Mythic Co-Founder Says Free-to-Play "Apocalypse" Coming

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Well, the problem is that the free to play market is simply too greedy and too expensive. The original success of the model was a lot of people who couldn't really afford or justify $15 a month jumping into FTP games to at least play the free content, which was fairly substantial, and then sticking around to spend something, or viewing what they spend as a donation. This was a godsend to games that were making virtually nothing, or losing money.

The problem is that the FTP trend has turned into a "pay to win" or "pay for everything" market that has become focused on inconveinencing players who don't wind up paying constant money, and largely producing more and more paid content. In some cases creating intentionally overpowered content attached to a cash-lottery system which requires players who want to be on top (or remain there) buying keys, chance rolls, or similar things, oftentimes in large quantities.

Some of the better FTP games have been fairly balanced. Star Trek Online, my personal favorite, included a mechanic by which you could slowly obtain any paid content just by playing the game and accumulating and refining dilithium. A trend which also has an equivilent in Champions Online, and the upcoming Neverwinter. Giving Cryptic Money tends to mostly speed the process (greatly) rather than being strictly nessicary, and also their profits have gone into expanding the game outside of just adding more "cash shop" items including a couple of large adventure zones (Nukara, Romulus), new grindcore maps, and of course the upcoming Romulan expansion.

That said, for every STO type game out there, there are tons which exist largely just to hopefully hook people and then hit them with a massive bill to keep playing in a way that is fun. Or games like "DC Universe Online" or "The Old Republic" which are what I like to call "faux free to play games" because for all their pretensions they mostly try and force people into a subscription model anyway (which I actually prefer, but it defeats the purpose). Both of those games feature things like currency caps in order to prevent free to play players from participating in or having much effect on the in-game economy, along with no "ala carte" option to remove that, and other assorted permanant barriers. In short you can pay as much as a lifetime subscription to a subscription based game for those titles and still not get an experience anywhere close to what someone dropping $15 a month gets.

At any rate I expect there to be a collapse in the FTP market simply due to all the greedy idiots jumping on the bandwagon, producing derivitive, but expensive, games which they have no desire to expand other than more paid content. People are catching onto this as time goes on, and I expect a lot of those to collapse. I expect a lot of the more reasonably run games like STO (which still exists to make money, and get you to buy stuff, but isn't as obnoxious about it) to stick around and perhaps more of them, but I expect a lot of those jumping onto the model expecting monster profits and success for little effort to collapse just as those who tried to dial in subscription games did. What's more while they already did their thing, and made a ton of money while lasting a number of years, I expect some games like "Atlantica Online" which got greedier over time to collapse on their own weight right now. With some games you are seeing situations where the survival of the game is literally resting on a relative handfull of fanatics that pay hundreds of dollars each month, while most people pay little or nothing. That's not a state of affairs that can
continue indefinatly.

As much as I hate to agree with anyone from Mythic, I do kind of agree with him, but for seemingly differant reasons. I'll also say that he has a good attitude about intentionally making a subscription niche game, it's a surprisingly healthy one. More MMOs should have such reasonable attitudes. Of course whether he's being honest about that or not remains to be seen, I saw something similar with "The Secret World" which was being presented as exactly that, yet apparently behind closed doors it was being promoted as this huge, blockbuster, mainstream success that was going to have Funcom rolling in subscription dollars. Anyone could tell you just by looking at the premise that this really wasn't going to happen, though it would collect a solid user base if they maintained it as promised and didn't set expectations too high. This lead to Funcom's stock majorly tanking, and far less tham the promised support for The Secret World where new content has been arriving at a trickle, and it's unknown if we're ever going to see the central plotline continue into Tokyo.
 

faefrost

New member
Jun 2, 2010
1,280
0
0
Oh Wow! Lookie here! It's yet another "Industry Veteran" seeking to predict the next BIG direction in gaming that will dominate all others, while at the same time pimping for a handout because his next doomed project happens to correspond to his highly prescient made up analysis. Wow! Who would have thunk it.

