Evolve or Die

[Gildan Bladeborn]

In my ideal scenario, MMO developers all switch to employing the Guild Wars model, where you buy the game once and then you have the game. It appeals to our need for "ownership" in a way that a subscription-based title never can, in that no matter whether you downloaded the client for free originally or paid full retail prices for it, if you ever stop paying a subscription fee you don't have the game anymore; if I subscribe to a magazine at least I still have the magazines I've already received when I eventually cancel my subscription. In lieu of that the current F2P trend is a far preferable alternative to traditional subscription-based MMOs.

People's inability or unwillingness to justify treating games as a service like their internet connections is why the new wave of games going F2P have seen so much success - folks like me who won't even contemplate subscribing have no particular hang-up about dropping $10 here or there on content unlocks or the like, because the context has changed. It may be that subscribing rather than purchasing content smorgasbord style is actually more cost effective, in the short term at least, and that we're actually spending more money than we would be if we were simply subscribers.

And that's because the money isn't actually what's important, although it's definitely a contributing factor - what's important is the sense of permanence and ownership one derives from the act of paying for something and then having it, with no additional fees looming on the horizon, or the threat that if you ever stop paying those fees it will disappear; because we didn't have to, we're happy to. I don't abstain from subscription-based MMOs because I'm cheap after all, I don't play them for the same reason I would never partake in a game rental service - games are products, not commodities. When it comes to products, I have this ingrained need to own them, it's the reason I'd much rather purchase books than rely on libraries to access them, even if I could do so effectively for free.

As annoying as I find being "nickle and dimed" to be, when you divorce subscription fees from the equation you've already done the lion's share of the work needed to get folks like me on board - the Guild Wars model is the ideal, but I'm honestly fine with even the "flawed" F2P implementations we see now. And if this trend means the upcoming Warhammer 40,000 MMO doesn't expect me to shell out a subscription fee, all the better!

A note on Age of Conan: Obviously I have only anecdotal evidence available to me, but I got invited to a fairly large and active guild on like my second day of playing it (out of maybe a week altogether so far), and a theme I'm seeing constantly is folks either musing about upgrading to "premium" (aka, subscribing), asking other people if it's worth it, or doing so and then encouraging those on the fence to do likewise. If my experience is in any way applicable on a larger scale, it looks like their lowering the initial bar to entry is generating just a ton of new subscribers, along with folks like me who won't ever subscribe but will probably pay to unlock some stuff at some point down the line (unlike the last F2P title I played, DDO, Age of Conan has rather a lot of content available to the F2P users that I haven't even begun to exhaust, so there's no sense that vast swathes of content was cut out and is now sitting behind a pay gate; my impression might change later of course, but for now there is plenty to do for $0).

 

[Worr Monger]

In my 20+ years of gaming.. I've never touched an MMO. My main reasoning was that I thought paying a monthly fee for a game after paying the initial $50 to own it was just lame. And no MMO looked good enough for me to sink that kind of money into, when there were plenty of other games our there that didn't require monthly fees.

... also, I prefer single player anyway :/

I think the F2P model is better than the monthly fee... but as most people have already pointed out... The Guild Wars model looks like the best option.

.. As a Bioware fan, I will likely get into TOR... which I expect to be a monthly fee... which makes me feel like an ass.

 

[TheGreatCoolEnergy]

My only problem with a F2P system is that, in my experience, it always feels like those who don't pay are essentially treated as second class citizens. Take Runescape for example; the game takes every opportunity it has to try and talk you into paying.

 

[PrinceofPersia]

I must be old, I perfer a set payment to get everything rather than having half a game with a pay-to-win store

No that is actually a natural reaction to badly implemented F2P models. Go watch the current Extra Credits episode they detail on how microtransactions and F2P should be done. Also mad props to Mark Kern, I am adding Firefall to my MMO purchase list.

