F2P or P2P

P2p Model is still successful for WoW because it was born during the time when paying for a subscription was the normal, even if a game was bad. In wow's case they have millions of subscriptions, so they don't have to change to F2P even if they keep screwing up their game for most players, they have enough retention in numbers to not need to go F2P.

F2P games however are a lot more fun overall the problem is too many companies make MMOS for money, not because they want to make a great lasting online story/game, which is why so many games go f2p and then die. They started the game for the wrong reason then kill it with microtransactions.

 

Every single company wants to make money, it's how they stay in business and can keep making more games.

I know what you mean though, but without micro-transactions a lot of those games would shut down. Personally, I'll try the game first but if I enjoy it and intent on spending more than 10 hours in it, I'll just subscribe. For the price of a movie ticket, I get a lot of hours of game play in a month.

 

Nail. Head.

Despite the fact that WoW is still a very popular game these days, not a lot of P2P games still are. Most popular games are F2P and that's just how market works right now which makes developers even more desperate for money so they release a game just for that reason.

 

Would you ever consider paying for a F2P game or do you mainly go with the free portion of the game?

A lot of games have gone P2P and then switched to F2P to some success. You could probably argue that it saved SWTOR and DC Universe Online (although this may be more due to it being on PlayStation).

 

Well, when they expanded the ability to pay for WoW, that helped too. To have the option to pay for your subscription with gold, and still be able to use real money on other things you may went, it helped quell the people that didn't want to pay that subscription fee, as well.

 

It's practically the same. Most F2P games have things added in the game that you can't advance down a certain road if you don't buy something from a cash shop. So, you may go another, possibly longer route, or you may buy it and get it over with. In some ways, you actually can spend more on a F2P than a sub based game.

 

I honestly wouldn't mind paying for elements of a good F2P game I've been playing for a while. I don't think I'm the only one, but I know there are people who would absolutely hate paying for something they already get for free. But an extra quest pack or something like that? Would not mind one bit.

 

WoW is slowly dying out so I don't think that's the best example, but the game has been able to go P2P for so long simply because of its popularity. If LoL turned P2P today I'm sure a lot of people would pay for it.

 

Someone else mentioned that F2P games are more fun. I disagree. One of the reasons I like subscription games is that it allows a little more wiggle room for the developers when adding new stuff.

In a subscription based game, when the developers are designing what to add, they only need to think about ´is this fun´.. because if it is fun, it will keep players subscribed.

As a developer of a free2play game... every new content cycle not only must be filled with ´is this fun´ type stuff, but they also must find ways to alter it so that it can be added as a microtransacion or have some type of monetization. It adds a completely different obstacle for developers.

WOW is dying not because it is a subscription based game, it is dying because the dev team has become uncreative and unambitious. The game has become boring and predictable and almost everything that gets added is just a small derivative of what already is in the game. The big feature of the new expansion are artifact weapons, which are 90% the same as what legendary items were in the last few expansions. The gameplay involved with your artifact weapon is no different than the gameplay involved with your legendary ring or cloak.

 

I guess this would only work for games with a sci-fi/urban setting, but it'd be hilarious to see real-world ads on in-game billboards. I think Enter The Matrix did that with Powerade, didn't they?

 

Some people just really don't like spending money whatsoever, even if it means supporting the company. But there are a lot of people that also will, and they make a large amount of money off of cash shop purchases.

 

I main a F2P game, and I love it! I don't really have the money to pay a sub every month, and my game isn't pay to win either. It's more "pay to look good" and I don't mind spending a few dollars for vanity items, honestly.

 

Okay I'm curious, which game is it? F2P that's not Pay to Win is very rare, so I need to know which game doesn't do that as in my experience (SWTOR, DCUO, etc.) it's pretty much always been if you don't sub, you're locked out of so much of the content that it becomes a major annoyance (to me anyways).

 

Honestly it's a hard choice. P2P like WoW or FF14 is in many ways much better than F2P/P2W counterparts because for $15 you get access to everything in the game, it's not an uphill battle to earn currency in order to get items in game, generally has more to offer content wise, and better customer support. That being said if you're strapped for time then $15 a month + base game cost probably won't be worth your bang for buck.

FTP/P2W is good if you're casual or if you don't care about being the best in game. Most free to play are often pay to win and players do end up spending more over time than they would for a subscription model to move ahead in the game. Generally FTP often sells stat boosts which puts paying players ahead of nonpaying.

There's a 3rd model that is in between the two and that's B2P. Pay for the base game for all the content and use cash shop for cosmetics and supplemental stuff. GW2 and ESO fall into this category. I was really into GW2 prior to HoT but since cut back since there's been some P2W creep in some cases happening. It's still alright if you're not into the cosmetics or getting Ascended gear, but earning in game currency is a pain and generally the economic model of in game earnings force players to use real money to get gold.

 

I personally enjoy P2P games way more than F2P games because in most cases, your getting better quality games by paying for them, where as in F2P games, the quality seems to be lacking for obvious reasons (the game makers aren't making money off you playing the game). However, F2P games in rare cases for me can be extremely fun (TF2, Hearthstone, and various mobile games).

 

Most games that charge more than 15 dollars a month seem to deliver a better experience than your traditional F2P games. Although just as many other things in life, it's a matter of opinion. I could say that P2P games usually have better graphics or a better development team, etc. All the expansions are what keep these games alive. The succesful F2P game though that is a reference for almost all the other games is definitely League of Legends. For some reason they understood the micro-trasanction market better than anyone and that's how they are making all their money. I wouldn't be so sure though if League decided to make it a 15 dollar monthly subscription if people would actually still play it. I guess it's just taking about different ways of doing business.

 

I don't know much about trends in video game monetization strategies but personally speaking from the perspective of someone who considers themselves as a casual, I have to say I favor the free to play model a bit more since having to pay upfront for a game I've never tried is a bit of a daunting thought to me especially If the game is expensive. It does have its drawbacks though, I have to admit, such as developers getting greedy with the additional payments because new content can be provided and sold indefinitely, but there are those who do it right and I think for me that is the best model.

 

Do you have an example of this? I usually find that a F2P game is the same regardless if you sub or not, or do you mean that a game that has a F2P model will generally have worst graphics than a game that only has a P2P model?

 

The middle ground of these games needs to change. A great example of this is found in TF2 - valve's fps is still one of the best f2p models in the world. I can't understand why these companies don't understand that they can just monetize a free game without it ruining the collective gameplay experience, but people are selfish and like to force payment for access instead of allowing fair access and adding worthwhile things that don't necessarily disturb the game's balance. It's so annoying, but the next wave of games is being made behind closed doors for VR and AR, so the future's lookin' up