Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

MMO Rift Turning Free-to-Play in June

Last response: in News comments
Share
a b 4 Gaming
May 16, 2013 7:34:55 AM

Looks like the subscription based MMO is a dieing breed. As long as they keep it to where it isn't a pay to win model, it should work well. I might consider it again at some time after this change is made. WoW is growing stale and I need something new but don't really want to pay for it.
a b 4 Gaming
May 16, 2013 8:05:30 AM

I'm not completely against P2Win as long as the 'Win' items are are not outrageously more powerful than in-game stuff and are tradable in-game so new players who want quick in-game currency can buy the real-money items to sell them in-game then buy them back later when they reach high levels themselves.

But the temptation to make P2Win items almost necessary can easily get out of hands from both sides. In some games, having the best purchasable items often enables players to solo multiplayer content so they do not need to share rewards, which kind of defeats the point of playing an MMO and makes it nearly impossible to control inflation. On the plus side, done properly it can effectively price gold sellers out of the market.

P2Win can work but finding the right balance between company/operator greed, player greed, benefits and in-game cash flow is difficult and requires on-going fine-tuning.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a b 4 Gaming
May 16, 2013 8:37:45 AM

Problem with them is that, maybe at first, non paying players will get along just fine but, if you don't play you get bummed out of expansion, best weapons. Therefore being pay to win.
May 16, 2013 8:38:07 AM

How often do the free mmo's have server issues? Maintenance? Lag? Wow's been doing pretty well for the last 7+ years so I attribute that to the monthly fee.
May 16, 2013 9:02:01 AM

spartanmk2 said:
How often do the free mmo's have server issues? Maintenance? Lag? Wow's been doing pretty well for the last 7+ years so I attribute that to the monthly fee.


I think wow has been doing well because its that game everyone's friends play
then theres the fact that a lot of people see free to play games as being bad without even trying them because all free to play games are pay to win right? (please note that was sarcasm)
and then other subscription based MMOs fall flat because everyone has wow and no one wants to pay for two subscriptions at once
screw the fact that wow has a really outdated engine, graphics from 2009 (unless you go to outland where you have graphics from 2006 due to no update) and a now outdated combat system based on percentages and luck
May 16, 2013 9:15:43 AM

I really don't get why people want free to play crap, I have never seen F2P model that made sense. Some use micro transaction in a way that cost you more in the end than actually paying for the game, so others cripple the free to play to a ridiculous point and some others even give everything and charge only for cosmetic crap???? I only see the latter bringing down the company and the game with it...
May 16, 2013 9:20:43 AM

Rift gone F2P, sorry it didn't work out for you.
a b 4 Gaming
May 16, 2013 9:42:12 AM

spartanmk2 said:
How often do the free mmo's have server issues? Maintenance? Lag? Wow's been doing pretty well for the last 7+ years so I attribute that to the monthly fee.


Blizzard has had their fair share of issues over the years. Since Activision entered, it seems to have gotten a bit worse. PTR testing seems rushed and known bugs make it to live almost every time. I have played some Perfect World, but not enough to really know how well their servers truly run. It was something to do when I was burnt out on WoW and cancelled for awhile.

May 16, 2013 9:43:18 AM

I have played Rift on and off for years and over all the game has been top notch. As far as the games size goes it was is perfect. I am not sure why they suddenly feel the need for a F2P option. Part of Rift's charm is the fact the player base is smaller so the game is not being pulled 9 different directions like World of Warcraft.
As far as F2P games go hopefully they don't ruin the game like Starwars the Old Republic has. Where they are more focused on adding things to the pay market then they are fixing bugs and adding content to the game.
May 16, 2013 12:24:09 PM

What most of these reports don't write is the community's backlash against it.
A vast majority of paying subs do not want this, and many are pissed that they paid year(s) in advance and won't be getting reimbursed.
May 16, 2013 12:45:11 PM