 

[Dastardly]

Evolve or Die

The "free-to-play" subscription model may be the MMO genre's best hope for survival in a post-WoW landscape.

Read Full Article

Interestingly, it's also a self-researching model. Watch what people are buying, and you now know what works (or what doesn't). You don't get feedback that accurate from reading forum posts, usually representative of a loud minority of your playerbase (the majority of which is too busy playing to patrol the forums, most of the time).

The key to good long-range decisions is constant (and honest) feedback. In the subscription model, you're hearing from your players only once a month (at the most). And when you do get a "downvote," in the form of a lost subscription, who knows what caused it? It's been an entire month, and a lot of changes were made--which one set them off?

A model with a shorter cycle on feedback is just plain better from a development standpoint, in a lot of ways. This is outside the fact that it's better for the customer.

 

[Atmos Duality]

*snip* for post size.

Well, as the other fellow "monster analytical poster" on the board, I feel obligated to respond with "thanks for the good read".

Onto discussion...
You describe what I've tentatively called the cost:content ratio in the past (which I must since there's no "official" term for it beyond the most vague and generic definition of "Value").

Free-to-play+Microtransaction Models thrive on gullibility and what can only be described as a warped form of "Protection-Racket". Instead of protection, you sell "time" and "convenience".
As time goes on, the Cost:Content ratio for any given content will skew in favor of the developer; this is because past benefits lose their value in comparison to new content (which in MMORPGs, is the *sole* motivator for grind by the player).

Outmoding features/equipment in favor of functionally identical (but better versions to scale with the game) provides the illusion of progress.
The only difference is in the payment plan:
-WoW charges a flat rate of 15 bucks per month.
-F2P MMOs charge per feature, with the total being potentially greater/less than 15 bucks (usually greater; it's easy to get people to spend 5 bucks on a whim unless they're aware of this racket).

There's a much lighter example of this process in a game I actually play today: League of Legends.

Spoiler: League of Legends IP/RP Racketeering

In order to buy new champs, you need to grind or pay. To ensure you can actually play, you get a random stable of champs selected each week, but any sane player will want to pick their favorite hero and play that one.

Now, there is a innate balancing issue with the way Riot creates new champs; I've noticed that new champs ALWAYS:
1) Costing the most of all champs in IP (the grind-currency you use to purchase heros.) especially the highest Tier of IP costs (5, which is 6300 IP. A FUCKTON of IP. At least a solid three weeks of grinding.)

2) Start off HORRIBLY balanced (99% of the time, it's very very overpowered); which means that those who pay money for them have advantages immediately. The only time this didn't happen since I've been playing was with their latest champ, Yorick.
He started out horribly UNDERPOWERED, and the people who paid money for him bitched to such an epic degree that they buffed Yorick by a huge amount (arguably overpowered).

I don't expect Riot to get it right on the first try; balancing a metagame that complex(DotA is even worse) is no small task. However, the cycle is painfully obvious and in fact, expected when you look at it as a business model.

When DotA2 launches in retail, I will actually have a firm basis for comparison between the models.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

DDO did everything right IMO

A long term trial, the option to either buy or rent content. And a subscription model with perks for the people who prefer all-you-can-eat.

I would never have tried the game unless it was totally free to play but I think I spent $150 on it since launch.

---------------

The opposite was Allods online which is basically a WoW clone. It is really polished, great fun, but ultimately the transaction model broke. They sold "power ups" in the store which a few people bought. But one day a patch change nerfed everyone and the power up brought them back to normal. They lost most of their players and never recovered.

---------------

What is funny is I started playing WoW again because they gave me 7 free days. Then after those ran out I activated the 10 day wrath of the lich king trial. So if they still hold me after 7 days they will have another subscriber again.

 

[Brandon237]

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.