Dear Mr Jacob's. You gave me a great game that I enjoyed. You however also more recently Shit in a box, charged me $59 for it, plus ongoing subscription fees, all while proclaiming it was the next big thing and grabbing money from my pockets like a Dickesonian street urchin. You have no credibility. Please go shut up and sit in the corner alongside such other chatty industry veterans as American McGee until such time as you actually produce another game that I and my fellow gamers might wish to play. We don't currently believe you anymore than venture capitalist investors do. That's why you are begging for money on kickstarter. (And quite frankly the scam of trying to "leverage this new project off of your old succesful game, while not really doing so, but the dweebs will think it is" is kinda offensive.)

You know what the next big trend in gaming and game pricing models is? do you really want to know? It's simple. People will pay appropriately for perceived value. It does not matter if it is subscription, or ftp, or cash shop, or sticking quarters in the machine. Make a good game, and price it in line with what the consumers feel is a good match for the entertainment value it provides. There's a reason why Gabe Newall, Notch, Blizzard and the Angry Bird guys are some of the wealthiest game dev's on the planet these days. Even though they all used wildly differing pricing and payment models for their games. For Fluq's sake stop looking for fads. Stop chasing the next big thing, be it ftp or always online, or motion gaming or whatever. Make a good fluq'ing game. Price it accordingly and give it a low barrier for entry. Then and only then we will talk.
 

Karadalis

New member
Apr 26, 2011
1,065
0
0
Coming from a guy that did not realise why his first game was successfull and then produced a train wreck of a game with an IP so strong they just needed to translate it to a digital format, all i see here is someone wanting to draw attention to his kickstarter game because no one in the industry would take the risk to give him money.

So yeah.. guess that happens when EA gives you the boot...
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
I think he's probably right. Especially with bigger companies either hoping to hop on the haywagon this late in the game, or to salvage properties that started out subscription-based (*cough* Old Republic *cough*). There's only so much time people have to spend, and they're probably still going to give it to the games that give them the best experiences for their time and money- a factor many eager to go F2P don't seem to fully recognize.
 

Notsomuch

New member
Apr 22, 2009
239
0
0
It's gonna be kinda sad and Ironic when his game inevitably fails and has to either go free to play or go under completely.
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
It's really just a matter of the model and the market saturation. Good F2P games work to keep players coming back. When push comes to shove, really good F2P experiences can offer an almost unlimited reason to have people coming back again and again and to keep investing money itno. That means they are a time sink, which means that there is not a place in the market for a million and one F2P games. People who think F2P is permanent are little stupid. But since it's here, there will probably be one good F2P game per genre and that is all the market will allow for. People are going to go where they are already financially and temporally invested, to that which is familiar they have already sunk cost into.
 

geizr

New member
Oct 9, 2008
850
0
0
There is no "magic bullet", and I agree that developers and publishers who blindly apply the free-to-play model without understanding when and where it's appropriate, what game designs work best with it, how much to invest in it, and the level of saturation of the market, which can affect the viability of releasing yet another free-to-play game, are more unlikely to do well. The thing is, gamers are willing to pay for games under the traditional models; they simply demand that you are not trying to dick them over in the process. Offer an enjoyable, well-crafted game for not a ridiculous sum of money and gamers will buy it. WoW shows that the subscription model does work; your game simply has to not suck.

Publishers need to also better gauge their sales expectations. There is an audience for just about everything, but one needs to understand how big that audience is and what its buying habits are. You have to understand your ability to compete in a particular market segment/demographic before you ever start trying to invest in the game, so you can better gauge how much to invest and determine what are your chances for success.

In the area of DLC, DLC is not inherently bad. In fact, DLC can a good thing to help the game feel there is more value in the initial investment of the game. The problem has been in the way publishers have gone about releasing DLC. They've been using DLC more as a scam to squeeze more money out of gamers rather than as a value-added and expansion of the initial release.

