Mythic Founder Thinks Most Free-to-Play MMOs Are "Crap"

[SemiHumanTarget]

Free to play is the death of gaming. It's the same bait-and-switch model you've seen in a million other scams: Make the product seem fresh and new and unusually cheap, then nickel and dime the shit out of all comers. In fact, I'm genuinely surprised the model has worked as long as it has.

The things gamers now pay for used to be obtained as the result of actual skill, practice, time investment or a combination of the three. Games are basically turning into market simulators: pay x amount, get y cool object or z leg up on your rivals. What is the point of even playing a game when you can just spend extra money for a shortcut to the top?

That said, sorry MMO gamers but the MMO model is dead. Developers were too content to sit back and just let them be interactive, glorified chat rooms and now the world has passed them by. Now there are games where actual strategic thinking and teamwork are required to succeed instead of just either: "you pay for x spell we need to complete this dungeon" or "you be tank, I be magic guy."

There was a time when I played and enjoyed MMOs, but that time was called Everquest and it only lasted a few months before I got bored of sitting around for literally an hour talking to some whiny teenager about how he hates his parents while my health went back to full.

 

[Zach of Fables]

To be perfectly frank, it seems ridiculous that I have to throw down $60 for the software and then $15 a month just to play it. A lot of my friends were very interested in "the Old Republic," but the costs are prohibitive. At the very least software should be cheaper like in City of Heroes.

 

[fieryshadowcard]

An all-subscription model usually locks you into one--and only one--MMO. Everyone keeps talking about the pros and cons of the models in general, but subscription models are more harmful to the growth of new MMOs than F2Ps could ever hope to be.

Why? Think about it. The common model for subscription now is that if you want to play, you first buy the game, then you pay monthly. In cases like WoW, this also tacks on the occasional expansion pack costs. A game with an initial 40$ price tag and the traditional 15$ a month subscription will ultimately run you 190 bucks minimum over the course of a year (assuming the 40$ purchase gives you two months free). MMOs aren't like standalone games; they need to be sustained, and as such either need to keep bringing in more people than they lose (short-term gains) or holding people's attention for as long as they can (long-term).

That's all well and good if you've locked yourself in for just one game. But what if 4 or 5 MMOs catch your eye? At the same time? Do you pay top dollar for all of them? Just to be able to walk around in their ever-changing worlds for a considerably shorter time? Or do you compromise whatever enjoyment you might have had with all of them by prioritizing the one or two that don't completely rape your wallet?

Subscription models are selfish to the entire MMO industry, because they force more skeptical consumers to stick with only one game even if they don't want to. The amount of investment an MMO requires on its own, coupled with mandatory costs just to log in mean quite a few MMOs--even the promising ones--get the shaft. And it doesn't help that everyone approaches the MMO market with the mindset of overthrowing WoW. Unlike standalone games, it's as if people are perfectly content with the idea that different MMOs cannot and should not coexist, that there's only one standard for MMOs in spite of the fact that so many games can appeal to different genres--only one can be worth your money at any given time.

That is, of course, assuming that the subscription MMO is worth playing, instead of being an obvious cash-in to try (and miserably fail) to overthrow the current tyrant.

Then there's the fallacy that subscription models keep riffraff out. Gold farmers have become a recurring joke in every MMO, especially WoW. And the worst griefers are actually willing to PAY money to make your day miserable. You might say while you're doing Pay to Play, they're doing Pay to Grief, which makes your rage that much sweeter to them. Nothing feels better than buying freshly squeezed tears, you know. Then aside from griefers, all games bring out their elitists and trolls, which are standard fare no matter what model you adhere to.

Microtransactions aren't a step back. The way they're handled oftentimes can be, but not the model itself. Fundamentally, the failings of microtransactions done wrong come down to two things: (1) the means a company will resort to in order to make money, and (2) the compulsion of the consumer to spend money. In other words, if the company's desire to nickle-and-dime its playerbase is matched or even surpassed only by its playerbase's feeling that it always HAS to spend money to enjoy the game, then the microtransactions system is being abused.