Development isn't free, servers are not free. No matter the model you are going to pay.
It is just your choice if you want an honest transaction up front or you want your MMO sitting around in your computer like a bum with its hand out.
I play MMOs to escape not to be reminded of the real word constantly.
May 16, 2013 12:57:59 PM

This is great news, and thank you for sharing. I subscribed to Rift for about 14 months and had a lot of fun. The PvP is very fun as a cleric healer, and the raid mechanics are innovative. I hope people don't judge Rift by its newly adopted F2P strategy. Trion is a good company who obviously thought long and hard about this decision.
The only downside to this is that there are too many good games out now to pick from. Who will feed our children?!?
a b 4 Gaming
May 16, 2013 1:02:07 PM

ccovemaker said:
Development isn't free, servers are not free. No matter the model you are going to pay.

Except with F2P, you can pass the bill to others by buying their real-money premium items with gold you grind in-game.

You can still win without paying a penny out of your own pockets but that may require tons of grinding.
May 16, 2013 1:21:15 PM

I started playing AoC (Age of Conan) as free to play and became a subscriber. I probably spent more on pay to play than a subscription so it seems like a solid business model to me. As long as the game isn't Pay to Win, I have no problem with it.
AoC is a decent game, maybe not great, but at least there are no pandas.
May 16, 2013 1:25:30 PM

Quote:
I have never seen F2P model that made sense. Some use micro transaction in a way that cost you more in the end than actually paying for the game

Yes that is true, but from a developer's standpoint... how is that a bad thing? I probably spend more on a F2P than on P2P, or I end becoming a subscriber, and STILL end up buying cosmetic crap. From a gamer's perspective you may end up paying a little more, but you get to choose when you make that payment. From a developer's standpoint... more money is more money, and that ends up helping them to develop and sustain the game.
May 16, 2013 1:53:46 PM

what people have to keep in mind is that as long as trion won't be .05 and .10 us, such as limiting f2p players verses subscribers. yes, i know. subscribers should have more content. they should even be allowed to level faster. whatever. but when it comes to PvP it HAS to be an even playing field or the sanctity of fairness is demolished = no more fun. gw2 is proving that if you sell SKINS for weapons and armor, people WILL pay for them. just because they're fun to look at. nothing else. no extra stats. Trion has seen that this is great for gaming. It lets the "poor" play with the "rich" and everyone is happy whether or not they have a shiny new skin or not. What's genius about GW2 is you can even GRIND to get those shiny things. But a lot of people STILL use real money for skins. Be thankful for these type of people because they're funding these great games.

personally i wish rift went to a "buy once" plan instead of f2p. i would have gladly paid 60 bucks and be done with money transactions. the minute something pops up and breaks the 4th wall, i'm uninstalling it.
May 16, 2013 2:45:40 PM

as someone who has paid for a fair chunk of rift time, this is a bit annoying, it will be interesting to see where this takes the game
May 16, 2013 4:13:21 PM

The problem I have with the F2P model, is that it can potentially bring in lower quality players. A player who is unable to commit to a buy once pay model, like in GW2, is more likely to be a:
- Foreign person who can't speak the primary language on the server they connect to.
- Gold farmer
- Spammer
- Immature young person
- Troll
- Poor person without adequate equipment to run the game properly
- Scam artist
A lot of these problem people are immediately removed by even the smallest buy in. If a spammer get's banned, and it costs no money to make a new account, they come right back. If they need to pay 10 bucks every time, they'll be more discreet about it. If they need to pay 50 bucks? Most of them go away entirely.
So, based on this opinion... I would have been willing to give Rift a try at an inexpensive price, but "Free" concerns me enough I'll avoid it now. I feel bad for the people who were enjoying the game, and are now about to see the influx of scum.
May 16, 2013 4:23:37 PM

