| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (17)

Posted: Feb 15th 2012 9:42PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Wakfu has a similar payment model to Runescape and also features a cheaper than average sub, something a lot more MMOs should consider but don't.

The sandbox systems also make it one of the most engaging titles I've played in years. I also love its art style and well done animation, even hope they release the series here at some point http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2JrWJfdoqk Never knew flash could look so good.

Posted: Feb 15th 2012 11:24PM Everfaust said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified) ~ Sadly the art direction is the only thing wakfu has that's worth anything.

The game is a grind, there's next to no point to harvest/craft and other then a hand full of dungeons with zero challenge (*meat bag* mobs/bosses) there's nothing to do.

Add in the fact the devs have been struggling over 4-5 years to remake the game over and over due to poor decisions.. and you begin to see why no one really cares how pretty it or cheap it is.

Quite simply, Wakfu is a simple browser *(grind simulator) game trying to act like a AAA title while charging a sub. As they use the beautiful art direction as a crutch to try and skimp by with a no-content game.

Personally, my hopes are that with the launch of Guild Wars 2 and the continued success of League of Legends, that MMO's in general stop with the pointless P2P model.

It's already been proven time and again that MMO's don't require subs to pay for the monthly server/maintenance costs ~ google it ~

There are simply too many titles out there for people to play.. and we shouldn't have to buy an engagement ring for every game that perks our interest.

As for those that say F2P = P2W.. you really need to get your head on straight and see there are many games out there already that don't offer such a retarded system ~ so don't bother trying to defend P2P by saying it's superior to F2P in terms of content or continuity.

For those curious bout Wakfu ~ I've uploaded around 50 vids of the title since early last year, please feel free to check out my channel and read the comments of other players.

Most of their already niche playerbase are leaving, not because of the payment model.. but because of the company's history of self interest and ignoring/punishing the player base ~ youtube.com/user/RequiemsVoid

Classic Ankama/Wakfu Developement example: We have no content.. instead of working on that, lets just make the game harder to level.. and put in more useless recipes for things players wont use.

lol, srry bout that.. spent a lot of time over the past 4 years hopeing that wakfu would actually utilize the massive potential the game has.. but the devs just don't see it and don't care ~ so I kinda rage/vent when I see people saying it's a sandbox game or that it involves actual tactics. :P
Reply

Posted: Feb 16th 2012 12:37AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Everfaust

It seems your major concern is that well... its not truly F2P. It isn't, I consider it F2P like how Runescape is although arguably more limited. In either case, at some point players are going to either sub or quit. Wurm is like that as well.
Reply

Posted: Feb 16th 2012 3:02AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Everfaust

"Pointless" P2P model. Why bother trying to demonstrate anything to you about why subscription services are good? You've apparently already decided that paying to play a game is pointless and of no benefit compared to your precious free to play model. Subscription models have their benefits just as free models have theirs. If you weren't so blinded by your chosen side you could see that.

And yes, subscription products DO mean that there will be better content and more consistent content in some cases. You may not like it, but reality doesn't require you to like it for it to be true.

Finally, I know it's hard to believe (but yet again, reality doesn't require your belief) but not everything you read when you Google something is factual or true.
Reply

Posted: Feb 16th 2012 4:40AM Everfaust said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified) ~ So.... why bother replying to me if you REALLY think I'm just gonna ignore your post/points? o_O

lol, that's like advertising you're just gonna state an uneducated opinion by bashing mine, then trolololool your way out later when you can't back up your statement/point of view with any intelligent arguments.

As for P2P having advantages over F2P... I just don't see it.. at least not from the gamers perspective.

Think bout it.. what does a monthly sub do, other then promote lazy patch practices or *fluff* content?

They entice you with pretty gimmicks, get you to sub for a low low monthly fee (6$-15$) and then a month or so down the road you run outta content.. but you keep playing cause your friends do... then when all is lost and you decide you wanna quit, they release a newsletter/trailer announcing how AWESOME the next patch will be.. and only 2 months away!?

