Evolve or Die
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Well, the F2P used by Conan/WoW/etc essentially makes the low levels an unlimited demo. Which is just fine. Not sure how that will transition into Firefall, which is more a shooter with a marketplace (and quite how a marketplace will fit in to the game remains to be seen).
I'm surprised no mention of Guild Wars in that article - its model is "Buy Once, Play All You Like", with separate expansions. Which is a much better model, as it pushes the company to make better content rather than content you'll want to buy that will just keep you playing.
I'm surprised no mention of Guild Wars in that article - its model is "Buy Once, Play All You Like", with separate expansions. Which is a much better model, as it pushes the company to make better content rather than content you'll want to buy that will just keep you playing.
suggestion... the whole game is free to download free to play free to go anywhere and see anything... but its 10cents for every ammo clip you buy in game xD
Hmm... This game sounds neat. Maybe I'll give it a shot. Maybe after I give it a shot, I'll toss a little money their way.
Also, "Evolve or die" makes me think of the Warp Spider Exarch in DoW2, since he's constantly saying it. (And I play as him constantly
)
Also, "Evolve or die" makes me think of the Warp Spider Exarch in DoW2, since he's constantly saying it. (And I play as him constantly
)Interesting article.
I'll note a few things here though. The subscription based model of MMO gaming is effective, typically, because it holds true to how MMO gaming works. Developers get a constant, reliable revenue stream, and gamers get regular updates to their favorite title. The only reason nobody can pull it off anymore is because gamers typically only subscribe to one MMO title at a time, and WoW is holding the Lion's share (See: almost all) of the gamers who are in that demographic. Free to play games allow subscription holders to play a game as a break from WoW (at least originally, they may eventually go to it altogether), without feeling like they're locking themselves into the game with a subscription.
Both models have their pluses and minuses. It usually comes down to a couple of big points for each. For subscription based models, you need to make sure players feel satisfied that they're getting their moneys worth with updates and reliable service. With F2P games, you need to make sure that you offer the right amount of free content, and carefully select the paid content. That last one can't be stressed enough. If you start selling something that the community takes exception to (usually power items, or anything that takes excessively long to procure), your game will instantly be demonized by the community (I'm looking at you, EVE!)
In the end, I don't think either model is better or worse than the other, they're just appropriate for different games in different circumstances. In terms of A-Quality games as free to play, well, there's not really alot of other options at this point. Without getting into careful measurements about it, WoW is a good game, but it has much more than that going for it. Its got 10 million plus players who have friends and history on the game. Not only is WoW a really good title with lots of time, experience and developers behind it, Its a title that people are grounded in. Its where their communities are. It is incredibly unwise to try to compete directly with it at this juncture. Give it time, and watch it. Based on how good of a job the developers do, time will eventually erode the game, both by limited graphics, and from players tiring of it (this is incredibly dependent on how good the developers do with newer content).
Well, that's enough text walling for one post.
I'll note a few things here though. The subscription based model of MMO gaming is effective, typically, because it holds true to how MMO gaming works. Developers get a constant, reliable revenue stream, and gamers get regular updates to their favorite title. The only reason nobody can pull it off anymore is because gamers typically only subscribe to one MMO title at a time, and WoW is holding the Lion's share (See: almost all) of the gamers who are in that demographic. Free to play games allow subscription holders to play a game as a break from WoW (at least originally, they may eventually go to it altogether), without feeling like they're locking themselves into the game with a subscription.
Both models have their pluses and minuses. It usually comes down to a couple of big points for each. For subscription based models, you need to make sure players feel satisfied that they're getting their moneys worth with updates and reliable service. With F2P games, you need to make sure that you offer the right amount of free content, and carefully select the paid content. That last one can't be stressed enough. If you start selling something that the community takes exception to (usually power items, or anything that takes excessively long to procure), your game will instantly be demonized by the community (I'm looking at you, EVE!)
In the end, I don't think either model is better or worse than the other, they're just appropriate for different games in different circumstances. In terms of A-Quality games as free to play, well, there's not really alot of other options at this point. Without getting into careful measurements about it, WoW is a good game, but it has much more than that going for it. Its got 10 million plus players who have friends and history on the game. Not only is WoW a really good title with lots of time, experience and developers behind it, Its a title that people are grounded in. Its where their communities are. It is incredibly unwise to try to compete directly with it at this juncture. Give it time, and watch it. Based on how good of a job the developers do, time will eventually erode the game, both by limited graphics, and from players tiring of it (this is incredibly dependent on how good the developers do with newer content).
Well, that's enough text walling for one post.