First and foremost, a proper microtransactions system leaves me in charge of every last cent of my wallet. If I'm paying something under its system, I intend to get full use of that thing, and every cent I spend goes towards whatever enjoyment I hoped to get out of my purchase, whether that purchase has convenience or cosmetic appeal. I pretty much feel like I don't HAVE to spend when I don't want to, and that if I DO choose to spend, it's worth it (to me). Secondly, a proper microtransaction system does not force me to choose between multiple games. I'll spend as much time in one game as I please, then immediately hop to another at no cost, opting to pay as much or as little as I want to either. There is no compulsion to play more than I want to, just to make my purchase feel "worth it."

If the running joke for microtransactions gone wrong is Pay to Win, then the running joke for subscriptions as they currently are would surely be Play to Earn--that is, playing so that the subscription does not short-change you for that month. Or the next month. Or the next. And that's ignoring the fact that MMOs, regardless of their business model, are already vast time sinks that require constant play if you don't want to be left (too far) behind.

As the saying goes, "Time is money." I'll spend one, both, or neither, and only as much as I choose. Not because I feel like I have to in order for the purchase to be worth it (subscription), or in order not to miss out on a game-breaking deal (microtransaction), and certainly not in order to remain competitive/relevant (both), but because I want to. Any MMO that gives me that is already a cut above the rest, polished or not.

Show me a predominant subscription model (and I don't mean for one game; I mean for the entire market) for MMOs that doesn't compel me to make the most of my monthly fee and allows me simultaneously to enjoy as much or as little of MULTIPLE subscription games as I please, and I'll believe in the model again. But not as it currently is. With the same mindset that makes every company label their standalone games with a 60$ price tag ("If the game is worth it, people, regardless of social class or economic condition will spend any amount of money before even deciding whether or not they like it"). In the meantime, I'll weed out the F2P gems from the F2P turds from the F2P mediocre, and Michael Jacobs can continue making conceited claims about it behind the mediocre-at-best subscription games he worked on till the cows come home.

 

[Dastardly]

"[The] problem with free-to-play is that a lot of the time the games are crap," says Jacobs. "I think some players are starting to get tired of it. They're willing to pay a little bit more. Are they willing to pay $5 a month? $10 a month? $20 a month? I don't know yet but I think we will see a shift from free-to-play back to a model where it isn't one size fits all.

The entire reason the market has shifted to F2P is because the subscription model was too "one sites fits all." To treat F2P that way shows more than a little ignorance of how it's all going on.

Many games still offer subscriptions alongside the free-to-play, like Lord of the Rings Online. Microtransactions allow the other players to choose which parts of the game are most important to them, and only pay for those. That does not sound "one size fits all" in any sense of the phrase.

Now, most games switching to this model have been reporting an increase in profits. This is likely not because Gamer A is spending more money than he did before. It's because Gamers B and C, who were not playing, are now in the mix -- and while $15 a month was too much, they'll kick in $5 here and there. Suddenly Gamer A's $15 a month becomes Gamers A-C paying a total of $25. Huge increase. But it's easy to overlook the other benefit here.

If there are more people playing, this is better for nearly everyone. It's easier to find a group. It's easier to find activity. You're less likely to hit "ghost towns" in the new player zones. You've got more opponents for PvP. Free-to-play is reintroducing us to the "massive" nature of MMOs.

The reason all of these free-to-play MMOs are crap is because most products on the market are crap, with games as no exception. Most subscription-based MMOs were crap, before the shift to F2P. Once ground is broken on a new market, you're bound to get a lot of weeds creeping in. And, with the player explosion mentioned above, you're going to notice the same thing in the playerbase--you're going to have some weeds, simply because there are more people around.

That's all that's happening here. The stigma on F2P is no different from the old and now-forgotten stigma attached to subscription-based games when they came out: It's different, it's changing how we have to market things, and it frightens us.

 

[CrawlingPastaHellion]

I have to agree that most F2P MMO games out there are crap... But it's just a plague of the MMO genre in general. Developers should realize that for a MMO to be functional players have to be able to shape the world as they play. The proven single-player concepts don't apply well to MMOs, because it's a medium in itself, a medium quite different from single-player games and even the classic multiplayer games.

Also... Drop the idea of heavily-instanced story driven MMOs, they're just big roller-coaster rides, nothing more. MMOs are potentially the best kind of sandbox games, those where every player can contribute something.

 

[Atmos Duality]

You mean pay 2 play like all sub based mmo's

Uh, yeah...I imagine both models are still trying to make money.

