Patch 5.3 interview with Ghostcrawler
Mystery of the Unborn Val'kyr
The latest patch 5.3 news
All of the latest Mists of Pandaria newsBreakfast Topic: Would you pay for extras in a F2P WoW?
by Josh Rose 
Nov 11th 2010 at 8:00AM
Lord of the Rings Online went free-to-play. "Free" is a questionable term, since they charge you for a fee for features you can technically live without but are still fairly important; things such as the gold cap, the ability to gain rested XP, and certain instances and PvP options require a fee. You get an enhanced version slightly above a trial, but you are still limited in what you can do in the free-to-play version of the game.
While playing a game, I want to play the whole game, have the entire experience, and not feel as if I have been shortchanged by being on a limited version. Personally having purchased some of the Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age DLC, I would still have to pay for the added functionality. Not being able to fully advance my character and see large amounts of content would irritate me more than the cost would. Not being allowed to make use of content would make me feel like I was missing out.
I want the choice of whether or not I do this instance, raid, or battleground. Could you imagine attempting to zone into Icecrown Citadel and seeing a message that says, "Requires a V.I.P. membership"? WoW has sold us a few items for extra money that are not required, but not having a Lil' XT or a sparkle pony doesn't affect your game functionality.
LOTRO offers things like more bag spaces and removing the gold cap and even priority login for those with V.I.P. accounts. So if World of Warcraft decided to follow the LOTRO model and go semi-free-to-play, would you just play the free portion? Would you pay for the V.I.P. portion? Would you buy the other nickel and dime upgrades they have on top of that? Or would you quit WoW altogether, feeling as if Blizzard had shortchanged players by making us pay for things like bag space, PvP and raid availability?
Filed under: Breakfast Topics, Guest Posts
Reader Comments (Page 3 of 9)
frugality Nov 11th 2010 9:34AM
@onetrueping
Just one quick thing I'd like to point out, in general, things are all realllllllllly expensive in the long run. Do the math on your cell phone bill, food bill, daily coffee runs over the course of six years. The numbers get really scary, really quickly.
I apologize, couldn't help but soapbox, but if you see my name...this sort of thing gets to me. Probably too easily
snarkygoldfish Nov 11th 2010 10:05AM
It can be!
LotR seems to be a pretty popular, but conservative model of f2p, but anyone that as played Maple Story, Dungeon Fighter, or any of the other MMOs ported over by Nexon US -- the staggering amount that one needs to pay in order to get good gear, leveling advantages, or even cosmetic changes can add up really fricking quickly. (Plus, these MMOs are usually directed at kids -- and we've all heard horror stories of kids spending metric tons of money on their parents cards for MS, or Farmville, or even Gaia Online) never mind Aesthetic goodies that dissipate after 90 days and need to be repurchased!
A lot of these games get their revenue by selling things we take for granted by work through raiding or questing. Best gear? Yeah, in Maple Story -- it's all pay-to-use/obtain. Their equivilent of gems/enchants? All pay to use.
One of my boyfriend's buddies somehow got to max-level in that game. And man. I can only imagine the hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars he has spent at this game.
I'll spend $15 a month, $40 every few years, and occasionally $10 if I want an extra pet or goodie that isn't gonna go poof on me -- at least then I know the upfront cost of enjoyment.
onetrueping Nov 11th 2010 10:29AM
Most subscriptions are more expensive in the long run, yes. Which is why buying a house is such a big deal. The trick lies in figuring out which will cost less FOR YOU, hence weighing the benefits of the lifetime subscription against a constant subscription.
The other side of the equation, of course, is "supporting the developers." Sure, a cheaper game is nice, but that means the developers get paid less. Less cash means less funding for game improvements or for the next big thing. Thanks to our monthly subs, we can play Starcraft II or Diablo 3. Or, Cataclysm.
Eirik Nov 11th 2010 2:38PM
The NCSoft game "ExSteel" springs to mind in the realm of free to play but requiring frequent repurchases of gear.
The Korean version apparently had items that expired after either 7 or 30 days. For the american market, they added "durability" lost by damage, which could be repaired through credits (earned, or purchased with real money). Apparently they have both versions in play currently.
The thought of logging in and finding all my gear gone, "timed out", didn't thrill me at all.
bloodfyr Nov 11th 2010 8:15AM
I'd be done with the game.