More like... All heavy weapon ammo and special ammo like anti-armor etc. rounds is bought for an in-game currency that can only be purchased for real money. Something not too offensive.SovietPanda said:
anyhow, there is 1 important thing F2P game needs to succeed: it must be GOOD. A lot of people make shit F2P games and of course they fail.
Being of comparable quality to WoW while not being a re-skinned copy is MMOs best hope. If MMOs can do that, people would pay the subscription fee.
Show me an MMO that is of comparable polish, scope, artistic design, and refinement of gameplay to WoW and if despite all of that it doesn't do very well in terms of sales, then we can talk about MMOs *having* to use the F2P model.
But until we move away from the attitude that "hey, look, I'm an MMO, so I should be making billions over billions of dollars like WoW did," until publishers and developers move away from that attitude and understand there is a considerable difference in quality between WoW and all the others, we'll end of with strings of half-baked efforts and direct ripoffs that aren't particularly fun, at any price.
Show me an MMO that is of comparable polish, scope, artistic design, and refinement of gameplay to WoW and if despite all of that it doesn't do very well in terms of sales, then we can talk about MMOs *having* to use the F2P model.
But until we move away from the attitude that "hey, look, I'm an MMO, so I should be making billions over billions of dollars like WoW did," until publishers and developers move away from that attitude and understand there is a considerable difference in quality between WoW and all the others, we'll end of with strings of half-baked efforts and direct ripoffs that aren't particularly fun, at any price.
Great article. I honestly don't blame companies for using the F2P model (considering how lucrative it is), but I really don't think it's what's best for the consumer. F2P games often times have overpopulated and dreadful communities due to its ease of access. I'd prefer MMO's use the Guild Wars model, but I highly doubt that's nearly as profitable.
I like free to play I get a very large demo that last several hours and then I can decide how much I want to give the game paying only when I feel like playing. Yeah some games do over charge on the free to play stuff and you end up paying a hundred dollars by the end of the year but World of Warcraft costs about $180 a year.
I think the bottom line is greed. It's not just about running a successful game that is making money, but a matter of the degree of success. People look at the industry leaders and figure "if we can't match that, we're failing". It's increasingly like that with all generes.
The microtransaction model is increasingly popular because it has more potential to make money, since if it's implemented correctly the company can make more than the $15 a month people pay for subscriptions. No matter how they dress it up with analogies to school and college, the bottom line is that it turns into a "pay to win" situation as anyone willing to pay for the advantages to begin with is liable to be willing to put in the effort. With two players putting in equal effort, the one who winds up spending the most money is going to wind up ahead.
I don't think it's an "evolve or die" thing as much as it is greed. A lot of people supporting the model want all games to go to a similar model, due to the large numbers of gamers who will only play subscription based games in the core market in the US. You see a LOT of comments about this in various games out there, and I think the guys running microtransaction based games tend to overlook all the people who DON'T go to their game due to the microtransactions, or just figure "I'll stick with WoW, thanks".
It's also an important thing to note that the games that became successful in the US off the microtransaction model, are also games that had a substantial built in fan base to begin with. It's impossible to overlook that "Lord Of The Rings", "Dungeons and Dragons", "Warhammer" and even "Champions" were storied properties before the MMOs. Lord Of The Rings is a REALLY popular world setting, and Dungeons and Dragons and Warhammer have defined entire generes of non-computer gaming and carried the publication of entire novel series. "Champions" seems to be the loser of the group (though still going) though again, that's another property that has a huge built in fan base... how many books for the Champions RPG were published? Think about it. All of those games have people that are going to keep paying whatever it takes BECAUSE of what the games are about. The guy who constantly re-read things like "Guardians Of The Flame" and the "Gameearth" series and wished they could live in a D&D game can live out that fantasy to some extent with DDO for example. This kind of established/captive/addicted audience can't be discredited, as it's ripe for exploitation, which is something a lot of companies have figured out in other arenas in the past.
When it comes to the Asian games, understand also that the whole situation down there is a lot differant, a lot has been written about it. The pricing is differant, and the goverment is heavily involved in controlling who can do what with games. What's more ownership of personal computers is something that has been increasing, but the business model being looked at was based around people paying for access to games in Bangs (Asian Internet gaming cafes). See, a guy in Asia who doesn't own a computer, and can't login every day, is going to find paying a membership fee kind of pointless... he CAN however maintain a game account and login to it whenever he goes to a Cafe running the game and using his password, and perks attached to his character are something he can ultimatly keep, and a way for these games to make money. I think a lot of people looking at the microtransaction system tend to overlook how this kind of thing evolved, and also the changing face of Asian gaming (which there have been articles about) and how it's going to have to evolve with the population... and of course how things like the way the internet and international business is limited and so on influance communication technologies there.