Fact is there are shining examples of F2P/B2P working great just as there are shining examples in sub based mmo's

I've played both models, and I think they both suck in general.
Since MMOs are essentially services in nature, that means they make more money the longer the customer uses it. So eventually, they both have to throw shitloads of GRIND into the equation to keep people playing long enough.
The only difference between the two, is how the grind model is applied:

-SUBSCRIPTION MODELS just drag the game out with pointless busywork, but you get all the "conveniences" you need to do your job. The payoff is the most consistent IF you get customers that stick (and why WoW generates over a BILLION USD in revenue every year)

-FREE TO PLAY MODELS are designed to ease the player into the game, often letting them get a taste of what the game has to offer before dumping an INSANE amount of grind/oppression onto their head. Typically, the player will make decent progress UNTIL they get out of the first/starting zone; at which point some gimmick takes over (such as the "Newbie armor" falling off, or some bonus being taken away; sometimes it's just running face-first into this massive grind-wall that can be overcome rather easily if you shell out some cash for buffs).

The only "Free to play" game I can think of that bucks that trend is TF2, but it hasn't been F2P for very long; it's an anomaly.

And their is trash in each sector.

Paying 15 dollars a month in WoW along with paying for expansions is ridiculous

I don't play WoW, but I've seen entirely too much of it ANYWAY on account of my friends.
It doesn't hold any appeal to me over other MMOs (especially now that it's been cloned so many times) apart from the amount of polish that's gone into the experience (complain all you want about how everything looks, but the overall world and tone is surprisingly welcoming; you can see where the money goes).

Sub based mmo's should be completely free to gain access to with a sub the only condition to play the game WoW is the worst offender there's 3 revenue streams in MMO's and it takes from all of them

This is probably why subscription-based MMOs are on their way out. Money talks.
WoW has only gotten away with it for so long because it's just so damned polished.

Not everyone who plays an mmo wants to raid but that's the only content that's ever added to an mmo outside of the expansions

Instead there should be a mix to cater to different players why can't a new zone be added 2-3 times a year new crafting etc.

Development and deployment times vary considerably depending on the scale of your existing server/playerbase. Simply put; when you add something to the game, you have to make absolutely sure you DON'T FUCK IT UP or that means downtime. And all too often, it's a simple mistake that causes it.
I must emphasize that because MMOs are services, downtime is VERY COSTLY.

So I'm only going to temper your argument here: Content dev-deployment times are NOT universal, and they should NOT be rushed.

The advantage of F2P done right where MT's exist the company should be able to see what things the playerbase actually deems is worth money

In other words: "If we sell them what they want, they'll buy it."
Uh, yeah. That's kind of the point of business, and it's certainly not exclusive to the F2P model. I'm guessing that you're arguing that F2P is more focused on selling piecemeal goods; and to some degree that's true (Man-Co in TF2, the skins in League of Legends both do this).

However, they've also been known to sell "conveniences" that any normal game would deign as essential (inventory/bank space springs to mind); which if they catch-on, will probably outsell any amount of gimmicky-fluff one could provide. And this is the real strength (and danger) of the F2P market.

 

[Fearzone]

There's a reason F2P MMOs are F2P, including WoW now, sadly. It didn't have to be that way Blizzard--if you'd handled your expansions better WoW could have been a timeless classic. Anyway, I'd rather play something worth paying for, plus I agree with keeping the riffraff out.

I'm asking this because I'm genuinely interested, not to be a tosser . How could they have handled the expansions better? I often see people saying this but never backing it up and it confuses me because I like the expansion work they have put out. The only thing I'd say is that the company need to release more content patches per expansion more frequently, but I guess that's easier said than done.

Off topic, but each expansion destroys the game that existed before. You cannot play Vanilla WoW now and that was a fine game. Each expansion worsens the game because it increases the leveling you have to do. Rapid leveling is fail because it practically suggests that anything but end-game is an onerous waste of time, which it wasn't in the original game because even though most questing is pretty easy you still met people along the way and started to put your raiding guild together.

Burning Crusade destroyed vanilla WoW but was okay because it also added a lot, but after that, it has mostly been more of the same, losing what we had before to get something that is only marginally better, if at all.

I think expansions should have been separate games, such as you start off in Burning Crusade as as a new level 1 character and have to level up to 60 in the new expansion, and the expansions would exist side-by-side as alternative WoW universes, with maybe some crossover but mostly separate, but that is just my opinion. There must be other ways to add expansions without screwing up the game.

