Tip.It Times - 13th November 2011

[Makoto_the_Phoenix]

First, thanks for some of the comments in regards to my first article in the Times. The article may be a bit rough around the eges, and some of you may disagree, and that's fine - this post is only to nudge folks in the general direction of my mindset.

 

As for F2P having bot problems because of lack of updates... nah. That boiled down to people making throw away F2P accounts to RWT purposes.

 

But why RWT if the game is i) engaging and ii) fun to play? I'm arguing the point that, just maybe F2P isn't as engaging as folks, or even Jagex, think it is. If it were more engaging, would there be less RWT? It's an open-ended question, and it's one worth exploring.

 

On topic; Under-Served seems like an interesting twist to the standard article. Is it possible to argue that by updating f2p, there comes a point where players are no longer incentivised to buy membership in the first place (since they are already content with what they've got), instead of the implied idea of subtly allowing hooked players to eventually purchase membership?

 

Not only is it possible to argue such, but I've seen that argument thousands of times on the official forums. Moreover, I've seen J-Mods make that exact argument many times there as well, usually in reply to someone saying some subset of what was contained in Friday's article. More germanely perhaps; "Or worse - the same community that gave Jagex widespread success will turn their back, and find more compelling games to play."

 

Did that already occur? I haven't been f2p for a long time, but based on those foggy recollections, I'd say yes. Can't say it seems like Jagex cares, either.

 

To Skeptic: Yes, it's perfectly possible to argue this. However, the argument doesn't hold much merit. It's the same argument that says, 'If I offer a CD for download, then no one will want to buy the CD.'

 

If you offer something that people can enjoy for free, then offer a little extra on top of that for a fee, then people would be fine with paying for the extra content.

 

To delapaz: Did it occur? It's tough to jump to conclusions (or rather, avoid doing such). The bot nuke sure did leave Jagex's active player count lower than ever before, and it's always been a fact that F2P accounts outnumbered Members by a very large margin. Perhaps players that were really dissatisfied with Jagex's actions to this point really meant it?

 

Disagree with the "under served" article. It reads like another "why can't F2P have...." . The most laughable point is "I believe that the majority of F2P doesn't feel that Jagex is meeting their demands for entertaining and engaging content". Who the hell is in a position to make demands when they're getting freebies in the first place?

 

Why give players incentive to stay F2P unless you want to encourage them to 'stay' F2P? Anyone who consistently stays F2P isn't remotely interested in paying for membership. Those who are interested will join members when they've exhausted much of the content, or sooner so it doesn't actually need "fresh content". It's already fresh to those who try out F2P.

 

Anyone can pay for members if they really wanted it. Pre-pay cards are easily available. They're not expensive by far. Most kids get enough money to easily pay for it.

 

At RuneFest this came up in the combat insider session. A couple of people asked these types of question about stuff for F2P. My eyes rolled at these questions until the Jmods plainly firmly answered the questions by stating "Get members if you want that". There were enough nods around the room to suggest the majority supported it.

 

First, I appreciate and respect your opinion. However, try not to look at it in such a light that says, "Give F2P *".

 

I'd like you to approach this argument from the "illegitimate access" point of view. If a person's needs aren't being met for any particular good, then they have three choices - either voice their opinion about it, gain illegitimate access to content, or leave. My argument is that, if they choose to leave, then Jagex would have missed a golden opportunity in regaining its large F2P fanbase. If they choose to gain illegitimate access to the content (i.e. botting/RWT), then they are not only robbing themselves of gameplay, but also robbing Jagex of gameplay value, perception, and revenue. I feel that, if Jagex really wanted to gain the trust of the F2P community again, updating it with content that makes RWT/botting less fruitful would be the right direction.

 

Lastly, I realize that Jagex is a company, and profits do matter. However, if that's all that Jagex should be focused on, wouldn't it have been better to close F2P years ago and go strictly paid, just to avoid all of this nonsense?

[quitthegame]

To Skeptic: Yes, it's perfectly possible to argue this. However, the argument doesn't hold much merit. It's the same argument that says, 'If I offer a CD for download, then no one will want to buy the CD.'

 

If you offer something that people can enjoy for free, then offer a little extra on top of that for a fee, then people would be fine with paying for the extra content.

 

That's a strange example, I literally don't know a single person IRL who still buys CDs, and every CD store I used to frequent when I was but a lad has closed down. If that's your counterexample, I don't think you'll win many people over.

