Comments on: Save the F2P children

By: SynCaine

SynCaine — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:18:04 +0000

20hrs+, with solid 2-3+ regular hour blocks and being able to play during the prime nights (tues, thurs, sunday), while also being able to schedule to play 3-4+ hours for something major like a siege?

Some of it will depend on the player though. If you are self-motivated, you can get away with fewer hours or more random times. If you can’t in a sandbox, you will need to be online when the majority of the clan is, and for INQ that’s EST 8pm-1am.

By: Shiolle

Shiolle — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:00:58 +0000

How much time (in terms of hours/week) would you consider a mandatory investment to properly play EVE or Darkfall (the way you play them)?

By: bhagpuss

bhagpuss — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:49:02 +0000

I have one paid subscription currently, which I will have maintained for 13 consecutive years come this November, barring a single six month hiatus. I’m getting Storm Legion on the 12 month pre-order thing which is not technically a subscription but amounts to much the same.

While paying for those, I will play loads of F2P MMOs as well.

It’s not an either/or.

By: Azuriel

Azuriel — Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:22:41 +0000

F2P is when you need warm bodies in the door. While that is technically just a rewording of your own point (i.e. "suck enough to not be worth $15/month"), I find the distinction important because it is unlikely that the average player has multiple subscriptions. If we assume that the MMO genre in general has a fairly static population level (which it likely does), that means each new MMO splits the market instead of growing it. And many (all?) MMOs simply do not work below certain thresholds of population. So, while it is true a lot of MMOs truly are terrible, I think the F2P reaction is more to do with the logistics of a divided marketplace than necessarily a bunch of people putting up with crap games because they're cheap. Besides, these companies would be leaving money on the table if someone can justify $20/month in subs but not $30/month, or if they mentally treat $9.99 cash shop purchases differently in their budget than an actual subscription.

By: SynCaine

SynCaine — Sat, 27 Oct 2012 20:41:36 +0000

MOBAs and shooters don’t factor into this, we are talking F2P MMOs.

As for those, yes, I’d rather pay $15 a month for 2 titles (assuming I was playing two MMOs at a time, which I don’t because when I play an MMO, I actually play it rather than pop in for 30min a week) than have LotRO selling the One Ring in the item shop and reminding me every two seconds about it, or having to actually pay MORE than $15 a month to get access to everything (and still have the game remind me to keep spending). Not to mention the impact the F2P model has on design going forward.

F2P is the model for MMOs that suck enough not to be worth $15 a month to most of the player base. That some people are looking for a game just eh enough to load up but not pay for, well, can’t account for taste I guess.

By: coppertopper

coppertopper — Sat, 27 Oct 2012 16:09:08 +0000

You are missing the point about why ftp works and sub models don’t. Its that when you add up the $15/mo over several months, did you really get $30/60/75 worth of entertainment that you maybe could have gotten for the price of a box or free even with any of the other online games out there (thinking MOBAs and shooters as well as mmorpgs). Eve gets it right in one way – that you can pay for your sub via in game money. Other then that they use a cheap hook – offline training that baits people into keeping that sub up so they can be +1 in game. GW2 gets it right in allowing in game money to pay for cash shop items. Either play smart to get your items or spend your time out of game so as not too worry that you just spent $7 on a vanity item. Rift isn’t worth a sub to me, because its that same mmorpg formula that I can get my fix of for free now, and allow me to reward the devs hard work in an amount that I deem appropriate. Its the same with internet content – its why people bought their Darkfall boxes from your site instead of Adventurines. I’ll watch ads all day long on Giantbomb to read a few articles or watch quicklooks, but I don’t get enough out of the site to warrant buying into their sub model.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 27 Oct 2012 01:31:45 +0000

I have the same question. Just because some players like to play more than one game (or have financial obligations that make the subscription model unattractive) and thus appreciate the f2p option does not make us “children” requiring your pity. Same thing for WoW. I suppose it is better than your previous “serious distate,” but why do you seem to believe that players who prefer more casual gaming should be such an object of scorn?

By: red

red — Sat, 27 Oct 2012 00:44:30 +0000

Have you used audible.com? They sell full length books for around 10 bucks with a long term membership. You can then listen to them on your phone computer, ect.

By: cobratrumpet

cobratrumpet — Sat, 27 Oct 2012 00:19:00 +0000

I didn’t mention TOR’s payment model.

I’m interested in the idea that liking a game well enough to play it, but not well enough to throw money at it, is basically “gaming purgatory.” Why so dramatic?

By: Lyss

Lyss — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 23:09:10 +0000

Comparing the Model of Lol or GW2 to the F2p MOdel of Tor is stupid.

F2P for a game meant to be time consuming is always bad, you get what you pay for.

If a MMO is not able to interesst me for more than occasional play its not a very good mmo, therefore i will not pay for it, be it sub or otherwise.

LoL is no MMO and the arenanet devs stated somewhere that GW2 has his particular payment model because they dont expect you to play it like a “classic MMO” timewise.