Because they are SUCCESSFUL after turning F2P? They have a MUCH larger player base and make MORE money. You left LOTRO after they went free. I, and probably a lot more others, joined.
I don't "support" companies when i play a game. I play a game FOR FUN. If a game has the same amount of fun to me, NOT paying is better than paying. Very simple principle.
Selling your soul for increased profits is what has the US economy in the mess it is in now and why all our manufacturing jobs are out of the country. But thats all i willll speak of that topic. (don't want to get this thread too far off topic). I hope i'm not the minority that thinks that supporting a company who provides a service you enjoy isn't just a thing you ignore.
The problem though as i said with f2p games is, some people have fun by destroying other peoples fun. The old phrase 1 bad apple spoils the bunch really applies here. I am more than willing to pay a company monthy to at least try to ensure some quality & to at least try to keep the bad apples out.
Because they are SUCCESSFUL after turning F2P? They have a MUCH larger player base and make MORE money. You left LOTRO after they went free. I, and probably a lot more others, joined.
I don't "support" companies when i play a game. I play a game FOR FUN. If a game has the same amount of fun to me, NOT paying is better than paying. Very simple principle.
Selling your soul for increased profits is what has the US economy in the mess it is in now and why all our manufacturing jobs are out of the country. But thats all i willll speak of that topic. (don't want to get this thread too far off topic). I hope i'm not the minority that thinks that supporting a company who provides a service you enjoy isn't just a thing you ignore.
The problem though as i said with f2p games is, some people have fun by destroying other peoples fun. The old phrase 1 bad apple spoils the bunch really applies here. I am more than willing to pay a company monthy to at least try to ensure some quality & to at least try to keep the bad apples out.
hmm .. how is playing a f2p game destroying other people's fun? Sure they subsidize my gaming .. but they are HAPPY (and having fun) while doing it. Otherwise, they can CHOOSE not to pay. See the beauty of F2P is that you have total freedom of choice. Don't play the game if it is not fun. Don't pay a cent to buy a fluff item if it does not increase your fun.
That argument "willing to pay a company monthy to at least try to ensure some quality" is just illogical. You ensure quality by choosing what to play. If a F2P game is boring, why would one spend time on it? If it is fun, you just "ensure its quality".
B2P, its what we have been using forever in video gaming. That is until MMO makers got greedy and gave us the "its a service" excuse to charge us more.
True. Which is much better than putting down $40-60 for a crap shoot and risk not getting my money worth.
I was just reciting that platitude as a joke. Though, it's kind ot funny that B2P is a reletively new and unused model for MMOs, when it is the standard for... everything else on earth. If you think about it, you run the risk of disappointment with everything you purchase.
Of course except the f2p ones .. there is ZERO risk of buying something you do not like. Plus, for a F2P game, you actually get MORE than what you pay for since those who want to p2win, or like to buy fluff items are going to subsidize my gaming.
So what is better than someone ELSE paying for your game?
Well, I would rather pay for something that I like vs get something that I don't like for free. Like I said, though, I'll play whatever I think is fun. If I find a game that I really like that's F2P, great. But, a monthly fee isn't going break me, either.
B2P, its what we have been using forever in video gaming. That is until MMO makers got greedy and gave us the "its a service" excuse to charge us more.
How about those who charge MOST of us less by going F2P?
Of course except the f2p ones .. there is ZERO risk of buying something you do not like. Plus, for a F2P game, you actually get MORE than what you pay for since those who want to p2win, or like to buy fluff items are going to subsidize my gaming.
So what is better than someone ELSE paying for your game?
Well, I would rather pay for something that I like vs get something that I don't like for free. Like I said, though, I'll play whatever I think is fun. If I find a game that I really like that's F2P, great. But, a monthly fee isn't going break me, either.
So given everything equal (equal fun), you like F2P more since you pay less? That should be a logical conclusion.
No one will play a game if it is not fun. So the concern "get something that I don't like for free" is really immaterial. I have not, in my entire life, play a game that is not fun for me, for more than 10 min. Because i could always STOP. Have you?
The OP's question is kind of out dated if you ask me.
