"Free to play"

[Yantelope]

What do you guys think of the FTP MMO model? I saw this story today and it has be a bit shocked.

 

http://hardocp.com/news/2011/05/27/video_game_selling_ingame_gun_for_6063

 

Is it better to pay a subscription fee to play a game and have everyting unlocked or do you end up saving money on the FTP type games? I heard there was some legislation in the works to change the name from "Free to play" when they charge for items. I like the idea of free to play in theory but at $60 it can't really be classified as a microtransaction now can it?

[Mal]

$60? They be smoking something to come up with such a price. I rather grind to get that gun. You got to be an idiot to get that... but yeah, other than that, I'm chill with FTP stuff.

[deanb]

I quite like the concept, it solves a fair few issues on both sides of the coins for devs/publishers and player. The game can't be pirated, and as it's free it expands the potential player base. For the gamer they don't have to put down $60 on a game they might not like. If you like it then you can start to put the cash down, it's essentially an extended demo.

 

However it's kinda like communism, good on paper a bit fucked up in practice. In F2P case the publishers tend to treat them as ginger step children and a method to squeeze money out of gamers, rather than treating them as proper games. The MMO's that go from sub to F2P are generally going to be the more higher quality ones since they were once a paid for product and the quality that tends to entail. But some are like BF Heroes, which was neat but wasn't exactly given much love from EA and then they changed the store to screw over the players.

 

When it's done right it's great, but it's a bit of a rarity. I think once someone comes in with a decent run at it then the system might change.

[Yantelope]

Yeah, sadly when I think of free to play I think of things like Farmville and Mafia that kind of suck when you don't put any money into them. I hate the way that these sorts of games irritate you until you put money into them. I liked the idea of creating a world and as you explore you pay to open up new areas. That makes more sense to me but it just seems that F2P means "milk players like cattle".

[Mr. GOH!]

I just don't like the style of Free2Play. the games are structured to entice you to buy stuff piecemeal. I'd rather pay $60 and get all the content rather than engage in unfun grinding.

[Pirandello]

In terms of MMOs, even though not all of them follow that specific microtransaction model, I prefer to think of it as "pay to win", since if they're not dealing with only aesthetic items, the other options are usually to give paying players an advantage.

 

Which is why I prefer the standard subscription model because it ensures you get everything upfront instead of having to pay for everything.

[Enervation]

It's things like this that have pretty much driven me away from any F2P MMO on the market these days. Yea, I get they need to make money, but even if you drop as little as 5 euro/pound/dollars a day, you get a MASSIVE advantage over players who play for free.

 

I got sick of killing people who have no skill and relied on their wealth to make up for their ineptitude. MMOs just aren't that fun anymore.

[Yantelope]

Yeah, the pay to win mantra really ruins it for sure. I agree. I just can't stand the subscription model because then you're maying even if you're not playing. It seems like there should be a good way to balance it all out.

[Mercurial]

COMMUNISM!

[Pirandello]

I just can't stand the subscription model because then you're maying even if you're not playing.

To me, it's better that you're paying for content that remains the same for all users regardless instead of not paying and letting someone get an advantage over you because they're more willing to drop $100+ on experience boosts and no-failure upgrade items.

 

Or even worse, paying players essentially get a "Sword of a Thousand Truths" item equivalent through the shop which essentially ruins the experience. Once this happens, the only way to balance things out is for someone else to buy the same overpriced premium item, since non-playing players have absolutely no way to obtain the same item without paying exorbitant amounts of ingame money to get the same item from a premium player (fat chance of that happening) or simply following the trend and buying the same SfaTT weapon (which, as much as you might not care to admit, is what F2Ps are designed to do: make it so that you have to spend money eventually at some point to keep up with the rest of the game).

 

It seems like there should be a good way to balance it all out.

What I just stated was the balance. The subscription itself is a price cap, since you KNOW you can't spend anymore than that unless you want to take the risk of buying gold or items using real world cash (which runs the risk of getting you banned, because you're trying to pay to get an advantage over other players: the problem with microtransactions that has extreme repercussions in a P2P game).