fulle said:
The problem I have with the F2P model, is that it can potentially bring in lower quality players. A player who is unable to commit to a buy once pay model, like in GW2, is more likely to be a:
- Foreign person who can't speak the primary language on the server they connect to.
- Gold farmer
- Spammer
- Immature young person
- Troll
- Poor person without adequate equipment to run the game properly
- Scam artist
A lot of these problem people are immediately removed by even the smallest buy in. If a spammer get's banned, and it costs no money to make a new account, they come right back. If they need to pay 10 bucks every time, they'll be more discreet about it. If they need to pay 50 bucks? Most of them go away entirely.
So, based on this opinion... I would have been willing to give Rift a try at an inexpensive price, but "Free" concerns me enough I'll avoid it now. I feel bad for the people who were enjoying the game, and are now about to see the influx of scum.


yeah, i wish they went to a pay once option instead because what you said has happened in a lot of prior games and most likely will be a problem for rift. honestly i think the core fans will continue playing and uphold the more mature community (at least compared to most.)
May 17, 2013 2:56:38 AM

I've been waiting for this. I almost bought Storm Legion a month or so ago and just am no longer prepared to pay-to-play anymore. It makes me play and it bothers me when I am not playing, not sure if that is an effect of my income level or not but when it goes free I will buy the expansion. I hope soon WoW will go free but its unlikely. Surely Blizzard cannot sustain their policy for the new game, Titan. With so many companies tweaking and developing the MMO it is hard to see how Blizzard can really develop something extraordinary enough for people to pay to play without it being ultra-high-end which would reduce the player base and one of the reasons WoW has been so successful is that it's been accessible to anyone who can buy a laptop throughout much of its lifespan.
May 17, 2013 7:55:01 AM

thats great, going free to play. and i agree with comments already here about the quality of people F2P games attract. but heres my problem: the in game store. reason: why the fck would i give you my money for something that isnt going to aid me in the game? im not one to give any shoots about cosmetic crap, nor am i one that thinks grinding for hours is an acceptable way to play a game. i do have free time in my day, but last thing i want to do is grind for hours and hope i can get something cool. id rather just kick the company a few buck, save my hours, and play the game. i can only figure that the people complaining about these types of games dont have jobs? and thus are able to play for hours on end? am i mising something here?
May 17, 2013 10:59:16 AM

It always amazes me that people somehow identify with their avatars in games, I don't really notice the appearance of my characters so long as I can carry out my function in the game! The free to play model is better for me because I have never got into the elite game in any MMO because it's so hard to meet four people who play at the same time as you who you can do content with. So, it's better for me because I tend only to play the core game, which generally becomes free. You just play within the parameters of the available. In most of these games the biggest restrictions arise from the nature of the culture, least if it's free to play you can just log out and not worry about why you bother to pay the fee. Often levelling in WoW I used to wonder why I paid the fee to play what was essentially an antiquated solo game. The lower the population, the better the culture generally, but it seems that the people who play on-line games seem to be pretty solitary and neglect the greatest the possibility these games offer: grouped interactive cooperative play. Never ceases to amaze me how many seem to treat the games as if they are a business. It is quite dispiriting to see such rampant instrumentalism in games whose purpose is to actively relax one.
May 17, 2013 12:19:20 PM

all i know is i'll be on faeblight or whatever and i hope all you guys join me. i probably spelled it wrong but it's the only pve/rp server in NA. see ya in game.
May 18, 2013 11:53:25 AM

I think one of the reasons why subscription based MMO's taking a hit is due to the high monthly fees. $10 to $15 for a game is a lot to ask for considering a lot of people can't play as much everyday especially if the have a family, then they start to consider how much they're shelling out for that specific game and if its worth the monthly price, a lot of people like me decide its too much and just quit.
I think $5 subscriptions would be fair considering you also have to shell out $50 to $60 for the game.
May 18, 2013 12:13:38 PM

It would be interesting to know what the monthly costs of server maintenance and then game development might be. I agree that a quarter of the monthly fee might be justifiable but not the full amount, it just makes it too expensive. The days are gone when one will play one MMO I think.
!