The latest offerings are now combinations of models. Double dipping.
GW1 is not B2P. It's B2P with a Cash Shop.
GW2 will follow.
WoW is P2P with RMT
All the new games are adopting these hybrid models.
FunCom will be the 1st one to release a game (TSW) with all 3 at once.
And I think F2P is a misnomer. There may be some out there who's only fees are for convienence only. But for the most part, these games have locked conent or other methods of requiring you to spend money to experience all the game has to offer.
B2P, its what we have been using forever in video gaming. That is until MMO makers got greedy and gave us the "its a service" excuse to charge us more.
How about those who charge MOST of us less by going F2P?
Of course except the f2p ones .. there is ZERO risk of buying something you do not like. Plus, for a F2P game, you actually get MORE than what you pay for since those who want to p2win, or like to buy fluff items are going to subsidize my gaming.
So what is better than someone ELSE paying for your game?
Well, I would rather pay for something that I like vs get something that I don't like for free. Like I said, though, I'll play whatever I think is fun. If I find a game that I really like that's F2P, great. But, a monthly fee isn't going break me, either.
So given everything equal (equal fun), you like F2P more since you pay less? That should be a logical conclusion.
No one will play a game if it is not fun. So the concern "get something that I don't like for free" is really immaterial. I have not, in my entire life, play a game that is not fun for me, for more than 10 min. Because i could always STOP. Have you?
When guaging these types of questions, one must face reality. And that reality is the I don't like most (if not all) F2P games that's I've played, and it seems to attract a lower quality game. If it weren't for the AAA P2P market, I doubt that I would have ever gotten into the genre. That being said, F2P isn't a clear choice for me. However, there seem to be some interesting F2P games on the horizon, like Firefall and PlanetSide 2. As of right now, though, I've enjoyed more P2P than F2P, so basing my decision on that statistic, I would go with P2P.
B2P, its what we have been using forever in video gaming. That is until MMO makers got greedy and gave us the "its a service" excuse to charge us more.
How about those who charge MOST of us less by going F2P?
Don't really understand the sentence.
It's in response to a comment belittling developers for charging a monthly fee, stating that there are developers that chrage less by offering a F2P game.
I perfer the B2P model, as long as they only sell vanity items and things that should be rarely used on a character within their cash shop. The idea of B2P is that you have everybody pitching in a bit of money so that you don't need to pay to win or so they don't need to make the grind so long that it encourages you to buy items to increase the speed of your character progression like the F2P model usually uses. The B2P model can still be exploited just as easily as any of the other business models, but it is still the more trustworthy of the three models.
B2P, its what we have been using forever in video gaming. That is until MMO makers got greedy and gave us the "its a service" excuse to charge us more.
How about those who charge MOST of us less by going F2P?
Don't really understand the sentence.
It's in response to a comment belittling developers for charging a monthly fee, stating that there are developers that chrage less by offering a F2P game.
Im sorry but I still don't understand the point. What does stating that some developers charge less by offereing a f2p game have to do with my comment??
B2P, its what we have been using forever in video gaming. That is until MMO makers got greedy and gave us the "its a service" excuse to charge us more.
How about those who charge MOST of us less by going F2P?
Don't really understand the sentence.
It's in response to a comment belittling developers for charging a monthly fee, stating that there are developers that chrage less by offering a F2P game.
Im sorry but I still don't understand the point. What does stating that some developers charge less by offereing a f2p game have to do with my comment??
As per its relevance, I can't comment on that. I was just trying to clearify what it was getting at.
F2P is ok for what it is. It's pretty rare to see a good model of it (I think LotRO does a good job so far, although that's actually a hybrid F2PP2P). But, F2P will always and forever be about nickel and diming you to death. You may not fall for it, but the devs will always be pushing it on you which can be pretty annoying.
There is no compelling reason to have to pay a subscription fee every month. I don't care what game it is. The cost of running things like servers is extremely cheap now compared with 10 or so years ago when every MMO game pretty much had to be P2P.
