The Tricky Transition of Payment Models in MMOs.

As the popularity of Free-To-Play games continues to grow,developers are left with the challenge of designing around the new model,or altering their original vision. However, there are elements of F2P design that must be considered when making the change.

A few weeks ago I posted an entry talking about my thoughts on why subscription focused MMOs are falling by the wayside, in favor of Free-To-Play payment models. Since then, I've been trying out the F2P version of DC Universe Online, while looking at all kinds of charts and diagrams from various MMOs on how the switch has changed their design. Besides getting a small headache trying to figure it out, I noticed that a lot of designers are still scrambling to rework their game into a new model and maybe missing the point of what makes F2P work.

1. Content and Progression: The first question when going into a new F2P game is always: "How far can I get without spending any money?" The reason is if you are required to constantly spend money each month to make any progress, then you are once again paying a subscription for a game.

I've said it before, but Riot Games with League of Legends was one of the smartest developers when coming up with their payment model. You don't have to spend one cent playing LoL to be able to see all the game content, granted it's going to take you longer then someone who spends money, but it will happen eventually.

One of the worse design decisions you can make either creating a brand new F2P game or transitioning into one is tweaking the mechanics to force people to spend money. World of Tanks made the grind to get new tanks so long with the added cost of losing in game money in many battles that it can become maddening to unlock higher tiers without spending real money. Gold ammo which does increased damage must be bought with real money by the shell, requiring constant spending to keep your supply up. Locking leveling upgrades or important gear behind a payment model is akin to punishing players for not spending money and can drive people away.

Age of Empires Online hits a new player over the head with locked content from the get-go. So much of the game requires the player to upgrade their Civilization that it feels pervasive with how many times a player gets a pop-up asking them to spend money. The problem is that the game's supposed main RPG hook of upgrading your units with shiny pieces of equipment can only be fully utilized by spending money. What's worse is that quest rewards and special buildings are also locked, and for free players means that they'll have items taking up the already small inventory space.

While getting money is important for a F2P game to stay afloat, the designers have to make a concession and give content and features away for free. The beauty and point of a F2P game is that the player doesn't have to spend money to experience what the game has to offer.

2. Locking Players Out: One staple of any MMO making the switch to F2P is "the chart", detailing what exactly you get for paying varying amounts of money. For your viewing pleasure here are the charts for Lord of the Rings Online(click on the details tab) and Ever Quest 2; see how long you can read them without getting a migraine.

The common theme is how a lot of basic quality of life features are locked behind spending money: inventory sizes, ability to chat, technical support and many more. The problem I have with this goes back to the first point, you should not have to force people to spend money to play your game. Locking QOL features leads to a slippery slope of having features that gamers are used to getting normally, now unavailable. World of Tanks prevents friends from playing together unless at least one person spends money to gain premium access.

Designers know that one of the more popular aspects of MMO play is the social side, which is most often why guilds are usually locked from free players. I find this counter-intuitive, as the point is to get people to play together and spend more time in the game so that they'll spend money to buy stuff they can use together. Players should want to spend money for additional content, not to gain access to features that other games give for free.

3. Subscription Woes: Another tell-tale sign that a MMO was not designed originally with the F2P model in mind is the option to pay a subscription fee each month. To me, this is like a recovering alcoholic who spends every night hanging out at the bar, the point of switching to the F2P model is usually that a subscription didn't work.

My chief complaint is that most often all the subscription does, is just give players access to what the game was before the switch was made. In my opinion this is one of the worse examples of "having your cake and eating it too" as players will still have to spend money on additional content in the form of micro transactions. Designers seem to be missing the point that quality content should be the reason to spend money, not getting what you had before.

This is why I'm not a fan of continuing subscription fee plans in F2P games, as it misses the point. To me it's like having content and features as a hostage, which the player must continue to spend money each month or else it's gone, as opposed to just buying the content and having it permanently associated with the account. Once again I like the League of Legends model, besides boosts that work for X amount of matches, everything else once bought is yours forever, and the game has enough quality of life features that it doesn't feel handicapped compared to other games.

4. Keep it Cheap: Micro transactions are the money makers when it comes to F2P games thanks to gamers wanting to support the developers and being inexpensive enough to be close to impulse buys. However designers transitioning from subscription to F2P, need to realize that the point of micro transactions is that they are micro. Monetizing out every little aspect may sound bad, but it allows gamers to pick and choose exactly what they want, and spend however that is on it and nothing else.

The problem that I have with Age of Empires Online premium civilization content is that they wrapped too many benefits into it and released it at a high cost. When it comes to micro transactions, every dollar matters, as gamers know full well what they are purchasing. The problem with AOEO is that instead of spending $20 up front for a bunch of benefits and features that people aren't sure about, they should have pieced it out. If someone just wants to play AOEO for the upgrades to player equipment and doesn't care about the other benefits, then let them spend 3 or 4 dollars just on that feature and leave the other options open for the future.

Bundles and promos are very effective marketing tactics and can push gamers even further into buying more content. Every week Riot Games usually has a sale on champions and skins for that exact purpose. The combination of a limited time offer and pushing prices even further into impulse buy territory can convince many gamers to spend money.

People are more willing to spend money on micro transactions and additional content when they feel like they're not being pressured or forced to. As more MMOs are released or developed around the F2P model, designers need to understand the differences between models and that some things either need to be cut or completely rework for the transition to go through smoothly. Designing a game for the F2P or micro transaction model from the start is better than having to transition from one model to another. The reason is that the designer can develop all the content and features from day one around the specific model and gamers will know exactly what their dollars and cents will get them.

Josh Bycer