Free-to-Play---Is this the future?
by Dexter Chow · 08/24/2012 (1:11 pm) · 14 comments
Every publisher is talking about free-to-play. EA's Command and Conquer has just turned free-to-play. We have seen League of Legends, Team Fortress 2 and countless MMOs lead the way to free-to-play. Does this signal the end of buying games at retail or eTail?
My perspective has always been there is room for multiple models in the marketplace. Console games have existed with PC and handheld games for over 25 years. MMOs burst on the scene in the US with EverQuest and Asheron's Call in the late 90s (I realize AOL games and MUDs have been around for much longer than this). The other models did not go away even though many thought MMOs would take over the marketplace.
So, I believe the bar will continue to rise (and with it success) in free-to-play games like League of Legends which competes toe-to-toe with traditional retail/eTail. As long as the experience is competitive with "box" products, it is hard to argue against "free". What spurs my thought around this topic is the success of League of Legends. I've been out of LOL for over 2 years, but recently picked it back up...I am amazed at how far the product quality and features have come over 2 years...it deserves every bit of success they are receiving. In a nutshell, you get to play the whole game with all the features and you earn ranks, points and exp to level and buy tons of stuff in the store. As most of you know, one of the secrets to success is to give away the full game, but offer ways to speed game progress. Because LOL is very much status based, it is easy to see people spending a lot of money (and time) to have the latest champions, skins and abilities.
So, the free-to-play model works, the marketplace loves it and publishers/developers are jumping on board...what is the problem? I am concerned that former game designs that were stand alone are now re-designed for free-to-play. There was something special about the first Command and Conquer. I played countless hours of multiplayer online over my modem, in DOS and using Kali, an IPX tunneling protocol to simulate TCP/IP to game match. I knew the other person had the exact same game with the same units...not this huge competition to see who puts the most time in or puts in the most money. In addition, I had as much fun with single player as multiplayer. I'm not sure single player campaigns will survive the transition to free-to-play.
In summary, free-to-play is here to stay. Other business models will continue to succeed depending on quality and unique experiences they can provide on their platforms. (e.g., people are still likely to play on the go, want MMO experiences and want epic box-style games on console/PC) I can't shake this feeling that publishers are letting the tail wag the dog here when they start superimposing business models on to game design. I want my DOS Command and Conquer back.
My perspective has always been there is room for multiple models in the marketplace. Console games have existed with PC and handheld games for over 25 years. MMOs burst on the scene in the US with EverQuest and Asheron's Call in the late 90s (I realize AOL games and MUDs have been around for much longer than this). The other models did not go away even though many thought MMOs would take over the marketplace.
So, I believe the bar will continue to rise (and with it success) in free-to-play games like League of Legends which competes toe-to-toe with traditional retail/eTail. As long as the experience is competitive with "box" products, it is hard to argue against "free". What spurs my thought around this topic is the success of League of Legends. I've been out of LOL for over 2 years, but recently picked it back up...I am amazed at how far the product quality and features have come over 2 years...it deserves every bit of success they are receiving. In a nutshell, you get to play the whole game with all the features and you earn ranks, points and exp to level and buy tons of stuff in the store. As most of you know, one of the secrets to success is to give away the full game, but offer ways to speed game progress. Because LOL is very much status based, it is easy to see people spending a lot of money (and time) to have the latest champions, skins and abilities.
So, the free-to-play model works, the marketplace loves it and publishers/developers are jumping on board...what is the problem? I am concerned that former game designs that were stand alone are now re-designed for free-to-play. There was something special about the first Command and Conquer. I played countless hours of multiplayer online over my modem, in DOS and using Kali, an IPX tunneling protocol to simulate TCP/IP to game match. I knew the other person had the exact same game with the same units...not this huge competition to see who puts the most time in or puts in the most money. In addition, I had as much fun with single player as multiplayer. I'm not sure single player campaigns will survive the transition to free-to-play.
