f2p to p2p

[fonoi]

I was thinking about all the free to play games around and the games which are going free to play. This has raised the question in my mind, which model is better today? Personally I think free to play is the way to go (with micro purchase revenue).

There are tons of F2P games out there, many have been around for years and was more of a concept pioneered in the asian world. Now it seems this revenue model has turned failing or stagnant games into huge revenue makers (Dungeons and Dragons online and now soon Lord of the rings online).

Obviously the subscription model is still working for some games (WoW), but it makes you wonder how much more revenue they would make if they went F2P with micro transactions. Dungeons and Dragons online saw a 500% increase in revenue by going F2P, this has allowed them to keep churning out new top notch content which in turn is bought by the F2P players and the VIP's (subscribers) get instant access to. World of Warcraft recently put a Celestial Steed (horse with star like graphics) up for sale and in two to three hours made $3 million.

I see subscriptions as a failing revenue model, mainly due to the sheer number of Great games out there. Most of my friends who play more then one game say the other game is a F2P game which they actually end up spending more money on, but if they decided not to play for three months then they dont have to pay $15 when they are not playing.

Personally I think of it this way, I spent $15 a month on a game for 9 years ($1620), once I stop playing I have nothing to show for the money I spent. If i want to play again, I must start spending $15 a month again. I played Dungeons and Dragons online for one year, I spent around $300 ( See how much more I spent ) and yet I feel good because for the last few months I have spent no money but still am able to log in and play when I have the time. When I have more free time again, I will invest in some new content (Invest, since it is mine until the servers get shutdown).

So those are my thoughts, What are yours?

[Jackolantern]

Subscription model is on the way out. And that is only partially opinion. Industry analysts have said it, Turbine has released data showing it, surveys are showing more players on it or moving to it. Of course the 500 pound guerrilla is WoW, and it is still the most lucrative MMO in the world. But Lord of the Rings was definitely not a failed game. In fact, it is one of, if not the most, populated non-WoW, subscription based games in North America. But they decided they would make more money giving the game large amounts of F2P content (it won't be 100% F2P, so it will be like DDO). That really shows in what kind of dire straights the subscription model is in.

[PaxBritannia]

I agree that mirco-transactions are dissimilar to subscription, but by switching to a micro-transaction (mt) model, the mechanics of the game need to adapt. Failing to do so could result in a negative trend in profits.

Analysts have shown that if many MT options are presented, profits go down.
Analysts have shown that if too little MT options are presented, potential profits are being lost.
The sweet spot must be found. However, the sweet spot differs from person to person. Profits in this model will inherently be lost.

There are also many other factors regarding MT. If MT items are tradable, the in-game economics will be effected.
MTs are inherently riskier.
Of course, mt item rarity, etc. could boost sales, but the risk remains.

However, rather than risk, it is human nature to prefer mts.
Subscription games are similar to mass marking. Mts are similar to mass handselling.

Ok, I can go on for a long time with this.
Just read "No Size Fits All" by Tom Hayes & Michael S. Malone. It explains a lot.

Pax.

[fonoi]

Both Good responses.

I do find it very interesting that a game like LOTRO is able to change to a restricted access system. DDO already seemed more suited for this, im impressed they are able to do this with LOTRO.

[fonoi]

I agree that mirco-transactions are dissimilar to subscription, but by switching to a micro-transaction (mt) model, the mechanics of the game need to adapt. Failing to do so could result in a negative trend in profits.

Analysts have shown that if many MT options are presented, profits go down.
Analysts have shown that if too little MT options are presented, potential profits are being lost.
The sweet spot must be found. However, the sweet spot differs from person to person. Profits in this model will inherently be lost.

There are also many other factors regarding MT. If MT items are tradable, the in-game economics will be effected.
MTs are inherently riskier.
Of course, mt item rarity, etc. could boost sales, but the risk remains.

However, rather than risk, it is human nature to prefer mts.
Subscription games are similar to mass marking. Mts are similar to mass handselling.

Ok, I can go on for a long time with this.
Just read "No Size Fits All" by Tom Hayes & Michael S. Malone. It explains a lot.

Pax.

I dont agree that profit will be lost in this model, there are many successful mt based games. DDO being the latest success, so much of a success that they decided to change an already profitable LOTRO online to this model.

When DDO was going f2p there were many people who said this would be the end because players would not tolerate the in-game economic changes, well they were very wrong. If you control the way the mt items are used/traded there will very rarely be a problem. ( as an example, make the items no trade, no drop but also make items you can buy that effect the whole party )

The only thing about f2p is you need to strictly control your server load/bandwith. If you go f2p and have 1 million users signup, you had better have the hardware to support that. With cloud computing that is not so much of an issue these days though, my host can have a server up with my image in a matter of two hours at most. So as demand increases you can add servers "on the fly", still needs strict control if you want to make a profit though. There is always a balance between performance and profit.

[PaxBritannia]

Profits in this model will inherently be lost.

Acutally, what I meant is that the potential profit will inherently be lost.

The abundance of choice offered by a MT system will no-doubt result in players carefully considering item before purchase. This may result in the player resorting to not purchasing at all.

Of course, mt item rarity, etc. could boost sales, but the risk remains.

To elaborate, players may experience "loss-aversion". When faced with a rare opportunity, humans tend to value it more. An MT item only available this weekend will evoke this behaviour and will result in the perceived value of the item to rise, leading to a willingness to purchase it for a higher price. However, if rare items are released on a regular basis, their perceived rarity drops, and so does the extent of "loss-aversion".

Also, the extent of in-game economic change depends on the elasticity of the market, the extent to which the market is player driven and the length that the item is available for (among other factors). If an item is found to have a large effect in gameplay, after a while, purchases may increase drastically and lessen the demand of another item which it essentially replaced. If the game relies on crafting, this could lead on to flow on effects throughout the game. To stop this, the item may be nerfed. The problem is now players are complaining on their purchase.

In contrast, if the availability of the item is limited to a short amount of time, so its effects are not discovered until it is not sold, the perceived value of the item will not have peaked and thus, the item cannot be sold for as much.

Pax.

[Rastan]

Having played several F2P games I think the micro-transaction is starting to pull ahead for a few various reasons. Firstly, I think at this point players are "bred" now to accept that as a normal part of gaming. Also it may be sort of a status symbol sort of effect. It is becoming very popular and not many want to be the guy who stands out as unwilling for his online friends.


Secondly, I think it is sort of a sneak attack on many people. Not that they are being deceived but that they don't actually realize what they're spending a dollar here and a dollar there. Kind of like if you were to not manage your spending and buy some crap at the gas station today some more crap tomorrow etc etc.

Lastly, I think that many people think of it in terms of " I spend X amount of hours playing this. If I was to spend X here and Y there then I could get the essentials of what would make me enjoy my game better."

I am personally going with a micro-transaction system for my game I plan to put out. I think if done right it can be as rewarding for a player as it would be for me. It's definitely a model that lets those who "want to be the best" achieve that without sacrificing the casual player.


P.S. Runes of Magic is a f2p wow clone and I know several people on there who have cracked their wallets to the tune of several thousand dollars. Definitely a model to consider if you want to go the f2p micro transaction route. From what I can tell they have done some very nice and appealing things with it