SE consider a free to play option

[shal_zee]

No Thanks! SE please take my money. ^^

[Alacran]

There are other games that support the f2p model please go and enjoy those.

[Niqote]

I am happy to pay for FFXIV

[Delsus]

The market today really won't support a paid only MMO. With so many free to play MMOs out there some where devs spent millions on like Star Wars.

Stopped reading here, WoW is subscription only and is bigger than all the f2p mmos put together, and let's not forget FFXI, the most profitable FF game in it's 25 year history is subscription only, all you need to do is make the game worth the subscription, not charge £100 for a 1hr exp boost (ok I exaggerate but some games you do need constant exp boosts from cash shops to enjoy the game)

[Shadow_Sama]

Pay 2 Win = no thx

[Preypacer]

I am asking you SE to consider a free to play option in addition to subscription model. In today's PC market the majority of MMOs and other action RPG type games are free to play. Take a look at Guild Wars 2, Star Wars the Old Republic, Aion, Everquest 2, Lotro, Diablo 3, League Of Legends, Phantasy Star Online 2, DC Univerise online, the list goes on.

Guild Wars 2 is not free to play. It's Buy To Play, supported by a cash shop. The word free means "no money required to play". That is not the case with GW2.

TOR launched as a P2P/ Sub-Based game. It would have remained a sub-based MMO if it were a better game and more people maintained their subscriptions. It wasn't, and they didn't. Therefor, Bioware took the F2P route - and a very restricted one at that.

Aion remained sub-based for a while until it, too, started to lose a large number of subs due to it being too "Eastern/Korean" in its playstyle - particularly for a Western gaming audience. It was unsustainable. Hence, NCSoft made it F2P.

EQ2... couple reasons for this. 1. EQ2 wasn't doing as well as Smed and the folks at SOE would have liked on subs alone, so they made the switch to F2P/Cash Shop (even though Smed had sworn a couple years prior that they would never do that their existing games... but then he's not known for his integrity). 2. Smed would sell his own mother if it meant more $$$ for SOE and himself.

LoTRO held on well enough for a couple years, but then started to lose too many subs, getting to the point where - you guessed it - Turbine wasn't making enough money to make it worthwhile. So, they too decided to make the switch.

Diablo 3 is not a MMORPG, nor would it be F2P if it were (it would be B2P, like GW/GW2). It's an Action RPG with optional limited Multiplayer. So that doesn't even belong in your list.

League of Legends is not a MMORPG, it's a MOBA. The 'M' stands for 'Multiplayer', not 'Massively'. The former does not automatically qualify the latter. You are not in a persistent world shared by thousands of people at the same time. You're an individual teaming up in very temporary battle arenas to combat other people. It's closer to a Unreal Tournament or Quake type game than a MMORPG. It does not belong on your list.

Phantasy Star 2 I don't know much about, so I can't really comment.

DC Universe Online - Again, failed to maintain a healthy enough playerbase from the get-go, and switched to Cash Shop/F2P to try and keep it afloat.

The reason companies make that switch, or go that route in the first place, is because there is potentially far more money to be made in Cash Shops than there ever could be in subs. A developer is trading off the revenue of a stable and steady long-term playership for the short-term revenue of impulsive (and sometimes compulsory) nickel-and-dime purchases.

The trouble is, the payment model mostly benefits the company and not the player. The design is, quite necessarily, based around deliberately designing limitations, obstructions, speed-bumps and inconveniences into the game. All of those things have a handy-dandy and convenient solution on sale in the cash shop that will only cost you a few bucks - per purchase. Thing is, those "only a few bucks" purchases add up, and quickly. Ever wonder why they use a surrogate token, or point system in Cash Shops, instead of actual dollar values? Here's a hint: It's a similar reason to why Casinos do the same thing, and the word "obfuscate" plays a part in it.

Okay, fine, I'll tell you. They use that system so that it's tougher for people to track how much actual $$ they've spent and, hence, are more likely to spend more without realizing it. Yes, that's actually how it works.