In summary, free-to-play is here to stay. Other business models will continue to succeed depending on quality and unique experiences they can provide on their platforms. (e.g., people are still likely to play on the go, want MMO experiences and want epic box-style games on console/PC) I can't shake this feeling that publishers are letting the tail wag the dog here when they start superimposing business models on to game design. I want my DOS Command and Conquer back.
About the author
Designer, Producer and Business Development Manager
#2
www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-08-22-ubisoft-has-endured-a-93-95-percent-piracy...
I've literally just read Jeff Vogel's latest blog on his talk at Casual Connect, and am still baffled why he was ever invited as he says ibn his own words:
I'm sure all of this F2P micro-DLC stuff looks great to baffled executives and shareholders with no grasp of technology but an obvious interest in their invested returns ... but for every company/IP/franchise doing it right with [relatively] high production values there are 100 cynical, non-parody Cow-Clicker clones desperately prodding and poking nickels and dimes out of players ... and oddly enough people do seem to pay up for this stuff.
I still think a lot of F2P has come about via the wish of corporations for maximizing revenue in an attempt to create an infinity revenue stream from lazy IPs, rather than making a straight, quality game. They can just keep throwing more DLC out cheaply once established rather than turn to the difficult and arduous process of creating something new and from scratch - and it doesn't even require the expense of develop whole new standalone sequels.
Hook 'em in with the carrot of a free game and then use the micro-DLC stick to beat cash out of them indefinately.
Anyway, back to deving on my single player campaign ...
08/24/2012 (2:08 pm)
Didn't you hear!? Everyone with a PC is a dirty stinking pirate! 93% of everything is stolen by freedom hating commies who want to kill Jesus. The fact that only 7% of F2P gamers pay for micro-transactions confirms this ... or alternatively Ubi have been pulling numbers out of where the sun doesn't shine as a very lazy explanation of why 93% don't buy DLC ...www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-08-22-ubisoft-has-endured-a-93-95-percent-piracy...
I've literally just read Jeff Vogel's latest blog on his talk at Casual Connect, and am still baffled why he was ever invited as he says ibn his own words:
Quote:
The most interesting thing about Casual Connect? How weird anyone who sells software in the old school way is made to feel. Here's what I do: I write a game. I give it to you in return for a set number of dollars. Then we part ways, and you never have to look at my pale, beardy face again.
I'm sure all of this F2P micro-DLC stuff looks great to baffled executives and shareholders with no grasp of technology but an obvious interest in their invested returns ... but for every company/IP/franchise doing it right with [relatively] high production values there are 100 cynical, non-parody Cow-Clicker clones desperately prodding and poking nickels and dimes out of players ... and oddly enough people do seem to pay up for this stuff.
I still think a lot of F2P has come about via the wish of corporations for maximizing revenue in an attempt to create an infinity revenue stream from lazy IPs, rather than making a straight, quality game. They can just keep throwing more DLC out cheaply once established rather than turn to the difficult and arduous process of creating something new and from scratch - and it doesn't even require the expense of develop whole new standalone sequels.
Hook 'em in with the carrot of a free game and then use the micro-DLC stick to beat cash out of them indefinately.
Anyway, back to deving on my single player campaign ...
#3
Whereas, the first generation was cosmetic upgrades/character boosts and the current model includes the prior mentioned along with character/item specific boosts and the lottery system the next step of F2P is poised to sell various sized content areas on the store. New zones, new dungeons, new RAIDs, new quest line chains, etc. The F2P portion will become 'just a taste' of the 'real action' that the pay content will offer, basic cash shop items will still be available to the F2P portion, but then they'll tie in specialized cash shop items that can only be obtained by characters with the purchased content areas.
F2P is here to stay, the reason why is that people buy into it.