B2P works pretty much like any console game or any non-MMO game - you buy it, then you play it for as long as you want. If a company using the B2P model makes a good game, people will buy it and the company will make a profit. They then should use that profit to develop whatever other game they want (a sequel?), and if making a sequel, they can add some content to the original to gear everyone up for that sequel. Yes, I unabashedly love Arena.net's business model. I think it's the most fair way of doing things both for the player and the developer.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Gimme my $15 a month and I am fine. Too bad so many companies are moving away from this model. I dread the inevetible nickle and diming that will most likely come with "microtransactions" and cash shops... Not to mention DLC...
That Guild Wars 2 login screen knocked up my wife. Must be the second coming!
"Buy to play" works because the developers are obligated to offer new content if they want to continue getting money from their established playerbase. Want me to pay more than the box cost? Better add an expansion or some really amazing DLC. A subscription game can just string these players along while adding improvement at a minimal pace.
Also, the buy to play model works in every other genre and is a heck of a lot better deal than these horribly outdated subscription models.
I agree with that too. I thing GW2 with B2P is a way to go. You buy the game and that's it. And when the expansion comes out, you buy it and that's it. I hate subscription fee, especially in these hard economic times.
First, a revenue model is only one (relatively small) portion of a Business Model. At best, the choice of P2P, F2P or B2P is the primary portion of the Business Model that is experienced by the customer. (Customer services is the other major portion of the Business Plan that the gamer experiences).
Second, whichever payment model the company chooses is fine with me, as long as their projections and budgeting keep the game afloat. Give the company revenue to cover its ongoing operational costs, recoup its developmental costs, and give the comany a reasonable profit. As long as the financial model does this, it keeps the game running.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
B2P, its what we have been using forever in video gaming. That is until MMO makers got greedy and gave us the "its a service" excuse to charge us more.
How about those who charge MOST of us less by going F2P?
Don't really understand the sentence.
It's in response to a comment belittling developers for charging a monthly fee, stating that there are developers that chrage less by offering a F2P game.
Im sorry but I still don't understand the point. What does stating that some developers charge less by offereing a f2p game have to do with my comment??
This .. "That is until MMO makers got greedy" .. that is a sweeping general statement. Note that the subject is "MMO makers" .. not "SOME MMO makers".
Thus, i am pointing out SOME MMO makers charge a majority of players LESS by going F2P. Which is a DIRECT repudiation of your statement.
Comments
Selling your soul for increased profits is what has the US economy in the mess it is in now and why all our manufacturing jobs are out of the country. But thats all i willll speak of that topic. (don't want to get this thread too far off topic). I hope i'm not the minority that thinks that supporting a company who provides a service you enjoy isn't just a thing you ignore.
The problem though as i said with f2p games is, some people have fun by destroying other peoples fun. The old phrase 1 bad apple spoils the bunch really applies here. I am more than willing to pay a company monthy to at least try to ensure some quality & to at least try to keep the bad apples out.
This is indirectly a great point.
When you pay $60 for a crap shoot, you incentivize the industry to provide more crap shoots.
Meanwhile if I try 3 free games and only award the good one with my money, the industry is incentivized to provide good games.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
hmm .. how is playing a f2p game destroying other people's fun? Sure they subsidize my gaming .. but they are HAPPY (and having fun) while doing it. Otherwise, they can CHOOSE not to pay. See the beauty of F2P is that you have total freedom of choice. Don't play the game if it is not fun. Don't pay a cent to buy a fluff item if it does not increase your fun.
That argument "willing to pay a company monthy to at least try to ensure some quality" is just illogical. You ensure quality by choosing what to play. If a F2P game is boring, why would one spend time on it? If it is fun, you just "ensure its quality".
B2P, its what we have been using forever in video gaming. That is until MMO makers got greedy and gave us the "its a service" excuse to charge us more.
Well, I would rather pay for something that I like vs get something that I don't like for free. Like I said, though, I'll play whatever I think is fun. If I find a game that I really like that's F2P, great. But, a monthly fee isn't going break me, either.
How about those who charge MOST of us less by going F2P?
So given everything equal (equal fun), you like F2P more since you pay less? That should be a logical conclusion.