A token/point system also allows them to screw around with the "point cost" of items against the number of points you can buy at a time. Put simply, you'll often end up having to buy more points than you actually need for the item(s) you want. "Oh, you want that stack of 5 xp potions for 600 points, but only have 100 left? Well, we don't have a 500 point package for $10 (@ $2 per 100 points), so you'll have to buy the 1000 point package for $20 instead. But hey! At least you'll still have 500 points left in the end! Of course, if you want to buy more xp potions, you'll have to buy another 1000 points, because your remaining 500 points will still leave you 100 short..." And so on.

In that example (which is made up, but uses tactics similar to those employed in cash shops I've looked at in the past), you'd have to spend $40 to get the equivalent of $24 worth of xp potions. And they do crap like that all over the place. Every item they sell is "priced" with that kind of scenario in mind. Also, the "dollar to point" conversion is seldom as "clean" as in my example. I used simple numbers to make the example easier to convey and follow.

It's actually rather brilliant how they work it out. But it's also extremely underhanded and rather sleazy. This isn't the kind of crap that I personally want a MMO I'm playing to be built around.

A Cash Shop MMO is designed around the concept of getting people to spend money as much as possible, as often as possible, by making the game as inconvenient and limiting as possible without "going too far". People often go on about the "game-breaking" "pay-to-win" items... but it's not even about them. Those higher-price "one-off" items that a player buys once and never needs again aren't the bread and butter for the company. It's all the lower-level, and lower priced consumables that a player will need to buy over and over again to maintain their desired pace and level of gameplay; to keep up with others, etc.

Now, as for your argument that a MMO can't be sustained in today's market. Wrong. A poor MMO that fails to attract an adequate number of players can't be sustained in today's market. But then again, the same was true for MMOs developed and released years ago, before F2P was even heard of outside of the East. A MMO that isn't good enough to enough people is not going to succeed - just like any other product or service on offer. People just have (usually conveniently) short memories and tend to be very "flighty" with how they consider things.

World of Warcraft is still a sub-based MMO. No, the "up to level 20" thing is not "free to play", it's a limited Free Trial. They simply took their existing 14 day free trial, changed around the terms a bit, and then slapped a popular buzz term "Free to Play!" on to the marketing. Notice how the "Free To Play!" is huge, and the "up to level 20" is really small in their marketing? Yeah, that's not an accident. Anyway, WoW maintains a sub, and is doing fine.

Rift has been a sub-based game since launch and is doing fine.

FFXI has been sub-based since launch and is doing fine.

Dark Age of Camelot - sub based since launch and doing fine.

Eve Online - Sub-based since launch and doing fine (no, not everyone is using PLEX).

Consider that more people came back to play FFXIV, and stuck around, after SE resumed subscriptions than were playing it even during the year subs were frozen

The list goes on.

Subscriptions are just as effective and legitimate a payment/revenue model as they've always been. A sub-based MMO failing is not a sign of its revenue model being flawed. It's a sign of the game itself not being good enough to sustain a large enough player-base for subs to be effective.

Further, Subs are not even "the best solution" for all MMOs. Different models work better with different types of games.

Don't confuse the idea that a F2P/Cash Shop setup would be better for you personally with it being better for SE and everyone else as well.

[Preypacer]

You know what's real funny?

If someone don't want to pay monthly subscription then why the hell do they want to spend money on in-game items transactions?

Or if they can't afford $10-$13 monthly subscriptions why the hell does in-game item for real world money transaction even be possible for these cheap people?

If you can't afford monthly payment of only $13 a month, i'm sorry...but at least get a minimum wage job that should cover it. Not being mean or anything, it's just logic.

In the event that your first two questions aren't at all rhetorical, I'll answer: Because the goal is to play a game they like without having to pay for it.

What they don't realize, or are completely naive about, is that they think the game they'd be playing as a F2P/Cash Shop MMO, the way they'd be experiencing it, would be the same as the one they're playing now with a sub.