 

Your second paragraph sounds exactly like the current situation with Runescape, so while I can't disagree with it, it doesn't really go anywhere.

 

Here's the central issue. It's Jagex's game, they're trying to give the proper amount of attention to F2P to maximize their profits over time. If they were considering changing it, which should they give more attention to--the small % of RS players who are devoted enough to RS to write long forum posts or editorials, but not devoted enough to spend 5 quid a month; or scientifically conducted market research? And if they were conducting said market research, would they conduct tests like adding in special weekends only for members to see how many F2P players converted for it? Hmm...unless you have another theory for the double weekend we just had, than that they're taking advantage of the low numbers of bots to conduct market research with fewer confounds.

[Makoto_the_Phoenix]

To Skeptic: Yes, it's perfectly possible to argue this. However, the argument doesn't hold much merit. It's the same argument that says, 'If I offer a CD for download, then no one will want to buy the CD.'

 

If you offer something that people can enjoy for free, then offer a little extra on top of that for a fee, then people would be fine with paying for the extra content.

 

That's a strange example, I literally don't know a single person IRL who still buys CDs, and every CD store I used to frequent when I was but a lad has closed down. If that's your counterexample, I don't think you'll win many people over.

 

Your second paragraph sounds exactly like the current situation with Runescape, so while I can't disagree with it, it doesn't really go anywhere.

 

Here's the central issue. It's Jagex's game, they're trying to give the proper amount of attention to F2P to maximize their profits over time. If they were considering changing it, which should they give more attention to--the small % of RS players who are devoted enough to RS to write long forum posts or editorials, but not devoted enough to spend 5 quid a month; or scientifically conducted market research? And if they were conducting said market research, would they conduct tests like adding in special weekends only for members to see how many F2P players converted for it? Hmm...unless you have another theory for the double weekend we just had, than that they're taking advantage of the low numbers of bots to conduct market research with fewer confounds.

 

Here's the literal version of it: If I offer a good for free, I'm afraid that no one will purchase anything. I used CDs as a convenient example - there was a report by Mike Masnick of Techdirt that regarded Trent Reznor, who offered his music for free, but also charged for "something extra" - CDs, vinyl, apparel, signed collectors editions, etc.

 

Now, the reason I used that is simple - it's a very similar "paradox", even though the industries are different. If a company offers something for free, the company fears it won't be able to make money off of it. Depending on how good the product is, they may have a point. However, RuneScape's still a venerable game, and the F2P version entertained myself for years before I plopped down close to $300 over seven years for the paid version. So, I wouldn't put it past Jagex to reinvigorate a sustainable product.

 

My argument isn't that F2P should get something for nothing, but that F2P is an early showcase for the game. If this showcase looks shoddy or doesn't appeal to other players, then I'd argue that there's little point for them to stay. What's worse - there's even less incentive for them to play legitimately.

[quitthegame]

Here's the literal version of it: If I offer a good for free, I'm afraid that no one will purchase anything. I used CDs as a convenient example - there was a report by Mike Masnick of Techdirt that regarded Trent Reznor, who offered his music for free, but also charged for "something extra" - CDs, vinyl, apparel, signed collectors editions, etc.

 

Right, and in that article it says "Late last year, he also experimented with offering free downloads for an album he produced with Saul Williams. While he admitted he was a bit "disheartened" that not that many people paid for the album,..."

 

Thus, while it's an interesting example you give, it certainly doesn't show that the "fear" that no one will purchase the more expensive option is an unreasonable fear. He's still experimenting with different methods, just like Jagex is experimenting with different allocations of content for their free demo, and their full version. Since Jagex has been offering free content for much longer than Trent Reznor, I do have to question your point in mentioning him. He's just doing what Jagex did first, after all.

 

 

Now, the reason I used that is simple - it's a very similar "paradox", even though the industries are different. If a company offers something for free, the company fears it won't be able to make money off of it. Depending on how good the product is, they may have a point. However, RuneScape's still a venerable game, and the F2P version entertained myself for years before I plopped down close to $300 over seven years for the paid version. So, I wouldn't put it past Jagex to reinvigorate a sustainable product.

