Global Chat: It's not dead, but at least it's free edition

by Seraphina Brennan on Aug 7th 2010 1:00PM

Culture, Opinion, Free-to-play, Global Chat

As always here at the Massively office, we've had our say about things this week! We've talked about free-to-play games and we've talked about the new Lord of the Rings Online! (Also an F2P title. You should see the trend here by now.)

So, in all of this news about free-to-play, you guys had something to say as well! As is the case with Global Chat, we've had our turn to speak, now you guys get yours! I've delved through two of this week's hottest posts, and I've found a few awesome comments that need to be pointed out. Two are personal anecdotes about F2P, and one is... well... very long but very clearly stated. So come along after the break, and read what you had to say!
Opinions of microtransactions

Love them or hate them, microtransactions are here. During this week's Ask Massively, we rounded up the team's opinions of MTs into one, easy-to-read post. But there were a few notable opinions in the comments section as well!

Pingles (Not Pringles... mmm... I could go for some Pringles...) brought up a personal story to explain his enjoyment of the F2P model:

As an F2P supporter I think the way the question is worded this week is exactly what I find so frustrating in this whole situation.

Some folks seem to believe that everyone has been brainwashed into supporting F2P and couldn't possibly actually like it. It's as if they're running down the street shouting "It's made of people!" and nobody will listen to them.

I have this to say to them: F2P matches my play time perfectly. I am VERY happy in the F2P world. I've tried probably a dozen and have only bought things in a cash shop ONCE and it was just bags.

In other words in the last year Ive paid twenty dollars total to play a dozen games several months each (sharing time between 3 or 4 at a time).

Several years back I bought AoC, LotRO and City of Heroes. When I gave each three months I paid about 120 dollars to find out they weren't for me.

I'll take F2P.

Xtofer had a differing opinion, but a personal story nonetheless:

I think that the free-to-play model works best when it doesn't go out of its way to punish players into paying. I started to play Allods Online last month, and I was amazed at how amazing the game looks for free-to-play. It felt like a genuinely premium experience, and then I read that interview posted on this site and found out about how the game actually penalizes you into buying cash shop items. That, in my opinion, is a huge deterrent for a player like me. See, I would probably more than likely use the cash shop for things of convenience, but I would hate to use it because the game has inconvenienced me.

I ended up quitting the game before I got too engrossed in it so that I didn't feel like I invested time for nothing.

And, because nothing quite says an ending like a wall-o'-text, Hippie had one heck of an analogy to put towards Lord of the Rings Online going free-to-play --specifically regarding reputation horses and other in-game "trophy" items.

I'm in the tough sh*t camp as well - you don't get 'good' at anything in this world without a little effort.... gaming is a skill which requires time to develop like anything else and the point of a good game is that good players get rewarded.

If you only have two hours of free time on Saturday and want to, say - go bowling, but a bowling team requires three hours what happens? Do you find something else to do or do you go to the alley and offer the manager $10 extra to play eight frames with all the pins counting an extra 20%? How would the other players feel competing for the trophies against you? Maybe you can even just buy the trophy...

What Turbine is doing though is actually the reverse of that analogy. They're the alley manager who wants a Mercedes instead of a BMW, so in the middle of a league season they start offering better shoes, shorter lanes and tickets for 20% bonuses to those who will pay extra. Sure, you can get on an old unwaxed lane with missing pins for free now or you can pay the old lane fee for a regular lane, but everyone is still playing in the same league towards the same trophies except those with the cash get an advantage.

Trophies are a representation of the work put into a specific task - that's it. Without the work they are meaningless. Let's be real here - digital clothes aren't even real. The only value they had at all was as a status symbol representing in-game accomplishments. With the addition of the store they really become just digital wastes of money. Furthermore, I worked really hard for my digital trophies, but now Turbine has stepped in and made them worthless. Really, I think they should give me my game box fees and subscription money back - sure I played their game, but it was a complete waste of time - they just stepped in and made my trophies meaningless.

I know I'm putting waaay to much thought into this, but I loved that game, the world and the IP. I have no problem with 'F2P' games if that's what others want, but I don't play them personally. Now excuse me - I'm off to complain to Steam because I don't have enough time to unlock all the achievements in Just Cause 2 - maybe they'll just let me buy them.

disclaimer- I don't personally endorse bowling or the broadcasting of bowling related sports programming immediately after Saturday morning cartoons. In my opinion, cartoons being over is disappointing enough - broadcasting bowling afterwards is just mean spirited.

