0
Perhaps the quickest way to determine whether a game should be F2P or P2P is to determine how the world's environment is to be setup. An instanced based game with virtual lobbies, for example, typically favor the F2P model; while large persistent worlds favor a P2P model. I agree with this correlation. I have not been able to determine if this game is set in a Persistent world or an Instanced based model. Based on the following quote, it seems that the developers are making more of a persistent world MMOFPS game like Planetside:
Quote
Merc Corp leaders will bid and fight for occupation rights to some of the most valuable planets across the Inner Sphere and challenge other Merc Corps for control of planets reaping large rewards.
As of now, the major competition for Mech Warrior Online is Planetside 2, Firefall, and Battlefield 3. We know that Firefall is a Free to Play MMOFPS set in a persistent world. Planetside 2 has yet to announce its business model. Battlefield 3 is a F2P after purchase game set in an instanced w/lobby environment. Already, it seems the competition is in disagreement with the business model; and an intelligent decision here could make for a gigantic difference in terms of final profit margin, play ability and fun factor.
Now, a decision on which business model to choose is a very important one; but typically this decision is based on these four factors: Server/Game Maintenance (To include free content updates), Play-ability, Fun Factor, and Profit. Lets observe the differences between F2P and P2P in correlation to these four different factors:
Server/Game Maintenance:
Maintaining servers for persistent worlds costs money. It also costs money to keep a development staff on hand to develop new material for the game. F2P games rarely have expansions, as typically any new features are tossed into the game store, or the expansions are extremely small in scale. Most new content is focused on the game store, and typically you can find objects such as mounts, skins, experience boosts, inventory expansions and the like in the store. Development will always be focused in one way or an other with developing new store items. F2P works very well for games that cannot maintain a healthy subscription base. Typically, F2P games are not considered triple A titles, and are not enjoyed by a large population of players.
Pay to play models provide a consistent flow of money to the development team. It is often easier for project managers to determine how many staffers to keep on payroll, and how many servers to maintain based on the number of subscribers. A healthy MMO typically has 200,000+ subscribers. When numbers reach below 125k through 150k, the developers have to begin worrying about the future of the game. That being said, Mech Warrior is a very popular franchise, and it can be expected that a good game will be able to manage 200,000+ subscriptions. So long as the subscription numbers are healthy, developers focus their attention on new content in two forms, free content updates and expansions. However, expansions can be billed separately as they are counted as a separate project all together, allowing the company to take on a loan to fund an independent development team to perform the work. All developed content in P2P models, with few exceptions, is open to every player - without needing to focus on obscure items to stuff in a game store. In many ways, this works out a positive *IF* the subscription numbers stay above 200k.
Play Ability
Play ability is not the same as fun factor for a few different reasons. First, the company has to determine how they can get the most amount of players to play the game. If the interest and demand isn't very high, a F2P system would be favored. This is typically the ideal business model for new companies working with original IPs. It is for this very reason why I am puzzled at the choice of going for a F2P model for a Mech Warrior title with so much interest from the players.
F2P provides the easiest access to an Online game. The player registers an account, and then the player downloads the client to log in. Its one of the easiest methods of getting someone to play your game. However, this also increases the number of spammers, botters, and gold farmers that can get in to spoil the gaming experience. If everyone plays for free, the gold sellers can play for free as well. Security must be increased, OR you make it so gold sellers don't have a business by increasing Game Store prices and allowing players to trade Game Store items for in-game money. This means that players will be able to get rich, and buy better gear/equipment by paying real money to get in-game cash. To me, this is a significant problem with F2P. Finally, the entire game is not accessible to those who play for free, as a significant amount of content must be purchased to enjoy.
A Pay to Play system restricts access to the game, making accessibility to the game an issue. Most Pay to Play models require a box/digital copy of the game to be purchased which will include a month's worth of game time. This is one of the simplest measures a company can take to keep third party businesses (gold sellers) from getting into the game. However, as with all things in the internet, the game can be hacked and they can gain access; however it will be more difficult for them than a F2P model. Once the game is purchased though, the player has access to ALL features of the game without having to worry about another individual gaining an unfair advantage by purchasing in game items.
