Originally posted by Kyleran No matter what F2P model a game uses, if you really are playing it totally free you are doing it wrong.
How are you doing it wrong? I've never paid a dime in any F2P game, I've gotten whatever enjoyment out of the game I wanted and moved on. I did just fine. Who died and named you dictator of right and wrong?
If you can't see how a proper buyer / seller relationship should work where the seller receives fair market value for services rendered, then there's no discussing it with you.
No one should ever receive anything for free, (well, except children) even if others are willing to pay for it you should not be willing to accept it, you should want to pull your own weight.
It's a pride thing, not everyone has it however.
And yes, I do judge people, and find them frequently wanting.
You simply keep asserting that the model you prefer is the "correct" model. There are no "correct" models. There are choices that the developers and owners of the games choose and people will play various models, based on the quality of the games. All you're doing is saying that if people won't agree with you, then you don't want to play because you have no way of objectively defending your choices and preferences. That's sad.
In the real world, we all receive things "for free". Broadcast television is "free". They put advertising on the air but you are not required to buy the products, nor even to watch the ads. Advertisers are buying potential eyes, not active participants. That television is free to you. These games are also free to you. Sure, the producers are trying to sell you something but you have no obligation whatsoever to actually buy it.
If you can't understand the realities of life over your own wishful thinking, I don't know what to tell you.
Originally posted by Torvaldr The entire world is full of entitlement. Some F2P cheapskates expect never to pay and feel entitled to that. Some P2P zealots fell like they should get everything for $15 a month and never have to pay more. Everyone else lives somewhere in the middle.
If these developers are giving away the game for free, with no requirements that anyone ever buy anything, how are the people who play as the game is presented cheapskates? Please explain that. Do you take free samples and insist on paying for them? Seriously?
So you feel more entitled to your opinion since you're paying for something that others get for free?
If he's subbing his opinion should count to the company more than the guy who's not paying anything. Totally F2P games have whales that the company that the company will listen to more than the people not paying anything. If you're not paying anything you're easy replacable. Just the way the world is.
Not disagreeing, just presenting the counter-argument:
If they already have his subscription money, why would they listen to HIM? He already proved he'll pay anyway. The free players however are the target of investment now. He's already been convinced.
Jumping in with what I'd consider the common sense point.
Subbed player says I want x change to game or I may go looking for another game to play (there are plenty of options about these days)
F2P playe that doesn't pay anythings says I don't want X change to game or I will leave.
Think we can all guess who the developer will side with. Just because a player is currently subbed doesn't mean they will simply stay subbed. (SW:Tor from launch to 3 months post is a good example)
Maybe not quite so common sense as you think.
Tom wants open PvP added. Dick wants PvP but only consensual. Harry wants no PvP at all. All three players pay their sub fee. Who do the devs listen to?
The common sense answer is none of the above. Just because you pay a sub does not make your opinion anymore valid than any other player.
And if you are a sub player you are really no different than an F2P player who makes occasional purchases. If you say that you can cancel your sub anytime, that simply means you are just potential money and not guaranteed money in the bank. Same as the player who is playing free and decides to spend 10 bucks for a cosmetic item that month. They still have to get both of you to spend money the following month. So you can't throw out the argument that P2P opinions have more weight when there is very little difference between a sub and a whale, other than the amount of money spent.
As for F2P players their opinion may matter more because if there are enough of them and they are not spending money, you are probably first going to look at what they want so that you can entice them also to spend money. I believe this has already been stated here.
This to me makes sense. Paying or not is probably not high on the list when devs are looking at player concerns. For them I think, it would be what is best for the game and its continued success, that would be the main priority.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
If you can't cough up 15 dollars a month for a subscription you're either a student who should be getting an education or someone who needs to get off unemployment. The whole outrage over subscription models is a load of bull, the vocal majority being console kiddies looking for the next fix and having no interest in developing a thriving community and game.
Originally posted by Panzerbase If you can't cough up 15 dollars a month for a subscription you're either a student who should be getting an education or someone who needs to get off unemployment. The whole outrage over subscription models is a load of bull, the vocal majority being console kiddies looking for the next fix and having no interest in developing a thriving community and game.
I keep reading threads and comments whereby F2P players feel aggrieved that they are not receiving enough free content.
In what other walk of life and with what other product would this be an acceptable stance to take? Many mmo's cost many millions to develop and that money has to be recouped somehow (and they need to turn a profit for their funders or they would not exist in the first place). Where, do you suggest, should this money be recovered from?
My view is simply this, a F2P player who makes no financial contribution to a game is in no position to complain about the free content they may or may not be receiving.
A player who pays a subscription, as with all other walks of life, should experience a discernibly improved experience over a player who pays nothing.
Now don't get me wrong, if a monetization model allows a game to sell aesthetic items only, then great. But if it does not then a free player should quit complaining and move on.
