Hey everyone!

I was working on an essay about the "free-to-play" gaming model as a profitable franchise, decided to post it on my blog. I know it's super-long, but I would love to get everyone's opinions about this topic. ^.^

You can read my essay here.

I know my essay generalizes a lot, and leaves out a lot of information, but it I figured it was too long as-is. Please let me know what you think!

I likes it. I've tried to free-to-play games a bit. I tried Flyff (sp?) and the free thing was really nice. I hated the game overall (for many reasons but nothing related to it being free). I also played Guild Wars for a while (before I got into WoW) and I tried Hellgate: London. I hated Hellgate but I really really enjoyed Guild Wars. I think it can ultimately be profitable, but I don't think that it will ever be as profitable as the monthly pay-to-play games.

quote:

Originally posted by tibbsy07:
...I think it can ultimately be profitable, but I don't think that it will ever be as profitable as the monthly pay-to-play games.

Depends on how much work the company puts into it. WoW, for example, cost an estimated $200 million in upkeep as of Sept. 2008 (can't find current figures ) and that does NOT include development costs*. So really, if WoW wasn't the smash hit it is, they would have been hard pressed to make that money back and turn a reasonable profit. Similarly, Guild Wars I think works because it's obvious they skimped on some aspects of it to ensure the gameplay was good enough to keep people playing (i.e. buying expansions and items from the stores.) It could be argued, I suppose, that the way the Guild Wars release and marketing works, it's not truly "free to play" if you want the full experience, but that would just be getting into semantics, I think, in the same way playing SC over b.net is "not free".

As for the actual blog:
First off, as a nitpick, I think "free to play online games" should be clarified a bit more. I think I got through the first two or three sections thinking to myself, "free to play online games have existed since the mid-to-late 90s, and have always been popular," thinking of services such as battle.net. However, it slowly dawned on me, you may have only been referring to... well, the games you were describing.

In which case, it seems like the movement is partially a push against MMOs, and partially an assimilation of their methods and appeal. Let's face it, WoW proved exactly how successful the pay-to-play model can be, and that was a huge AAA production. If a smaller company can isolate the best aspects of the genre, strip away anything unnecessary to the formula, and churn out a game in six months created by a five-man team for $50,000, theoretically, they could increase the profit margin over a game like WoW. Take away the monthly fee, and throw in some extra pay-for perks, and there's no reason a smart company can't turn a profit off of that business model.

Also:

quote:

For example, an item that costs $100 USD and gives a player a 1000% bonus in AoE (Area of Effect) damage might generate some revenue from a few dedicated players, but it would actually damage the gameplay experience for players who are not able to afford such an overpowered item.

Madam, this alone would make you a better designer for Facebook applications than half the **** Zynga puts out. I've played a few of their applications, and after looking at what you can buy with real money, it completely tips the balance in favor of the people with the highest expendable income (or the people who are really really stupid.)

Also, you should do an blog on immersion in games... simply because it's one of my biggest issues with the industry (the lack thereof in most games,) and I'd love to see someone else's opinion on it. But yeah, I noticed you mentioned it a few times, but didn't really go in depth with it (which makes sense, it wouldn't have really fit the topic.)

Note:
*This is based on an uncited article. I did previously find a figure given by Activision-Blizzard during... iirc a stockholder meeting that was roughly in line with the figure I'm quoting, but if I'm wrong, someone please correct me, as I can't find the original source!

Hey Arumi, on this subject, Peter Molynioux just had a writeup on ign.com regarding Natal where he said he plans on releasing Fable 3 for free in chunks next year. Basically making the firs couple of areas free and then allowing people to buy the game in chunks.
I have been talking about this method for a long time now. Especially for games like Psyconauts and Beyond good and Evil which were great but had a harder time finding an audience.
You should give it a read. It could be something to referance for your blog.

omg, I used to waste my life away on FTP games when I was a teenager. Before I had a job.

I still play them from time to time. Played Runescape since the first year it came out and continued playing it until they revamped the graphics and ruined the gameplay. My reason for playing was the wilderness (or PVP, rather), and once they changed it up to where you didn't lose your items when you died, it took a lot of fun out of it for me. There's something thrilling about killing someone and getting all their armor they spent a gazillion hours earning. Of course, I lost all my items a lot of times as well, so it balanced out.

I miss the good ol' Runescape days.

I can't believe you mentioned Maple Story. I almost don't want to talk to you anymore. Almost

I swore to never play any of those Korean made free games anymore.

Free to play is a very ambiguous term for me. If you think about it any game with a demo is free to play in some sense.

I think you will find a lot of games start exploring this option, but I don't think it really works well for MMOs or any other game with a high operating cost. It requires a constant stream of new players, or a constant stream of new content, and the players willing to buy all content that comes out for it.

quote:

Originally posted by weaselboy:
First off, as a nitpick, I think "free to play online games" should be clarified a bit more. I think I got through the first two or three sections thinking to myself, "free to play online games have existed since the mid-to-late 90s, and have always been popular," thinking of services such as battle.net. However, it slowly dawned on me, you may have only been referring to... well, the games you were describing.