 

[Sean951]

There's a reason F2P MMOs are F2P, including WoW now, sadly. It didn't have to be that way Blizzard--if you'd handled your expansions better WoW could have been a timeless classic. Anyway, I'd rather play something worth paying for, plus I agree with keeping the riffraff out.

I'm asking this because I'm genuinely interested, not to be a tosser . How could they have handled the expansions better? I often see people saying this but never backing it up and it confuses me because I like the expansion work they have put out. The only thing I'd say is that the company need to release more content patches per expansion more frequently, but I guess that's easier said than done.

Off topic, but each expansion destroys the game that existed before. You cannot play Vanilla WoW now and that was a fine game. Each expansion worsens the game because it increases the leveling you have to do. Rapid leveling is fail because it practically suggests that anything but end-game is an onerous waste of time, which it wasn't in the original game because even though most questing is pretty easy you still met people along the way and started to put your raiding guild together.

Burning Crusade destroyed vanilla WoW but was okay because it also added a lot, but after that, it has mostly been more of the same, losing what we had before to get something that is only marginally better, if at all.

I think expansions should have been separate games, such as you start off in Burning Crusade as as a new level 1 character and have to level up to 60 in the new expansion, and the expansions would exist side-by-side as alternative WoW universes, with maybe some crossover but mostly separate, but that is just my opinion. There must be other ways to add expansions without screwing up the game.

The point of the expansion was to release new content that didn't require you to have raided the original. Since the original had 40m raids, they suddenly became much less interesting and pointless. That, and I'm pretty sure they've admitted they don't care about anything but the end game, and everything before end game is designed to get you there as fast as possible.

 

[Skyy High]

Guild Wars.

That's the end of this argument.

Guild Wars is an online multiplayer game like PSO not a true MMO.

1) The only thing that GW doesn't have that "true MMOs" have is a persistent open world. Considering how much of your normal questing time (read: not doing dungeons) is spent actively avoiding other players in games like WoW, I don't see how this is that big of a flaw.
2) Guild Wars 2. Happy?

 

[Ziggy the wolf]

it keeps the riffraff out? have you not played wow recently. there are some people who pay solely to give people shit. it is completely outrageous and dumbfounding. now to the free to play vs sub...i am more on the free to play short of one game. i LOVE mmos and video games over all but i will be damned if i have to pay a hefty fee for a game that i probably wont get to play a lot for one reason or another. the only game i will make an exception for is Final Fantasy 11 which, in my opinion, is the greatest mmo ever made by man and i would gladly pay the $12.50 a month to play again. my current mmo is Eden Eternal (Finding Neverland for those of you outside the US and UK) and i have actually put a bit of money in and the items don't make you any stronger for the most part. they help with defense and making your character stand out. i love the F2P model because while yes any asshat with a computer can join the games i play have a strong admin base so if shit gets too heavy you just file a complaint and those fuckers get the banhammer. so in short this guy can go fuck off and while i am a big fan of the warhammer games and franchise (Necrons motherfuckers and blood for the blood god, bones for the bone throne) but a big chunk of me wants this MMO to crash and burn

 

[Dragnmastralex]

what an idiot that CEO is... doesn't he know that F2P with cash shops make 10 times the income that a subscription based game does?
Especially to old games like DAOC which is on life support with games like Skyrim and the new Star Wars coming out.

sure guy its just a fad that everyone will forgot... like fire, the wheel, music, and sex... no one does those anymore either.

its called progress if you wanna be stuck in the 1980's with your subscription based games go ahead but I'll be sure to tell you I told you so when I see you in the food stamps line.

Honestly even Blizzard the most money hungry gaming company in existence clued into the free to play style and yet Mythic still hasn't.

If it was something that was going to pass it would have by now but games like Champions Online which came out 5 years ago is making more money now than it ever did when it was subscriptions. DC Universe went free to play cause they couldn't get or keep subscribers and now they are making more money than Warhammer does every month.

Free to play doesn't mean you lose subscribers it means you bring in NEW ones and make money on micro transactions at the same time. You may lose 5% of your subscription base to become free BUT you gain 12 times the revenue with the micro transactions. The main reason why a game that goes free dies is because its a terrible game or the game lacks end game content Not because its FTP.

Do some research next time before claiming something is a fad... some CEO's just don't know how to run a business.