As it stands the free content received by F2P players is paid for by a few whales who use the cash shop. Free players should be thankful that there are items in the cash shop other players are prepared to buy or there would be no game and no content for them to experience at all.
They are my thoughts on the subject, what do you think?
Oh man, you did not just post this. Holding people accountable? Are you nuts? You mean they don't deserve a car, a free cell phone, free games? etc? What is this madness you speak of.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Originally posted by Panzerbase If you can't cough up 15 dollars a month for a subscription you're either a student who should be getting an education or someone who needs to get off unemployment. The whole outrage over subscription models is a load of bull, the vocal majority being console kiddies looking for the next fix and having no interest in developing a thriving community and game.
Try medical bills, jerk. Grow up.
So because you're sick and have medical bills, someone else has to pay to develop a game for you to play for free? And someone else has to support that game, also for free? You're the one who needs to grow up.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Originally posted by Panzerbase If you can't cough up 15 dollars a month for a subscription you're either a student who should be getting an education or someone who needs to get off unemployment. The whole outrage over subscription models is a load of bull, the vocal majority being console kiddies looking for the next fix and having no interest in developing a thriving community and game.
Do you understand what a completely ridiculous statement that is?
No probably not, because I am pretty sure you are unemployed and on welfare.
See ! It works for me too!
Seriously, trying thinking before you post.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
There is a serious problem with entitlement everywhere in the world. Its why socialism and communism are winning.
That said, I think the main complaint with F2P is that most of the time it costs MUCH more to obtain all the content than it would to buy a box and pay a subscription.
The second biggest complaint is that paying customers are then subsidizing those that choose no to monetize a game. Another form of socialism and for working people that gets old.
People these days just feel entitled anyway. It's not even just younger kids either (although it's more common there). I've got friends in their 30's and 40's who refuse to spend a dime on games, yet complain about how crappy new stuff is compared to 10 years ago.
It's kind of funny, because back then *I* was the cheap one. I justified playing WoW because 15 a month was tons cheaper than 49 a month. Going to college and raising a kid on my own meant gaming was low on my list of priorities. Now, they complain about their crappy retail jobs while I can afford pretty much anything I want within reason. I can see why they want things to be free, but they need to understand why quality suffers as a result.
There is a serious problem with entitlement everywhere in the world. Its why socialism and communism are winning.
That said, I think the main complaint with F2P is that most of the time it costs MUCH more to obtain all the content than it would to buy a box and pay a subscription.
The second biggest complaint is that paying customers are then subsidizing those that choose no to monetize a game. Another form of socialism and for working people that gets old.
So now we are labelling F2P games as "socialist". ROFL, that won't get much reaction from me, I live in Canada! And we like our healthcare system thankyou. We are willing to pay a little extra to help the less fortunate but hey have it your way, thats ok.
What is the problem with other people subsidizing other peoples play? Those people are spending the money to play the game the way they want to. And yea, they might be spending more than a sub. So what? It is their money. And don't they have a right to spend it their way?
And whats wrong with enjoying a game without spending money? If the game allows you to do that, what is wrong with it? If it was wrong would they not put something in to stop you from playing? And you are actually doing something to help the game in any case, which is keeping the game populated. How many time have I heard a subbber whine " Oh I really would play that game except the pop is so low it is not worth a sub" Once again the subber shoots himself in the foot.
And a lot of these games were sub games and turned to F2P. So in other words, a sub payment model could not support a game but, oh yeah, those guys playing for free can! LOL
The more I read of this thread, the more I am becoming convinced what someone else said may be true. Subbers are the ones here that seem to feel truly entitled. Give us everything we want in a sub game or we won't pay you. You guys are almost like extortionists! LOL
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
I'll never play a F2P game for very long. I just can't get over the entitlement that people have. If you want something you should have to pay for it. It isn't worth anything unless you pay for it.
So because you're sick and have medical bills, someone else has to pay to develop a game for you to play for free? And someone else has to support that game, also for free? You're the one who needs to grow up.
F2P cash shops don't exist because "entitled players" demand them. Companies make tons of money out of cash shops cos it turns out people with poor self control will spend way more than $15 a month to get that shiny thing they want and get it NOW!
That's why cash shops exist.
If F2P shops really *just* encouraged a bunch of freeloaders do you think any game would use the model?
There's a sense of entitlement everywhere these days, and F2P MMOs are no exception.
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
There is a serious problem with entitlement everywhere in the world. Its why socialism and communism are winning.
That said, I think the main complaint with F2P is that most of the time it costs MUCH more to obtain all the content than it would to buy a box and pay a subscription.
The second biggest complaint is that paying customers are then subsidizing those that choose no to monetize a game. Another form of socialism and for working people that gets old.
Dude, the 1950's called, your Joe McCarthy fan club card just came in. Here's a radical idea since we're on a gaming site, let's stay on topic and take your political crap back to Fox News or CNN.
