Close
Are you sure? Are you sure you want to report this comment? I understand, report it. Cancel

The Free Future

Mon 19 Sep 2011 3:00pm GMT / 11:00am EDT / 8:00am PDT
BusinessOnline

John Smedley writes for GamesIndustry.biz on why Sony Online Entertainment is embracing free-to-play

This is an industry that I love, both as a player and a developer, and I get a chance to see things from both perspectives, so I'm grateful to GamesIndustry.biz for allowing me the opportunity to share my thoughts on where I see the future of the MMO industry going on the business model side. I also get the opportunity to travel a lot and see where the rest of the world is at on this subject. That's a fascinating part of my job and an eye-opening one. The world does not revolve around the US in our industry. It really is the US, Europe and Asia - particularly China and Korea, but also a growing MMO audience in Japan - as very distinct markets.

I've been playing online games since 1993. My first online game was the game Cyberstrike. I played it on Genie. I can remember my wife (literally the month after we got married) not being too thrilled with the $600 a month bill I was racking up playing Cyberstrike at $3 an hour. Since then the online gaming industry has really evolved a tremendous amount in gameplay, technology and business models. I'd like to take this opportunity to discuss the evolving business models in the online gaming industry and why I think we're headed towards a Free Future.  I'll let you know our current thinking at SOE and provide some insight on what we think they mean. I want to be very clear and say that this thinking has evolved over time and will continue to evolve. That means that we will necessarily have to change with the times so please keep this in mind if you're reading this a year from now.

The assumptions

For me to be able to explain where I think we're at with business models, I want to make sure I've provided the fundamental assumptions we make when we are making online games.

  • 01. As game makers we are striving to make the absolute best quality games that we possibly can.
  • 02. We are doing this to make a profit.

I recognise that ultimately gamers get to decide if we've succeeded in #1. It really is why we're in this business. We work in this business because we love to make games. We also make them to make money. We operate under the simple belief that if we make a great game then people will pay us for it.

These may seem simple and obvious, but I read a lot of forum threads where people say we should let them play absolutely free. In a perfect world where these games didn't cost us anything to make I agree. But if we spend $50 million making something we have to make that money back and make a profit on the investment.

I can't stress enough that the most important thing here isn't the business model. It's making a great, high quality game. As game makers that really is what we want to do… but today I want to talk about the business models.

Today you can see many different business models out there in online gaming. I'm going to broadly categorise them into Subscription (Sub), Buy the Box (BTB) and Free-to-Play (F2P).

Subscription

The current state of subscription gaming is that most of the larger MMO games in the west use a recurring subscription as a primary business model. There are some notable exceptions though such as our own EverQuest II Extended and Lord of the Rings Online (I don't mean to slight any of our other competitors by the way… just giving examples here) that have gone free-to-play. Subscription gaming is the dominant form of revenue generation in the West simply because World of Warcraft has such a huge subscriber base compared to other games.

1

Turbine's Lord of the Rings Online, one of the first subscription titles to switch to free-to-play successfully.

We see some very interesting trends in subscription gaming. In our cancellation surveys for EverQuest II, fully 40 per cent of the people that fill them out list subscription fees as one of the primary reasons they quit. Economic times are hard out there and a recurring subscription is something that glares at you from a credit card bill every month. For some people, saving money starts with getting rid of subscriptions that hit the credit card every month. We have some ideas on that which I'll address shortly. But it's fair to say that subscriptions are likely going to be a strong component of revenue for the foreseeable future, although I don't believe they will be remotely as dominant over time. There's another large juggernaut coming out soon in Star Wars: The Old Republic from EA/Bioware. That's a game that I think has a legitimate shot at a 2 million subscription user base and I believe they will stick with the subscription method. In my opinion this is going to be the last large scale MMO to use the traditional subscription business model. Why do I think that? Simply put, the world is moving on from this model and over time people aren't going to accept this method. I'm sure I'm going to hear a lot about this statement. But I am positive I'm right.

Buy the Box

As things stand right now the Guild Wars franchise is the best example of BTB in the MMO space. With Guild Wars, you buy the box and you get to play for free "forever". NCsoft has done very well with this model. It's very popular with consumers. It does have the disadvantage from the publisher's viewpoint of not covering the operational costs over time, but they have added microtransactions as a way to help offset those costs. You could say that games like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 or Battlefield 2 and other retail games with an online component fall under this category as well. Most of these games sell some kind of DLC. The reason this is very popular with consumers is obvious - they like the idea of just buying the game and not worrying about paying for anything after. However, beyond the DLC and a few patches here and there the expectation level of significant changes to the game varies widely from game to game. Both Activision and EA are great about putting out DLC and frequent patches early on. However, over time you really expect to move on to newer versions of the game as opposed to significantly new patches. This is a very important distinction between traditional retail style games and games like MMOs. MMO games (and many of the newer breed of online games) are really software as a service (SAS) that gets upgraded over time. Both models work… but I bet you're going to see a lot more games using the SAS model over time. It's simply a far better return on investment if it's done right.