There are plenty of free to play games making a bunch of money, however I think a lot of companies that can keep a bit of a reign on their short term greed realize that this kind of system is simply a fad, and what's more the very thing that makes it profitable... some idiot paying real money for a virtual item, is not something a lot of people are going to do. What's more it represents a barrier to bringing in new people and expanding the market because someone who has never gamed online is going to rightfully say "I am not going to play a game that requires me to pay constantly to succeed", and MMOs will go from a slow growth to no growth.
Understand also that like it or not there is a certain degree of intelligence and dedication involved in playing ANY real MMORPG type game. Far more than a browser based game like say "Farmville". The people exploited by that kind of model, are pretty much stuck in that cosm of gaming, getting those people to say transition from "I'm going to click on my sheep" to say leveling up characters, engaging in competitive PVP, and optimizing gear, while performing combat operations on the level of military drills (raids), pretty much isn't going to happen. Sure, MMOs *are* being dumbed down, but at the same time there is a certain "floor" they really can't go below while retaining their distinct identity from things like browser based Facebook games.
These are my thoughts, it's about greed as opposed to evolution, and truthfully I don't think it's a sustainable trend. I think Asia is slow to change, but as you see more and more personal computers (which are already affecting the bangs) and changes to the mentality of people there involving gaming, the microtransaction system is going to die... albiet it's going to be slow, and nasty, because it's so heavily entrenched. Trying to root that system in markets like the US might appeal to some very greedy people, and succeed to some extent, but I don't think it has quite the same chance of becoming what some people want it to be due to the differances in the market and what it's going to do to the long term growth of the industry.
As a final note for those that read this far, I will say that I think one of the problems with MMO development right now is that the genere became popular with publishers because they figured that for the same general amount of effort as making a decent hundred hour single player RPG, they could use those maps and game engines... and a similar amount of effort for a persistant world, and make the box sales plus membership fees and then be able to go swimming in giant bins full of money. For a while this was true... but then certain companies started raising the bar and taking an attitude about designing MMOs for MMOs, optimizing them for that enviroment to a huge degree, and putting in enough content to sustain them. As this happened the quality rose, and with it the cost to develop at that area. It got to the point where someone couldn't poop out a game for a few million and charge a membership fee. It went from a few million to tens of millions to even consider it, and as the established games get bigger the price is getting into the hundreds of millions.... with that development fee of course comes an increasingly long term view being required, with publishers needing to wait years potentially to see returns... long term investments being less popular than what was seen as a short term, high return investment. The free to play model *IS* a potential refuge for those short term return games, that are now B and C grade even if just 6 years ago they might have been considered something impressive.
All told, I'm perfectly cool with fewer, higher quality, subscription based games.
... also as I pointed out above, the decent microtransaction games in the US are generally speaking those with big liscences which came with substantial fan bases attached to those liscences before the games were even conceived of. I'm sure there is an exception somewhere, but that is the general rule, and it's not something that can be overlooked.
Thanks to those who read this far.
The microtransaction model is increasingly popular because it has more potential to make money, since if it's implemented correctly the company can make more than the $15 a month people pay for subscriptions. No matter how they dress it up with analogies to school and college, the bottom line is that it turns into a "pay to win" situation as anyone willing to pay for the advantages to begin with is liable to be willing to put in the effort. With two players putting in equal effort, the one who winds up spending the most money is going to wind up ahead.
I don't think it's an "evolve or die" thing as much as it is greed. A lot of people supporting the model want all games to go to a similar model, due to the large numbers of gamers who will only play subscription based games in the core market in the US. You see a LOT of comments about this in various games out there, and I think the guys running microtransaction based games tend to overlook all the people who DON'T go to their game due to the microtransactions, or just figure "I'll stick with WoW, thanks".
It's also an important thing to note that the games that became successful in the US off the microtransaction model, are also games that had a substantial built in fan base to begin with. It's impossible to overlook that "Lord Of The Rings", "Dungeons and Dragons", "Warhammer" and even "Champions" were storied properties before the MMOs. Lord Of The Rings is a REALLY popular world setting, and Dungeons and Dragons and Warhammer have defined entire generes of non-computer gaming and carried the publication of entire novel series. "Champions" seems to be the loser of the group (though still going) though again, that's another property that has a huge built in fan base... how many books for the Champions RPG were published? Think about it. All of those games have people that are going to keep paying whatever it takes BECAUSE of what the games are about. The guy who constantly re-read things like "Guardians Of The Flame" and the "Gameearth" series and wished they could live in a D&D game can live out that fantasy to some extent with DDO for example. This kind of established/captive/addicted audience can't be discredited, as it's ripe for exploitation, which is something a lot of companies have figured out in other arenas in the past.