However, I will agree with your only gaming related sentence, some F2P's do ask for a lot more money then a sub game, simply trusting that some folks won't bother to do the math since it's a little here and a little there.
Getting to the main line of this thread, there will always be people on the extreme ends of the F2P/entitlement issue. Those who complain a lot with no intention of ever spending cash and those who think they should have the only say because they did spend money. Most of us fall in the middle.
A current example. I'm playing Dragon's Prophet. I haven't spent any cash on it yet, even though I have Sony SC sitting in my account because of a couple big (for me at least) issues. I've spoken on them in the official forums and filed a support ticket on one. If they fix them I'll probably spend some money on the game. Do I have a "right" to complain? Absolutely. If enough folks raise the same issues, maybe they'll get fixed. The point is how else do the devs of a game know what needs changed if people don't speak up? That's not "entitlement" that's customer feedback.
The Moving Finger writes, and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
There is a serious problem with entitlement everywhere in the world. Its why socialism and communism are winning.
That said, I think the main complaint with F2P is that most of the time it costs MUCH more to obtain all the content than it would to buy a box and pay a subscription.
The second biggest complaint is that paying customers are then subsidizing those that choose no to monetize a game. Another form of socialism and for working people that gets old.
So now we are labelling F2P games as "socialist". ROFL, that won't get much reaction from me, I live in Canada! And we like our healthcare system thankyou. We are willing to pay a little extra to help the less fortunate but hey have it your way, thats ok.
What is the problem with other people subsidizing other peoples play? Those people are spending the money to play the game the way they want to. And yea, they might be spending more than a sub. So what? It is their money. And don't they have a right to spend it their way?
And whats wrong with enjoying a game without spending money? If the game allows you to do that, what is wrong with it? If it was wrong would they not put something in to stop you from playing? And you are actually doing something to help the game in any case, which is keeping the game populated. How many time have I heard a subbber whine " Oh I really would play that game except the pop is so low it is not worth a sub" Once again the subber shoots himself in the foot.
And a lot of these games were sub games and turned to F2P. So in other words, a sub payment model could not support a game but, oh yeah, those guys playing for free can! LOL
The more I read of this thread, the more I am becoming convinced what someone else said may be true. Subbers are the ones here that seem to feel truly entitled. Give us everything we want in a sub game or we won't pay you. You guys are almost like extortionists! LOL
The trouble with F2P is many fold. Too many for me to detail this late at night.
You think F2P games are supported by people playing them for free? Do you really believe that? Or is it instead, that a combination of advertising and designing content to attract a specific form of paying customer is what supports those games?
When a game company sits down and makes decisions about what content to design for a F2P game, what do you think is their primary motivation? Putting more stuff out there for free? Or designing content to attract income? If you really want company income and not fun to be the primary motivation for design of content- you can keep enjoying all those wonderful F2P games.
There are plenty of people interested in paying for games with fun designs and content.
Personally, I just think its a shame that people are getting fleeced all day by micro transactions. Oh well, a fool and their money right?
There is a serious problem with entitlement everywhere in the world. Its why socialism and communism are winning.
That said, I think the main complaint with F2P is that most of the time it costs MUCH more to obtain all the content than it would to buy a box and pay a subscription.
The second biggest complaint is that paying customers are then subsidizing those that choose no to monetize a game. Another form of socialism and for working people that gets old.
Dude, the 1950's called, your Joe McCarthy fan club card just came in. Here's a radical idea since we're on a gaming site, let's stay on topic and take your political crap back to Fox News or CNN.
However, I will agree with your only gaming related sentence, some F2P's do ask for a lot more money then a sub game, simply trusting that some folks won't bother to do the math since it's a little here and a little there.
Getting to the main line of this thread, there will always be people on the extreme ends of the F2P/entitlement issue. Those who complain a lot with no intention of ever spending cash and those who think they should have the only say because they did spend money. Most of us fall in the middle.
A current example. I'm playing Dragon's Prophet. I haven't spent any cash on it yet, even though I have Sony SC sitting in my account because of a couple big (for me at least) issues. I've spoken on them in the official forums and filed a support ticket on one. If they fix them I'll probably spend some money on the game. Do I have a "right" to complain? Absolutely. If enough folks raise the same issues, maybe they'll get fixed. The point is how else do the devs of a game know what needs changed if people don't speak up? That's not "entitlement" that's customer feedback.
Socialism is an economic model by the way. And we are talking game economics here. Therefore, it is very much in line with this topic.
F2P represents the entitlement trend occurring around the world. "I'm special and I should get to play anything I want for free! SO there! If others want to spend money for more stuff that's fine as long as I get to play for free!"
The design of a F2P system (a term that is very deceptive by the way, the better means of identification would be: Micro-Transacted Game or Whales and Free-Loaders) is altering the design course of games and genres in a way that many find detrimental to the game industry. Where as a player in the past might be able to play his favorite game with all content enable and available for 240 bucks a year (15 a month + box), he is now faced with a situation where the same content now costs hundreds or thousands in total. This disturbing trend in increased cost of content will likely result in gaming costing much more long term than at present.