 

In a world where people in my neighborhood pay large amounts of cash for bottled water, despite the fact the the tap water where I live is has been shown by scientific studies to be superior to most bottled water (all water comes from somewhere, a fancy price tag doesn't make bottled water better than where it's sourced, and our tap water is sourced from a pristine mountain glacier outflow), it's pretty apparent that getting people to pay for premium products isn't so simple as just measuring the quality of your premium product, or even comparing it to the quality of the free product you're competing with.

 

My argument isn't that F2P should get something for nothing, but that F2P is an early showcase for the game. If this showcase looks shoddy or doesn't appeal to other players, then I'd argue that there's little point for them to stay. What's worse - there's even less incentive for them to play legitimately.

 

Ok, your main point is that F2P is an early showcase for the game. But, your article said things like this: "F2P is an under-served fanbase. There hasn't been much new content for them in quite a while, and what they do have isn't exactly entertaining....It isn't a cheap solution: start investing into the free version of the game. Offering updates that help balance gameplay in F2P, or alternative ways of training skills, could entice more players to stick around, allowing them to enjoy the game they're playing." This is asking for more content for long-term F2P players, and has little to do with your paragraph above about early showcasing, except that it contradicts it.

[Tracy_Luna]

Regarding 'Under Served' ~ I can understand your point, but as you referred, the f2p is a show-case of a finished product. To use some of your own terminology, if you were giving people a taster or sample, you wouldnt give them the whole cake would you? No.

 

So in the same case, some of the less fortunate people in our communities cant have everything others have ... Is it right that they steal? No.

 

This is more or less what the whole bot/RWT system v's 'lack of viable content' boils down to isnt it? Gaining by the wrong means

 

I have played f2p for a while, and to be fair, its not that far different if you just want to play socially and chat while doing a little skilling and combat here and there, but if you want more, like anything in life, you should be prepared to pay that little subscription fee.

 

F2p is a pretty decent, playable long term demo in fact. There arent many around that do give the same quality of content and for an unlimited amount of time. People have abused the fact its free - the players who were playing legitimately, are probably still playing happily away and enjoying the game. Im sure the ill-gotten gains from f2p didnt stay there, thats for sure.

[Makoto_the_Phoenix]

My argument isn't that F2P should get something for nothing, but that F2P is an early showcase for the game. If this showcase looks shoddy or doesn't appeal to other players, then I'd argue that there's little point for them to stay. What's worse - there's even less incentive for them to play legitimately.

 

Ok, your main point is that F2P is an early showcase for the game. But, your article said things like this: "F2P is an under-served fanbase. There hasn't been much new content for them in quite a while, and what they do have isn't exactly entertaining....It isn't a cheap solution: start investing into the free version of the game. Offering updates that help balance gameplay in F2P, or alternative ways of training skills, could entice more players to stick around, allowing them to enjoy the game they're playing." This is asking for more content for long-term F2P players, and has little to do with your paragraph above about early showcasing, except that it contradicts it.

 

I don't see a contradiction. F2P is both an early showcase for the game and under-served. If there is disinterest in the early game by a lack of more interesting content, then there will be less players overall. If the early showcase for the game is so boring that there's nothing better to do than cheat, then there's the problem. That's all I'm getting at, really.

[quitthegame]

 

I don't see a contradiction. F2P is both an early showcase for the game and under-served. If there is disinterest in the early game by a lack of more interesting content, then there will be less players overall. If the early showcase for the game is so boring that there's nothing better to do than cheat, then there's the problem. That's all I'm getting at, really.

 

 

"F2P is both an early showcase for the game and under-served. " That's not a contradiction. The contradiction was the things I quoted last post.

 

" If the early showcase for the game is so boring that there's nothing better to do than cheat, then there's the problem. " That simply doesn't make sense to me, boring games are for not playing, not for cheating at.

 

There are a lot of other "free" mmos coming out that are technically free, but have pay2win features. Is that what you've been hinting at with your Reznor links, that Jagex should improve F2P and fund it with XP potions and 20 dollar armor sets? So many RS players are against pay2win, but then you see people compare RS to a "free" pay2win game like LoL, etc. But if you're not for pay2win freemium models, then what were you getting at before? If you're going to glorify Reznor's attempt to monetize in a new way, you've got to be for some kind of new monetization of RS, right?

