“Free-to-Play is tough” – The agony of choice in payment models
MeinMMO: Subscription model, Free-to-Play, Buy-to-Play, Battle Passes – monetization is often the biggest point of contention in the community, but vital for studios. Do you think there is still a “one fair” business model for a modern MMORPG that keeps the servers running and satisfies the hardcore fans?
Benjamin Zuckerer: I do not believe that fairness depends on a specific monetization model. You can create an unfair Free-to-Play game and an unfair subscription game. Conversely, both models can be designed to be fair. What matters is that players feel their time is respected and that success in the game is achieved through their choices and accomplishments.
For me, fairness begins with transparency. The community needs to understand why decisions are made. That’s why we try to talk very openly about development, balancing, and our considerations. In the end, an MMORPG must function economically because servers, development, and support need to be funded long-term. But monetization must never become more important than the trust of the community.
The funding of a new MMORPG is currently highly problematic. Even seasoned developers like Greg Street (Project Ghost) and Jack Emmert (Warhammer MMORPG) have had to experience this, when their funder NetEase stopped its investments for the western market.
New investors could not be found for the industry veterans despite the best possible conditions (playable prototype, clear vision, experienced team). Both games ended up in the trash after years of development.
The fact that no one currently wants to invest large sums into MMORPGs is not only due to the aforementioned high risk of the genre and the failures of the past. The gaming industry is currently in a post-Corona depression. Loans are expensive. External investors prefer to invest their money in AI or other hype topics. Almost everywhere, you hear about cutbacks, layoffs, and price increases.
Greg Street: The best model, if one can pull it off, is the subscription. It provides the developer with a steady source of income and players know exactly what they are getting. I say “if one can pull it off” because it is a big ask for players to commit to a new game for a month when they are still unsure. It is possible that players are more willing to commit as subscriptions for other products become more commonplace (like Netflix, Amazon, or even BMW).
If I were to make a new MMO today, I would use the Destiny/Diablo model and sell the game for a one-time price (Box Price).
Free-to-Play is tough. You may get thousands, perhaps millions of players to try the game, but very few of them will stick around long-term, and only a small percentage will spend money. So you have to build the infrastructure for all these players, even though you know many of them will not become long-term players. Additionally, players can quickly feel exploited in F2P business models.
Finally – having been in this industry for a few decades – the pendulum swings back and forth. Players often tire of whatever the latest business model is. A few years ago, gacha loot boxes seemed more profitable, but the industry and players are turning away from them, and some governments even ban them. Battle passes seemed to be a replacement, but I think players are getting tired of those as well.
Jack Emmert: I believe that different models suit different types of players; there is not one best solution. I have led both F2P and subscription games – and both types of games are still running today.
The only thing that is important to me is that F2P games must be designed from the ground up as F2P – it is VERY difficult to simply convert a Buy-to-Play game (though we did exactly that with “Star Trek Online”).
Stars Reach will launch on Steam soon in Early Access, here you can see the trailer:
Raph Koster: We cannot escape the fact that MMOs need ongoing revenue from active users to cover the costs of servers and ongoing support. It’s just the nature of the beast. Whether subscription, battle pass, or a season – these are just different wrappers for the formula: “Each player costs X per period, so they need to pay at least Y.”
Free-to-Play just shifts this calculation a little: “Each player still costs X per period, so the people who pay have to cover Y for everyone else.”
This is the relentless math underlying it all. I think the fairest system would be if everyone paid exactly for the resources they consume… but often those who consume the most resources are also the ones who contribute the most to the gaming community and make the game a great experience for everyone.
We ultimately landed on the following approach: owning land in the game consumes more resources than not owning land. That’s why we developed the concept of a “Property Pass” which functions somewhat like a subscription.
During early access, this Property Pass will be included in the purchase price for everyone. Once we reach version 1.0, the plan is for people to be able to play for free; they will not be able to own their own land, but they can use community land whose costs are covered by others.
As lead designer for Ultima Online, creative director for Star Wars Galaxies, and chief creative officer for EverQuest II, Raph Koster has significantly shaped the MMORPG genre over many years.
With his current team at Playable Worlds and his SciFi MMO Stars Reach, he aims not only to bring the fascination of these classics into the present but also to enhance them with innovations that advance the genre.
Rich Lambert: I believe the industry is still trying to figure this out. We are getting better at it, but the reality is that game development is expensive and incredibly tough – especially with MMOs. Simply selling the game does not financially sustain a live service game in the long run anymore. So studios must find other ways to fund the servers, teams, tools, licenses, infrastructure, and everything else that keeps the game running and supported.
I don’t know if there is a “one absolutely fair” model. It depends on the game, the target audience, and what the studio charges players for. A subscription can be absolutely fair. Free-to-Play with strong microtransactions can be fair. DLCs, cosmetics, and optional services can all be fair.
What matters is whether the value is clearly recognizable, the game respects players’ time, and monetization does not constantly pressure with FOMO tactics or block reasonable progress if one decides not to spend money.
That’s why execution is more important than the label. Monetization can be perfectly fine if it focuses on convenience features, cosmetics, and services. It becomes uncomfortable from the point at which you sell pure gameplay power. That harms players’ sense of fairness and harms the game’s progression system itself.
On the next page, we’ll discuss the biggest strength of MMORPGs and how the genre needs to change for a successful future.
Your opinion is important to us!
Do you like the article? Then let us know!