I like the way Blizz makes money now. Vanity items and services don't really have a major impact on the game, but let them draw in the big cash (the amount of Sparkleponies that sold, for example). Meanwhile, I pay the same basic fee as everyone else and exist on the same level playing field.
Dez Nov 11th 2010 8:18AM
If WoW went free-to-play, I think I'd go put a jacket on, since hell would have frozen over.
Xriz Nov 11th 2010 8:18AM
I would quit. I have been on this game since it came out and I would feel the game has "lost it" if it went to the LOTR model. Just pay the monthly fee and play as much, little, hard-core, or casual as you want to play.
Krz Nov 11th 2010 8:19AM
Blizzard probably won't do this, ever, since they are more or less a 'premium' MMO game company. Next MMO comes out, WoW may fall into ruin, disrepair, and F2P territory, but not while we're in MMO's prime time.
And WoW has a LOT to offer gamers still.
Krz Nov 11th 2010 9:21AM
*not while we're in THIS mmo's (WoW) prime time
Elionene Nov 11th 2010 8:21AM
It would really depend on the cost and the content of the things that weren't free. Looking at it from one perspective, I already pay 14.99 a month for what I get now. If the cost was 14.99 a month or less to get the premium versus the free content, then the situation really doesn't change for me at all. I still pay the same amount every month and get the same benefits. The only difference is that there is now a lower cost model for those that don't want to pay.
I'm not certain how it works in LOTRO. Is a VIP membership a subscription? Or a one time payment for certain perks, like buying upgrades? Either way, If it doesn't cost me anymore than it does now, I don't see any reason to quit.
kw Nov 11th 2010 8:55AM
LotRO VIP subscription is just like a WoW subscription. It's $14.99 per month, or you can do multiple months at a time and thus pay less per individual month.
VIP subscription gives you access to all of the actual game content.. the only things left are unnecessary perks, like shared storage (like an account-wide bank), stat tomes, and cosmetic items (mounts, clothing, etc). VIP subscribers also get 500 Turbine points per month to buy things in the LotRO store, so it could be argued that even that uneccessary "premium" content comes with your subscription - you just might have to save up points for a couple months to buy some of the more expensive items.
There are basically three levels: F2P, Premium, and VIP. F2P gets you what you need to get to level 20 or so; after that you need to purchase quest packs with Turbine Points (which you can either buy, or slowly earn in-game by doing quests and deeds). Once you spend any amount of money in the LotRO store, your account goes to Premium status, and you get a higher gold cap, 5 AH post slots (F2P get none, though they can still purchase from the AH), the ability to trade gold to other characters, and an extra character slot per level. VIP gets 7 characters per level, all 5 bag slots unlocked, 30 AH posting slots, free riding skill at 20.. etc. You can check out all the differences on Turbine's web site. If at any time you stop paying for your VIP sub, you drop to Premium, but any character made while VIP gets to keep all the perks. Only new ones will be subject to the Premium limitations. At no point will anyone who has ever spent money on the game drop below Premium.
Most of the perks that VIP gets can be purchased via Turbine points, but it can get expensive. It's generally recommended to just pay for a month or two of VIP status to get everything unlocked then drop back down.
TL;DR - You can still choose to pay for LotRO just like you pay for WoW and get access to everything.
Amaxe Nov 11th 2010 11:57AM
@kw
So if I understand you right...
Premium = You've at least bought something once and
VIP = you are paying subscription?
(haven't played since LOTRO was subscription only, hence my question)
kw Nov 11th 2010 2:32PM
@Amaxe
Yeah, that's correct. Anyone who has ever paid (and by paid, I mean "bought Turbine Points for real money or actually subscribed to the game," not "made a purchase in the LotRO store using Turbine Points earned ONLY in-game") will have a Premium account forever.
VIP is just their term for a paid subscription, but they had to make it sound special :)
All in all, it's not a terrible model. If you actually sit down and do all the deeds I've heard that you can buy most of the quest packs without needing to spend real money, but that can get repetitive if you are like me and want to play a game to advance the story and then enjoy the endgame.
What I ended up doing was purchasing the Mines of Moria expansion from Amazon for $10, and it came with all the original game content, plus the Mines of Moria content (allowing me to get to level 60 without needing to purchase quest packs in the LotRO store), plus a month VIP (so any characters I created during that free month got all the VIP perks). With the 500 bonus TP from my VIP month, plus what I earned in-game, I was then able to buy enough points to get the second expansion, Siege of Mirkwood (which goes up to level 65), for about $5. Not bad for a total of $15!
tim Nov 11th 2010 3:10PM
"VIP subscription gives you access to all of the actual game content.. the only things left are unnecessary perks, like shared storage (like an account-wide bank), stat tomes, and cosmetic items (mounts, clothing, etc)."