 

I guess I'm not getting what you're saying with respect to the early game being 'uninteresting' either. The early game isn't grindy compared to the late game. I spent virtually all of the double weekend in one place, doing waterfiends in the chaos tunnels. That's much more grindy than anything I did in my first few weeks in the game. It seems to me that even if Jagex took your advice and revamped gameplay, they'd be better served to start with end-game members content for skillers, satisfied customers are the best recruitment tool for new customers in the MMO market.

 

Edit: Today's removal of f2p highscores is exactly the kind of thing I was predicting in my earlier post--Jagex is going to keep trying things to convert F2P to P2P, first double xp weekend only for members, now this, who knows what will be next? They have obviously decided F2P is no longer worth supporting as it once was, so I'm afraid your points are falling on deaf ears atm.

[HeliosG]

@Makoto - Whilst I found your article interesting in its attempt to put a different slant on the F2P issue, I fear that it ignores the raison d'etre for its very existence; namely that it is there as a show case for the members game.

 

Other games use different strategies - some for instance are on a pay2win as explained in a previous post, some a timelimited demo, others a level limited demo (for instance the new WoW free to lvl 30 offer). Jagex chose to provide an unlimited time but with a limited access to map, skills, mini games, quests and items.

In this respect it works well. I suspect that all members arrived at the game via the F2P route. There are plenty of skills to try out and (I believe) 20 quests to undertake, plus PvP content. I would suggest that for someone new coming to the game there is plenty there to entertain. My decision was to turn member once I had completed all the quests, a numnber of months playing time and an excellent grounding in the game.

 

I respect the choice of those who decide to remain in F2P rather than membeship but it is their choice and it is done knowing the limitations and the company policy on that version of the game. That does not create an excuse to use illegal methods for gaining XP or GP or to claim that the game is not interesting enough. Fighting Elvarg in addy sure gets the old ticker pumping, as did a trip to the Dark Knight's Fortress trying to avoid PKers en route. It would be useful for you to explain what sort of additional content is required in F2P to make it less 'under-served' then perhaps I might be able to perceive more value in that which you propose.

 

On a minor note - there have been more changes to F2P in the last 2-3 years than there ever were in the begining when F"P was static. The bank at Lumbridge and gravestones made a massive difference for begnners, no longer the march to Varrock and the risk of being killed by the lvl 27 wizard near Delrith and losing everything. Perhaps they were installed for members but F2P benefited as well.

[Guest jrhairychest]

First, I appreciate and respect your opinion. However, try not to look at it in such a light that says, "Give F2P *".

 

I'd like you to approach this argument from the "illegitimate access" point of view. If a person's needs aren't being met for any particular good, then they have three choices - either voice their opinion about it, gain illegitimate access to content, or leave. My argument is that, if they choose to leave, then Jagex would have missed a golden opportunity in regaining its large F2P fanbase. If they choose to gain illegitimate access to the content (i.e. botting/RWT), then they are not only robbing themselves of gameplay, but also robbing Jagex of gameplay value, perception, and revenue. I feel that, if Jagex really wanted to gain the trust of the F2P community again, updating it with content that makes RWT/botting less fruitful would be the right direction.

 

Lastly, I realize that Jagex is a company, and profits do matter. However, if that's all that Jagex should be focused on, wouldn't it have been better to close F2P years ago and go strictly paid, just to avoid all of this nonsense?

 

When talking about illegitimate access in F2P we are talking two things: Gold farming (most likely) and players who, being blunt, are playing the wrong type of game for them. RS isn’t difficult. The only ones who complain about grind are those who have played the game for a good while but have no concept of varying their own game play. Players will either play RS or they won’t, regardless of how you showcase it. New players generally don't think the game is grindy, its just fun. I never did and still don't but then I do vary my gameplay instead of relentless skill bashing.

 

Most importantly, no matter how varied, great etc you make the game there will always be those who need to cheat. These are the same types of players that struggle in most other games too. RS is much better off without them rather than trying to appease them at the expense of the majority. Now that the botters have gone, F2P will regain its integrity and show what a great game RS is again.

 

On your last point I don't mind F2Pers having an unlimited game as long as they appreciate it. HeliosG has covered this and some other eexcellent points too which I agree with. :thumbup:

[aerendil]

Just read through the first article, and, frankly, most of it rang really true for me. I really enjoyed it, as much as it was a bitter kick in the pants.

One of your best works yet Ts Nightshade :rolleyes:

 

didn't both reading the others, i don't generally bother with them