One of the best features of a Pay to Play model is that you know what you expect to pay, and you don't have the impulse or desire to pay more because that certain item in the game store is appealing. Typically, F2P games feed off of impulse buys, offering incredibly stunning items or rare items for a short period of time at an inflated price. One can spend more money on the game store than they would in a subscription. This means that while some pay nothing to pay, others pay more than what a subscription fee would have been. True, its the players choice, but when it comes down to it most would appreciate access to game content without getting nickled and dimed.
Fun Factor
Lets face it, people play games to have fun and to be entertained. This is normal. Fun factor cannot be measured based on one individual's perception, as people enjoy different things. For example, there is a poll on this forum asking what items people would like to see in the store. At the time of viewing the poll, 4 individuals liked the option of "Pay to Win." Though they were the minority, there are those that enjoy paying to beat opposing players. F2P encourages individuals with this play style, as P2P models do not offer player advantages through cash shops.
Most people like to compete on a level playing field, in which Skill is the most significant factor which determines who wins the game. Progressions is often the second factor which determines who wins the game. F2P games typically offer items which increase a players level of progression, and some games offer stat bonuses through consumable items in their cash shops. Allods, for example, is a great example of a Free to Play game which negatively effects fairness in competition.
Since Mech Warrior is a competition based game, one in which players will frequently go head to head, it is very important to ensure that the playing field is balanced based primarily on skill, and secondarily on progression. F2P Models tend to imbalance this field, causing a significant issue in fun factor for those who do not wish to spend significant amounts of money in the cash shop. Since the majority of players enjoy balanced gameplay, it seems the F2P model is inappropriate for this game.
Profit
Sadly, this is one of the factors which drive the choice between F2P and P2P. Typically a game is released and purchased. After that, the player can enjoy the game without having to pay a fee. However, online games require maintenance, which isn't free. Most triple A MMOs make significantly more money through subscription fees than what it costs to maintain the servers and hire a development team for additional content. Less popular titles typically earn slightly more money from subscriptions than what they need to pay in maintenance, still netting a small amount of profit from the fees.
Free to play games appeal to players who are looking for that cheap way to get entertained. The players are less demanding, which means that they don't expect much in terms of new content. Server stability is typically rather poor for under supported F2P games; and the players are told to expect less in terms of compensation for server down time as a result of poor maintenance.
Titles which are using popular intellectual properties have a built-in subscriber base. Personally, I am interested in Mech Warrior Online because on of the first games I played on the computer was the original Mech Warrior game. It was what hooked me on multiplayer computer gaming, and its stuck with me ever since. I would imagine a lot of other games feel the same way. Also, this is one of the first Mech based MMO games we have seen on the market, which makes it a unique approach and entry to the market. With a good product, Mech Warrior should be able to get a healthy number of subscribers, providing increased profits for the company.
Finally, players in a Pay to Play system have to pay money up front to play the game. This creates a great opportunity for the company to make a return on investment and turn profitable. Pay to Play makes the project profitable faster than a free to play game.
Conclusion
I have said a lot about the two business models. I believe Free to Play is the wrong choice for this game. It will cater to a smaller audience, and limits the scope of post-release development. Free to play forces producers to make decisions based on expanding content on the game store, rather than expanding content for the game. It limits profitability for the company which also limits game improvements, server stability, and access to expansions. F2P takes long for the project to turn profitable. However, the most significant disadvantage to the F2P system is the detrimental impact it will have on the competitive nature of the game. When players benefit by spending money, the game loses any since of balance and causes a significant impact in the way players gain notoriety and power within the game environment.
Piranha made a terrible decision to announce the business model as early as they did. F2P is not a positive marketing tool; and in many cases, turns MMO players away from the game. F2P is not a feature that should be advertised. Rather, it signals to me that the company is not optimistic with the number of players willing to pay to play the game. This, in turn, makes me less likely to follow the development of the game, and makes me far less interested in trying it out.
Thank you for taking the time to read my post. Please provide your feedback and feel free to discuss the issue here.