In my opinion, that post should be added at the end of that article by the Escapist RIGHT NOW. That was a damn good post, and addressed well... pretty much everything. I am not an MMO person myself, but to me the idea of pay upfront for the month, and get whatever the hell you can in that time works for the Western World, and it puts everyone on the same level, if you can afford that upfront for the month price, you can be the best and most well armed / skilled / armoured player for miles without spending an extra cent. But having to pay to succeed?! That is just... a gross display of greed on the part of the devs and publishers.

But again, Damn good and well thought out post

 

[RN7]

*snip* for post size.

Well, as the other fellow "monster analytical poster" on the board, I feel obligated to respond with "thanks for the good read".

Onto discussion...
You describe what I've tentatively called the cost:content ratio in the past (which I must since there's no "official" term for it beyond the most vague and generic definition of "Value").

Free-to-play+Microtransaction Models thrive on gullibility and what can only be described as a warped form of "Protection-Racket". Instead of protection, you sell "time" and "convenience".
As time goes on, the Cost:Content ratio for any given content will skew in favor of the developer; this is because past benefits lose their value in comparison to new content (which in MMORPGs, is the *sole* motivator for grind by the player).

Outmoding features/equipment in favor of functionally identical (but better versions to scale with the game) provides the illusion of progress.
The only difference is in the payment plan:
-WoW charges a flat rate of 15 bucks per month.
-F2P MMOs charge per feature, with the total being potentially greater/less than 15 bucks (usually greater; it's easy to get people to spend 5 bucks on a whim unless they're aware of this racket).

There's a much lighter example of this process in a game I actually play today: League of Legends.

Spoiler: League of Legends IP/RP Racketeering

In order to buy new champs, you need to grind or pay. To ensure you can actually play, you get a random stable of champs selected each week, but any sane player will want to pick their favorite hero and play that one.

Now, there is a innate balancing issue with the way Riot creates new champs; I've noticed that new champs ALWAYS:
1) Costing the most of all champs in IP (the grind-currency you use to purchase heros.) especially the highest Tier of IP costs (5, which is 6300 IP. A FUCKTON of IP. At least a solid three weeks of grinding.)

2) Start off HORRIBLY balanced (99% of the time, it's very very overpowered); which means that those who pay money for them have advantages immediately. The only time this didn't happen since I've been playing was with their latest champ, Yorick.
He started out horribly UNDERPOWERED, and the people who paid money for him bitched to such an epic degree that they buffed Yorick by a huge amount (arguably overpowered).

I don't expect Riot to get it right on the first try; balancing a metagame that complex(DotA is even worse) is no small task. However, the cycle is painfully obvious and in fact, expected when you look at it as a business model.

When DotA2 launches in retail, I will actually have a firm basis for comparison between the models.

I wouldn't necessarily say that Riot's process of releasing new champions for RP/IP can truly be considered "rackeetering". Yes, the people with RP are likely to receive the newer champions first, however, this does not exactly allow them to buy an advantage over the non-paying players. The new champions are not all overpowered (look at Renekton, Caitlynn and Maokai). Some of them do start off at high power or skill levels, but none of them, not even Vayne or Leona are unbeatable. The fact that they are new means that players have to adapt to their skills. Most people in the lower part of the community can't do that very quickly. The lower to mid parts of the community are also large and quite vocal, thus leading to complaints of overpoweredness and unfairness.

I've never really seen it that way. Riot allows players to most or all of the content with a series of time, skill and dedication. They also allow people to pay for said content, but this is the same exact content a non-paying player can access. There is no real way a paying player can have an advantage over a non-paying one (except skins. We all know that skins means that you are super-pro.)In reality, there is no real way to "buy power" in League of Legends. The main source of this comes from runes. Runes are IP only for this sole reason.