Phew! That's a lot of conversation on free-to-play titles this week! Next week, who knows what the discourse will be, but I can assure you one thing: We'll be here after you get done your Saturday morning cartoons!

Tags: commenters, comments, f2p, free-to-pay, free-to-play, hippie, item-shop, lord-of-the-rings-online, lotro, microtransactions, opinion, pingles, this-column-really-isnt-dead-it-was-just-sleeping, turbine, xtofer

Reader Comments (22)

Something to note about DDO, at least - Monthly subscribers earn points that allow them to buy the content that others purchase from the store. In other words, they gain access to all the content for being VIPs or whatever, but they also receive points that they can use to buy from the store. Over time, VIPs can accumulate so many points that many people just cancel their VIP subscription and buy the content they care about with all their points.

I do not know enough about how LOTRO will work, but after playing DDO, I like the F2P model.

The third person quoted is putting way too much stock in their digital trophies. You talk about them not being real, but the fact that you are so bent out of shape about other people obtaining these trophies that they clearly are having a very real effect on you. Also, not everyone plays games in order to obtain these digital trophies. Sometimes it is about the journey and not the trophy at the end of the road, and for people who enjoy that route, free to play offers it.... for free.

Second, the notion that is is unfair that people who spend more get advantages is really ridiculous. Think about it in any other context outside of gaming. If 2 people start restaurants, one has a start-up budget of $50,000 and the other with $5,000,000, guess who is probably going to have the better, more successful restaurant? Is that unfair? No, the second person is investing more. If I'm a sports fan and I pay $50 for my tickets, do you think I'm going to get a better seat than someone who paid $300 for their tickets? Absolutely not.

Gaming is a business, period. There would be very few games if you couldn't make money off of them. In all other businesses, money talks. Money creates an imbalance in nearly every facet of life. What we invest is what we get back.

For some reason, this isn't an accepted concept when it applies to gaming. I myself am a broke graduate student, I don't spend money, but I also understand that I'm not going to have the advantages of someone who is throwing in money to a game is also going to have.

Hippie is looking at it from a purely competitive angle though. Since when has LOTRO been a competitive game? Never in my eyes. Sure it's nice to get little titles and what not, but apart from the title for completing Volume 1, I have never heard anyone brag about any of them. Which leads me to believe, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if he gets to 20% faster, because we're all on the same side. We aren't competing.

The bowling analogy would work wonderfully for an FPS game, as it IS competitive. You get an unfair advantage over the competition to get a good K/D ratio (the trophy, in this case). I just don't see how it works with LOTRO, because there is no trophy or reward for winning. You can complete deeds faster, but frankly, that's welcome. They're just boring, monotonous, skill-less grinds. Apart from that, titles that matter, like the one for completing Volume 1, are just as difficult to get.

My only issue with LOTRO right now, is that in the cash shop I have seen faction horses and festival horses, both need to be removed. Those take some dedication to get.

"My only issue with LOTRO right now, is that in the cash shop I have seen faction horses and festival horses, both need to be removed. Those take some dedication to get."

If LotRO is not competitive in any way, how would this matter any more than someone taking a shortcut to max level or to the completion of a deed? The rep or festival horse would, in that respect, be the same as a title. Just an indication of some goal attained.

That said, there has been talk of LotRO tournaments and leaderboards when it comes to certain aspects of the game like skirmishes. I am not really sure if or how these will be implemented, but if they are then the argument that cash shop items offer a competitive advantage may start to have more weight.

Also, I am not yet sure how shop items can or will affect monsterplay. I hope if there are things that would give a player an advantage in that area they will be disabled in the 'moors. Hard enough to take down the freeps as it is. ;)

Hippie makes two other mistakes: Comparing MMOGs to Action/Shooters (the Just Cause 2 shot at the end), and comparing F2P games (or at least F2P versions of Sub-based games) to "an old unwaxed lane with missing pins for free". Tell me Runes of Magic or DDO are old and unwaxed and I'll laugh in your face.

Have to /agree on the cartoons thing though.