08/24/2012 (2:26 pm)
In my opinion, free to play will come full circle and be a form of the shareware model of yore.Whereas, the first generation was cosmetic upgrades/character boosts and the current model includes the prior mentioned along with character/item specific boosts and the lottery system the next step of F2P is poised to sell various sized content areas on the store. New zones, new dungeons, new RAIDs, new quest line chains, etc. The F2P portion will become 'just a taste' of the 'real action' that the pay content will offer, basic cash shop items will still be available to the F2P portion, but then they'll tie in specialized cash shop items that can only be obtained by characters with the purchased content areas.
F2P is here to stay, the reason why is that people buy into it.
#4
Companies either need to follow Valve's F2P route with TF2 or drop it altogether. For the time being I'm not supporting any F2P title, nor have I in the past.
08/24/2012 (3:29 pm)
My biggest issue with the F2P model is that it puts everything in the hands of the publisher/developer, therefore creating a finite lifespan and other issues. It completely strips away user content and kills any chance of a modding scene. Look at Tribes, for instance. Tribes is a franchise that thrived on user-made content and had a decent-sized modding scene. Hell, the community had to make a patch just to get the first Tribes playable on Vista and future OS'. And now we have Tribes: Ascend, another victim of the F2P craze. Just as I stated above, there is no modding scene. There are no user maps, content, patches, scripts (well, a few). And it has hurt the game, specifically the competitive scene but also the game as a whole.Companies either need to follow Valve's F2P route with TF2 or drop it altogether. For the time being I'm not supporting any F2P title, nor have I in the past.
#5
08/24/2012 (8:15 pm)
Unfortunately, Free-to-play (pay-to-win) appears to be the wave of the future. I've been pulled into a few P2W games, but I refuse to be nickel and dimed to death. I would much rather drop the $60 for a full-featured game than some hacked together partial game with the promise that if only I spend several hundred dollars over time I'll get the same features as I would have had with the $60 game. Sure P2W is likely to make more money for the publishers, but I'll stop being a gamer before joining the P2W craze.
#6
That said, many companies don't seem to realize this, but a F2P game can be distinct from P2W when a) everything in the game can be acquired via playing the game OR buying it if you want it now, or b) only aesthetic, non-gameplay changing elements can be purchased, and the core gameplay is unchanged, such as additional costumes, custom paint jobs on your car, etc.
Me and my friends had discussed making a F2P online shooter, where all weapons and equipment is only earnable via gameplay. Custom paint jobs, character customization stuff, etc could be purchasable via ingame points or money.
The other, lacking a better descriptor for it: 'innovative' concept would be a spender cap.
We looked at it from a 'this game is worth, lets say, $60.'
If you pick up the game, and drop $60 on it, you unlock everything cosmetic(weapons being earned as the players level up their character, but they'd get those for free anyways).
If you don't drop the cash when you pick the game up, but opt instead to pick up a helmet here, a paint job there, and work your way back up to $60, then you've still 'bought the game', and everything would unlock, just as if you had paid the $60 up front.
While it means we wouldn't earn millions on the people that seem real bad about keeping their credit card in their wallet, it feels significantly more fair to players, and doesn't punish people that would prefer to just drop a 'retail payment' on a game and ensure they get all the content.
This strikes me as a logical, sane way to go forward with it if the industry does start gravitating towards F2P.
Download that awesome epic space-adventure RPG for free! Oh hey, bonus missions and costumes! Score! And now that I've paid $60 on the game(which would match retail pricing) it just unlocks everything as if i'd picked the game up at a store retail.
This lets people choose their own experience(again, for competitive games like shooters, gameplay-affecting content would always be earnable through playing the game), so people that don't end up liking it lose nothing, players that only one some additional content pick what they want, and players that want everything basically pay for the game at retail price once and get access to the full package.
Just my 2 cents on how we're looking to approaching it.