When it comes to the Asian games, understand also that the whole situation down there is a lot differant, a lot has been written about it. The pricing is differant, and the goverment is heavily involved in controlling who can do what with games. What's more ownership of personal computers is something that has been increasing, but the business model being looked at was based around people paying for access to games in Bangs (Asian Internet gaming cafes). See, a guy in Asia who doesn't own a computer, and can't login every day, is going to find paying a membership fee kind of pointless... he CAN however maintain a game account and login to it whenever he goes to a Cafe running the game and using his password, and perks attached to his character are something he can ultimatly keep, and a way for these games to make money. I think a lot of people looking at the microtransaction system tend to overlook how this kind of thing evolved, and also the changing face of Asian gaming (which there have been articles about) and how it's going to have to evolve with the population... and of course how things like the way the internet and international business is limited and so on influance communication technologies there.
There are plenty of free to play games making a bunch of money, however I think a lot of companies that can keep a bit of a reign on their short term greed realize that this kind of system is simply a fad, and what's more the very thing that makes it profitable... some idiot paying real money for a virtual item, is not something a lot of people are going to do. What's more it represents a barrier to bringing in new people and expanding the market because someone who has never gamed online is going to rightfully say "I am not going to play a game that requires me to pay constantly to succeed", and MMOs will go from a slow growth to no growth.
Understand also that like it or not there is a certain degree of intelligence and dedication involved in playing ANY real MMORPG type game. Far more than a browser based game like say "Farmville". The people exploited by that kind of model, are pretty much stuck in that cosm of gaming, getting those people to say transition from "I'm going to click on my sheep" to say leveling up characters, engaging in competitive PVP, and optimizing gear, while performing combat operations on the level of military drills (raids), pretty much isn't going to happen. Sure, MMOs *are* being dumbed down, but at the same time there is a certain "floor" they really can't go below while retaining their distinct identity from things like browser based Facebook games.
These are my thoughts, it's about greed as opposed to evolution, and truthfully I don't think it's a sustainable trend. I think Asia is slow to change, but as you see more and more personal computers (which are already affecting the bangs) and changes to the mentality of people there involving gaming, the microtransaction system is going to die... albiet it's going to be slow, and nasty, because it's so heavily entrenched. Trying to root that system in markets like the US might appeal to some very greedy people, and succeed to some extent, but I don't think it has quite the same chance of becoming what some people want it to be due to the differances in the market and what it's going to do to the long term growth of the industry.
As a final note for those that read this far, I will say that I think one of the problems with MMO development right now is that the genere became popular with publishers because they figured that for the same general amount of effort as making a decent hundred hour single player RPG, they could use those maps and game engines... and a similar amount of effort for a persistant world, and make the box sales plus membership fees and then be able to go swimming in giant bins full of money. For a while this was true... but then certain companies started raising the bar and taking an attitude about designing MMOs for MMOs, optimizing them for that enviroment to a huge degree, and putting in enough content to sustain them. As this happened the quality rose, and with it the cost to develop at that area. It got to the point where someone couldn't poop out a game for a few million and charge a membership fee. It went from a few million to tens of millions to even consider it, and as the established games get bigger the price is getting into the hundreds of millions.... with that development fee of course comes an increasingly long term view being required, with publishers needing to wait years potentially to see returns... long term investments being less popular than what was seen as a short term, high return investment. The free to play model *IS* a potential refuge for those short term return games, that are now B and C grade even if just 6 years ago they might have been considered something impressive.
All told, I'm perfectly cool with fewer, higher quality, subscription based games.
... also as I pointed out above, the decent microtransaction games in the US are generally speaking those with big liscences which came with substantial fan bases attached to those liscences before the games were even conceived of. I'm sure there is an exception somewhere, but that is the general rule, and it's not something that can be overlooked.
Thanks to those who read this far.
Really good article. I agree that what current companies (especially turbine) are doing is NOT free to play.
I played TONS of free to play games in the past. Rappelz, Mapple Story, Space Cowboy Online, Upshift, Last Chaos, and to many more to even remember. The one thing they all had in common was that no content was restricted from me even though I had not paid any money. I had access to the entire grind-tastic game.