In which case, it seems like the movement is partially a push against MMOs, and partially an assimilation of their methods and appeal. Let's face it, WoW proved exactly how successful the pay-to-play model can be, and that was a huge AAA production. If a smaller company can isolate the best aspects of the genre, strip away anything unnecessary to the formula, and churn out a game in six months created by a five-man team for $50,000, theoretically, they could increase the profit margin over a game like WoW. Take away the monthly fee, and throw in some extra pay-for perks, and there's no reason a smart company can't turn a profit off of that business model.

You're exactly right! That's the point I was trying to highlight in this essay, I'm so glad you got it. The potential is definitely there to take all of the best, most appealing, most efficient aspects of a game such as WoW, and then create a game that excludes all of the unnecessary junk. I've seen so many online games that are missing 'something' - they have the basic formula, but they don't use the information provided by other successful MMO's to their full advantage. In my opinion, there is still room for improvement. Despite the success of games like WoW, there are some things that I think could be changed. It's still possible to make the experience more enjoyable for the players, and more profitable for the developers. ^.^

However, you're also right, I should have clarified the 'free-to-play' genre more. Originally, I had planned to reference all free-to-play games, but as I continued writing, I realized that I focused a lot more on the MMORPG genre. Some of the topics I referenced (i.e. Online Persona, Customizable Environment, etc) could also refer to, say, free Facebook games (Pet Society, Farmville, YoVille, etc), I suppose. Maybe I'll expand on that more in the future.

I was trying to write an exploratory essay on the free-to-play gaming business model, and also attempting to help people understand why it's ultimately successful. As I kept writing (and after I finished) I realized that there is so much more information that I could have included! However, since the article was already pushing 1,800 words, I figured that it would be easier on most readers if I expanded on it more in another post.

I have a lot of experience with free-to-play MMORPG's, and have spent more money than I'd like to admit for 'digital' items, perks and events. Though it is kind of embarrassing to have to cop to spending $80 on "Perfect World" exp. bonus items, or $200 on GaiaOnline's limited edition digital donation items... it's helped me to understand what aspects of a game actually motivate me to spend money in order to augment my overall enjoyment of the gameplay. (GaiaOnline isn't actually a game, but I figured I had to throw that figure in there. Sad, I know. )

quote:

Madam, this alone would make you a better designer for Facebook applications than half the **** Zynga puts out. I've played a few of their applications, and after looking at what you can buy with real money, it completely tips the balance in favor of the people with the highest expendable income (or the people who are really really stupid.)

I was curious enough to try most of the Facebook games offered by both Zynga and Playfish... I have to say I agree. Games like "Pet Society" are not even playable if you don't invest money in them. Zynga games like Mafia Wars and Vampire Wars are designed around a gameplay model which encourages people to spend money. This is mostly accomplished to avoid something many people absolutely hate - Waiting. I also strongly dislike how the games are designed to give a huge advantage to players that have more money to blow on low-quality flash games.

quote:

Also, you should do an blog on immersion in games... simply because it's one of my biggest issues with the industry (the lack thereof in most games,) and I'd love to see someone else's opinion on it. But yeah, I noticed you mentioned it a few times, but didn't really go in depth with it (which makes sense, it wouldn't have really fit the topic.)

That's definitely something I want to do an exploratory essay on, since it is a topic that I find really fascinating. Hopefully within the next few blog entries. I've been writing them a bit long, lately... might have to break it up with some short game reviews (or something).

quote:

Originally posted by Seductivpancake:
I can't believe you mentioned Maple Story. I almost don't want to talk to you anymore. Almost

I swore to never play any of those Korean made free games anymore.

I played Maple Story a little, but couldn't get too much into it, due to the lack of pvp.

However, one Korean FTP game I used to loooooove is Gunbound. Heck, I still love that game, but just highly dislike the stipulations. I think it's absolutely ridiculous that people who pay money to get avatars for their characters get all these special upgrades, while the free people have a huge disadvantage. Back when the game was more fair, I played every day and had a blast. Mage machine FTW!

Edit: BTW, read your blog and it's quite the awesome sauce. You really are an excellent writer.

Maple story is one of the few games I passed out while playing it.

Mage machine? No way! Grub is the way to go!

I enjoyed gunbound a lot, for about 1 week.

quote:

Originally posted by Seductivpancake:
Maple story is one of the few games I passed out while playing it.

Mage machine? No way! Grub is the way to go!

The grub was the first one I ever used, and loved it, but moved on. I enjoy precision shots, but it sure is fun shooting a bunch of orbs on someone stuck in a pit. Dig a nice little hole with the 1 shot, then switch to 2 and orb them to death!