08/25/2012 (7:14 am)
There is a difference between free-to-play and pay-to-win.That said, many companies don't seem to realize this, but a F2P game can be distinct from P2W when a) everything in the game can be acquired via playing the game OR buying it if you want it now, or b) only aesthetic, non-gameplay changing elements can be purchased, and the core gameplay is unchanged, such as additional costumes, custom paint jobs on your car, etc.
Me and my friends had discussed making a F2P online shooter, where all weapons and equipment is only earnable via gameplay. Custom paint jobs, character customization stuff, etc could be purchasable via ingame points or money.
The other, lacking a better descriptor for it: 'innovative' concept would be a spender cap.
We looked at it from a 'this game is worth, lets say, $60.'
If you pick up the game, and drop $60 on it, you unlock everything cosmetic(weapons being earned as the players level up their character, but they'd get those for free anyways).
If you don't drop the cash when you pick the game up, but opt instead to pick up a helmet here, a paint job there, and work your way back up to $60, then you've still 'bought the game', and everything would unlock, just as if you had paid the $60 up front.
While it means we wouldn't earn millions on the people that seem real bad about keeping their credit card in their wallet, it feels significantly more fair to players, and doesn't punish people that would prefer to just drop a 'retail payment' on a game and ensure they get all the content.
This strikes me as a logical, sane way to go forward with it if the industry does start gravitating towards F2P.
Download that awesome epic space-adventure RPG for free! Oh hey, bonus missions and costumes! Score! And now that I've paid $60 on the game(which would match retail pricing) it just unlocks everything as if i'd picked the game up at a store retail.
This lets people choose their own experience(again, for competitive games like shooters, gameplay-affecting content would always be earnable through playing the game), so people that don't end up liking it lose nothing, players that only one some additional content pick what they want, and players that want everything basically pay for the game at retail price once and get access to the full package.
Just my 2 cents on how we're looking to approaching it.
#7
for some reason players think they're getting a great dealwith f2p games!?
08/26/2012 (4:05 pm)
f2p in the long run costs players more in time if they don't want to pay for premium accounts or items (which inturn costs more in the long run).for some reason players think they're getting a great dealwith f2p games!?
#8
In most cases, this is mostly true. However, there are companies that have managed to spawn, spotlight, and encourage user contributions. Honestly, Team Fortress 2 is currently the king of this example. When it comes to taken a stance on DRM, piracy, F2P, and other touchy subjects in the games industry, Valve has nailed it.
08/26/2012 (5:52 pm)
@Evan -Quote:My biggest issue with the F2P model is that it puts everything in the hands of the publisher/developer, therefore creating a finite lifespan and other issues. It completely strips away user content and kills any chance of a modding scene.
In most cases, this is mostly true. However, there are companies that have managed to spawn, spotlight, and encourage user contributions. Honestly, Team Fortress 2 is currently the king of this example. When it comes to taken a stance on DRM, piracy, F2P, and other touchy subjects in the games industry, Valve has nailed it.
#9
I can't share any hard numbers but the amount of people who play freemium games in the iOS marketplace is on the order of 1000X the number who play premium games. Not only that, but the revenues of the freemium games are generally on the order of 10X their premium counterparts...even when there is a very close match to the freemium game + all upgrades vs the premium game with all upgrades unlocked.
Think about that for a moment...a premium game that might make $10,000/year can potentially make $100,000/year if it were a well done freemium version instead (designed and built to be freemium from the ground up).
I have seen/heard of that kind of scale difference between premium and freemium first hand on several different titles across multiple genres. It won't hold true for every game (it can take significant name recognition or marketing to get into those kinds of scales) but it happens pretty often.
08/27/2012 (1:36 pm)
To perhaps give another perspective:I can't share any hard numbers but the amount of people who play freemium games in the iOS marketplace is on the order of 1000X the number who play premium games. Not only that, but the revenues of the freemium games are generally on the order of 10X their premium counterparts...even when there is a very close match to the freemium game + all upgrades vs the premium game with all upgrades unlocked.