With Lord of the Rings Online by comparison you run out of stuff to do around level 25-30. Yes you can get the new zones without paying any money thanks to the fact that you get their fake money as in game rewards. But the only way to get enough is to grind EVERYTHING on two characters!
Another problem is that without rested EXP someone with it, will out level you like crazy. A friend of mine ran with me till he hit level 33 as a free player. When he hit 33, I was 37(almost 38) just because I had rested EXP. That fact has made it hard for my friends to continue playing with me.
Furthermore restrict bag space, storage space, and having gold caps in only going to frustrate players, not entice them to spend real world money.
I played TONS of free to play games in the past. Rappelz, Mapple Story, Space Cowboy Online, Upshift, Last Chaos, and to many more to even remember. The one thing they all had in common was that no content was restricted from me even though I had not paid any money. I had access to the entire grind-tastic game.
With Lord of the Rings Online by comparison you run out of stuff to do around level 25-30. Yes you can get the new zones without paying any money thanks to the fact that you get their fake money as in game rewards. But the only way to get enough is to grind EVERYTHING on two characters!
Another problem is that without rested EXP someone with it, will out level you like crazy. A friend of mine ran with me till he hit level 33 as a free player. When he hit 33, I was 37(almost 38) just because I had rested EXP. That fact has made it hard for my friends to continue playing with me.
Furthermore restrict bag space, storage space, and having gold caps in only going to frustrate players, not entice them to spend real world money.
I really hope this works, I think it will come out at the perfect time too. Lord or the Rings online has already began to change the free=bad idea, Team Fortress 2 has gone free to play and Valve are planning to move to free-to-play in a big way. It will be out soon enough to be swamped with competition and late enough to be riding the wave of momentum the free to play idea has
When I tried WoW, my user experience was almost entirely defined by obnoxious encounters with complete idiots. Disgusted, I quit the game after a month and vowed to never go back.
Then, last year, Lord of the Rings Online went "free to play", and I decided to give it a try. "It's free," I figured. "What do I have to lose?" I loved the game, and moreover found that most of the other players I met in-game were much more mature and worth talking to than the players I met in WoW. (I also feel that the story, gameplay, and art are all vastly superior to WoW.) Based on this positive experience, I decided to upgrade to a subscription. In my case, it wasn't about wanting better hats (or whatever); a VIP subscription to LOTRO opens up all the areas, all the content, etc., and I couldn't resist the urge to explore the entire world. Almost a year later, I'm still playing, and I expect to keep giving them my money every month for some time to come.
My point here is that the free-to-play model creates an entry point for players like me: people who aren't sure if they want to play an MMO, or people who played a terrible MMO before and were turned off by it. Free-to-play gives us a way to try the game without fear of wasting our limited free time and entertainment budget on something stupid.
However, I don't think I would have continued with LOTRO if I had been faced with endless micro-transactions. Upgrading to VIP gave me access to everything I wanted (that is, all the maps and quest content), and while I can always choose to spend money to buy even more in-game upgrades, I don't have to.
Then, last year, Lord of the Rings Online went "free to play", and I decided to give it a try. "It's free," I figured. "What do I have to lose?" I loved the game, and moreover found that most of the other players I met in-game were much more mature and worth talking to than the players I met in WoW. (I also feel that the story, gameplay, and art are all vastly superior to WoW.) Based on this positive experience, I decided to upgrade to a subscription. In my case, it wasn't about wanting better hats (or whatever); a VIP subscription to LOTRO opens up all the areas, all the content, etc., and I couldn't resist the urge to explore the entire world. Almost a year later, I'm still playing, and I expect to keep giving them my money every month for some time to come.
My point here is that the free-to-play model creates an entry point for players like me: people who aren't sure if they want to play an MMO, or people who played a terrible MMO before and were turned off by it. Free-to-play gives us a way to try the game without fear of wasting our limited free time and entertainment budget on something stupid.
However, I don't think I would have continued with LOTRO if I had been faced with endless micro-transactions. Upgrading to VIP gave me access to everything I wanted (that is, all the maps and quest content), and while I can always choose to spend money to buy even more in-game upgrades, I don't have to.
I have heard literally nothing about Firefall until reading this. Now I'm really intrigued, I'll be keeping my eye out.
Interesting, I was just glancing over an article linked on Slashdot called The Hidden Evil of the Microtransaction [http://altdevblogaday.com/2011/07/11/the-hidden-evil-of-the-micro-transaction/].
Sadly, I have a hard time reading these articles because I just keep thinking about Smurfberries. It's distracting.
Sadly, I have a hard time reading these articles because I just keep thinking about Smurfberries. It's distracting.