Shaking the stigma of "Free-to-Play"

by James Egan Feb 19th 2009 at 9:00AM

Filed under: Business models, MMO industry, Opinion, Free-to-play, Browser, Casual

David Chang from Gamescampus has written a piece for Gamasutra which tackles the stigma that is "free to play" or F2P. Chang's "Opinion: Why We Need To Rebrand Free To Play" addresses the cynicism and perceptions of questionable quality that tends to surface in discussions about free-to-play games.

Chang's piece points out similarities between the F2P business model and Google, although he admits it's not a perfect comparison. Google's service itself is free, but ultimately fuels its revenue streams through monetized services offered. The large userbase who simply wants to use the service for free is vital to the company's business model, and thus there are some parallels to an MMO operating without subscriptions. "In both situations, people receive a valuable service -- free search or a free game experience," says Chang.

However, he believes that calling these games "free to play" does more harm than good, with the connotation that "free" equates to substandard in many minds. Chang proposes calling them "MTS Games" (Micro-Transaction Service) or "MTG Games" (Micro-Transaction Games), with the view that changing how we label these games affects how well they're received by gamers.

Chang also looks at which business models work and which don't when offering a game not supported by subscription fees. Speaking of alternate business models finding favor in North America, Chang finishes by saying,"Now is the time, when our model is just building a name for itself in this industry and its perception is so important, that we should be looking at re-branding from free to play, to instead being known as micro-transaction service providers."

You can check out David Chang's opinion piece on rebranding 'free-to-play' at Gamasutra and also at WorldsInMotion.

Tags: advertising, browser, business-models, casual, david-chang, f2p, free-to-play, gamasutra, gamescampus, google, microtransactions, mmo-industry, opinion, stigma, subscriptions, worlds-in-motion

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

NekoAli said on 9:24AM 2-19-2009

I don't think it's so much that people are associating the word 'Free' with sub standard quality games so much as there have been a lot of sub standard games out under the umbrella of F2P games.

Even those that are not bad games are held up (perhaps unfairly) in comparison to AAA subscription based games, which have much larger staffs working on them.

There are a lot of good quality F2P/microtransaction based games out, and as more quality product appears, the perception of them will slowly shift.

Though I've always felt that the 'free' part of the phrase was a bit misleading, since games based around microtransactions to their best to get you to buy their product, usually by denying or restricting parts of the game if you don't pay. In which case it's really more of a shareware style demo, then you buy into the game if you decide you like it. It's a good business plan, but calling it 'free' when you're really just getting the trial sized version is a bit misleading.

sephirah said on 9:27AM 2-19-2009

Can anybody show me a F2P game that has good (and updated) content, such interesting quests and/or group instances/raids?
You could name games with other qualities, it's sufficient that "grind mobs to level" isn't all that they have to offer.

NekoAli said on 10:42AM 2-19-2009

Runes of Magic is an up and coming game that is very good quality. Wizard 101 is also good, though it's not strictly F2P. Instead it goes for several different methods. You can use the cash shop to buy gear and open up different subscriber only areas, or pay the subscription and have full access to the game.

Dungeon Runners is also a good game that you can play for free, but are limited to not being able to use the best gear and have to deal with an ad banner in the game. Monthly fee is very cheap though, cheaper than any other game I've come across.

Other F2P games I've played and enjoyed in the past are Sword of the New World, though that is pretty grindy. Shaiya is also a good game.

Lightbender said on 9:30AM 2-19-2009

My personal experience with the subject after playing many free-to-play games wasn't that the games were that bad of quality but the communities were horrendous. There were some good, helpful players but the majority would make even the seasoned WoW troll cringe.

Certainly a monthly fee isn't a guarantee of a mature community, but it certainly seems to keep out some of the riff-raff.

Hardy said on 10:29AM 2-19-2009

Are you serious? Have you even played WoW? It's sub based and is full of mentally retarded people (Not literally).

It's the worst of the bunch, and price has nothing to do with it.

snowleopard233 said on 11:38AM 2-19-2009

Hardy, I’d agree with you that the WoW community can be pretty subpar at times. Yet, I’d have to say that the majority of the people who I meet playing these free to play games are even worse. Most of them are young teenagers or preteens who haven’t gotten access to a credit card yet and have no maturity or grasp of the game they’re playing. I’d take WoW’s diverse community of both sinners and saints any day over the kids I babysat back in high school.

Berenixium said on 9:52AM 2-19-2009

My finances have been burned badly by a few 'F2P' games even after only a few days playing. I have now banned them from my leisure time and dedicated myself to subscription based games like WoW and those only, indefinitely.

Green Armadillo said on 12:07PM 2-19-2009

This. "Free to play", in my experience usually means "...but we're tuning the game in ways where you won't WANT to play without our expensive RMT items".

Also, as others have pointed out, it's misleading to refer to games with items bearing multiple dollar price tags as "microtransactions". A microtransaction is a case where your items cost 5 cents, but the credit card fees would make that transaction financially impossible, so instead you sell me $5 worth of account credit that I use to buy 100 items. Most "free to play" games have much larger price tags.