Think about that for a moment...a premium game that might make $10,000/year can potentially make $100,000/year if it were a well done freemium version instead (designed and built to be freemium from the ground up).
I have seen/heard of that kind of scale difference between premium and freemium first hand on several different titles across multiple genres. It won't hold true for every game (it can take significant name recognition or marketing to get into those kinds of scales) but it happens pretty often.
#10
No argument from me. Especially on iOS, there has been nothing short of an evolution to the free-to-play model. As a consumer, I participate and enjoy this free to play trend and see it continuing to succeed going forward.
Having said all that, StarCraft II has sold over 6 million units worldwide. At a wholesale price of $40, that is almost a quarter billion dollars in revenue. I would make the argument that the RTS market is alive and well and yes, the production values are through the roof, but who better to compete in this market than the other major IP in this category with the backing of EA.
Like movies, many sequels sell well, over and over again whether they are great or not. How many Friday the 13th movies were there? We have some additional feature advantages movies don't generally have like upgrades in technology, new reward systems and even new platforms movies don't generally have to sell as new to the consumers.
It looks like EA has given up competing with Blizzard in the traditional RTS full retail box product. I think there is money being left on the table here.
08/27/2012 (3:49 pm)
Hi Matt,No argument from me. Especially on iOS, there has been nothing short of an evolution to the free-to-play model. As a consumer, I participate and enjoy this free to play trend and see it continuing to succeed going forward.
Having said all that, StarCraft II has sold over 6 million units worldwide. At a wholesale price of $40, that is almost a quarter billion dollars in revenue. I would make the argument that the RTS market is alive and well and yes, the production values are through the roof, but who better to compete in this market than the other major IP in this category with the backing of EA.
Like movies, many sequels sell well, over and over again whether they are great or not. How many Friday the 13th movies were there? We have some additional feature advantages movies don't generally have like upgrades in technology, new reward systems and even new platforms movies don't generally have to sell as new to the consumers.
It looks like EA has given up competing with Blizzard in the traditional RTS full retail box product. I think there is money being left on the table here.
#11
08/29/2012 (2:45 pm)
I'm planning on raising my game in the AppStore for 99¢. It's a price that people will usually understand as low. Other than that, I kinda just made the game for fun. :)
#12
We're firmly set in the "no pay to win" mode, but after that it gets really difficult to figure out what people will pay for.
As a non-funded indie project, "cosmetics" just aren't going to cut it--until you have the marketing budget to get the game up in the 100,000's of thousands of users, the numbers just don't work out to even pay for the art, much less the development.
You could go with the "trade money for time" technique where everything you could buy you can earn with game time, but that is really hard to balance--either the time taken to "earn" what others "buy" is so incredibly long that you lose balance over time, or the benefits of the purchased "time savers" aren't quite enough to be worth it to any but the top end whales.
"Pay what you want" is actually an intriguing idea that has been experimented with, if you can figure out the messaging ("why would I pay for something that's free?" is hard to beat), but the model is actually better than kickstarter--with kickstarter you're paying a small amount for a potential--with "Pay what you will", at least you are already playing the game.
While I think it's awesome that League of Legends is doing so well, it's almost a negative to the small developers that the big players are going the F2P model--it sets the standards/expectations so high that we're back to not being able to compete unless you get really lucky, since they have the numbers behind larger teams that can eat the short term and churn out the whales on the backside of a huge marketing spree.
Thoughts?
09/03/2012 (10:52 pm)
I've been struggling with this for the last several months myself since I've been working on an indie (I'm the only dev, and we don't have an artist) browser game.We're firmly set in the "no pay to win" mode, but after that it gets really difficult to figure out what people will pay for.
As a non-funded indie project, "cosmetics" just aren't going to cut it--until you have the marketing budget to get the game up in the 100,000's of thousands of users, the numbers just don't work out to even pay for the art, much less the development.