No one will play a game if it is not fun. So the concern "get something that I don't like for free" is really immaterial. I have not, in my entire life, play a game that is not fun for me, for more than 10 min. Because i could always STOP. Have you?
The OP's question is kind of out dated if you ask me.
The latest offerings are now combinations of models. Double dipping.
GW1 is not B2P. It's B2P with a Cash Shop.
GW2 will follow.
WoW is P2P with RMT
All the new games are adopting these hybrid models.
FunCom will be the 1st one to release a game (TSW) with all 3 at once.
And I think F2P is a misnomer. There may be some out there who's only fees are for convienence only. But for the most part, these games have locked conent or other methods of requiring you to spend money to experience all the game has to offer.
Don't really understand the sentence.
When guaging these types of questions, one must face reality. And that reality is the I don't like most (if not all) F2P games that's I've played, and it seems to attract a lower quality game. If it weren't for the AAA P2P market, I doubt that I would have ever gotten into the genre. That being said, F2P isn't a clear choice for me. However, there seem to be some interesting F2P games on the horizon, like Firefall and PlanetSide 2. As of right now, though, I've enjoyed more P2P than F2P, so basing my decision on that statistic, I would go with P2P.
It's in response to a comment belittling developers for charging a monthly fee, stating that there are developers that chrage less by offering a F2P game.
I perfer the B2P model, as long as they only sell vanity items and things that should be rarely used on a character within their cash shop. The idea of B2P is that you have everybody pitching in a bit of money so that you don't need to pay to win or so they don't need to make the grind so long that it encourages you to buy items to increase the speed of your character progression like the F2P model usually uses. The B2P model can still be exploited just as easily as any of the other business models, but it is still the more trustworthy of the three models.
Im sorry but I still don't understand the point. What does stating that some developers charge less by offereing a f2p game have to do with my comment??
As per its relevance, I can't comment on that. I was just trying to clearify what it was getting at.
I voted B2P and here's why:
F2P is ok for what it is. It's pretty rare to see a good model of it (I think LotRO does a good job so far, although that's actually a hybrid F2PP2P). But, F2P will always and forever be about nickel and diming you to death. You may not fall for it, but the devs will always be pushing it on you which can be pretty annoying.
There is no compelling reason to have to pay a subscription fee every month. I don't care what game it is. The cost of running things like servers is extremely cheap now compared with 10 or so years ago when every MMO game pretty much had to be P2P.
B2P works pretty much like any console game or any non-MMO game - you buy it, then you play it for as long as you want. If a company using the B2P model makes a good game, people will buy it and the company will make a profit. They then should use that profit to develop whatever other game they want (a sequel?), and if making a sequel, they can add some content to the original to gear everyone up for that sequel. Yes, I unabashedly love Arena.net's business model. I think it's the most fair way of doing things both for the player and the developer.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Be afraid.....The dragons are HERE!
Gimme my $15 a month and I am fine. Too bad so many companies are moving away from this model. I dread the inevetible nickle and diming that will most likely come with "microtransactions" and cash shops... Not to mention DLC...
That Guild Wars 2 login screen knocked up my wife. Must be the second coming!
I agree with that too. I thing GW2 with B2P is a way to go. You buy the game and that's it. And when the expansion comes out, you buy it and that's it. I hate subscription fee, especially in these hard economic times.
Website: http://www.emrendil.com
TwitchTV: http://www.twitch.tv/emrendil
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Emrendil
Two things.
First, a revenue model is only one (relatively small) portion of a Business Model. At best, the choice of P2P, F2P or B2P is the primary portion of the Business Model that is experienced by the customer. (Customer services is the other major portion of the Business Plan that the gamer experiences).
Second, whichever payment model the company chooses is fine with me, as long as their projections and budgeting keep the game afloat. Give the company revenue to cover its ongoing operational costs, recoup its developmental costs, and give the comany a reasonable profit. As long as the financial model does this, it keeps the game running.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
This .. "That is until MMO makers got greedy" .. that is a sweeping general statement. Note that the subject is "MMO makers" .. not "SOME MMO makers".
Thus, i am pointing out SOME MMO makers charge a majority of players LESS by going F2P. Which is a DIRECT repudiation of your statement.