I'm giving F2P games a try, and I'm even hoping to find one I can embrace and spend money on to both support the game and buy desirable things from the item shop. But so far I always reach a point where I begin to suspect the game has been engineered to make me feel I need something. Like say you can only increase your inventory through the item shop, at the same time your bags get full quickly because there are so many drops from all the different mobs. Did they design the loot tables of mobs to drop lots of different things in order to get you to buy more bags?

Another (potential) example: with LOTR, free players will not be able to keep more than 3 or 4 gold total, I forget the amount. I remember I was well over level 40 on my main before I earned enough gold to buy my first mount, I think it was 4 something gold. If F2P players start earning gold a lot faster, getting to the limit long before level 40, and start getting a message from the game such as "You have reached your gold limit, become a premium member to raise it" then I will think that Turbine has increased the amount of gold that drops from mobs or is rewarded from quests, just to get people to want to increase their limit. Then it will be like playing a commercial for the item shop, and it will be immersion-breaking enough--for me at least--to make me not want to play it anymore.

when did you play in the beta? the cap is 2g the horses cost 500s. houses cost around 1g you can get the basic items just not the best items which are reserved for people willing to spend money for the companies time. i am not currently a sub for lotro but it all seems like a good deal to me.

*waves at Hippie*

Hey, do I get credit for coining the "tough sh*t camp"? :P

I INVENTED IT! I OWN THE INTERWEBZ

Don't know about that. No F2Ps require you to purchase their software. I suppose if you mean it literally is you are correct. But that initial purchase price is a big difference between it and F2Ps.

While I can appreciate that "F2P" offers a more casual and low cost alternative for some with less time to play... I think the main body of gamers are a bit more serious about their games.

I'm amazed how many people are trying to claim that LOTRO is "not competitive". Lolz... Orly? MMO's are just "not competitive"... Orrrrrrrly?

Most of my gaming friends have dabbled in a F2P game here and there and the topic when discussing them is always the same.... have they forced you to buy stuff to compete yet? well have they? the answer doesn't matter so much as the fact that no one trusts them. F2P has a long way to go before it can truly offer an alternative to the old system when so many simply see it as a scheme, last ditch effort when things aren't going well.

I will make this my final post on this topic so that it does not become a back-n-forth snoozefest but I still believe you are wrong.

LOTRO was NOT a F2P until they gave away the software for free.

DDO was not a F2P until they gave away their software for free.

I realize that you (and others) see Guild Wars as a F2P but I (and I am guessing others) don't consider it as such because it has an entry fee that NO OTHER F2P has.

Studies have shown that the majority of F2P players play their games without ever spending a cent. That is impossible with Guild Wars.

I figure we will just have to agree to disagree.

That's funny, I could swear I had to spend money in order to play Guild Wars. Or did I hallucinate buying the game all those years ago and paying real money before I could play the title?

Last I heard, paying for a product or service up front generally implied it wasn't free.

Obviously the example i am using doesnt understand what a MTS model is. Instead people like this throw around a hollow invalidated term like F2P and make the following statements,

quote:
"In other words in the last year Ive paid twenty dollars total to play a dozen games several months each (sharing time between 3 or 4 at a time).

Several years back I bought AoC, LotRO and City of Heroes. When I gave each three months I paid about 120 dollars to find out they weren't for me.

I'll take F2P.
endquote.

No, what you will take is MTS (microtransactions) over monthly subs.

So this example among hundreds of thousands of similar experiences, enjoyed the microtransaction based models, many do, however, paying one cent in any game title invalidates the acronym F2P that is constantly spun up to draw in the misinformed.

Along with the obvious problem of paying into any title calling itself free, the reality and absurditiy is obvious. People have been programmed by the uniformed persons still using hollow terms and incorrect language and like any follower they assume the printed word information is correct until some suit decides to fix it. These folks ultimately look silly for using the wrong term for so long simply because "everyone else was doing it".

Here is one undeniable fact, F2P does not exist. The acronym and its usage are misquoted and used incorrectly. MTS has been around for over a decade, and has moved west quite handily, its usage is clear and accurate. F2P was a westernized term created by western suits and has only been around for a few years, yes those folks working with their foreign counterparts to spin something flavorful, having zero calories.....

I do however understand why people are so hard headed about the use of a sexy acronym like F2P verse the correct acronym MTS.

I will bet those continuing to use the F2P acronym and its supposed definition also like the emperors new clothes.

@TempusMagus

Your quote:]

So:

1) "Pay to play" REQUIRES a subscription.