Free-to-Play

On a worldwide basis, free-to-play is the most widely used business model. There are a large variety of different models underneath the banner of free-to-play. This business model really evolved out of Korea and China predominantly. Both of those markets are PC gaming markets. It's interesting that most Americans my age (I'm 43) grew up being console gamers first. That's not true in either of those countries. Think for a moment what a profound difference that is. We all grew up with consoles being a part of our everyday lives in addition to computers. In my house I had an Atari 2600 and an Apple II+. Many kids in the US grew up playing Madden on the PlayStation. The key thing here is that our business models came from that console frame of reference. We buy the game at the store and we play it. We got used to it because it's what we knew. In China and Korea the culture largely was built around internet gaming cafes where the games were already installed. They were used to paying the café operators for time, but not necessarily paying for the game itself. New games would just show up on the PCs in the cafes. This is largely the reason that free-to-play games first took hold in Korea and China.

As these business models have moved over to the West they first came over in games imported from these countries and in many cases the early games simply weren't very good by the standards of the games we played in the west. I find it very interesting in my trips to China to see the quality of the shooters they have for example. People in the West don't realise that the world's largest shooter (in terms of number of players) isn't Call of Duty or Battlefield or Counterstrike. It's a game called Crossfire and it gets between 2 million and 3 million concurrent users. If you look at the game it doesn't look like a modern first-person shooter by western standards. But it's got an insanely huge user base… and it is a free-to-play game. There are many other examples like it in China and Korea and many of those games have been brought over to the US - a lot of players began to associate free-to-play with lower quality import games and it began to have a stigma associated with it. There were other games early on in the free-to-play genre like Runescape as well (which has been an amazingly successful game and one that is a lot of fun to play if people take the time… it's one of the hardest core MMOs on the planet).

2

DC Universe Online, the second title from Sony Online Entertainment to go free-to-play on the PlayStation 3.

Over the last few years we have slowly begun to see some very high quality free-to-play games come out, and we've seen some high quality games change business models to free-to-play. Some good examples of high quality games are League of Legends and our own Free Realms. Both games are very high quality modern games with free-to-play business models. There have been a lot of games that started out life as a more traditional subscription game that moved over to free-to-play. Perhaps the best example of this is Lord of the Rings Online from Turbine, which changed over to a free-to-play business model and has been very successful. They have publicly claimed a three times increase in revenue and a big increase in users from switching over to free-to-play. At Sony Online Entertainment, we also made the switch to free-to-play when we added EverQuest II Extended to our portfolio of games. We took EverQuest II and added a free-to-play server that's been very successful. We also just announced that we're taking DC Universe Online from a subscription business model to a free-to-play model.

Free to Play encompasses a lot of different business models. Some games like League of Legends are microtransaction only games… where there is no subscription. Other games like LOTRO offer a subscription tier as well. The key idea of a free-to-play game is that the game itself doesn't cost money to purchase and you get some amount of gameplay for free. Beyond that it's different game by game. This is what we're seeing today and I expect that in the future you're going to continue to see a lot of different ideas in the free-to-play space.

The Future is Free to Play

I firmly believe that free-to-play is going to become the predominant model in online gaming for a lot of reasons:

  • The upfront cost of buying a game is a large barrier to most people. Let's face it, for those of us in the gaming space seeing a company like Zynga hit amazing numbers has been a real eye opener. I would absolutely classify Facebook games as free-to-play. If Zynga required every user to pay even $10 up front they wouldn't have remotely the number of people it has got. A lot of snobs in our industry are going to stop me here and say "those aren't real gamers". They are absolutely real gamers. They pay a lot of money (as evidenced by Zynga's recent IPO filing). This is perhaps the best example there is of getting a lot of people that never gamed before to try a game. I think it applies to all areas of gaming. As the quality of free-to-play games becomes higher it's going to make going out and spending money at the store on a game a lot more of a barrier simply because they have real options that don't involve a software purchase.
  • Recurring subscriptions are going to increasingly be a barrier - like I mentioned earlier, when we do exit surveys of the people that quit EverQuest II, we see an astounding 40 per cent of people specifically mention that the recurring subscription is a real barrier. A lot of people are playing multiple games now and having something hit their credit cards every month is something they don't like to see. At Sony Online Entertainment, we believe that gamers should have options here. We're going to be introducing non-recurring subscription options. If you would prefer to buy a one-off pass and not worry about that subscription hitting your credit card every month we're going to give you that option.
  • Console gamers aren't used to paying subscriptions for games - at SOE we currently have two MMOs on the PlayStation 3 - DC Universe Online and Free Realms. Free Realms is already free-to-play and DCUO is moving to a free-to-play model in late October. In the surveys that we've done, we see a lot of people who say they had a problem with a subscription being a part of DCUO because they expected to play for free after they bought the box. We believe that removing that barrier is going to result in a lot more console players giving it a try.  In Free Realms on the PS3 we've already seen that work extremely well.
  • It works on a worldwide basis - Over time we are seeing more and more success stories of games making the jump from the US to Asia, and vice versa. As I explained before this model is the predominant one in Asia.
  • It takes retail out of the equation and it makes a level playing field for smaller indie developers. As it stands right now, retail is a big hurdle for gamers. They have to physically go into the store and they get a relatively small selection of games. This means that games from smaller publishers and developers don't get shelf space. They also need to manufacture the boxes and take inventory risk. Digital by itself fixes the inventory and the retail issue, but what it doesn't do is allow smaller publishers to experiment with new ideas for games. There are a lot of examples of games that became very successful that no one would have even looked twice at if they had to pay up front for.

Free-to-Play - Doing It Right.

Since I think free-to-play is the future here are some thoughts on some core values I think we should adhere to for future free-to-play games. Note that this doesn't mean that every game that's switching to free-to-play from a different business model can go this way - this is more about new games.

  • Let players be able to get most things that you sell in the store just by playing the game.  Even if it's difficult, giving free players the chance to get things without ever paying you a dime is the right thing to do.
  • Convenience items are good ways to make money - selling things like XP potions are things players like because they can speed through areas of content they've already been through with another character.
  • Customisation is a key thing to sell - players like to be different. Selling them options to appear different is a good money maker and something that's non-controversial.

Free-to-play is here to stay. I really think we're going to see a lot more AAA games going with this fantastic business model. It's something SOE is taking a close look at for our existing games and certainly for our future games.

John Smedley is president of Sony Online Entertainment.

11 Comments

From personal experience.

I am used to having a sub on one or two games. I played EQ1 and EQ2 once upon a time, but due to unemployment for a period had to cancel both subs. I have been by both WoW and Rift since then, and a few F2P games.

When EQ2 Extended went live I was right there signing up, and what more, I talked my mother into trying too - she never played anything but Second Life, which is more of a 3D social network than a game. Thing is, there is no way she would have tried in the first place, if not for the F2P model.

She loved it, and a couple of months later she decide to subscribe. I was a sub too at that point (limited bag space did me in ;-), we are both going platinum around xmas, but if we ever fall to hard times either of us, we can just unsub and keep a F2P profile until we are back on subs again. We'd most likely spend enough cash on the side on the marketplace to cover the lost subs for a while if it comes to that.

Personally, as a player I love the F2P model, it gives me the flexibility to spend when I have and still play even if I have not. The marketplace sells fluff, so it does not break end game. If I try out a new game for a couple of months - or more if it is good - I can lay low on EQ2 without loosing my touch with the guild. In short, EQ2 Extended is perfect as my core game.

Now I am just crossing my fingers for Vanguard going F2P ;-)

Posted:2 years ago

#1

Klaus Preisinger
Freelance Writing

1,073 1,009 0.9
On the topic of operational costs:

NCsoft has to give quarterly reports, where one can break down the operational costs very well.

Servers and bandwidth: which is a footnote and not something to worry about ever.

Personnel cost: that is the big one, but even if NCsoft has to pay people to program games, those costs are usually covered by selling the boxed products. There is no need for a subscription to keep people employed, the next expansion being sold does the trick just fine.

Support costs: that really is the tricky one left. But so far nobody has heard of a company going under because they could not pay support. At worst, support gets scaled down and really shoddy.

With BTB being more than financially viable, the f2p and p2p models will come under pressure. Because games have to make concessions in order to be p2p or f2p. BTB can at all times be optimized to provide the best user experience possible. No other model can do that, they all have to consider earning money at some point, either by dragging things out to earn more on an average subscription, or putting up artificial barriers to make some sort of microtransaction happen.

Right now you get a full chapter of Guild Wars for the price of one month of subscription or 2-3 meager boosts in a f2p game. The more BTB games are being release further down the road, the more the value proposition of BTB will shine. Combine it with the fact that BTB can run any optimization gameplaywise and get rid of anything the mass market hates about MMOs on a whim, scoring more sales in the process. Then you know which model is sustainable long term and which model just is the next big gold rush for fools.

