“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 you can pull it off, is subscription. It provides a steady rev stream to the developer and players know what they are getting. I say if you can pull it off, because it’s a lot to ask players to commit to even a month of a new game they aren’t sure about yet. It is possible that as subscriptions for other products become more common (meaning Netflix, Amazon, even BMW) that players will be more comfortable committing.
If I was making a new MMO today, I would use the Destiny / Diablo model and just charge for the box.
Free to play is tough. You will get thousands possibly millions of players trying your game, but very few of them may stick around, and only a small percent will monetize. So you have to build the infrastructure for all of those players, knowing many won’t actually be long term players. Players also can feel preyed upon with F2P businesses.
Finally, having been in this industry for a few decades, the pendulum always swings about here. Players often get weary of whatever the latest businss model is. A couple of years ago, gacha loot boxes seemed more viable, but the industry and players are moving away from them, and some governments prohibit them. Battle passes seemed like a replecament but I think players are tiring of those too.
Jack Emmert: I think the different models work for different types of players; there’s no single best way. I’ve run games both f2p and subscription – and those games are still operating to this day. The only thing I think that’s important is that f2p games need to be designed as f2p – VERY difficult to take a buy to play game and simply flip the switch (though we did exactly that thing in Star Trek Online).
Stars Reach will launch on Steam soon in Early Access, here you can see the trailer:
Raph Koster: There is no way around the fact that MMOs need ongoing revenues from active users, to cover the costs of servers and ongoing support. It’s just the nature of the beast. A subscription versus a battle pass or a season are just skins on top of “each player costs X per time period, so they need to pay at least Y.” Free to play just shifts the math a little: “each player still costs X per time period, so the people who pay need to cover Y for everyone.”
That’s the inexorable math under it all. I suppose the fairest system would be that each person pays according to the resources they consume… but often those who consume the most resources are also those who contribute the most to the game community, making everything fun for everyone.
What we landed at is that owning land in the game consumes more resources than not owning land. So we have this idea of a property pass, which acts kind of like a sub. During early access, we will just let everyone have a property pass included in their purchase price. Once we are 1.0, the thought is that people can play for free, and while they can’t own land, they can make use of shared land that others are covering the costs of.
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 think the industry is still trying to figure this out. We are getting better at it, but the reality is that making games is expensive and hard – MMOs especially. Box sales generally do not support a live game long term anymore, so studios have to find other ways to fund the servers, the team, the tools, the licenses, the infrastructure, and everything else that keeps the game running and supported.
I don’t know if there is a “single fair” model. It depends on the game, the audience, and what the studio is asking players to pay for. A subscription can absolutely be fair. Free-to-play with heavy microtransactions can be fair. DLC, cosmetics, and optional services can all be fair. What matters is whether the value is clear, the game respects your time, and the monetization does not constantly pressure you with FOMO tactics or block meaningful progress if you
choose not to spend.
That is why implementation matters more than the label. Monetization can be fine if it is focused on convenience, cosmetics and services. Where it starts to feel bad is when you are selling pure power. That harms the player’s sense of fairness, and it harms the progression of the game 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!