2) "Free to play" DOES NOT REQUIRE a subscription.

Thus:

The ONLY DIFFERENCE between "free to play" and "pay to play" is THE SUBSCRIPTION.

Have I said this enough different ways yet?"
Endquote.]

I appreciate your passion, but stop and consider for a moment your position may not be tenable.

Your definitions are also not in keeping with TEL standards of commerce, international or otherwise.

Your argument that Guildwars is F2P is invalidated and has no grounds for support. Guildwars is a pay to play model, this definition covers box purchases, expansions, and/or monthly subscriptions. Guildwars is not a microtransaction (MTS) game, its a pay to play model.

For the low, low price of 19.99 you can enjoy guildwars and its very nice content in the form of expansions for additional fees.

You will never play Guildwars for free unless they do a couple things. One, give you the game for no charge, updates and expansions for no charge and they do not open an MTS store. The you can happily state your game is free, as long as you continue to pay nothing in any form for unlimited, unrestricted content.

Even microtransaction games can lose their MTS status if they charge for too much, like charging for a client or expansions instead of trinkets and ingame items. Example, once an MTS game charges for an expansion it becomes pay to play. If a pay to play game opens a microtransaction store in addition to still taking monthly subs that game is still considered pay to play not MTS.

You try to use time as a validating factor in support of your argument, your time is relative and is not covered in any regulation or standard. Work, or content is. Your entertainment time, the hours you spend or lack of them mean nothing when these definitions and models are created. Currently two models exist and are covered under TEL, MTS, and P2P. The acronym F2P has been denied registraion also. For good reason, look it up.

Guildwars is a pay to play model. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Do you like the emperors new clothes? (grin)

Love the title graphic. *chuckles heartily*

However, to all of the fans of free to play, riddle me this. Would the developers actually change an active sub model of $15 a month to Free to Play so that they can earn less money per person playing? No. That doesn't even make good business sense.

They're changing their model in the hopes that they will, on average, get players to spend more than $15 via a la carte spending here and there. That's one of the primary reasons they don't actually list the cash cost for things in the menu, instead listing it as diamonds or points or whatever. They're hoping to nickel and dime you without you realizing how much you're actually spending in a month's time.

Personally, I like to step into a game world and know that I can freely immerse myself and experience anything on the horizon before me. All that nasty credit card business is invisible and behind the scenes, quietly on an automatic recurring cycle. The whole enchilada before me is mine for $15 a month.

$15 a month for unlimited entertainment. *blinks* Wake up, friends. That's cheaper than buying two combo meals at any fastfood joint, cheaper than taking your girlfriend (or boyfriend :D) to the movies.

To Darthdan:

There was a study put out a year or two ago that found that a large majority of free-to-play gamers never spent a cent on their game.

Of the remaining gamers, some spent a fair amount of money and a very small percentage spent a ridiculously high amount of money.

Overall, I don't think the games are making subscription kind of profits, but more than enough to keep profitable, hence the onslaught of free-to-play titles and transitions.

So just to clarify: F2P games aren't trying to trick folks into actually spending more than a subscription game would charge but instead are relying on a small percentage to keep the game going by spending a lot.

That being said, a few companies ARE now trying to change things up on the F2P model. Some DO seem a bit sketchy.

@ Tempes Magus (because I am new to commenting and don't know if I'm technically replying to your reply, if that makes sense.)

I can't argue with you on the Guild Wars model. You buy it and, after paying that initial game, it's free. It's also a very subpar MMO in my opinion, so you get the quality of what you are paying for. Produce something of Triple A quality, allow me to purchase it and never pay a sub fee and I'll be right there with you, cheering with my custom made pompoms.

But Guild Wars isn't what I think of when you're talking Free to Play. It's not even listed on the Free to Play website that show the top ten F2P titles. LotRO didn't change their interior model to make themselves no longer earn revenue.

The true battle when it comes to F2P verses subs is one of renewing costs, either via subs or a la carte options. I want to experience a fun game and pay the least amount of money as much as they next guy, but aside from anomalies like Guild Wars, I'd rather drop a dirt cheap flat rate of $15 then login and have to pay $45 for a horse mount for one character.

*country accent* "Down south, that's what we like to call NBPC: 'No bueno por caca.'"