Posted:2 years ago

#2

JOSEPH WILLMON
Associate Director of Operations

1 0 0.0
Great article; it's awesome to see thoughts on Free2Play from someone whose been working on MMOs since...well, since basically there were MMOs to be working on.

What you propose as three tenets are good, and absolutely true for anyone looking to create or convert an existing game, and I can't stress enough how imperative it is that you allow people the option to earn--without paying--that which you sell. The significant grey-market for MMO gold is a clear indicator that when players are clearly mindful of the gulf of time between what they have now and what they want, they're far more likely to purchase.

That said, though, I'd like to add a fourth tenet!

* Don't gate content behind purchases. Let your paying players act as in-game marketing for you, ~showing~ free players all the cool stuff they could be getting if they made a purchase.

Right now we're still in a period of adaptation; we're trying to adapt our games--and the market in general--to games as a service. So for now, Free2Play is mostly a way to widen the top of the funnel. We want to get more people in the door in the hopes that they'll buy the same subscriptions and content they're used to. As we broaden the expectations of publishers and players, this will change. Instead of charging for a subscription with a laundry list of benefits, we'll offer those benefits only as a la carte as items that players can buy on demand. Instead of selling players new zones in which to adventure, we'll encourage everyone to go everywhere.

What we'll see--and this will blow our future minds!--is that someone who might have spent only that $10-$15 a month will end up spending double or triple that and be happy with that outcome because she bought what she wanted, when she wanted it. We'll see that our conversion rates will be far stronger because our free players will be mingling with paying players and learning all about the benefits of buying items. Our future selves are lucky guys!

Welcome to the family :)

Posted:2 years ago

#3

Mario Rizzo
WW Studios, Head of Free-to-Play

4 0 0.0
Hey Smed,

Great article! Awesome to read your views on the changing online market and definitely agree with you on the rise of F2P. I did have a couple of quick follow-up questions... do you think the new Blizzard MMO (as yet unannounced) will not have a subscription model? I know they are saying it's still a couple of years off but given the success of WoW do you think the new game will be radically different.

Also, any thoughts on MMO products that charge a monthly fee but distribute a free client (Eve Online). Do you see subscriptions continuing / growing on this front at all (of the $15 variety we see today in the AAA MMO's)?

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Mario Rizzo on 20th September 2011 1:35pm

Posted:2 years ago

#4

Derek Smart
Software Developer/Engineer

29 1 0.0
Excellent article and I don't think that anyone in that gaming space would disagree with the sentiments.

However, the key to F2P is not just the business model; the game has to be worth the risk because a bad game is still a bad game that is never going to get played regardless of the biz model behind it. Especially here in the West where there are so many choices. In other territories - where choices (especially localized) are limited - a less than stellar - or outright rubbish - game can still get ahead due to the lack of choices. Hence the popularity of less than stellar MMOFPS games like Crossfire for example.

Gamers in the West are finicky, spoiled (by choices) and most likely to outright kill a game if they put their [collective] minds to it. So the biz model behind said game is largely irrelevant in the general scheme of things. Then again, you have those (mostly in the social gaming sector) who simply don't know any better and will just play the first thing they get hooked on and which is simple. To wit: Zynga's games (of which only one or two are even worth considering) and almost 90% of the social rubbish out there being passed off as "games".

The industry has evolved faster than we - as publishers and devs - can keep up. And it's only going to get worse. So yah, the more choices that come up, the more the sub biz model is going to take the heat and eventually only the top tier triple-A games - which are *worth* the monthly spend, are going to keep hugging that biz model. The whole thing is akin to VHS vs DVD or DVD vs Blu-Ray. Eventually VHS went the way of the Dodo. And DVD is constantly under pressure from Blu-Ray. Once the prices flatline and the Blu-Ray adoption rate reaches Escape Velocity, DVD will flatline - just like VHS. Netflix caught Blockbuster (and everyone else) off guard. The rest is history. That is what is happening and will continue to happen to the publishers and devs who do not adopt to the rapidly evolving and changing SaS landscape. To wit: GameStop scrambling (OK, flailing) to have a digital presence after being bear on retail for so long and being flatly in denial the whole time.

Posted:2 years ago

#5

Nicholas Russell
writer

23 0 0.0
Very interesting ideas present here. It's refreshing to hear someone so deep in the industry rather than a pundant give his two cents on this issue. I noticed you also mentioned some things about Zynga ftp games and am happy to see someone else seeing the potential there. Do you think that there will one day be an overlap there beyond just the payment method. Games like Treasure Island and Cafe World offer unique simulation experiences, for instance, that could add new levels of dimension to crafting and player housing customization. As you say players do like being different and are very willing to pay through the nose for the privelage, as games like Champions Online have proven so effectively, so do you think the future may hold such a melding? I also ask this of the community as, more likely than not, the original author is simply too busy to take notice of my question.