I think that eventually all content will cost, as game companies learn something casino owners have known for a long time: It's 10 times easier to get a person to spend 3 dollars a day than 15 dollars a month. They wind up spending 90 bucks a month but feel like they are saving a ton of cash on this F2P!
Originally posted by Kyleran No matter what F2P model a game uses, if you really are playing it totally free you are doing it wrong.
How are you doing it wrong? I've never paid a dime in any F2P game, I've gotten whatever enjoyment out of the game I wanted and moved on. I did just fine. Who died and named you dictator of right and wrong?
If you can't see how a proper buyer / seller relationship should work where the seller receives fair market value for services rendered, then there's no discussing it with you.
No one should ever receive anything for free, (well, except children) even if others are willing to pay for it you should not be willing to accept it, you should want to pull your own weight.
It's a pride thing, not everyone has it however.
And yes, I do judge people, and find them frequently wanting.
You simply keep asserting that the model you prefer is the "correct" model. There are no "correct" models. There are choices that the developers and owners of the games choose and people will play various models, based on the quality of the games. All you're doing is saying that if people won't agree with you, then you don't want to play because you have no way of objectively defending your choices and preferences. That's sad.
In the real world, we all receive things "for free". Broadcast television is "free". They put advertising on the air but you are not required to buy the products, nor even to watch the ads. Advertisers are buying potential eyes, not active participants. That television is free to you. These games are also free to you. Sure, the producers are trying to sell you something but you have no obligation whatsoever to actually buy it.
If you can't understand the realities of life over your own wishful thinking, I don't know what to tell you.
A model where some people can tax a server and not pay a cent to be on it is wrong. A model where you're manipulated into spending money, buying content over again, and being gated from your enjoyment is wrong.
So let's take your concept one step further - let's have ads in games. Then we can all be one happy free family. And better yet, you have to pay to get rid of them. You have to pay to not be annoyed, rather just paying a box fee or a subscription fee.
By every single moral measure, f2p is inferior to p2p and b2p. Kyrelan is 100% right.
I keep reading threads and comments whereby F2P players feel aggrieved that they are not receiving enough free content.
In what other walk of life and with what other product would this be an acceptable stance to take?
Right. When I get a coupon for a free Big Mac, I expect a free Big Mac, not a free bun, $1 for a pickle, $2,99 for a piece of meat (that you have to move the pickle to see), $1 for lettuce, another dollar for cheeses, and $1 for special sauce. When you advertise something for free, it should be free. Call a spade a spade. "Free" does npt mean "nickel and dimed to death."
There is a serious problem with entitlement everywhere in the world. Its why socialism and communism are winning.
That said, I think the main complaint with F2P is that most of the time it costs MUCH more to obtain all the content than it would to buy a box and pay a subscription.
The second biggest complaint is that paying customers are then subsidizing those that choose no to monetize a game. Another form of socialism and for working people that gets old.
So now we are labelling F2P games as "socialist". ROFL, that won't get much reaction from me, I live in Canada! And we like our healthcare system thankyou. We are willing to pay a little extra to help the less fortunate but hey have it your way, thats ok.
What is the problem with other people subsidizing other peoples play? Those people are spending the money to play the game the way they want to. And yea, they might be spending more than a sub. So what? It is their money. And don't they have a right to spend it their way?
And whats wrong with enjoying a game without spending money? If the game allows you to do that, what is wrong with it? If it was wrong would they not put something in to stop you from playing? And you are actually doing something to help the game in any case, which is keeping the game populated. How many time have I heard a subbber whine " Oh I really would play that game except the pop is so low it is not worth a sub" Once again the subber shoots himself in the foot.
And a lot of these games were sub games and turned to F2P. So in other words, a sub payment model could not support a game but, oh yeah, those guys playing for free can! LOL
The more I read of this thread, the more I am becoming convinced what someone else said may be true. Subbers are the ones here that seem to feel truly entitled. Give us everything we want in a sub game or we won't pay you. You guys are almost like extortionists! LOL
The trouble with F2P is many fold. Too many for me to detail this late at night.
You think F2P games are supported by people playing them for free? Do you really believe that? Or is it instead, that a combination of advertising and designing content to attract a specific form of paying customer is what supports those games?
When a game company sits down and makes decisions about what content to design for a F2P game, what do you think is their primary motivation? Putting more stuff out there for free? Or designing content to attract income? If you really want company income and not fun to be the primary motivation for design of content- you can keep enjoying all those wonderful F2P games.
There are plenty of people interested in paying for games with fun designs and content.
Personally, I just think its a shame that people are getting fleeced all day by micro transactions. Oh well, a fool and their money right?
Yes its late at night and there are so many falsehoods and misconceptions in your post it is hard to know where to begin.
