Free for All: The first sample is free
There is a common myth floating around the MMOsphere, and I will have to admit that I have done my part in spreading it. It's one of those half-truths that can be used on either side of the free-to-play debate, and could help or hinder the spread of high quality free to play titles. That myth? That free-to-play games are free. They are not, essentially, as is nothing in life. Someone has to pay at some point; either at the point of creation, the point of making a character or at the point of paying the electricity bills.
Also the price to make the games keeps going up more, the last quality game driving up the stakes for the next. Free-to-play is steadily shaking off the stereotype of cheap and grindy, but soon enough they will face the same issues that subscription model games face. Being free does not mean costing nothing, even though many of us blissfully log in night after night without paying a dime.
The recent Allods Online cash shop controversy, in which the developers obviously charged too much for basic cash shop items like extended inventory, showed that the North American audience has almost no patience for a game that, ironically, it paid nothing for. It seems as though the act of paying fifty dollars for a box or fifteen dollars a month puts players in the mood for frustration, or at least brings their tolerance level up some. That financial commitment, even though small compared to other forms of entertainment, seems to lock them into a higher tolerance than when the game is obtained for literally zero dollars.
When I play a free-to-play game (and I play a lot of them) I try to spend a lot of time on it before I decide if it's going to stay on my hard-drive or not. This is one of the luxuries of the free-to-play market, allowing essentially a very long trial period (even in the most limited freemium cases) to feel out whether or not the game is worth paying for. I am not naive enough to think that I should pay nothing, being that I am getting the same amount of entertainment out of the game that I would out of a game that I paid serious cash for.
To me, the exchange is of a more pure sort; the artist showing me their wares then asking for whatever price I think he or she deserves. It even goes a few steps further than that, allowing me to take the artwork home, mount it on my wall and to host a dinner party to show it off. Even after all the wear-and-tear I might put on the art, I can still take it back or refuse to pay. Even if I decide to frame it and make it completely my own, I still have to pay nothing. It is, if nothing else, a very good deal.
Some would say that the free-to-play approach is actually a set-up for the eventual cash grab by the developers. They hook you, then force you to spend loads of cash to stay "competitive." While I have seen how this could be true in some cases, there is not a single game that I have ever played that forces the hand that holds the wallet. Yes, there are great advantages to buying those XP pots, or in buying those health fruit, or in buying that extra fast mount or even better weapon upgrade. But none of the games I have played have ever forced combat as the only activity to gain prestige in. And not in one single game that I have played is the death of the player anything more than a pause in gameplay, and not a deletion from the servers. In other words, you might lose to that guy that spent 100 dollars, but you will live to fight many many more days.
All this is to point out that free-to-play games are almost a volunteer opportunity for the developers that make them, based on the whims and pocketbooks of their players. This situation is really no different than a subscription model, the only difference being that a subscription asks you for your financial faith upfront. While that might work out in many many cases, I can promise you that the complaints about subscription games can be as loud and even much louder than anything coming out of the free-to-play market.
So to me it just makes sense that trust should be even more established in a game that asks for nothing upfront. The developer is betting that you will enjoy their game so much, or need their items so much, that you will pay for it. Most items in most cash shops do not cost hundreds or even dozens of dollars, instead relying again on the player to enjoy themselves over time. It seems to me to be a very risky venture for the developer, taking away even the opportunity to snag fifty dollars for a download.
What happened to Allods Online is a good example, although I would argue that the game isn't hurting much because of it. The situation did show how the expectation of fun is so entrenched in the North American audience, simply because we have had such quality and innovation over the last ten years, that players seemed to forget that the game they enjoyed was free! That fact didn't matter, since all games must be of this quality. After all, they had been up until that point.
But when it came time to ask for a little in return from those players that really enjoyed hours and hours and hours of the game, the laughter erupted. After all, what did the developers want in exchange for doing what they were supposed to do?
Of course, as I had predicted on my blog, the developers quickly lowered the prices and went on their way. But this wasn't enough for some that swore that they were done with the game and, in some cases, done with free-to-play games as though Allods Online was a representation of all games from that model.
But let's look at what happened: the game was in a grand open beta, and was not stingy with the beta keys. I received one hundred of them myself, and knew of no one that did not get one. The game was being written about as though it would single handedly change the perceptions of free-to-play, crushing all stereotypes of ugly Anime inspired grindfests, while also building that bridge between the two markets. It would warm up millions of North American gamers to the idea that free to play could be of such quality, and well worth downloading.
Bear in mind that the gameplay spread this idea, well before the cash shop was introduced. Gameplay that was well worth an inventory that was limited, and harsh death penalties.
Yes, the developers promised that the game would be free. Yes, some of the items in the cash shop were over-priced, but of course they fixed the issue shortly. But it makes me wonder why the prices were such an issue; because of the promise of a free game, or because of the actual asking price for the items? If someone offered you a free sample, and the sample was delicious, would you pay for a second helping? What if all they asked were a few dollars? Despite what was promised, isn't it honorable to still admit to the value of the item?
Despite all that, Allods Online seemed to find the cash shop sweet spot. Many players are playing, the game is doing great, and it truly has helped to destroy many of the stereotypes of the free-to-play market. The only question is, do you think that the artists that made the game are worth paying? Do you think that the artwork they have created is worth anything?