Posted:2 years ago

#6

Klaus Preisinger
Freelance Writing

1,073 1,009 0.9
@Derek

A lot of people I know feel about Hollywood movies the way you feel about Zynga games. That still means both make a lot of money. More than one reviewer the same about the Wii or the DS, betting them on third place in the console race.

The next big in gaming will feel the same. People with an acquired taste in strange conventions will be bewildered as to how this is considered a game, while one publisher is literally printing money. Counter-Strike, Dota, Wii, WoW, DS, Farmville, WiiFit, the list goes on and on and on. Still they all have one thing in common, which is not the business model: they innovated enough to draw a huge crowd, where nobody dared to go before.

Posted:2 years ago

#7

Thomas Stowe
Writing / QA

1 0 0.0
Kudos, man. You hit the nail on the head, as usual. I've been doing a lot of research and given a lot of thought to micro-transactions for the last few years and can't agree more.

Posted:2 years ago

#8

Andrew Ihegbu
Studying Bsc Commercial Music

440 146 0.3

Posted:2 years ago

#9

Sean Warren
Inspector

34 0 0.0
"But if we spend $50 million making something we have to make that money back and make a profit on the investment."

So, the consumers must insure that the CEO of SOE can play games at a rate of $600 a month in 93... which would be the equivalent of what, 1500 a month now days? Right after you married? Isn't that fortunate for you. Indeed, perfectly reasonable.

Your statement explaining your elite gaming status, and your unique qualifications not only as a gamer but CEO of one of the largest publishers and online content providers, finally cleared up a riddle that I had been mulling over in my head for years now.
"WTF were they thinking?"...
I see now, that "they" surely were thinking, "screw Sean, and all those like him, because I have more important things to do like pay a $1600 a month WoW sub."(And, dont play stupid, I know you get your $1600 WoW sub as a gratuity on top of it all.)

No wonder it took me less that a year to fully abandon all SOE products. You, good Sir, live in freaking la'lah land... I hope the weather is nice up there.

Obviously the plebes should be paying for your investments, and providing you profit... Its just good business.
Seriously?
In the meantime, how is your golden learjet doing? Perhaps we could buy you an island or 2?
Moving on... this can only get better.

"Subscription gaming is the dominant form of revenue generation in the West simply because World of Warcraft has such a huge subscriber base compared to other games."
Dear God, how can someone be so blatantly misleading and continue to guide so many lemmings... look, its not because WoW has a huge sub base, its because customers will pay that price... and its because guys like you have set that price.
Wheew...
Lets continue, oh lord of Sony, give me some more insight and words of wisdom.

And, here we have another gem.
"NCsoft has done very well with this model. It's very popular with consumers. It does have the disadvantage from the publisher's viewpoint of not covering the operational costs over time, but they have added microtransactions as a way to help offset those costs."
MT's? NCsoft did a hell of a lot better than microtransactions, or worrying about any pesky "operational costs over time"...
It is popular with consumers, because its what they are given. So, for as long as it is around, the purchase and service is strait forward... that said, you are right, NCsoft did do great... hell their CEO doesn't rely on golden learjet's, does he?
And all he had to do was sell as many little plastic disks as possible. As soon as we stop making the profit required to build our rockets, or what ever BS we are screwing around with at any given time, we just abandon the customer and presto, we exploit some more poor number cruncher slaves and start over, but this time, we will make flying saucers that are lazer powered!
Great examples... no doubt you wont disappoint me when I look to your next statement for guidance.
Actually, Mr. Smedly, you are so out of touch...
Forget about it, I have been done with you for years.

And as for those of you kissing this guys ass, shame on you, this article was beyond shallow. A 4 year old could conclude the things this posits.

Heh, and that's what an article would look like If I was not trying to be a nice guy.
xD
But seriously, I dont mean anything personal by all this... I just have to wonder sometimes, what is going on up there at the top... I mean, come on rich dude, have a little respect for those of us that have to be smart to survive.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Sean Warren on 15th October 2011 2:31am

Posted:2 years ago

#10

Edward Buffery
Pre-production Manager

148 96 0.6
Sean, it's very difficult to read a comment full of insults, sarcasm and exaggerations as anything BUT a personal attack on the author...

Posted:2 years ago

#11

Login or register to post

Take part in the GamesIndustry community

Register now