And let's think back to when SE first announced that - as promised - they'd be reinstating subs. Remember all the rage threads, threats to quit, chicken little posts about the game failing and dying a horrible death, that 2.0 would never get made because they wouldn't have the money to do so, etc?

What happened when subs were reinstated? When it mattered, many of those same people shouting doom and gloom paid up and subbed anyway. Why? Because they enjoyed the game enough to pay a sub - they just didn't want to. They liked getting it all for free. As I recall, the ones doing the most shouting tended to be those with the most time in, and the most achieved in the game.

I suspect that's the true reason behind most "make the game F2P" posts.

As has been said, if someone finds something worth paying for, they'll pay it. And, ~$13 a month, or roughly forty-three cents a day - for 24/7 "all you can eat, any time you're hungry" entertainment, is not a huge fee to pay. It's even less if you're a legacy member.. what is it then, $9? $10? Let's say $10... That's about thirty-three cents a day.

And when people say "oh, well, I can't play enough to make it worthwhile, so they should make it cheaper". Wrong. If you can't play enough to make it worth your while, you should just think about it more carefully. Is it worth it enough even with the little bit you do get to play just to keep the sub active? If yes,then keep it going. If not, then don't.

Another way to put it, I'm willing to guess that a number of people here have some other service or product they use that is subscription based. It could be a magazine or website subscription, a music subscription, Cable TV, internet, etc. Something that is paid on a monthly basis - and likely far more expensive than a $10 or $13 game subscrtiption. Are you using those services "all the time"? Do you feel they're worth your while to keep going? Why? Because you're paying for them to be available when you want/need to use them right? If you subscribe to a magazine, do you read every single word on every page of every issue of the magazine? No? Does that mean the magazine isn't worth the subscription rate? Or, does it mean that the parts you enjoy are worth it to you (I say "you" in general here, not anyone in particular).

For some reason - and I have a feeling it's a bit of the "me me me" entitled generation mentality bleeding through - MMO gamers seem to consider MMOs an exception to that.

And, again, my suspicion is it has nothing to do with the cost, or it being "worthwhile". They just want access to something they enjoy without having to pay for it.

[Elexia]

You know what's real funny?

If someone don't want to pay monthly subscription then why the hell do they want to spend money on in-game items transactions?

Or if they can't afford $10-$13 monthly subscriptions why the hell does in-game item for real world money transaction even be possible for these cheap people?

If you can't afford monthly payment of only $13 a month, i'm sorry...but at least get a minimum wage job that should cover it. Not being mean or anything, it's just logic.

What do you expect from a generation that likes and demands handouts?

[HamHam]

Stop smoking (whatever you prefer to smoke) then you can afford the monthly subscription.

[Nakiamiie]

Guild Wars 2 is not free to play. It's Buy To Play, supported by a cash shop. The word free means "no money required to play". That is not the case with GW2.

TOR launched as a P2P/ Sub-Based game. It would have remained a sub-based MMO if it were a better game and more people maintained their subscriptions. It wasn't, and they didn't. Therefor, Bioware took the F2P route - and a very restricted one at that.

Aion remained sub-based for a while until it, too, started to lose a large number of subs due to it being too "Eastern/Korean" in its playstyle - particularly for a Western gaming audience. It was unsustainable. Hence, NCSoft made it F2P.

EQ2... couple reasons for this. 1. EQ2 wasn't doing as well as Smed and the folks at SOE would have liked on subs alone, so they made the switch to F2P/Cash Shop (even though Smed had sworn a couple years prior that they would never do that their existing games... but then he's not known for his integrity). 2. Smed would sell his own mother if it meant more $$$ for SOE and himself.

LoTRO held on well enough for a couple years, but then started to lose too many subs, getting to the point where - you guessed it - Turbine wasn't making enough money to make it worthwhile. So, they too decided to make the switch.

Diablo 3 is not a MMORPG, nor would it be F2P if it were (it would be B2P, like GW/GW2). It's an Action RPG with optional limited Multiplayer. So that doesn't even belong in your list.

