ARR is a savior!Follow

Well I'm sure even modern F2P games have time gates and whatnot; otherwise, players could just buy all the content they want in cash shops, which wouldn't seem to be healthy for gaming communities on the whole.

The whole gating issue totally goes back to personal preference though. I am totally fine with paying a subscription and having time-gated content, as long as the content is strong enough. At the same time, Filth, you're totally right -- there is a contradiction there about "freedom" of game play.

It's just personal preference.

No, I absolutely can say that.

People are judging F2P based on the assumption that Western F2P models function like Eastern ones, or that this is still an industry that looks at the LOTRO system and thinks it's a good idea.

I agree that a developer could make a crappy F2P game. I mean, it's not like F2P is immune to bad design. P2P has the same problem - failure to deliver sufficient content to make the investment by players worthwhile.

But to be wary of the system itself based on a series of assumptions that do not map to any of the F2P releases we've seen in the past two years is just willful fear of the unknown.

It's nice that you want 100% of content for a subscription price. I'm not taking that desire seriously, because that just IS NOT the state of the market of P2P games anymore, and hasn't been for some time now.

There are mounts and skins you can only get in FFXIV by spending additional money. There are mounts, armor skins, and non combat pets you can only get in WoW by spending real money. I know that was the case in TOR before it went F2P (and I honestly don't know if the CE upgrades can be purchased with in-game cash). FFXI had PLENTY of those items (some of which, as noted, were far more than just simple aesthetics).

If your issue with F2P games is that you can't access 100% of the content for a simple subscription fee, you should have the exact same issue with modern P2P games, FFXIV included.

I'm just not going to accept an argument levied against one payment structure if that issue exists with the modern version of the other and you're not applying it there, too. That's ridiculous.

I'm also going to reply again to this, because this quote is kind of silly.

Would my past experiences with F2P games cause me to feel a bit of caution when picking up a F2P game in the future? Absolutely.

But... shouldn't they?

If you could choose between renting movies from Red Box or ordering Netflix -- and the first three times you use Red Box, you can't get the movies you want -- might you be a little more cautious about using similar video services as opposed to things like Netflix?

This is basic stuff.

I'm trying not to put words in your mouth... but by your logic, I should blindly accept F2P payment models despite the "negative" experiences I've had in the past. That's highly illogical, don't you think? It's natural, and right, for people to be cynical (as long as they remain open-minded, too).

Again, to state this is "willful fear of the unknown" is utterly ridiculous.

I understand there's a lot of support for the F2P model.

Instead of paying a subscription to earn your treasures in the game the same as everyone else, you can skip the hassle of achievement, go to the shop to buy whatever you want right now, and call it:

FREEDOMâ„¢

Maybe it's not the end of the world. And I get that some people are cool with it, it fits their ideals of value perfectly, and, heck, it may often prove to be profitable for developers and publishers who offer this on tap. But it's not the same as where you're expected to participate in the game, and play by the rules every else has to follow, to collect the treasures you want.

B2P is one thing, DLC is another, but F2P is a complete transformation. What's left is no longer an achievement-based game. If I want something now, real life money will solve my problems. Instead of participating in an in-game economy through time spent on difficult challenges, I'll just top off my wallet at the cash shop instead.

Sure there's still an ordinary game in there somewhere in that F2P realm that people can still play. You could hardly sell knickknacks at the store if there wasn't anything you could do with it. But, the fact is, if you want to be the very best, or look the very best, or play at your very best, you won't accomplish it by actually playing the actual game. You have to pony up! Because if you don't pony up, the game goes under, so there's always going to be plenty of incentives to buy.

And that's the most insidious part. Instead of focusing on better designs to improve the gaming experience, F2P developers have to focus on designing new ways to sell you more things and keep you hooked. At least in a subscription based game, developers can stick with keeping things fun and enjoyable for everyone instead of constantly playing on your impulses to get you to open up your wallet.

And this runs contrary to people who make great accomplishments against a game's most difficult content by earning it while playing by the same rules as everyone else, not because they shoveled out the most cash. And this is why I prefer a subscription model. I want the adventure in the game to be what matters, not my balance sheet, and F2P takes that experience away for good.

Which is fine if you enjoy that sort of thing. But I don't, and it's infuriating when I'm told there's nothing to worry about if FFXIV goes F2P, when the experience is bound to be altogether different at it's most basic level. Subscription-based MMOs are a dying breed, so I cherish this one I have left. Once it's gone, the coming apocalyptic F2P landscape as far as the eye can see will be all yours. I want nothing to do with it.