Never said anything about non paying players supporting a game. What I said was they keep the population up which is generally a good thing in an MMO, I am sure even you will agree. I know you will try the "they are all console kiddies" thing here again, but I will just ignore that misconception.
And when they decide to make a game I am sure they are thinking about many things not the least of which is creating a game people will want to play and hopefully spend money in. Same as a P2P game. No more no less.
So you are saying no F2P games have fun design or content?? Ok sure Foe, it must be true.
And who is getting fleeced when they are making the choiced to spend their money? You choose to spend your money on a sub, are you getting fleeced? ( I would say yes but that is just me) No you are choosing to pay the sub just as someone is choosing to use a cash shop. I am pretty sure they can do math too and are aware how much they are spending. If not it is plainly there on their credit card. Not the definition of fleecing in my book.
The amount of bias you people have is just incredible. Constantly amazes me.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
I keep reading threads and comments whereby F2P players feel aggrieved that they are not receiving enough free content.
In what other walk of life and with what other product would this be an acceptable stance to take?
Right. When I get a coupon for a free Big Mac, I expect a free Big Mac, not a free bun, $1 for a pickle, $2,99 for a piece of meat (that you have to move the pickle to see), $1 for lettuce, another dollar for cheeses, and $1 for special sauce. When you advertise something for free, it should be free. Call a spade a spade. "Free" does npt mean "nickel and dimed to death."
Wrong!
You get the Big Mac.
The drink and fries are extra, bro! Cmon people, get your silly analogies right!
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
I keep reading threads and comments whereby F2P players feel aggrieved that they are not receiving enough free content.
In what other walk of life and with what other product would this be an acceptable stance to take?
Right. When I get a coupon for a free Big Mac, I expect a free Big Mac, not a free bun, $1 for a pickle, $2,99 for a piece of meat (that you have to move the pickle to see), $1 for lettuce, another dollar for cheeses, and $1 for special sauce. When you advertise something for free, it should be free. Call a spade a spade. "Free" does npt mean "nickel and dimed to death."
Wrong!
You get the Big Mac.
The drink and fries are extra, bro! Cmon people, get your silly analogies right!
Nope. Star Wars, aka the Big Mac is one product. Your analogy would be like getting Star Wars free, but Crysis 3 and Battlefield 4 is extra, bro! EA advertises the entire product as "free to play." If they only advertised space combat as free, you'd have a point.
And a lot of these games were sub games and turned to F2P. So in other words, a sub payment model could not support a game but, oh yeah, those guys playing for free can! LOL
The trouble with F2P is many fold. Too many for me to detail this late at night.
You think F2P games are supported by people playing them for free? Do you really believe that? Or is it instead, that a combination of advertising and designing content to attract a specific form of paying customer is what supports those games?
Yes its late at night and there are so many falsehoods and misconceptions in your post it is hard to know where to begin.
Never said anything about non paying players supporting a game. What I said was they keep the population up which is generally a good thing in an MMO, I am sure even you will agree. I know you will try the "they are all console kiddies" thing here again, but I will just ignore that misconception.
And when they decide to make a game I am sure they are thinking about many things not the least of which is creating a game people will want to play and hopefully spend money in. Same as a P2P game. No more no less.
So you are saying no F2P games have fun design or content?? Ok sure Foe, it must be true.
And who is getting fleeced when they are making the choiced to spend their money? You choose to spend your money on a sub, are you getting fleeced? ( I would say yes but that is just me) No you are choosing to pay the sub just as someone is choosing to use a cash shop. I am pretty sure they can do math too and are aware how much they are spending. If not it is plainly there on their credit card. Not the definition of fleecing in my book.
The amount of bias you people have is just incredible. Constantly amazes me.
The first line in the quote above is you stating that guys playing free can support a game LOL.
Your words.
Fun Design and Content: I have tried many, and was especially let down by NWN. Cashing out for items. Not a fun design to me.
The designers of a "F2P" model focus designing content on how they can get people to monetize while they play. Simple deduction.
The designers of a sub model focus on designing content intended to keep players playing and that is most often achieved by creating content a majority of players find "fun".
Edit: As for the fleecing, I refer to documented evidence that gamers tend to spend more on F2P per player than they do on Subs. Also, please note I used fleece and not robbed. The fool and his money again?
And a lot of these games were sub games and turned to F2P. So in other words, a sub payment model could not support a game but, oh yeah, those guys playing for free can! LOL
The trouble with F2P is many fold. Too many for me to detail this late at night.
You think F2P games are supported by people playing them for free? Do you really believe that? Or is it instead, that a combination of advertising and designing content to attract a specific form of paying customer is what supports those games?
Yes its late at night and there are so many falsehoods and misconceptions in your post it is hard to know where to begin.