The existing models work; you just have to understand what conditions allow them to work and what conditions don't. Then you have to ensure that the conditions under which the model works are likely to be existent to improve your game's chance of success. If you just slap stuff together, you're always going to get hit-or-miss results that will likely be more miss than hit. Free-to-play works, but only to a certain degree and only under certain conditions. Of course, nothing is certain, but there are ways of improving the chances for success. Approaching things haphazardly will only give you hit-or-miss type success, usually with more miss than hit. If publishers just jump on the model blindly without thoroughly understanding the caveats associated with it, they'll be more likely to end up failing miserably. The ability of your company to succeed and thrive will be more a matter of blind luck than deliberate, conscious effort.

That's all just my opinion on the matter. I can't claim to be an expert; so, take whatever I say here with some grains of salt.


ADDENDUM: Was just looking at a few of the Free-to-play games on the App Store and reading the comments. I must say, game developers are really working hard to turn the entire game industry into the biggest rip-off in existence. The way some of these Free-to-play games zing you for every little thing is disgusting. What's worse is that many of the people commenting about the games mention that they would be perfectly fine to just pay for the game outright, as long as it's fun and engaging. These tricks and fad cash-grab models game developers and publishers keep using to squeeze money out of gamers is unnecessary and will only result in more gamers simply walking away. Just make a fun, engaging, well-crafted game for a decent price!!! It's not rocket science or hyper-geometrical mathematics. It's very, very dirt simple that even a complete idiot can understand it. All this other bullshit with DRM, DLC, pay-2-win freemium scam, subscriptions, always-online, etc. is nothing but gimmicky wastes of time, energy, effort, and money. Just make a fucking decent game and sell it for a fucking decent price, for fuck's sake.
 

SecondPrize

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,436
0
0
Notsomuch said:
It's gonna be kinda sad and Ironic when his game inevitably fails and has to either go free to play or go under completely.
He has explicitly stated that he'd shut the whole thing down before doing that, most recently in the mmorpg.com thread on this topic.
 

Parnage

New member
Apr 13, 2010
107
0
0
SecondPrize said:
Notsomuch said:
It's gonna be kinda sad and Ironic when his game inevitably fails and has to either go free to play or go under completely.
He has explicitly stated that he'd shut the whole thing down before doing that, most recently in the mmorpg.com thread on this topic.
He also says his latest project has nothing to do with DAoC but let's be honest that's what he's trying to recreate success around.

Eh, yeah calling the f2p market shrinking is pretty obvious to most considering the offerings of many of the titles being bland generic rip offs(pretty much anything by Perfect world) or forced f2p to survive and still failing(SWTOR).

Not to say plenty of games don't break that mold. For all the faults of Mechwarrior online at the moment I know it's still got lots of stuff ahead and that it's an honest to goodness mechwarrior game that feels like a proper mech game that I grew up playing.
 

SecondPrize

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,436
0
0
Parnage said:
SecondPrize said:
Notsomuch said:
It's gonna be kinda sad and Ironic when his game inevitably fails and has to either go free to play or go under completely.
He has explicitly stated that he'd shut the whole thing down before doing that, most recently in the mmorpg.com thread on this topic.
He also says his latest project has nothing to do with DAoC but let's be honest that's what he's trying to recreate success around.

Eh, yeah calling the f2p market shrinking is pretty obvious to most considering the offerings of many of the titles being bland generic rip offs(pretty much anything by Perfect world) or forced f2p to survive and still failing(SWTOR).

Not to say plenty of games don't break that mold. For all the faults of Mechwarrior online at the moment I know it's still got lots of stuff ahead and that it's an honest to goodness mechwarrior game that feels like a proper mech game that I grew up playing.
Not sure how you get nothing to do with DAoC from his statement that this isn't a sequel to it.