Edited, Feb 11th 2014 6:54pm by Xoie

A purely F2P game (meaning a game that has no upfront monetary barrier to entry or subscription model) has to rely on something to make money, let alone be profitable. If a player can play a F2P game without ever being strongly compelled to engage in RMT, such a game is not going to be long for this world. If I can gain access to all of the content in your MMO with no overwhelming grind, little gating and no RMT, you’re not going to make a lot of money off of me without some sort of subscription fee.

I will chime in with many here saying that the main component in F2P games that has eventually done me in is the set of mechanisms put in place to part me from my money while I’m playing. This contrasts with the P2P model, which has a monetization method that is mainly passive, with no direct in-game UX impact on the player.

I played GW2 for more than a year. Bear with me now: I know GW2 is not a pure F2P game due to its barrier to entry. However, given the fact that the game primarily relies on RMT in the Trading Post for revenue, I think I can still illustrate my point using it as reference. You can insert any pure F2P game here, make a few adjustments, and I think the point will persist and apply even more.

When starting out, you can’t help but notice how huge and intricate the world is. Although the Gem Shop is right in your face the whole time, for your initial 60$, there’s a whole lot of game you can play before you hit any kind of monetization threshold. However, after a few weeks of play time, you inevitably hit the ”coercion point”. It gets to a point where any goal worth accomplishing takes an inordinate amount of mindless grind to reach. You are faced not with the prospect of adding something extra to your gaming experience for fun, but with that of having to suffer a much-lessened gaming experience unless you fork out the cash. This is a design decision motivated by this model that directly affects my gaming experience and, in my mind, corrupts it. It often feels like I’m constantly being marketed to. Hell, it can almost feel like extortion some times, lol. Please note that I have no problem with vanity items that are optional to buy.

My problem is not with the viability of the F2P model or how much more or less it can cost than P2P. I don’t doubt that it can certainly sustain itself with enough RMTs. I don’t doubt just as much content can be generated either, but I’ll say this: It does not profit this model to create too much content that is not directly akin to micro-transactions. You only need to create just enough open/episodic content to have acceptable player retention, all the while pushing your RMT on them with, among others, methods like the one I described in the previous paragraph.

My problem is with what the F2P model does to games as games. The design changes that often have to be made to support this rarely appeal to me, and I think that it’s fine for me to feel that way.

For the sake of not being confronted with more mentions of games which use hybrid P2P/B2P/F2P models, perhaps we should stick to strictly discussing F2P.


Edited, Feb 11th 2014 9:32pm by Trellmichel

Sure, if that's the contention, fair enough.



Yes, that would definitely be an interesting question to get an answer to. Personally, I would be OK with any monetization model that does not affect my game play experience the way I mentioned before. The P2P model has done that well for me, but I'm not against alterations which could mean more revenue and, conjointly, more development invested in the game.

Oh yes. Giving a discount for longer subscribers (which a lot of P2P MMOs do) and in return giving those same subscribers extra perks on some weekends is really insidious.

REALLY INSIDIOUS GUYS.

This post really sums it up nicely.

The reason I take issue with your argument from past experience, Thayos, is that it seems to consist of one data point - GW2. I don't think I've seen you mention experience with any other game. One data point should never be seen as a guiding experience. Particularly not when you're going to be using it to judge an entire system under which your own experience only reflects a subset.

My other issue with what you're talking about is the idea that selling aesthetic content is somehow directly linked to F2P games. It isn't. It's a new industry standard for MMOs (and, hell, even single player offline games). Why the hell WOULDN'T a developer sell armor skins, if it means they aren't going to lose any meaningful number of players, and get to pocket additional cash for what would have been no additional revenue otherwise?

I don't prefer either payment system. I'm just not going to be so ignorant to pretend that either is particularly meaningful. In the end, everything is always going to come down to design and the circumstances of the game? Great game with a terrible P2W system? Crash and burn. Mediocre game with an awesomely generous F2P system? Probably still crash and burn.

What I prefer is games that are well-designed. If a F2P system is the best design for that game, and produces both great profits and great levels of enjoyment, then they should go with a F2P system. If P2P is the system that will do that, they should go with P2P.

Judging a game by whether or not it's P2P or F2P, at all, is just ridiculous. Judge it by whether or not it's fun.

The fact that there are people honestly trying to argue that content delivery isn't equal in F2P and P2P games, when the current market examples heavily stress that's false (or, to be more specific, heavily stress that F2P games are either equal to P2P, or P2P developers are seriously slacking across the board).

You don't have to love GW2. I don't. But if your reasons for disliking it are having some treasure chests you can't open unless you convert gold to crystals, then I really can't take you seriously.