If you want to see an imbalanced variant of this, look at a few of the Nexon games, namely maplestory. The use of "Nexon cash" or "NX" has been corrupted beyond it's original intention. People can use this NX to illegally expand their wealth by abusing the game's already-poor economy. These methods are used by hackers and paying players alike. The main result ends up creating a massive gap between the rich, high power players and the poor normal players. This gap has become so wide that the only way a player can hope to achieve a high-power status and unlock the full potential of end-game content is to, essentially, cheat (Or move to a new world where the virtual, in-game cash has not deflated to such a pitiful level). The company's response to this has been minimal at best, seeing as this has only increased their profit. Similar processes of buying power are begin to occur in their other games as well, such as vindictus' sidegrade system. All of the content above the 5th episode caps out at level 61. The content gets progressively more difficult, and the equipment offered in these high difficulty raids are just as good, or worse than equipment that can be acquired from a boat 3 episodes lower. This leads players needing enhancements runes to meet the gear requirement necessary to progress. While this instance is not nearly as bad as the one in maplestory, seeing as a player of a high skill level can manage to hold their own in the endgame without the fancy enhancements, it is still showing signs, or reinforcing existing ones, of a problem with the F2P model of this company, and displaying an incorrect variant of the F2P models for others to see.

 

[Canid117]

Looking at the picture at the top of the article I find myself noticing something. That womans ass is totally exposed. Interesting choice armor engineers.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I wouldn't necessarily say that Riot's process of releasing new champions for RP/IP can truly be considered "rackeetering". Yes, the people with RP are likely to receive the newer champions first, however, this does not exactly allow them to buy an advantage over the non-paying players.

I disagree. Reasoning inbound.

The new champions are not all overpowered (look at Renekton, Caitlynn and Maokai). Some of them do start off at high power or skill levels, but none of them, not even Vayne or Leona are unbeatable.

I never once said they were unbeatable.
Overpowered does not automatically equate to "unbeatable" (though it does in reverse due to gradient-logic); it just means that the other players have to work harder to win.

You say the new champ is harder to play? It's also harder to counter by the same logic; familiarity swings both ways (to noone's surprise that's exactly what happened just after Vayne was released; even in high-ELO).

Think about it this way: If people hear that new Champ X is overpowered, people will feel far more inclined to purchasing that champ immediately before the nerf stick is applied. Unless you happen to have 6300 IP sitting around for every time this happens, you need to break out the pocketbook.

Riot can even sprinkle a few lesser champs into the mix and people would still buy them based on that assumption alone, if proven correct for long enough.
It's smart business strategy.

That said, I'll admit this is all supposition on my part, but fuck me if Riot doesn't keep doing this on purpose. "Overpower now, nerf later" seems to be the way things work.

The fact that they are new means that players have to adapt to their skills. Most people in the lower part of the community can't do that very quickly. The lower to mid parts of the community are also large and quite vocal, thus leading to complaints of overpoweredness and unfairness.

The only valid argument I've heard on the subject, yet this doesn't keep mistakes like Vayne (who has a skill that scales with the game and has a very weak drawback) from happening.
Though I do admit that too many people exaggerate their complaints about certain champs being broken (they sawed Gangplank's balls off a few months back, and now that they buffed him back up to close to where he was before, he's apparently OP now...what the fuck?).

I've never really seen it that way. Riot allows players to most or all of the content with a series of time, skill and dedication.

In other words: LoL does precisely what a free-to-play MMO will do, but to a lesser degree, which was exactly my point to begin with.
They dump a ton of grind directly onto the player's head, but offer a convenient way out of that grind...if they're willing to pony up some cash.
Their emphasis on only releasing champs at the 4800 IP and 6300 IP mark proves this.

As mentioned before, while LoL provides a similar model, they don't exploit it to the Nth degree like most MMORPGs do (as you have said). There could be FAR more abuse slung about than there is, and I will admit that freely.

That said, I have an axe to grind with MMORPGs...especially F2P MMOs with their "Pretend-benevolence" of offering a "free game". And that is more directly related to this topic than LoL...

