Are there any alternate models for Free-to-Play that don't involve cash-stores?

[aozgolo]

Every time these days I see a free to play game, whether it be a simple mobile game or a full production MMO there are inevitable gripes that some content is not free and is instead gated behind paying cash to access. While many of these games don't sell items that give you an unfair advantage in terms of gameplay over that of a free-user, insisting most or all items sold are purely cosmetic, there still exists a strong negative reaction to these business models. While they certainly seem to be successful from a commercial standpoint, critically they are still widely panned.

Games cost money, and in the case of multiplayer games you run not only into the issue of game production but also the maintenance and upkeep of servers to play the game on. This is unavoidable, and with subscription based gaming seeming to go the way of the Dinosaurs it seems like this future of Free-to-Play with Cash Incentives is all but inevitable.

My question then is... are there any viable alternatives? Could a free-to-play online game truly be free in all contexts with no additional content gated only to paying members? How would a company recoup their production and upkeep budget? I understand from a gamer perspective why these models are unpopular and unwanted but without an acceptable alternative that truly allows the "pay once, play forever, no cash incentives" I don't see a solid foundation upon which to criticize these games.

 

[Keoul]

Donations, like, just pure donations.
Granted this'll probably only work for really small time niche web based games.

Tonnes of ads is also an option, but it's annoying to the consumer for obvious reasons.

EDIT: Patreon maybe?

 

[aozgolo]

Donations, like, just pure donations.
Granted this'll probably only work for really small time niche web based games.

Tonnes of ads is also an option, but it's annoying to the consumer for obvious reasons.

EDIT: Patreon maybe?

I'd actually considered this myself, like set a monthly donation goal up for everyone to contribute collectively to or not if they prefer. The problem with this is a matter of incentive. Patreon and Kickstarter use "backer incentives" to encourage donation, you give money, you get stuff. This has become somewhat of an expectation and I wonder how many of these amazing kickstarter type successes we'd see without backer rewards included. Basically it boils back down to "cash shop by another name".

I'm actually personally a fan of the subscription model, for a flat rate every player gets access to the same content, but time is proving this model is becoming less and less popular as time goes on, many games that have subscriptions have even started using cosmetic cash shops as well to curtail falling subscriber numbers.

 

[Neverhoodian]

Star Trek Online uses a currency called Zen for its cash shop. The quickest way to obtain Zen is to pay real world money via one-time purchase or ongoing subscription (subscribers get a stipend of 500 Zen per month). However, there's also a free currency called dilithium that all players can earn in-game. An exchange system allows players to obtain Zen by trading in their dilithium (at an inflated price, of course). Rates are determined by a combination of player demand and dev oversight.

This allows everyone to obtain almost[footnote]There are a few items that are only available to "Veterans" that have subscribed for a certain number of days or bought a lifetime subscription.[/footnote] everything in the cash shop. It just takes a lot more time and patience for F2P users.

 

[Bad Jim]

The funding options I can think of are:

- charge for the game
- charge for power within the game
- charge for hats
- sell advertising space within the game
- make a flash/unity/java game that runs on a website with ads
- put ads on the website the game can be downloaded from
- kickstart the game and raise more than the cost of making the game
- ask for donations

but without an acceptable alternative that truly allows the "pay once, play forever, no cash incentives"

If you pay once, then that changes everything. Even though you can theoretically drain server resources forever, the average player will eventually get bored and stop playing. They may want to pick the game up again next year, or in ten years time, but they won't play as much on average. So the server costs will go down after a few years. Also, a multiplayer game can have extremely minimal bandwidth use, such as chess. And if they just keep playing and the bandwidth costs are significant, you can release the source code and explicitly allow private servers in the EULA, which will put most of the hardcore playerbase on modded private servers that you don't have to pay for.

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

Of course, there is more shady way of getting money by asking users to sell out their personal information - which is as reliable as selling your own kidney with some "doctor" you met at the back ally.

 

[newfoundsky]

I've been kicking around an idea for "disposable MMO's" that run for 3-5 years before shutting down in favor of the sequel. Everything your character had is transferred over to the sequel (including trophies, hats, etc). These MMO's would be full fledged on par with WoW in terms of scale. In order to get rid of the subscriptions and other models, the game would sell for higher than the 30-70 dollars you would normally pay, but I would personally play WoW for 100 dollars once than 30 dollars down and 15 dollars for the month.

The best part? With this model, you would have a certain date that you know the game was ending, and the price of the game could scale down. Or, another way it could be done is if you purchase the game for full price half way through its run, you could purchase the next one for half the price.

 

[Gray-Philosophy]

One way or another, a game requires some kind of manpower to create and maintain, and manpower usually requires money. In theory, you could have a completely free to play game with no purchases involved at all if someone was willing and able to create it and release it. Realistically though, it doesn't seem like a likely scenario.

Regarding online multiplayers, particularly MMOs, I've often wondered about an alternative to the monthly subscription or pre-paid game time methods. A system where you purchase X amount of game time, and have exactly that amount of time available.
Instead of paying for 30 days that run out after 30 days whether or not you're actually playing, you could pay for 30 days that will only run out after you've actually spent a total of 30 days logged in. I'd happily pay a higher than average subscription fee if it gave me the freedom to spend my game time as I see fit.