*sigh*

Rift credits are insidious.

You can buy as much of them with you want with real life cash making the MMO more of a casino where the house always wins while you're just an addict getting fleeced. You can instantly pay your way to all sorts of perks instead of, you know, earning them like you would in a normal subscription only game. And then there's Lockboxes with random treasures which invariably gets all sorts of sad suckers into financial trouble. Just the sort of thing that's perfectly natural in a fantasy medieval combat setting.

You can even use the cash store to buy your way past loyal subscribers on their own reward tree. Use your money to win!

Has anyone brought up the fact that FFXIV-ARR plays on a PS3? Do you get the significance there? It's more cost effective to pay $15 a month for a game that has clear pretty graphics on a station you already own. No need to buy a quad core PC (I have a duel core and I'm not about to spend money on another computer I'm not freaking rich). No need to buy an Xbox 1 or PS4.

In the end it's cheaper for me to play FFXIV-ARR than any of these new AAA games coming out. Even the f2p's. And I don't have to turn the graphics all the way down just to get my char to move two inches forward. This rocks.

Fishing on PS3 is great. The fishing line vibrates the controller. I don't have to look at the screen. But there is so many ways to make gil in this ARR I don't see fishing being a need like it was for FFXI.

I'm really getting tired of reading this.

P2P and F2P are the difference between this:

http://zantetsuken.net/news/final-fantasy-xivs-patch-future-2-1-2-2-and-beyond
http://zantetsuken.net/news/ffxiv-live-letter-12-talks-about-patch-2-2-info-video-and-over-100-screenshots-included

and this:

https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/game/gw2/Expansion-pack-with-new-story-is-a-need

Hey look: I'm getting guaranteed content down the road every 3 or so months plus an expansion pack is already in the works. And we're talking actual content: not some pretty new armor skins to buy on at the cash shop or LS-type events that add nothing to the game.

Notice how most of the responses in GW2's thread are from the summer of 2013?

Also a nice read:

Spoiler

Quote:

If the Living Story is a TV show, it’s the filler arc that people watch not because it’s compelling or enjoyable or even embodies what you liked about the show in the first place, but because it’s filler that allows you to spend a little more time in the world you bought into because of the main plot line. No-one is unhappy to see the filler arcs end and the story return to the main plot. Fillers are pacifiers, things that keep you occupied until what you really want comes along. Yeah, GW2 needs an expansion, Living Story is falling short.

Expansions add all new dungeons, all new weapon sets, all new maps, all new armour sets, new traits and skills (let’s be honest though, the current traits and skills aren’t even remotely balanced or complete), all new story (and not some side story like Flame and Frost which feels like it may as well have never happened, but something big and appropriate for the heroes that took on an elder dragon).

I will admit that the Consortium make a better enemy than Zhaitan ever did, not because they are more threatening but because they have motivations and not some mindless beast. They are compelling. This doesn’t make the Living Story good, it makes the Personal Story weak. Having said that, I feel that story telling efforts would be better spent on a real meaty story that has some greater relevance to Tyria. The Living Story so far just feels like the tiny selective plots from each of the maps of Tyria (like the human struggle with the centaur in Harathi) released slowly over a period of three months (show me someone who spent three months happily and actively playing in Harathi) with a major cash shop component and a mini-dungeon that relies on being temporary to supplement the need to be quality. The primary reason people play Living Story is the carrot on a stick (two back slot items, a bunch of titles and crazy MF buff) not because of compelling gameplay or story content.

If Living Story was more robust (and had more free content instead of most roads leading to the gem store for cosmetic or desirable loot) it might adequately supplement an expansion or at least give an more satisfying experience until it comes, but its current form is not enough. It’s early days but the story we’ve completed so far was mostly irrelevant (just an excuse for refugees, the Molten Alliance were terrible enemies both in terms of their motives and the consequences or lack thereof from defeating them, the consequences of that chapter are trivial compared to an elder dragon exhaling) and the additions to Tyria were frustratingly temporary.

If this was a TV show, I’d be tuning out until the filler arc ended.

None of the Living Story content even comes close to how robust the WoW content updates are. WoW updates add whole new raids, weapons, armours, boss fights (with phases and different mechanics – their dungeons are also more robust than GW2 dungeons) daily quests, robust class balance (in a game with less class discrimination due to poor balance) mini pets and the like. The GW2 updates have brought lesser versions of each of these things.

For what it is, the Living Story is enjoyable and the Secret of Southsun appears to have improved upon and learned from Flame and Frost, but it’s no replacement for an expansion. It might help bide the time until one and it will help to strengthen the core game (one that was released unfinished and needed strengthening) but it isn’t adding the value that an expansion would add to the game.