Never said anything about non paying players supporting a game. What I said was they keep the population up which is generally a good thing in an MMO, I am sure even you will agree. I know you will try the "they are all console kiddies" thing here again, but I will just ignore that misconception.
And when they decide to make a game I am sure they are thinking about many things not the least of which is creating a game people will want to play and hopefully spend money in. Same as a P2P game. No more no less.
So you are saying no F2P games have fun design or content?? Ok sure Foe, it must be true.
And who is getting fleeced when they are making the choiced to spend their money? You choose to spend your money on a sub, are you getting fleeced? ( I would say yes but that is just me) No you are choosing to pay the sub just as someone is choosing to use a cash shop. I am pretty sure they can do math too and are aware how much they are spending. If not it is plainly there on their credit card. Not the definition of fleecing in my book.
The amount of bias you people have is just incredible. Constantly amazes me.
The first line in the quote above is you stating that guys playing free can support a game LOL.
Your words.
Fun Design and Content: I have tried many, and was especially let down by NWN. Cashing out for items. Not a fun design to me.
The designers of a "F2P" model focus designing content on how they can get people to monetize while they play. Simple deduction.
The designers of a sub model focus on designing content intended to keep players playing and that is most often achieved by creating content a majority of players find "fun".
Edit: As for the fleecing, I refer to documented evidence that gamers tend to spend more on F2P per player than they do on Subs. Also, please note I used fleece and not robbed. The fool and his money again?
Do you have any idea what context means? i said they support the game by supplying needed population numbers. Not by supporting it financially. Both are benficial. But different. Context. Understand now?
I won't deny monetization is part of making an F2P game. But it is hardly all. You first need a game that people will be willing to pay for. Same as P2P. Simple deduction.
Same goes for designing content. No difference.
And last point, who are you to tell us how to spend our money? I could care less if you prefer a sub model and personally I don't care what the payment model is in a game that I want to play. If I don't like the payment model I won't play it. Same if I don't like the game.
In any case enjoy whatever games you are playing. Thats really all that matters.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
I keep reading threads and comments whereby F2P players feel aggrieved that they are not receiving enough free content.
In what other walk of life and with what other product would this be an acceptable stance to take? Many mmo's cost many millions to develop and that money has to be recouped somehow (and they need to turn a profit for their funders or they would not exist in the first place). Where, do you suggest, should this money be recovered from?
My view is simply this, a F2P player who makes no financial contribution to a game is in no position to complain about the free content they may or may not be receiving.
A player who pays a subscription, as with all other walks of life, should experience a discernibly improved experience over a player who pays nothing.
Now don't get me wrong, if a monetization model allows a game to sell aesthetic items only, then great. But if it does not then a free player should quit complaining and move on.
As it stands the free content received by F2P players is paid for by a few whales who use the cash shop. Free players should be thankful that there are items in the cash shop other players are prepared to buy or there would be no game and no content for them to experience at all.
They are my thoughts on the subject, what do you think?
There is your "excessive sense of entitlement". if free players are that much unwanted then publishers should not allow free players and instead run a sub based games. i have been subscriber in freemium games(publishers don't use that term, they still say free to play) and i have no problem free players complaining. why? because the game is : "free to play", that is how it is being marketed.
Boobs are LIFE, Boobs are LOVE, Boobs are JUSTICE, Boobs are mankind's HOPES and DREAMS. People who complain about boobs have lost their humanity.
Comments
You simply keep asserting that the model you prefer is the "correct" model. There are no "correct" models. There are choices that the developers and owners of the games choose and people will play various models, based on the quality of the games. All you're doing is saying that if people won't agree with you, then you don't want to play because you have no way of objectively defending your choices and preferences. That's sad.
In the real world, we all receive things "for free". Broadcast television is "free". They put advertising on the air but you are not required to buy the products, nor even to watch the ads. Advertisers are buying potential eyes, not active participants. That television is free to you. These games are also free to you. Sure, the producers are trying to sell you something but you have no obligation whatsoever to actually buy it.
If you can't understand the realities of life over your own wishful thinking, I don't know what to tell you.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
If these developers are giving away the game for free, with no requirements that anyone ever buy anything, how are the people who play as the game is presented cheapskates? Please explain that. Do you take free samples and insist on paying for them? Seriously?
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Maybe not quite so common sense as you think.
Tom wants open PvP added. Dick wants PvP but only consensual. Harry wants no PvP at all. All three players pay their sub fee. Who do the devs listen to?
The common sense answer is none of the above. Just because you pay a sub does not make your opinion anymore valid than any other player.
And if you are a sub player you are really no different than an F2P player who makes occasional purchases. If you say that you can cancel your sub anytime, that simply means you are just potential money and not guaranteed money in the bank. Same as the player who is playing free and decides to spend 10 bucks for a cosmetic item that month. They still have to get both of you to spend money the following month. So you can't throw out the argument that P2P opinions have more weight when there is very little difference between a sub and a whale, other than the amount of money spent.