League of Legends is not a MMORPG, it's a MOBA. The 'M' stands for 'Multiplayer', not 'Massively'. The former does not automatically qualify the latter. You are not in a persistent world shared by thousands of people at the same time. You're an individual teaming up in very temporary battle arenas to combat other people. It's closer to a Unreal Tournament or Quake type game than a MMORPG. It does not belong on your list.

Phantasy Star 2 I don't know much about, so I can't really comment.

DC Universe Online - Again, failed to maintain a healthy enough playerbase from the get-go, and switched to Cash Shop/F2P to try and keep it afloat.

The reason companies make that switch, or go that route in the first place, is because there is potentially far more money to be made in Cash Shops than there ever could be in subs. A developer is trading off the revenue of a stable and steady long-term playership for the short-term revenue of impulsive (and sometimes compulsory) nickel-and-dime purchases.

The trouble is, the payment model mostly benefits the company and not the player. The design is, quite necessarily, based around deliberately designing limitations, obstructions, speed-bumps and inconveniences into the game. All of those things have a handy-dandy and convenient solution on sale in the cash shop that will only cost you a few bucks - per purchase. Thing is, those "only a few bucks" purchases add up, and quickly. Ever wonder why they use a surrogate token, or point system in Cash Shops, instead of actual dollar values? Here's a hint: It's a similar reason to why Casinos do the same thing, and the word "obfuscate" plays a part in it.

Okay, fine, I'll tell you. They use that system so that it's tougher for people to track how much actual $$ they've spent and, hence, are more likely to spend more without realizing it. Yes, that's actually how it works.

A token/point system also allows them to screw around with the "point cost" of items against the number of points you can buy at a time. Put simply, you'll often end up having to buy more points than you actually need for the item(s) you want.

A Cash Shop MMO is designed around the concept of getting people to spend money as much as possible, as often as possible, by making the game as inconvenient and limiting as possible without "going too far". People often go on about the "game-breaking" "pay-to-win" items... but it's not even about them. Those higher-price "one-off" items that a player buys once and never needs again aren't the bread and butter for the company. It's all the lower-level, and lower priced consumables that a player will need to buy over and over again to maintain their desired pace and level of gameplay; to keep up with others, etc.

Now, as for your argument that a MMO can't be sustained in today's market. Wrong. A poor MMO that fails to attract an adequate number of players can't be sustained in today's market. But then again, the same was true for MMOs developed and released years ago, before F2P was even heard of outside of the East. A MMO that isn't good enough to enough people is not going to succeed - just like any other product or service on offer. People just have (usually conveniently) short memories and tend to be very "flighty" with how they consider things.

World of Warcraft is still a sub-based MMO. No, the "up to level 20" thing is not "free to play", it's a limited Free Trial. They simply took their existing 14 day free trial, changed around the terms a bit, and then slapped a popular buzz term "Free to Play!" on to the marketing. Notice how the "Free To Play!" is huge, and the "up to level 20" is really small in their marketing? Yeah, that's not an accident. Anyway, WoW maintains a sub, and is doing fine.

Rift has been a sub-based game since launch and is doing fine.

FFXI has been sub-based since launch and is doing fine.

Dark Age of Camelot - sub based since launch and doing fine.

Eve Online - Sub-based since launch and doing fine (no, not everyone is using PLEX).

Consider that more people came back to play FFXIV, and stuck around, after SE resumed subscriptions than were playing it even during the year subs were frozen

The list goes on.

Subscriptions are just as effective and legitimate a payment/revenue model as they've always been. A sub-based MMO failing is not a sign of its revenue model being flawed. It's a sign of the game itself not being good enough to sustain a large enough player-base for subs to be effective.

Further, Subs are not even "the best solution" for all MMOs. Different models work better with different types of games.

Don't confuse the idea that a F2P/Cash Shop setup would be better for you personally with it being better for SE and everyone else as well.

I'd like to praise you on your wonderful post. ^^
It was nice to read, informative and your opinion doesn't sound like it's been thrown in there without experience.

+1