn't mess it up.

That's what I mean, about "depending on how it's implemented". The introduction of free-to-play wouldn't necessarily be the killer, it would be bad implementation of free-to-play.

I would also quit if it's done badly or gives a performance advantage to higher paying users. ***** that crap.

It's plainly obvious with GW2 that the game has experienced a drop off since launch. If you don't actually play the game -- and I'm assuming you don't -- then it's really impossible to know, because the term "active subscribers" has no real value. However, most areas of the game are pretty empty, and everyone who I personally know who started playing at launch hasn't logging in for at least two months. I only still play because I'm determined to finish at least the minimal personal story.

I think you will find similar trends have occurred if you read about other games that go from P2P to F2P, and talk to people who have played those games. The common trend, like GW2, is a surge of new players, followed by a rapid decline over a few months as the "free" gamers move onto the next thing.

Catwho really hit this on the head with an earlier post, but I'll reiterate again here, too.

A P2P game requires a much greater effort to identify and build your game for your audience. You're not building a game for anyone with a computer and an Internet connection; you're building a game for people who enjoy Final Fantasy, and for people who would especially enjoy this very specific game you're making. And the only way a P2P model works is if the game is of a high enough quality for people to continue paying to play. Also, you don't need a million players for a P2P game to be hugely successful. You just need a dedicated core playerbase. Just look at FFXI, SE's most profitable game ever.

A F2P game doesn't have to work so hard to cater to a certain audience; what makes it most appealing to play is simply that it's free. Monetizing these games isn't about creating the most amazing content possible... rather, it's about figuring out what will sell best from the cash shop. And while starting out with non-essential cosmetic items is nice, eventually the temptation is to start tying the cash shop to the progression of the game. Businesses are not charitable organizations; they're in the business of making profits. It's simple logic that a F2P game will get more initial players, simply because it's free, and there are many teenage gamers (and casual adult gamers) who are more likely to try something that's free, rather than something they'd have to pay a subscription for.

Keep in mind, we live in an increasingly "get it for free" culture. I have too many friends who refuse to buy music or go out to see movies, because they'd rather get it for free off the Internet. This is the reason why F2P works. The most compelling reason to try the game isn't because it might be good enough to spend years playing, but because it's free to try.

So, at this point, I am VERY glad that Yoshi-P is sticking to his guns about FFXIV being a P2P game. That makes me much more confident about not only the quality of ARR, but also the kind of game they envision it being.

As far as what the future holds? Today I was puttering around in Guild Wars 2, and I finally realized that the people I've seen with flaming swords didn't get those items from dungeons, but from the cash shop. Through the shop, you can buy weapon skins to make any weapon you have look more epic. It really made me upset. All this time, I've been wondering which mission or dungeon people got these weapons from, and wondering why I hadn't come across one yet. Silly me, for thinking that such cool things could be earned through my achievements in the game!

Edited, Mar 30th 2013 7:33pm by Thayos

When did WoW go F2P? The comparison doesn't make sense because WoW charges more than 10 million people a subscription fee. With that kind of income it's easy to see how they are able to manufacture so much content. That does lead me to the point that Blizzard switched their development model to be able to introduce content faster. Rather than having huge raids with tons of bosses, they instead broke them into smaller sized instances and shortened the window of the releases for each progressive raid. Essentially you end up getting the same amount of content, but it's not all front loaded and doesn't lead to the quick burnout that it used to.

6 months is not a long time to be without a content update. I don't play GW2, but I know that they have introduced (what seems like to me anyway) a lot in the way of tweaks, adjustments and improvements. IIRC they just released something days ago. I have no idea what it is or what it entails, but I wouldn't expect a newly released game to even mention an expansion for at least that long.

The model works when it's implemented properly. The game you mentioned with max level in a week and no end game content doesn't sound like it would have been successful anyway; lets not attribute flaws that are obviously unrelated to the business model.

Uh... apparently good enough to keep 10 million people around...

How many people dose FFXI keep around Theonehio?

Think WoW keeps so many people around simply because so many people play it. It has a critical mass that no other game is likely to have again. Never underestimate the power of the friend effect.

And I think you're underestimating the fanbase.

I guess we'll see who is right won't we?