Free-to-Play: the way of the future for MMOs?
Lord of the Rings Online
The result? According to Kate Paiz, LotRO’s executive producer, Turbine saw the registration of a million new user accounts, and doubled their revenue as well.
It gets better, though:
…LotRO wasn’t in trouble, but rather that Turbine did the math and decided the switch would work. “We knew there was more out there for us,” she said.
Paiz also shared that 20% of LotRO’s former players have returned to the game since the switchover, and that the game has seen a 300% increase in peak concurrency, with three times the number of players online simultaneously, and a 400% increase in active players total. 53% of players have used the in-game microtransaction store (which sells everything from mounts and outfits to XP boosts and character slots), and as you can see above, extra storage slots are extremely popular in the store. And even paid subscriptions have increased. Turbine’s lesson seems to be that, as Paiz said during the panel, “when you tell people you no longer have to pay for it, they come in droves.”
And when you tell people that they only have to pay for the things they want/can choose to pay for…guess what? They tend to do just that.
MMOs that aren’t Activision-Blizzard’s oversubscribed World of Warcraft face two main challenges in the market today: WoW itself (it is very much like the Microsoft of MMOs), and plucky little community-focused online games (FarmVille, dammit) that have the same sort of free-to-play with microtransactions (also called “freemium”) payment model. It’s…difficult to make money in that sort of situation even if you happen to be the only other MMO option out there, but of course that’s not where the difficulties end. A game like EVE Online gets a bit of a break for being the premiere — and one of the only — science fiction-themed MMOs. On the fantasy side, though, there’s a plethora of choices, including WoW, EverQuest, LotRO, and BioWare Mythic’s three titles of note: Dark Age of Camelot, Warhammer, and Ultima Online, and more besides.
Now, I gather that Ultima Online is doing just fine, revenue-wise, thank you very much. That said, rather like LotRO, it’s not a case of changing the payment model to stave off financial ruin; it’s a case of seeing what’s out there to be grabbed, and grabbing it. How many of you, who have previously abandoned UO, would consider picking it up again and playing it if it went to a “freemium” payment model? I know I would.
I’ll go say it – if EA decided to go free to play with Ultima Online I’ll go back to it right away, and I’m sure I’m not the only Ultima fan who feels this way.
I have to say that subcription really is the thing killing MMOs for me. I definily don’t have enough time to warrant spending 15$ a month on a game that I might just end up playing a few hours here and there – but free to play model?
Yeah I’d be in: especially considering the latest addition Mythic did to UO which sounds very exciting.
I mean Ultima Online is not dying, but it’s a very nich game and I’m sure a free to play model would bring more people to it. And indeed I believe UO need it, because if there’s one thing I’ve sadly noticed while trying it out a few days ago while access was free for older accounts, it’s that the world really feels very empty. More people would be good!
Now I don’t know if someone from EA is reading this, of if they ever considered this approach for Ultima Online. But I feel they should and it might be a good opporunity to offer a second youth to UO!
Put up against modern competition, Ultima Online is too dated to justify a $15 / month fee unless you are a long-timer with years invested into the game and a social circle tied to it that is important to you.
But if it was free to play with micro transactions? Yes, I would gladly join and maybe buy some gear here and there, because I like the Ultima world and lore.
Then again I may be getting my Ultima social gaming fix by playing that new Facebook version of Ultima 4 that’s been rumored.
That’s the other issue I didn’t really look at: how established, long-term UO players would benefit — and they would probably benefit — from the transition to a “freemium” model.
But as it’s time for me to head out, such musing will have to wait for Monday. Maybe.
Like the previous commenter, I don’t have the ability to pay $15/month for every game I want to play. But if UO went free to play, I’d sign up right away, and you can bet I’d find things I wanted to pay for, too.
Ultima Online was the first Ultima I learnt about, and it led me to discover all the other games. And after playing all of the Ultima games, I always thought it would be a great experience to share the world with other in Ultima Online. But I never played UO, because of the monthly fee, which I couldn’t afford at the time. And even though now I can, it makes no sense as I would probably only play now and then.
So, if it were free… sure, I would find time to sneak into UO from time to time, I’d really enjoy it, and I would probably be convinced to buy particular stuff, too.
While I agree with the comments thus far, being a bit of a hardliner I think the only way the “free to play” model could be ethical is if it only allows the purchase of items that are completely superficial and have no real impact on competitive gameplay.
As someone who loves games more than money, the idea of real-world cash giving one player an advantage over another is deeply offensive to me. It reeks of the business side of gaming trampling the gameplay side. It sacrifices a gaming convention that has ruled for thousands of years; that one possessing the skills/athleticism/intelligence/etc. required by a game may excel at it, regardless of their financial or social standing. The number of pro baseball players from Cuba and Venezuela and pro basketball players from poor urban areas are great examples of this.
Another argument against the “free-to-play” model is that any game using it will receive a flood of players with nearly no investment in the game at all. If griefing was an issue with a game requiring a subscription, imagine if any fool could play for free and had nothing to lose.
One could counter-argue that a subscription disenfranchises poorer players and a free model empowers them, which I believe is true if my initial condition for the model is met, but if it’s at the expense of gameplay and fairness I don’t think it’s justified. While I don’t have a problem with people making money from a game, ultimately it is a game and not just a way to make money. The game really should come first.
Some possible solutions:
1) Allow microtransactions as long as they don’t affect competitive gameplay (stats, skills, weapon/armor strength, alliances or guild associations, etc.).
2) Lower maintenance overhead and other costs to enable more affordable subscription rates.
3) Offer 1-month money-back guarantees if the player is dissatisfied.
4) Offer subscription packs with progressively reduced monthly fees. For example, 1 month = $20, 3 months = $45, 6 months = $60.
5) Have separate, “jailed” game servers for “try before you buy” purposes. That would segregate a lot of the anonymous hooligans from the paying customers.
From what I’ve seen so far the free-to-play model is another sign that the gaming industry is devolving into Hollywood, and every aspect of the art of game design is taking second seat to the art of making money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_Online
Nope. Anarchy Online came before EVE. EVE most likely had more subscriptions though, but the insane difficulty of the game might scare off some customers.