You could go with the "trade money for time" technique where everything you could buy you can earn with game time, but that is really hard to balance--either the time taken to "earn" what others "buy" is so incredibly long that you lose balance over time, or the benefits of the purchased "time savers" aren't quite enough to be worth it to any but the top end whales.
"Pay what you want" is actually an intriguing idea that has been experimented with, if you can figure out the messaging ("why would I pay for something that's free?" is hard to beat), but the model is actually better than kickstarter--with kickstarter you're paying a small amount for a potential--with "Pay what you will", at least you are already playing the game.
While I think it's awesome that League of Legends is doing so well, it's almost a negative to the small developers that the big players are going the F2P model--it sets the standards/expectations so high that we're back to not being able to compete unless you get really lucky, since they have the numbers behind larger teams that can eat the short term and churn out the whales on the backside of a huge marketing spree.
Thoughts?
#13
Yes, the big publisher vs small developer rivalry is alive and well. Your concern, does have merit, however, history has proven that there is always room for innovation.
Big publishers have huge costs to cover so they tend to swing for the fences, a lot. Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed and God of War are serialized for a reason. For small developers, there are many examples of this and the best place to see some of them is Kickstarter: Wasteland 2, Planetary Annihilation and Double Fine Adventure.
These successes clearly point to a trend where smaller developers are getting the popular vote for developing unique and niche products. More power to them and to your project!
09/04/2012 (11:00 am)
@StephenYes, the big publisher vs small developer rivalry is alive and well. Your concern, does have merit, however, history has proven that there is always room for innovation.
Big publishers have huge costs to cover so they tend to swing for the fences, a lot. Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed and God of War are serialized for a reason. For small developers, there are many examples of this and the best place to see some of them is Kickstarter: Wasteland 2, Planetary Annihilation and Double Fine Adventure.
These successes clearly point to a trend where smaller developers are getting the popular vote for developing unique and niche products. More power to them and to your project!
#14
The benefit was that all the content was open for me, and I gained more Inventory and bank space, I could also carry more money without over flow to a savings that's released to me when I subscribe. Store items include Better weapons and cosmetic clothing. I purchased the better weapons to aid me in reaching "raid status" and once there, those weapons are obsolete.
I now play a new game called "The Secret World" which is a subscription based game but also sells cosmetic items in the store such as useless pets, and clothing to help make the character more distinct from all the other players and less like a clone.
The Devs at Funcom have said they admire the Free to Play model for what benefits it has but will stay as a subscription game.. at least for the current year.
My belief is that Download Content, Store Items, and Business Model are just as difficult to balance as it is for RPG games to balance Races or Classes. Your not going to make everyone happy while you seek to squeeze out every dime you can get.. and that's just to recover production costs.
In the mean time players are going to gravitate towards what is most fun or aesthetically acceptable to buy from the store and still be within their personal budget.
Why not offer a little of everything?. Pay to Win items do become obsolete, Store Clothing items do get boring to look at, and Download Content can be a hard sale if the players don't like the content.
Not to mention that more often that not,.. players are complaining about bugs or exploits more often that anything else when they play online games.
Edit: I just want to add that Indie Games are in a league of their own. Huge developers will not usually step out of the herd to offer niche games and they are reluctant to try something new and innovative because their bottom line is cash flow. They will stick with what works for them.
Indie Devs have the benefit of offering those niche games and the devs are usually more open-minded when developing something for sale.
The real beauty of being an Indie Developer is that you succeed in places where huge companies would not normally tread. Your strength as an Indie is also in the ability to produce innovative ways of playing and perhaps show the huge game companies "how it's done". Your not stuck with the tried-and-true that huge companies depend on and therefore will not usually spend money on trying to invent something brand new.
