Comments on: Free-To-Play & Microtransaction Games Here To Stay

By: yuri102006

yuri102006 — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 00:46:55 +0000

About final fantasy 14, japan still thinks that half of the world are still paying for pay 2 play games but in fact over here and around the world are slowly going to free 2 pay model than subscription model because of the economy and it much faster to earn money from free 2 play than subscription models. I think couple of years from now that Aion will be remade with a micro transaction system and the Wow will do the same. Then i would say the pay 2 play model will just fade out and becoming no longer popular.

By: Keith

Keith — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:39:58 +0000

Rich you bring up a good point. Back when I used to pirate video games from time to time I would hardly ever play them. I dunno why, but by not paying for them I didn’t feel obligated to play them. Of all of the games I pirated doing my youth (hey, no money leads you to do stupid things) I only played a handful of them past the first two hours. Those that kept me interested that long I often purchased, since I am a bit of a collector.

By not being financially invested in a game, like all the F2P games discussed, I am not sure if I would play it that much.

By: Shadows

Shadows — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 01:20:18 +0000

Pay to play makes sense if the customer service and servers are optimal, otherwise the customer will likely be inclined to quit rapidly. F2P gamers don’t have nearly as much room to complain with the game companies if the games lag. You get what you pay for… most of the time.

By: Rich

Rich — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 00:51:34 +0000

Informative artice. My experience with F2P games is limited as i’ve only played FFF and Mobinogi. Another game from Nexon you didnt mention, DFO, which seems like an interesting idea for a F2P seems like something thats a bit easier to get into. I personally always have a hard time getting used to new MMORPG’s, and not having the looming fact that i spent money on it make them easy to forget and move on if i get frustrated.

By: Ryan (Pobble/Srezic)

Ryan (Pobble/Srezic) — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:47:58 +0000

It’s very interesting to consider F2P and PPM(pay per month) payment models, and realize that they are almost identical in form except for one significant distinction. Both models start players on the same playing field with every other beginner. However, some players reach a point where they are willing to invest more into the game to become stronger. The average stronger F2P player either has a LOT of time(due to the slower progression), or are not willing to waste much time investment toward progression and pay for it. The average stronger PPM player is usually required to have a lot more time to invest.

For an average F2P player, who hasn’t invested anything other than time, to become stronger, the first step is to invest more time. What actually triggers purchases in a F2P game I am not sure of, but I’m guessing it has to do with progression vs time. Once players realize they are not progressing as quickly as they would like, the second step is the credit card, or a switch of games. It could also be impulse buying due to a set of friends trying to stay around the same level/strength. It also doesn’t help that F2P seems to live off the divide between the paying and non-paying. Envy is a strong motivator.

On the other hand, the average PPM player, who invests a small fee for the priveledge of unlimited play, can ONLY invest more time into the game to progress at a faster rate. Or else must risk account banning to purchase goods, with real world funds, from other players, which is usually against the EULA.

Both systems have their merits, and cover the different player progression styles. I think both will stick around for a long time, as long as they stay profitable. Personally, I have no problem with either model, but I still lean toward PPM. I don’t like that someone with a lot of disposable income could come and unbalance the game (especially if PvP is involved). This is actually encouraged and unrestricted by the developers. (why would they want to restrict their income?) PPM MMOs usually attempt to restrict these practices, but people will always find ways around it. I prefer to play games where progression is based on skill, but I understand the existence of the other forms for those who don’t want that barrier.

So, in both cases, we see that time and money are investments required to reach a higher tier of strength (relative to the age of the game). The difference in how this higher tier is reached in either model is whether a player prefers one form of investment over the other. In the end, both forms of investment must be used to reach the top.

By: Scott R.

Scott R. — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 03:31:27 +0000

I agree with Prash, I don’t want to think about cost while I’m actually playing a game. Then again, I missed D&D Online the first time around, so maybe I’ll give it a shot when it gets re-released.

By: Scott

Scott — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 03:17:36 +0000

Makes me wonder if any of the commenters actually tried any F2P games sometimes. The Western assumption is often that in F2P you buy all your gear you would “earn” in a subscription game. Very rarely do the Eastern F2P games *ever* sell gear. Guild Wars and now DDO are more appealing to the Western mentality of getting “something” (read: content) for your (micro)transaction, so they literally sell content. I don’t mind paying a subscription but it’s getting to the point of having too many MMORPGs out there and I just don’t feel like going through the sub/unsub routine every few months. I’d rather just buy lumps of content for a couple bucks and keep free access to the servers so I can play even for a few minutes when normally that game would have its sub canceled at the time.

By: Prash

Prash — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 21:31:06 +0000

Micro-transaction games always seem kind of ‘cheap’ to me – having to basically unlock content by paying – rather would just pay a monthly fee

By: John

John — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:06:05 +0000

I used to play Runescape years ago which was one of the first big F2P in the US. It was pretty much a grind fest but it still had its charm. Runes of Magic does look interesting though. I may check that out.

By: Ryan M.

Ryan M. — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:03:32 +0000

I think it is lowly to use the words “free to play” in connection with a game, that only allows you to be even reasonably competitive if you keep up with your “micro”-payments. I prefer a true free-to-play game (even if it is “ad supported”) any day over one which only offers a limited “free” experience.

Either way, you get what you pay for. I’m sticking with WoW