If you live in the Western Hemisphere then it is likely that you just recently heard the term free-to-play (F2P). Sure, it’s been a part of the gamer lexicon for a years now, but F2P games have taken off recently, due in large part to one of the most successful publishers in the genre, Nexon. Nexon opened its North American arm by testing the waters with one of the most loved games of Korea, MapleStory. The trouble is that for many Westerners the genre is stigmatized. They believe that F2P is acquainted with poor quality, bug ridden titles that are filled with nonsensical characters and brutal grind fests. Without knowing exactly how the subscription-based Western market would react to a flood of F2P titles Nexon gambled on the micro-transaction model, and never looked back.
Nexon’s initial success with MapleStory (shared by developer and now Nexon subsidiary, Wizet) lead to further North American expansion by way of the MMOFPS Combat Arms, and a second MMORPG called Mabinogi. The Korean company’s success didn’t slip by the rest of the video game industry. Since 2005 numerous smaller, often less polished F2P titles have hit the market, only to disappear into obscurity or discontinued altogether. Few have had the mass market appeal or revenue generating success of MapleStory, but Frogster’s release of Runewaker’s Runes of Magic has thrust the micro-transaction F2P model back into the spotlight.
Runes of Magic, an admitted WoW clone with its own unique twists, has been doing quite well for itself. Although Frogster hasn’t disclosed any monetary figures, one can infer the title’s success from the amount of buzz it has managed to generate in the mainstream video game press. Generally speaking MMOG announcements, let alone F2P announcements, don’t make it to the “big leagues” unless the news revolves around a new product, or worse, a devastating proclamation. Not only does RoM continue to make the news, but it’s slowly gaining a healthy blogging community. Something that a AAA title like Warhammer Online continues to lose.
Speaking of losing ground, have you heard the news? Dungeons & Dragons Online is being relaunched as a free-to-play micro-transaction title on August 6 (in North America only). Not only is the new(ish) model making lots of money for those who embrace it, but it’s saving other titles from being shutdown entirely. Giving previously overlooked gems like DDO a second lease on life. Love them or hate them, the F2P genre is here to stay, and only going to get bigger. And with less risk to the developer up front, gamers of all types should be keeping an eye out for new and unusual niche titles and MMOGs set in completely foreign genres (non-RPG).
Excellent article. Glad someone is paying attention to whats happening in gaming these days!
There is more to this world than Blizzard and their broken as heck “pay out your butt to PLAY our games, but only after you spend a bunch to purchase it to begin with!”
BROKEN
July 28th, 2009 at 12:05 pmQuote
I’ve never heard of any of these titles besides DDO, but the Free-to-Play term as come up in discussions at the office. Many of my co-workers view these types of games with skepticism as in the past, there haven’t been very many good games of this genre. Only time will tell how this business model will play its part in the “Western” market.
July 28th, 2009 at 12:37 pmQuote
Don’t forget Free Realms which is (mostly) free. It has four millions subscribers and the game has only been out for a few months. It’s not the most intricate game, but it is very polished (much more so than Warhammer which has been out for a year) and is actually somewhat fun.
July 28th, 2009 at 1:17 pmQuote
@Dave
July 28th, 2009 at 2:20 pmDidn’t forget, it is linked under the ‘niche titles’ along with Need for Speed Online and Saga.
Quote
To be honest with you, free 2 play and micro transactions is not my thing. I’ve never been a big fan of it because it really does sort of suck the life out of the game. What you have in the game becomes a direct result of how much money you can push out of your wallet.
The potential revenue stream is much higher than a standard subscription-based game. By that I mean that some players will be more than happy to shell out $3,000 in a month every month to pay for items in the game.
I have a bit of an ideology problem with this system. I don’t agree with willfully sucking so much money out of people even if some are mistakenly capable of wanting to give it all to you. I don’t agree that your real life wealth should translate into more wealth in a video game.
For that matter, one of WoW’s largest complaints is that players feel entitled to everything in the game “because they pay the same $15/month as everyone else.” But in a game such as this, where what you have in the game is based off of these tiny financial transactions, you get rid of this element of fairness. And for that matter, you might end up losing a large chunk of those subscribers when they see someone running around in a $500 SWORD OF AWESOMENESS and they can only afford the $50 PEON’S SWORD. The money made off of the top might not make up for the significant loss in subscribers.
I played that “game” (more like social world) “There” for a little while. And essentially, within the game you had “Therebucks” which of course converted into real money. And you would submit your artwork to make something like a t-shirt, pay the company like $10 and they give you 10 t-shirts that you can turn and resell in the game for the equivalent Therebucks of over $1 to make a profit. Everything in this “game” was based on Micro-transactions and it’s not a new phenomenon. And it didn’t really take off did it :P
Essentially, they advertise free 2 play because it looks good on paper. FREE FREE FREE! But it’s not really free, because in order to compete with people everything is based on how much you can throw out of your wallet. And that could be very, very bad for the game community as a whole.
July 28th, 2009 at 2:28 pmQuote
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 :-P
July 28th, 2009 at 3:03 pmQuote
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.
July 28th, 2009 at 3:06 pmQuote
Micro-transaction games always seem kind of ‘cheap’ to me – having to basically unlock content by paying – rather would just pay a monthly fee
July 28th, 2009 at 5:31 pmQuote
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.
July 28th, 2009 at 11:17 pmQuote
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.
July 28th, 2009 at 11:31 pmQuote
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.
July 29th, 2009 at 11:47 amQuote
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.
August 1st, 2009 at 8:51 pmQuote
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.
August 1st, 2009 at 9:20 pmQuote
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.
August 3rd, 2009 at 2:39 pmQuote
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.
August 22nd, 2009 at 8:46 pmQuote