@ Pingles

Right, and my issue is not with the F2P sub genre per se, so much as it lies with my preference in playing a high quality, well polished Triple A MMO and suddenly not being able to experience everything in the game for a measly $15. Having that wonderful seamless experience parted out to an a la carte menu that not only breaks my immersion but has me coughing out more than $15 to get the same experience is where I have an issue -- if that makes any sense.

Enjoy a future of 'You can't join our guild until you've spent 300$ on raiding gear'.

@ Tempes Magus

Oh my, a little heated under the collar there.

I have to disagree, having played Guild Wars from day one it isn't Free to play.

The game comes with a CD key that you use to register an account. If you were lucky to be gifted that CD/Game then it is free. For the majority (nearly all players) the game is run and financed on those purchases of the games. The value of the game is arbitrary, however a purchase of rights to play the game.

I applaud Guild Wars with its polished series of expansions (that you pay for) and a great original game. But at heart not free to play.

Now when Lotro launches F2P you will not have to part with a single penny to play the game. You will also be able to play for a very long time, to level 50 without paying a penny. That is the full content for the original game, which IMHO is unrivalled in size and scope.

You can happily play this game at relaxed pace for a year, maybe more without hitting 50.

As for F2P being the model of the future. I disagree strongly.

Having also played Wow from day one almost... it was a game I would happily pay for... well for the Vanilla version. I wouldn't any more and have now quit, due to it's lack of content. (to avoid flame wars on last statement... I don't consider new raids as content, for me at any rate)

Lotro has a game I would happily pay for, unrivalled content updates and a diverse range of play aspects. Quite an intelligent game that is not as dumbed down as WoW and a bunch of developers that have shown real care and dedication to this creation and its' growth.

I am happy to support a dev team produce content, keep them employed and at the cutting edge of making immersive worlds enjoyable and engaging.

I don't think, ultimately, that a complete F2P business environment could cut it with high standards and dedication to the worlds they create.

Guild Wars is great, but don't be mistaken it is not nearly as immersive, deep, content based or complex as Lotro.

Lotro is only like this, due to the relative success they had with a P2P model. Games can only achieve this level of depth and quality under a subscription model. Good ones will last and crap ones will become forgotten memories. Lotro lasted.

Don't get confused with WoW, not all MMO's need that type of income stream to be classed as succesful. Lotro, and I think this is a clever move, will possibly earn more money from F2P in getting players to change the model and pay up to gain extras.

I do honestly believe that this MMO, Lotro, will be what other companies aspire to achieve when launching F2P or converting to F2P.

| 1 | 2 | Most Recent | Next 20 Comments

Global Chat: It's not dead, but at least it's free edition

Reader Comments (22)

Posted: Aug 7th 2010 1:52PM mav1234 said

Posted: Aug 7th 2010 2:37PM FireWraith said

Posted: Aug 7th 2010 2:51PM Nickelpat said

Posted: Aug 7th 2010 4:13PM Tanek said

Posted: Aug 7th 2010 3:14PM pcgneurotic said

Posted: Aug 7th 2010 5:10PM Belmondo said

Posted: Aug 8th 2010 1:12AM twittles said

Posted: Aug 7th 2010 6:04PM ScottishViking said

Posted: Aug 7th 2010 7:05PM Pingles said

Posted: Aug 7th 2010 9:01PM (Unverified) said

Posted: Aug 7th 2010 10:44PM Pingles said

Posted: Aug 8th 2010 12:22AM Budukahn said

Posted: Aug 8th 2010 6:17AM Graill440 said

Posted: Aug 8th 2010 7:23AM Graill440 said

Posted: Aug 8th 2010 2:44PM DarthDan said

Posted: Aug 8th 2010 3:23PM Pingles said

Posted: Aug 8th 2010 3:05PM DarthDan said

Posted: Aug 8th 2010 4:00PM DarthDan said

Posted: Aug 8th 2010 4:29PM wjowski said

Posted: Aug 8th 2010 6:53PM (Unverified) said

Info

Description

MSRP

Release Date

Genre

Developer

Publisher

Rating

Breaking News

The Secret World launch delayed to July 3rd

Featured Stories

The Tattered Notebook: The passing of Ribbitribbitt

The Firing Line: PlanetSide 2's Matt Higby on the MMOFPS revolution

WRUP: Kingdoms of Amalur was pretty cool edition

Engadget

Joystiq

WoW

TUAW