So you stay, tho continuing to play every now and then, you've pretty much lost interest till the patch gets here ~ then when it does, you go into gamer coma and play for two days solid!.. ripping through the content... only to realize there really wasn't much there to begin with...

However..

Instead of quitting you look back at all the time and money *(subs) you've invested in said game and decide that, though you may not play that often.. 6$-15$ a month isn't that much money and having the sub always leaves the door open.

In the end, what did you get as a P2P player that a F2P player couldn't also get?...

Sure, you can argue "we need to support the company!?" ~ but if their game really was well made and a blast to play, wouldn't you already be spending cash in the shop on better skins/mounts to look the part of a dedicated player?

WoW is the perfect example of this, as many other MMOs attempt to follow suit and instead just fall down the same dead end hill as all those who've tried before, in the end.. they finally succumb to F2P with a cash shop.. =/

Just look at AION... or any other "Once was P2P MMO" that relied on a gimmick to keep subs going instead of balanced characters and fun in-game mechanics.



Tooo LOOONG, didn't read ~
Subs are a dieing breed for a reason, as they promote companies into lazy practices *(shiny patches and broken promises).

Combo this with how many other MMO's *(choices) we have as a gamer.. and it becomes very apparent that we have no reason to put up with such nickle and dime tactics/nonsense *(P2P)

For me personally, I prefer either B2P *(AAA Title like GW2) ~ I pay ONCE and the game is mine for life.. this means if the company wants more money from me, they have to work for it. whether that's new and exciting expansions or uber cool looking mounts/outfits in the cash shop.

OR

F2P with Cosmetic cashshop *(League of Legends) ~ the game has like 3 maps.. and yet has millions of players.. all due to the challenge of combat and how much fun/aggravating it can be to play. XD

There are many ways to make money without resorting to subs... and honestly, it speaks volumes bout the dev team for going that route ~ ***We're not sure if this game'll work out.. best we milk'em for all we can, while we can***

/rant

With all the above mentioned.. I'm still not against P2P for an awesome game ~ but so far, I've yet to find a game that's actually worth subing for that isn't connected to XBOX Live :P
Reply

Posted: Feb 15th 2012 9:53PM PhelimReagh said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
People want games they "kinda" like to go F2P so they can play them occasionally, at their leisure, without committing a full subscription when they're only going to put in 5-10 hours per month.

It's akin to online newspapers charging $20 per month each, when really, you want to read 1-2 articles per week from 30 different publications. I'm not going to spend $500 per month on newspaper subscriptions, and I'm not going to spend $60 per month a half dozen games I play a few hours each month.

In the long run, I think cheaper F2P options would allow most gamers to spend more money in more places. At least I do.

Posted: Feb 16th 2012 12:19AM Shoyz said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
RuneScape has the absolute worst payment method. If you ever decide to cancel your subscription, you will be unable to use any of your 'premium' items (such as spears, etc), and any and all premium skills you have will be unusable (even passive ones, such as running longer).

It creates a choice between either permanently F2P, or permanently P2P. No middle-ground.

Posted: Feb 16th 2012 12:42AM ButteryPie said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Shoyz Eugh. Derp.
Doesn't that seem pretty... Obvious?
Subscriber-only features are *supposed* to be subscriber-only features.
Kind of the entire point.
Besides, it's not like your items disappear, or your stats get reset...
Reply

Posted: Mar 1st 2012 3:55PM Shoyz said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ButteryPie

I wasn't speaking of losing anything. I was saying that every bit of premium status gets completely revoked once switching to free status. I'd understand it if the premium areas got locked off, or premium features, but making every premium item you've earned unusable and disabling all stats you've trained up until that point. I understand making spears only obtainable for subscribers, but to make it unusable makes no sense to me. As does the Haste stat, which either makes you run faster or allows you to run longer, becoming disabled once free. If you ever switch to a free account, there is nothing on your account from all the time you'd spent as a subscriber unless you stay one. It is a complete commitment which forces you to stay a subscriber forever (or quit), or stay a free player forever, which is why I find it awful.
Reply

Posted: Feb 16th 2012 7:01AM Deliverator said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Beau - you're a fan of F2P because it allows you to decide when you're going to pay. Do you believe that the payment model affects the direction of development?

