Payment Models - Free-to-play

What do you think of when I mention 'free-to-play'? Games that were free to play used to mean that they were generally bad. My main experience in the past with free games were flash games, and Maple Story. There was something about Maple Story that made it such a grind. That, coupled with the ability to buy powerful stuff with power meant that in-game currency was practically worthless. Since then, I've avoided free-to-play games like a plague.

Recently though, free-to-play games are ramping up in quality. This may be because some of these games were originally MMOs with subscription fees that eventually lost so many players they switched to a different model. Games like Age of Conan, DC Universe Online, Warhammer Online and many other MMORPGs all switched to free to play, and even reported greater earnings than before. Free-to-plays are not just limited to MMOs though, FPS like Team Fortress 2 and Tribes Ascend, Diablo-like action RPG like the upcoming Path of Exile, DOTA-styled League of Legends, Heroes of Newerth and even DOTA 2 itself are free. These games make money by allowing players to pay for cosmetic upgrades, or in the case of certain MMOs, access to more character slots or storage stash. In contrast, MMORPGs generally start out with a monthly subscription fee in addition to the initial cost of the game, and almost every game has a one-time purchase fee.

Developers are gradually realizing that people are very willing to pay if they get to play the game free and enjoy the game enough, sometimes to the extent if paying even more than one would if they just bought the game outright. This means that free-to-play is a viable business model and games using this model are very much worth the effort and time and some (not all - Blizz) know the problem of being able to get power with cash. More developers that are dedicated to the games they make means more great games, and more great free games means more choices in the industry for gamers of different spending power.

The free-to-play model is good for consumers because the model itself encourages developers to continue to support the game in different forms in order to attract more players as well as to come out with content for gamers to purchase. Developers are careful not to come across as abusing their consumers since they can just stop playing if they have not invested in the game and the developers will lose potential income, and in the case I'd multiplayer games, make the effort to ensure the environment stays friendly and comfortable for an online community. One could argue that they might be too afraid to offend players and so might not take the necessary steps to moderate the community and that is indeed true. It is up to the developers then, to balance between losing a few to losing the majority.

I will continue to monitor to free-play-games. It is inevitable that these will be the games that will shape the expectations and culture of gamers of the future - the young who quite possibly are the major consumers of free games. Will they come to expect quality from the games they buy because of quality free games? Or will they continue to be at the whim of publishers who care more about money than their customers?