09/09/2012 (7:22 am)
I've played Age of Conan as Free 2 Play for roughly 2 months. I eventually bought a 1 year subscription because I planned to play through the game until i reached "raid status".. which means my gear and skills are worthy of being considered useful in the raids.The benefit was that all the content was open for me, and I gained more Inventory and bank space, I could also carry more money without over flow to a savings that's released to me when I subscribe. Store items include Better weapons and cosmetic clothing. I purchased the better weapons to aid me in reaching "raid status" and once there, those weapons are obsolete.
I now play a new game called "The Secret World" which is a subscription based game but also sells cosmetic items in the store such as useless pets, and clothing to help make the character more distinct from all the other players and less like a clone.
The Devs at Funcom have said they admire the Free to Play model for what benefits it has but will stay as a subscription game.. at least for the current year.
My belief is that Download Content, Store Items, and Business Model are just as difficult to balance as it is for RPG games to balance Races or Classes. Your not going to make everyone happy while you seek to squeeze out every dime you can get.. and that's just to recover production costs.
In the mean time players are going to gravitate towards what is most fun or aesthetically acceptable to buy from the store and still be within their personal budget.
Why not offer a little of everything?. Pay to Win items do become obsolete, Store Clothing items do get boring to look at, and Download Content can be a hard sale if the players don't like the content.
Not to mention that more often that not,.. players are complaining about bugs or exploits more often that anything else when they play online games.
Edit: I just want to add that Indie Games are in a league of their own. Huge developers will not usually step out of the herd to offer niche games and they are reluctant to try something new and innovative because their bottom line is cash flow. They will stick with what works for them.
Indie Devs have the benefit of offering those niche games and the devs are usually more open-minded when developing something for sale.
The real beauty of being an Indie Developer is that you succeed in places where huge companies would not normally tread. Your strength as an Indie is also in the ability to produce innovative ways of playing and perhaps show the huge game companies "how it's done". Your not stuck with the tried-and-true that huge companies depend on and therefore will not usually spend money on trying to invent something brand new.
Torque 3D Owner Ronny Bangsund
Torque Cheerleaders
The funny thing about LoL is that their big moneymaker is skins. Frickin' costumes! The vast majority are happy to play whatever the rotation of the week is, or at least that was the case the last time anyone involved talked about it. Of all the free to play models so far, that's the friendliest. Shame I don't like that game type.
Dungeons & Dragons Online isn't too far behind either. It's possible to play entirely for free and experience everything eventually, but you're usually best off at least buying a few points or subscribing for a month to find out what you're missing (and active subscriptions give a few points for the store). Besides, the more quests you have available to play, the more points you can get towards the store. Some store items (like certain classes and races) can also be unlocked through just playing a lot. I rate this second best in terms of bang for your, uh, withheld buck.
Their LotRO game has some more obnoxious elements about it (harder push to buy stuff), but the benefits of just one month's subscription are better (if done right - make characters first, then consider it). Instead of purchasing scenarios here and there across the level ranges, the non-VIP content gives you quests for whole map areas at a time. Gaining free points for the store is possibly slower, but you get a little at a time all the time. Theoretically you can get all the content purchasable from the in-game store via deeds and quests across a few characters. There are more unlockable races and classes than in DDO, though. There are also expansions bought outside of the in-game store, in the OTHER store, for money. As if that wasn't enough confusion, some extra adventure packs are sold via Steam and Gamestop (different packs) with different sets of content in them, and a few bonus items/store points. Wrapping your head around what duplicates what isn't easy. As a free game I rate it OK, but as a first free game I'd advice against it.
But all that said, I think I prefer to just buy a game and be done with it. Expansions are fine, which is why Guild Wars 2 is interesting. Buy the game, play online, use the in-game store to buy meaningless items (including shades, leather jackets and cows) for real money or in-game gold/silver. They've got a gem/money exchange system right from the start, and don't force you to ever spend any real money to buy cheesy fluff. It seems they have even less game-affecting add-ons in the store than the first game (which wasn't even a real MMO), so I guess their plan is to make money on semi-regular expansions only.
Buy game, play with friends online, no extra subscriptions. Just like the old days!