As for F2P players their opinion may matter more because if there are enough of them and they are not spending money, you are probably first going to look at what they want so that you can entice them also to spend money. I believe this has already been stated here.
This to me makes sense. Paying or not is probably not high on the list when devs are looking at player concerns. For them I think, it would be what is best for the game and its continued success, that would be the main priority.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Try medical bills, jerk. Grow up.
Oh man, you did not just post this. Holding people accountable? Are you nuts? You mean they don't deserve a car, a free cell phone, free games? etc? What is this madness you speak of.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
So because you're sick and have medical bills, someone else has to pay to develop a game for you to play for free? And someone else has to support that game, also for free? You're the one who needs to grow up.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Do you understand what a completely ridiculous statement that is?
No probably not, because I am pretty sure you are unemployed and on welfare.
See ! It works for me too!
Seriously, trying thinking before you post.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
There is a serious problem with entitlement everywhere in the world. Its why socialism and communism are winning.
That said, I think the main complaint with F2P is that most of the time it costs MUCH more to obtain all the content than it would to buy a box and pay a subscription.
The second biggest complaint is that paying customers are then subsidizing those that choose no to monetize a game. Another form of socialism and for working people that gets old.
People these days just feel entitled anyway. It's not even just younger kids either (although it's more common there). I've got friends in their 30's and 40's who refuse to spend a dime on games, yet complain about how crappy new stuff is compared to 10 years ago.
It's kind of funny, because back then *I* was the cheap one. I justified playing WoW because 15 a month was tons cheaper than 49 a month. Going to college and raising a kid on my own meant gaming was low on my list of priorities. Now, they complain about their crappy retail jobs while I can afford pretty much anything I want within reason. I can see why they want things to be free, but they need to understand why quality suffers as a result.
You make me like charity
So now we are labelling F2P games as "socialist". ROFL, that won't get much reaction from me, I live in Canada! And we like our healthcare system thankyou. We are willing to pay a little extra to help the less fortunate but hey have it your way, thats ok.
What is the problem with other people subsidizing other peoples play? Those people are spending the money to play the game the way they want to. And yea, they might be spending more than a sub. So what? It is their money. And don't they have a right to spend it their way?
And whats wrong with enjoying a game without spending money? If the game allows you to do that, what is wrong with it? If it was wrong would they not put something in to stop you from playing? And you are actually doing something to help the game in any case, which is keeping the game populated. How many time have I heard a subbber whine " Oh I really would play that game except the pop is so low it is not worth a sub" Once again the subber shoots himself in the foot.
And a lot of these games were sub games and turned to F2P. So in other words, a sub payment model could not support a game but, oh yeah, those guys playing for free can! LOL
The more I read of this thread, the more I am becoming convinced what someone else said may be true. Subbers are the ones here that seem to feel truly entitled. Give us everything we want in a sub game or we won't pay you. You guys are almost like extortionists! LOL
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
F2P cash shops don't exist because "entitled players" demand them. Companies make tons of money out of cash shops cos it turns out people with poor self control will spend way more than $15 a month to get that shiny thing they want and get it NOW!
That's why cash shops exist.
If F2P shops really *just* encouraged a bunch of freeloaders do you think any game would use the model?
There's a sense of entitlement everywhere these days, and F2P MMOs are no exception.
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
#IStandWithVic
Dude, the 1950's called, your Joe McCarthy fan club card just came in. Here's a radical idea since we're on a gaming site, let's stay on topic and take your political crap back to Fox News or CNN.
However, I will agree with your only gaming related sentence, some F2P's do ask for a lot more money then a sub game, simply trusting that some folks won't bother to do the math since it's a little here and a little there.
Getting to the main line of this thread, there will always be people on the extreme ends of the F2P/entitlement issue. Those who complain a lot with no intention of ever spending cash and those who think they should have the only say because they did spend money. Most of us fall in the middle.
A current example. I'm playing Dragon's Prophet. I haven't spent any cash on it yet, even though I have Sony SC sitting in my account because of a couple big (for me at least) issues. I've spoken on them in the official forums and filed a support ticket on one. If they fix them I'll probably spend some money on the game. Do I have a "right" to complain? Absolutely. If enough folks raise the same issues, maybe they'll get fixed. The point is how else do the devs of a game know what needs changed if people don't speak up? That's not "entitlement" that's customer feedback.
The Moving Finger writes, and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
~Omar Khayyam
The trouble with F2P is many fold. Too many for me to detail this late at night.
You think F2P games are supported by people playing them for free? Do you really believe that? Or is it instead, that a combination of advertising and designing content to attract a specific form of paying customer is what supports those games?
When a game company sits down and makes decisions about what content to design for a F2P game, what do you think is their primary motivation? Putting more stuff out there for free? Or designing content to attract income? If you really want company income and not fun to be the primary motivation for design of content- you can keep enjoying all those wonderful F2P games.