Looks like many people don't even think of the living story as being actual content: just like me.

And coming from a developer:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-07-03-its-unlikely-guild-wars-2-will-ever-get-an-expansion-pack


It's great that you define content so loosely. It's too bad you really can't do the same way in terms of an expansion. So a game that is F2P (indirect) or B2P has no plans on creating new content anytime soon because they think LS will suffice where a P2P game that has been out for 2/5ths of the F2P game's lifetime already has an expansion planned. THIS is the difference, guaranteed by revenue provided by subscriptions, between the two subsets of MMOs.

Honestly, you shouldn't just criticize Thayos for only speaking of GW2 when you seem to fall back on it. Why not speak of TERA? You know: the game that flopped over in Asia because of the lukewarm reception due to lack of content. It came over here with all the content that had slowly developed from the K release and was received well due to perceived amount of content. And now look where it is: in a ditch due to lack of support.





I suppose you can go have some fun with your new Ein-exclusive class though.

http://teratoday.com/tera-news/asia/bhs-ktera-new-content


The one that only took 3 years to put out.

Oh so you don't want to talk about recent MMOs who went F2P or are F2P. Let's talk about AoC, then. Or would you like to talk about RO? Or would you like to talk about HG: London?

I loved every single one of those games. But you know what? They all flopped or have become so desolate, playerbase-wise, that it isn't worth the time invested.

RO is quite an old game that started as F2P during beta, went P2P, and about 5-6 years ago went F2P. Even in RO's P2P model, it was readily apparent that new content was not being developed fast enough or that the Koreans received content way ahead of the NA population on iRO. The updates we received changed quite a few things about the game and added new maps and classes, but the end of the game still revolved around farming for hats or doing WoE. Outside of that, it had nothing. And this was WITH P2P subscriptions funding it. After going F2P, they've offered up VIP/premium services to those who want to get a huge advantage in leveling/crafting/in-game services over others making it a P2W game.

AoC was the same way: except it was REALLY apparent, the minute you stepped outside of the starting zone, that the game had no content at all. A year went by without seeing any changes and, sure enough, the game flopped and went F2P. It has seen no success since going F2P.

And Hellsgate is probably the saddest story. Originally a single player/MMO subscription model hybrid, it showed great promise. Until you got to max level and realized there was nothing to do. Didn't take long to realize that people were not going to pay for that so they also folded and went F2P. The game actually ended up dead: picked up by another studio who is still trying to get it back on the market.

The underlying point with all three of these cases is clear lack of content, no expansions, and sparse updates.




You somehow think the F2P genre is capable of producing the same amount of content as WoW/FFXI/FFXIV/Eve on average. This is simply not true and you even have your fellow F2P players above saying exactly what I'm saying.

It's like you purposefully ignore what we've all been telling you this entire time because you are so desperate to defend F2Ps that have been rightfully labeled. If the P2P model truly was not able to push out more content than these F2P MMOs, then you'd expect F2P MMOs to have had a little more success than they have. Yet, games that are P2P still (like XI) exist right now and are still pulling in revenue and producing content that have existed for the past decade+.

What factor allows them to do this? Please don't answer. It is rhetorical. The answer is above.

Money gives developers incentives, allows them to hire on more staff to work on multiple projects, and keeps the servers running.

Lack of it keeps the developers in a constant, "How can we get by on the bare minimum while still covering our costs?" frame of mind.

Which do you think is more conducive to producing more content?

Anyways, I expect another long-winded retort that could be summarized as, "NU UH!". It's obvious that I've done the F2P thing. It's obvious that I've had my fun in the F2P thing. It's also obvious that I've had more fun in the P2P thing because the developers were not complacent.

If you'd like to ignore the obvious, feel free to. When you ask a random person if they'd rather invest $45 into a game for guaranteed content with major updates to the game or just have blind faith in the development team, expecting them to be self-motivated to produce new content (instead of being motivated by money), any sane person will go with the guarantee. I know I spent way too much in just about every cash shop I've been apart of in F2Ps just to gain an edge or gain access to content, easily exceeding what I spend on subscription models where server transfers are the only outside cost. Then again, perhaps your gambling is what makes F2P so fun for you. Who knows?

I don't find discussion with you to be worth it if you're willing to forgo logical reasoning in favor of emotional reasoning.

Edited, Feb 12th 2014 5:35am by HitomeOfBismarck

Their content production was pretty much spot-on for what anyone should expect out of a F2P game.

For a P2P game, it was pathetic indeed.