Stat tomes, eh? I haven't played LotRO since the first few months after it came out, so I could be wrong, but don't stat tomes increase the power of your character?
"You can still choose to pay for LotRO just like you pay for WoW and get access to everything."
Except stat tomes.
Though Blizzard comes close, they've yet to cross that line from sparking ponies to stat tomes. When a game allows player A to beat player B simply because player A has more money, I'm out.
Amaxe Nov 11th 2010 4:32PM
@kw
Yeah I actually got 2 mos free play because I bought Shadows of Angmar and Mines of Moria (collectors edition) for about $10 back when it was subscription. Also had free quest tokens from getting the pre-order Mine of Moria code on Amazon. So I got to see a lot for free (though I think i got bored by level 30)
I gave my old discs and collectors edition stuff to my brother. Maybe I ought to look up my account password and let him have that too so he can at least have premium.
Rob Nov 11th 2010 8:23AM
I think there is a reasonable expectation of profit when you make a game, and somehow the cost of making the game has to balance out the profit. It's not unreasonable for a game with a very nice chunk of content to allow users to buy even more content for a fee, whether this is DLC or an expansion. Many games (almost every successful game in memory) has followed this model, just like Hollywood and their sequels. Where it gets a little fuzzy is when you have a game that's pretty short on content but still with that $60 price tag, then they start adding for-pay content. That says they went way over budget. I don't really subscribe to the 'greedy capitalist pig', everyone has bills to pay; but if you screwed up during development and come out like your hand is always out for the users to give you more dough, you are going to kill your audience.
LOTRO and other FTP MMOs are pretty interesting. I don't really like LOTRO. I tried really hard to get into it, but it's too much like wow but not wow enough. But my feeling is, hell if they allow people to go pretty far in the game for free (now), that's great. I just don't have the interest to play all these great games, but the fact that they are there and still producing revenue is great. It worked for DDO, its working for LOTRO (its much more populated now). I can even see a more monetized version where you are paying $5 or $10 for every new expac (in LOTRO terms, which is 4x a year I believe). Great for the consumer, great for the producer, everyone is happy.
One thing I didn't like about EQ (what little I played of it), is that they had a ton of expacs. When I got on board I got the whole package for $40 i think. Games like WoW can really take note, if they care; you really need to lower the purchase price, since you also get them on the tail end. Yeah $15 a month is cheap, but considering our household has two copies of the game, two subscriptions, plus a ton of character transfers...over time its easily $50 or $60 a month for us if you just take the cost and divide by months played. Of course all of this stuff is our choice, but it does get expensive.
danielrayroberts81 Nov 11th 2010 8:33AM
Personally I wish the client was free with a pay per month sub. Does blizzard really need to charge for the starting and new material with a what 10 million subscriber base?
Sleutel Nov 11th 2010 8:34AM
You're not paying for the client; you're paying for the account itself (unlocking first vanilla WoW and then all of the expansions in turn). You can install as many copies of the client as you want.
Does Blizzard *have* to make us pay for this? No, they don't *have* to do anything. But clearly it's working well for them. They're not a charity who distributes a fabulously fun game as largess; they're a for-profit company that just happens to be selling something we enjoy a great deal.
danielrayroberts81 Nov 11th 2010 8:42AM
So i'm what paying 60 dollars for the first months sub and 15 per month after? Stop and think about that.
Bouncing Gnome Nov 11th 2010 10:11AM
I don't know about dollars, but in pounds I paid £28.50-ish for my first month and £8.50 for each month from then. A *year* later I paid another £20-ish extra for TBC.
TBC was already out when I first started playing, but I didn't need to pay the upfront cost for it when I started because I was busy getting lost in Azeroth on my little Gnome. Yes the total cost is the same, but spreading it over time like that lessens the impact.
Also I didn't count it as paying again for the same game. I counted it as buying a new game, which would have cost me at least the same amount anyway.
Back to the original point of the discussion: I don't care how or when I pay for my game, as long as the game itself remains a high quality product. The main problem I find with many F2P games is quickly they become very uninteresting, and show how little money was spent on developing and maintaining them. This isn't universal, but it does seem quite common.
In short you often get what you pay for.