There are plenty of people interested in paying for games with fun designs and content.
Personally, I just think its a shame that people are getting fleeced all day by micro transactions. Oh well, a fool and their money right?
Socialism is an economic model by the way. And we are talking game economics here. Therefore, it is very much in line with this topic.
F2P represents the entitlement trend occurring around the world. "I'm special and I should get to play anything I want for free! SO there! If others want to spend money for more stuff that's fine as long as I get to play for free!"
The design of a F2P system (a term that is very deceptive by the way, the better means of identification would be: Micro-Transacted Game or Whales and Free-Loaders) is altering the design course of games and genres in a way that many find detrimental to the game industry. Where as a player in the past might be able to play his favorite game with all content enable and available for 240 bucks a year (15 a month + box), he is now faced with a situation where the same content now costs hundreds or thousands in total. This disturbing trend in increased cost of content will likely result in gaming costing much more long term than at present.
I think that eventually all content will cost, as game companies learn something casino owners have known for a long time: It's 10 times easier to get a person to spend 3 dollars a day than 15 dollars a month. They wind up spending 90 bucks a month but feel like they are saving a ton of cash on this F2P!
Game on!
A model where some people can tax a server and not pay a cent to be on it is wrong. A model where you're manipulated into spending money, buying content over again, and being gated from your enjoyment is wrong.
So let's take your concept one step further - let's have ads in games. Then we can all be one happy free family. And better yet, you have to pay to get rid of them. You have to pay to not be annoyed, rather just paying a box fee or a subscription fee.
By every single moral measure, f2p is inferior to p2p and b2p. Kyrelan is 100% right.
Right. When I get a coupon for a free Big Mac, I expect a free Big Mac, not a free bun, $1 for a pickle, $2,99 for a piece of meat (that you have to move the pickle to see), $1 for lettuce, another dollar for cheeses, and $1 for special sauce. When you advertise something for free, it should be free. Call a spade a spade. "Free" does npt mean "nickel and dimed to death."
Yes its late at night and there are so many falsehoods and misconceptions in your post it is hard to know where to begin.
Never said anything about non paying players supporting a game. What I said was they keep the population up which is generally a good thing in an MMO, I am sure even you will agree. I know you will try the "they are all console kiddies" thing here again, but I will just ignore that misconception.
And when they decide to make a game I am sure they are thinking about many things not the least of which is creating a game people will want to play and hopefully spend money in. Same as a P2P game. No more no less.
So you are saying no F2P games have fun design or content?? Ok sure Foe, it must be true.
And who is getting fleeced when they are making the choiced to spend their money? You choose to spend your money on a sub, are you getting fleeced? ( I would say yes but that is just me) No you are choosing to pay the sub just as someone is choosing to use a cash shop. I am pretty sure they can do math too and are aware how much they are spending. If not it is plainly there on their credit card. Not the definition of fleecing in my book.
The amount of bias you people have is just incredible. Constantly amazes me.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Wrong!
You get the Big Mac.
The drink and fries are extra, bro! Cmon people, get your silly analogies right!
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Nope. Star Wars, aka the Big Mac is one product. Your analogy would be like getting Star Wars free, but Crysis 3 and Battlefield 4 is extra, bro! EA advertises the entire product as "free to play." If they only advertised space combat as free, you'd have a point.
The first line in the quote above is you stating that guys playing free can support a game LOL.
Your words.
Fun Design and Content: I have tried many, and was especially let down by NWN. Cashing out for items. Not a fun design to me.
The designers of a "F2P" model focus designing content on how they can get people to monetize while they play. Simple deduction.
The designers of a sub model focus on designing content intended to keep players playing and that is most often achieved by creating content a majority of players find "fun".
Edit: As for the fleecing, I refer to documented evidence that gamers tend to spend more on F2P per player than they do on Subs. Also, please note I used fleece and not robbed. The fool and his money again?
Do you have any idea what context means? i said they support the game by supplying needed population numbers. Not by supporting it financially. Both are benficial. But different. Context. Understand now?
I won't deny monetization is part of making an F2P game. But it is hardly all. You first need a game that people will be willing to pay for. Same as P2P. Simple deduction.
Same goes for designing content. No difference.
And last point, who are you to tell us how to spend our money? I could care less if you prefer a sub model and personally I don't care what the payment model is in a game that I want to play. If I don't like the payment model I won't play it. Same if I don't like the game.
In any case enjoy whatever games you are playing. Thats really all that matters.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
There is your "excessive sense of entitlement". if free players are that much unwanted then publishers should not allow free players and instead run a sub based games. i have been subscriber in freemium games(publishers don't use that term, they still say free to play) and i have no problem free players complaining. why? because the game is : "free to play", that is how it is being marketed.
Boobs are LIFE, Boobs are LOVE, Boobs are JUSTICE, Boobs are mankind's HOPES and DREAMS. People who complain about boobs have lost their humanity.