Atnor said on 11:04AM 2-19-2009

I think I must agree with NekoAli. It's not that my opinion of these games has a stigma of "F2P" model is bad. I just have not seen a free to play game of the quality that I would pay for it.

But then, I'm not one of those people that go crazy when I hear the words "free sample" or "free trial size" or whatever either. :)

It's either worthy of my limited leisure time or not. I can't think of any F2P games out now or upcoming that have made me prefer them to my subscription games.

snowleopard233 said on 11:33AM 2-19-2009

Show me a free to play game that has as much content and polish as World of Warcraft. The best free to play games mentioned so far on this site and by commentators (Wizards 101 and Runes of Magic) are jokes by comparison to the best triple AAA titles. They don’t have a fraction of the content games like EQ2, WoW and FFXI have nor the attention to patching that comes with a team you are paying fifteen dollars a month for.
The only good game that I can think of that is “free to play” that seems to never get mentioned here is Guild Wars; a title that has managed to maintain a large community with successful sales over the years because of its unique design and quality setting. I’d like to see more attention to this great example on this site as opposed to the factory mill low grade scams that second-string Korean developers are sending our way.

Rich said on 12:22PM 2-19-2009

Alot of the comments here are trying to compare F2P games with the sub-based games like WoW and EQ2.

Honestly, you can't even remotely compare them. Its comparing apples to oranges.

Quiet a few comments of the F2P don't have they polish or the content or the end game. Of course they won't. Most of them are trying to do something else than what the sub games are doing. Most are niche games or appeal to a different demographic. Will they ever be on par with a WoW or EQ2 or Eve? Heck no.

F2P games need to be looked on their own merits and not in the same way we view sub games.

Heck, I quit WoW and started playing Wizard101 to kill some time. I am actually having more fun in 101 than I have had in WoW in a long time. Is it even remotely like WoW? No, but I don't go about comparing it. It treated on its own merits.

(and if you want my opinion Wiz101 is a better game then AoC or War. Which is sad... lol)

Holgar said on 12:47PM 2-19-2009

Nothing is free

It is that simple all these games are designed so you HAVE TO PAY MICRO TRANSACTIONS IF YOU WANT TO EXPERIENCE ANYTHING BUT MINDLESS GRANDING.

Ingrod said on 7:31PM 2-19-2009

The problem is that actually the subcription based MMOs are designated for maintain the people paying subcriptions every moth. What is the difference?

Wjowski said on 9:18AM 2-20-2009

The difference is paying a nominally minor monthly fee and having full access to the game vs. being nickled and dimed for everything from items to abilities to levels.

Tom said on 1:28PM 2-19-2009

I have yet to come across a F2P that looked even remotely interesting to me. Atlantica Online came the closest ... until I read more about it and saw the laughable character graphics. The whole storyline, such as it is, just sounds just way too goofy.

As snowleopard mentioned above, Guild Wars is "free to play" in the way that all Free-to-Play games should be: Buy the basic game, play for free (no sub) thereafter. Then offer expansions/additional content for additional revenue generation.

If Tabula Rasa had been offered on that basis, I would have stayed with it. Sub-based games are, in general, too expensive for most casual players, and F2P games have a (well-deserved, imo) reputation for being, basically, really lame.

Yoh said on 3:11PM 2-19-2009

While Guild Wars was free to play, it certainly wasn't free.
It also was more like a single player game with multi player hubs than an MMO. (no massive quality)

MTG on the other hand do tend to be sub standard in nature, as the nature of their business model causes the game to have to be monotonous and grind heavy, and hold back on all the pretty stuff in order to basically force you to buy something.

This of course kills gameplay. While good for a quick past time, they are a long way off from being worthy to put money down on a regular basis.

However, they are getting better as everyone and their grandma are pumping them out like there is not tomorrow.

I don't mind paying for my MMO's, but I demand quality.

Wjowski said on 3:30PM 2-19-2009

A few shining diamonds don't make up for the sea of crap they're floating in. And crap is pretty much the best word to describe most Free-To-Play games.

Digest said on 12:46AM 2-23-2009

Why not look at Guild Wars? Buy to play then offers Micro-transaction with optional contents in the game has to offer. Our world economy is in crisis, and nows the time to step-up.

Ok, you offer the very best of mmo right now. But not all gamers can play for it if its not affordable for the masses.

Wow players are only sticking with their game because of friends, history, gears, quality time spent, money spent, etc. Their game value with wow is endless as of now. Like an investment that cannot be turned off because they are the king in the industry as of the moment.

Mark said on 8:16PM 3-02-2009

God... I run into this kinda of thinking all the time at work and it bothers me to know end.

If you want to REBRAND something you first need to address the quality issues that are creating the bad stigma. The same bad games by another name isn't a new brand and no gamer is going to be dumb enough to believe that it is.