Now, the argument I see commonly see in favor of F2P-MMORPGs is that you "only pay for what you need, you don't pay for all the content you never use", and this argument is flawed from the very beginning because most of what is missing is something that you would consider critical (a common example: having an adequate sized inventory/bank) for playing the game in the first place.
"I buy power" falls into its own league of bullshit, and is the absolute WORST way to provide content in any game where people compete, but I won't even get into a game with that sort of problem if they're already charging money for absolute necessities.
At that point, you might as well charge a subscription fee.

If you want to see an imbalanced variant of this, look at a few of the Nexon games, namely maplestory.

Oh fuck Nexon. Fuck them sideways with a garden rake.
It took me years to convince one of my friends why I couldn't do MMORPGs with him anymore, and Nexon is a big part of that equation.

Here's why MMORPGs sell the socialization gig as hard as they can (when they can): Why fuck around grinding your brains out when you can drag other/new customers your friends into grinding with you?
It's sickening how they exploit such things for money...

 

[Ickorus]

Just gotta say: Project 10 dollar & $15 map packs are a bad thing, very bad.

 

[Doive]

I realise it might ruin the immersion in something like world of warcraft but in the old republic, for example, selling advertising space in game could be a massive money maker. Especially in central hub areas where literally millions of people will be passing through. Where can you put a billboard in the real world that will get that much exposure?
Or entire space stations sponsored by companies. It would certainly reduce their need to charge subscribers.

 

[Sean951]

I think the reason why games like LOTRO, DDO and AoC are seeing success when going f2p is that these games weren't that great and people don't want to have to pat a subscription to a game that's inferior. subscription games have to be equal in quality and content to their competitors, so in essence, they have to be either better or as good as, WoW. None of the current f2p games can claim that. The real question is, did anyone expect these games to be as good as WoW? Blizzard is the only triple A dev currently with an MMO released. I know this shouldn't be an issue and in other genres being an indie dev or a triple A one doesn't matter, but in MMOs it does. Things like the size of zones, the amount of loading screens, the amount of content, how big the world is, the quest design, are all related to how much money and how much effort the designers put into the game. Which is why i expect SW:TOR to be the only MMO to compete with WoW for top dog, because from what I've seen, they do a lot of the stuff Blizzard is doing, only better.

BioWare really hasn't impressed me as a developer. So far, the only game I have played and enjoyed was Mass Effect, and likely Mass Effect 2. The trailers for their new MMO look more or less like a Jedi skin for WoW. The biggest draw, the voice acting, was something I really don't like in most games, especially MMO's. Blizzard does it to a small level and, except for cut scenes it just annoys me. If you don't like the way they made certain races sound, and you happen to play one of those races, it just becomes a whole new level of annoyance.

 

[Ickorus]

I realise it might ruin the immersion in something like world of warcraft but in the old republic, for example, selling advertising space in game could be a massive money maker. Especially in central hub areas where literally millions of people will be passing through. Where can you put a billboard in the real world that will get that much exposure?
Or entire space stations sponsored by companies. It would certainly reduce their need to charge subscribers.

People get really, really pissy about in-game advertising.

I won't even pretend to understand why, it's something that brings the developer money and has a minimal effect on the player yet people just get really angry about it.

I mean, I can understand why when the advertisement doesn't make sense in context with the game or gets in the way of gameplay features but if it's a billboard which is appropriately designed for the game world it's absolutely fine by me.

Case in point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kzoq441Ul6E

Check out the comments!

 

[Gather]

Firefall? What is this Firefall you speak of... GOOGLE, AWAY!

Waaaaaait; oooh you crafty marketing department you. I feel used but in a good way.

 

[Winzzy]

I appreciate the article and have been excited to see if Red5 can really pull it off. I also love that the current extra credits goes right along with this article, kudos on the timing of that.

Overall I see that it is inevitable that the industry will move in this direction one way or another. With the way other industries have had paradime shifts in their distribution methods its only a matter of time before we see some sort f change.