Posted: Feb 16th 2012 8:54AM Stormcrow from Illyriad said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Deliverator - I don't know Beau's answer to this; but on the off-chance it might be interesting (XD) here's mine...

I think everyone benefits substantially from having the game itself built around a clear financial strategy from 'Day One'. At Illy many elements of the gameplay design itself would have been very different had we had a different monetisation strategy.

There are many examples of games trying to implement different monetisation strategies in mid-flow, to wildly varying degrees of success. For example, I think LOTRO has transitioned well, but in stark contrast (imo) to Eve Online's rather confused hybrid of subscription with "freemium" that hasn't really gone down quite so successfully.

For Illy, Pay-to-win is self-defeating for what we're trying to achieve (a long-term, persistent, no-server-reset, immersive and "epic" strategy MMO) and so we've avoided it like the plague. There are other games out there that deliberately allow a Pay-to-win strategy because the game flow is optimised to support that model.

Players largely dislike the introduction of new payment strategies mid-game, and rightly so imo - it disrupts the balance, the expectations and the future character/avatar/gameplay plans that have been built-up and emotionally nurtured by each player over time.

We would have made very different game design choices in Illy had we not been clear from 'Day One' about not only the overall monetisation strategy but also the specifics of exactly what we're offering to sell to players and the potential balance issues we needed (and still need, with every future release of content and gameplay) to address.
Reply

Posted: Feb 16th 2012 10:08AM Beau Hindman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Deliverator I think so. Of course, I know what some might think: having a cash-shop or a freemium model changes where developers concentrate their efforts. Some tend to think that developers in a free-to-play title sit and think "how can we make items that will sell in the cash-shop?" while "real" development is ignored.

That does happen, of course, but we have to question what "real" development is. If the developers are working non-stop on a new expansion with plans to sell that content for 60 dollars, it's the same process as developers working on a new mount to sell in the cash shop. So, yes, the payment model can effect development simply in the way it effects deadlines, etc. There are some games that quite literally force players to spend money in the cash-shop in order to do almost anything. I see nothing wrong with this, the same as I see nothing wrong with charging 15 dollars a month for entry. They're both required payments.

But, you will rarely see me love on a game that forces a player's pocketbook. :) Sorry, rambling.....hope that makes sense.


Beau

Reply

Posted: Feb 16th 2012 7:03AM smartstep said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Runescape has hands-down best payment model in f2p games.

No cash shop in f2p / freemium game and still earn ton of money that is something grant to achieve.

Posted: Feb 16th 2012 7:48AM Maseno said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@smartstep

I hate Runescapes "f2p" model. The fact that you can't use 90% of the items in the game once your sub runs out is ridiculous (even if they were equiped on you).
Reply

Posted: Feb 16th 2012 9:49AM smartstep said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Maseno

Everyone have their own preferences.
Every model their pros and cons.
Reply

Posted: Feb 16th 2012 5:03PM Sorithal said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm almost tempted to check Runescape out again :/ Kind of wish Runescape did some sort of middle-ground status for people who were former Members though. It's a pain in the rear trying to get back into the game with my really old character due to not being able to really do much unless I pay for Membership again (due to bank space and all the Member items and such).

Imo they should allow past Members to have the bank space Members have, or have the bank changed to where you have different bank slots or such. With those bank slots there'd be like one for Free players, and then Member slots where Member-only items can be placed and such. Just once you deposit that stuff you wouldn't be able to take it back out if you're currently a Free player...

*shrug* That'd at least make a bit of convenience rather than making former Members feel like they -need- to keep up Membership if they want to try and continue with that character in F2P.

Posted: Feb 17th 2012 12:46AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Just checked out Illyriad as a result of this article and am liking what I see. Well worth a look!

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW