There are alot of problems with the F2P model but one of the big ones with a game that is wholely dependant upon RMT revenue is that it pushes the designers into PUREPOSEFULLY building annoyances, disadvantages and things that detract from the fun of the game so they can earn revenue by selling you things that alleviate those defects. The entire business model is predicated upon offering the user a purposefully flawed product so those flaws can be alleviated by the purchase of RMT items. Some games are far more egregious and blatant in that practice then others, but they ALL are based on it to some degree.
NOt if there is competition. If a game is not fun and free, i move on to another game.
And from what i am seeing, many F2P are still fun.
PWI = F2P model with cs. Have not played it enough to know if you need to use the cs or if it's P2W.
I have played enough PWE games (by the way, PWE is the name of the company, PWI is the name of the game) to know that the cash shop isn't that necessary, and isn't pay to win. Some things are available in the cash shop that are only available in the cash shop, but most of them have in-game counterparts that you can get via grinding (which is about as bad as grinding in subscription MMOs) or are able to be sold in the auction house. Even if you want to use the cash shop, they have surveys that pay you cash shop money for completing them. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, but all in all, the PWE cash shop is one of the best ones out there (as long as you avoid stuff like the lockbox keys, grab bags, and raffle balls, that is).
There are alot of problems with the F2P model but one of the big ones with a game that is wholely dependant upon RMT revenue is that it pushes the designers into PUREPOSEFULLY building annoyances, disadvantages and things that detract from the fun of the game so they can earn revenue by selling you things that alleviate those defects. The entire business model is predicated upon offering the user a purposefully flawed product so those flaws can be alleviated by the purchase of RMT items. Some games are far more egregious and blatant in that practice then others, but they ALL are based on it to some degree.
NOt if there is competition. If a game is not fun and free, i move on to another game.
And from what i am seeing, many F2P are still fun.
Sure, competition can help differentiate between more and less successfull implimentations in ANY business model.....assuming there is some real point of differentuation between competing products and not simply differently skinned versions of the same product. However, it's kind of irrelevant to the point I was making since I was talking about the problems caused by the MODEL itself....not whether there are better or worse iterations of it. ALL models (including sub or B2P) have better or worse itterations of them. But the MODEL of F2P creates some unique pitfalls in terms of producing and maintaining a good design/product. Probably why many people are under the impression that "most" F2P games are crap or blatant cash grabs, even while they may be able to cite individual ones which are good.
The other things to keep in mind is that the pressure to maximize proffits by incentivizing purchasing behavior is an ONGOING concern. Even if the intitial design isn't overly egrigious that doesn't mean that it won't move toward an egrigious level over time (i.e. boil the frog slowly rather then drop it straight into a boiling pot). The other issue is that different users have different tolerances for annoyances or purposefull flaws. You may have a higher tolerance for such things than others....which means that something which is still fun for you becomes absolutely unplayable for someone else. Judging the tolerance of your user base for such defects, can be a rather tricky endevour.
Originally posted by GrumpyMel2 Sure, competition can help differentiate between more and less successfull implimentations in ANY business model.....assuming there is some real point of differentuation between competing products and not simply differently skinned versions of the same product. However, it's kind of irrelevant to the point I was making since I was talking about the problems caused by the MODEL itself....not whether there are better or worse iterations of it. ALL models (including sub or B2P) have better or worse itterations of them. But the MODEL of F2P creates some unique pitfalls in terms of producing and maintaining a good design/product. Probably why many people are under the impression that "most" F2P games are crap or blatant cash grabs, even while they may be able to cite individual ones which are good.The other things to keep in mind is that the pressure to maximize proffits by incentivizing purchasing behavior is an ONGOING concern. Even if the intitial design isn't overly egrigious that doesn't mean that it won't move toward an egrigious level over time (i.e. boil the frog slowly rather then drop it straight into a boiling pot). The other issue is that different users have different tolerances for annoyances or purposefull flaws. You may have a higher tolerance for such things than others....which means that something which is still fun for you becomes absolutely unplayable for someone else. Judging the tolerance of your user base for such defects, can be a rather tricky endevour.
I believe I have the gist of your post, but what you are speaking of doesn't seem all that different to me than the P2P developers that intentionally design timesinks (raid lockouts, etc) into their games to keep players p[l]aying. In both scenarios, there are better and worse implementations for this, but how is one inherently better than another?
what ever happened to just buying a game and then u play it to your hearts content ever gone to?
Standalone singleplayer/multiplayer games still exist.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
what ever happened to just buying a game and then u play it to your hearts content ever gone to?
Standaone singleplayer/multiplayer games still exist.
mmorpg have more excuse since they need to constantly patching it, and release more content. And your comment dont' make sense since the only game fit in the case for mmorpg is gw1 and soon gw2.
You people need to realise where all this F2P crap is heading...
HEY! What do you mean, "You people"????
F2P is here to stay. Unethical cash shops are the problem, not the F2P model.
If in 1982 we played with the current mentality, we would have burned down all the pac man games since the red ghost was clearly OP. Instead we just got better at the game.
There are alot of problems with the F2P model but one of the big ones with a game that is wholely dependant upon RMT revenue is that it pushes the designers into PUREPOSEFULLY building annoyances, disadvantages and things that detract from the fun of the game so they can earn revenue by selling you things that alleviate those defects. The entire business model is predicated upon offering the user a purposefully flawed product so those flaws can be alleviated by the purchase of RMT items. Some games are far more egregious and blatant in that practice then others, but they ALL are based on it to some degree.
NOt if there is competition. If a game is not fun and free, i move on to another game.
And from what i am seeing, many F2P are still fun.
Sure, competition can help differentiate between more and less successfull implimentations in ANY business model.....assuming there is some real point of differentuation between competing products and not simply differently skinned versions of the same product. However, it's kind of irrelevant to the point I was making since I was talking about the problems caused by the MODEL itself....not whether there are better or worse iterations of it. ALL models (including sub or B2P) have better or worse itterations of them. But the MODEL of F2P creates some unique pitfalls in terms of producing and maintaining a good design/product. Probably why many people are under the impression that "most" F2P games are crap or blatant cash grabs, even while they may be able to cite individual ones which are good.
The other things to keep in mind is that the pressure to maximize proffits by incentivizing purchasing behavior is an ONGOING concern. Even if the intitial design isn't overly egrigious that doesn't mean that it won't move toward an egrigious level over time (i.e. boil the frog slowly rather then drop it straight into a boiling pot). The other issue is that different users have different tolerances for annoyances or purposefull flaws. You may have a higher tolerance for such things than others....which means that something which is still fun for you becomes absolutely unplayable for someone else. Judging the tolerance of your user base for such defects, can be a rather tricky endevour.
That is irrelevant. You look at a F2P game, if it is fun, play it. If they try to push too much puchasing stuff and it is no longer fun, quit.
So what if the design change? You can ALWAYS quit. It is not like there are not 100 other games to play?
And so far, because of competition, i still find MANY f2p games fun. Is there a reason why i should not play a game that is fun and also FREE? I do NOT think so.
In general, I agree with the OP. F2P can often be the most expensive model for the players, if they want to experience all new content with minimal mind-numbing repetition. However, F2P can't be avoided. Why? Customers.
People, a large number of whom have no idea what FTP means, will always look at the word "FREE" and get sucked right in to whatever product it is. Think of this, a man in the desert is giving away free tacos. He doesn't tell customers what is in a taco unless they ask. Each taco comes loaded with Jalepenos and extra hot sauce. He then sells water at $10 a glass. That day, the man makes thousands of dollars selling water.
That is the F2P model. People come for the word "free" and then pay ridiculous amounts of cash for their "own convenience."
Error: 37. Signature not found. Please connect to my server for signature access.
You people need to realise where all this F2P crap is heading...
Opening sentence indicating a slippery slope will be the direction of the thread:
I'm telling you guys right now, this will not end well for gamers....
And delivered.
Sometimes I don't believe there is any other kind of thread on this site.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
PWI = F2P model with cs. Have not played it enough to know if you need to use the cs or if it's P2W.
I have played enough PWE games (by the way, PWE is the name of the company, PWI is the name of the game) to know that the cash shop isn't that necessary, and isn't pay to win. Some things are available in the cash shop that are only available in the cash shop, but most of them have in-game counterparts that you can get via grinding (which is about as bad as grinding in subscription MMOs) or are able to be sold in the auction house. Even if you want to use the cash shop, they have surveys that pay you cash shop money for completing them. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, but all in all, the PWE cash shop is one of the best ones out there (as long as you avoid stuff like the lockbox keys, grab bags, and raffle balls, that is).
Cool, good to know.
Sorry to say but he lied to you. i played PWI for a couple years, and it is very much a Pay 2 win game.
in order to get R9 which is the best gear u pretty much can get and is impossible to get without paying in the cash shop. and if u pvp its very important as any r9 can just kill u with ease if you dont have r9. now pwe other games like forsaken world is little better as it has fewer things. but pwi its self is very cash shop reliant if you want to compete with the best pvp'rs and most time nirvana groups only look for r9s also. i can go on with pwi's flaws but this thread aint really bout pwi so ill shut up at this point.
Not sure whether I agree with you or not OP. But the idea that cash shops are just there for people who want them and other players can just ignore it is an illusion. The developer is going to do everything in their power to tempt you to use the cash shop. It's like the "don't laugh" game. Your friend does everthing in his power to get you to laugh but you've gotta keep a straight face. Except in the MMO the developer holds convenient, cute, and shiny things in front of you and encourages you to buy them lol.
You ever wonder why they don't allow you to bring food and beverages into movies, clubs, or make it difficult to at sports stadiums? It's because they know that while you're there they can bombard you food and drinks smells, pictures, seeing other people eating and drinking and then you'll want to buy their expensive overpriced food and drinks. It's a tried and true business model. Cash shops work the exact same way.
Give me a break! F2P is fine and in many ways better. If you dont like it dont play!
Stop whinning booo hooo...
Why is it to stay competitive in games F2P games like Lotro, STO, DDO you end up spending more per month than a subscription would cost? Why do game companies that start of as subscription but later go F2P start making more money as F2P? Those two things are related.
Give me a break! F2P is fine and in many ways better. If you dont like it dont play!
Stop whinning booo hooo...
Why is it to stay competitive in games F2P games like Lotro, STO, DDO you end up spending more per month than a subscription would cost? Why do game companies that start of as subscription but later go F2P start making more money as F2P? Those two things are related.
To stay competitive against...?
Spending more per month than a sub? So only 5-10% stays competitive?
You'd have less questions if you stuck to real facts instead of making stuff up and trying to answer it.
"Why do game companies that start of as subscription but later go F2P start making more money as F2P? Those two things are related."
Because MMO gamers prefer F2P is the most logical answer, but your initial spew of talking points seems to indicate you probably think it's some nefarious conspiracy of psychological mindscrewing and parlor tricks to convince people that's what they would like.
Watch the pendulum and count backwards from 10 to 1, sir. Wipe all subscription thoughts out of your mind and start counting.... slowly.... 10... 9... 8... that's it... you loooove free to play.... 7... 6... 5... you're feeling sleepy...
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Seems to me that the OP would struggle to stop himself from hitting the *Take me to the closing scene/battle/credits for $20" option if it was given to him.
I see this as Fat ppl blaming McDonalds for their weight. No one is making you buy these items and most games with any common sense (GW2, Lotr) make it so that the game is totally playable WITHOUT having buy anything from their cashshop.
I do see your point when you have the situation when you have items that you HAVE to buy. But I reckon you have never truely come across this, otherwise you'd have a better opinion of GW2. See Below.
There are games where you literally need an item that drops maybe 1/1'000'000 in the real game, but you can buy for a few dollars in the cash shop. These items will be FUNDAMENTAL to the weapon/gear upgrade process (sometimes there are the items that save your gear from being destroyed when you fail an upgrade). These cashshop are unfair and create a Pay2Win scenario. These types of games will not live for long in thw western market and in the end everything but the Whales with cash end up leaving them after a few months from release. Ever noticed how many F2P games there are compared to Sub games? Its because they are not sustainable, when you buy everything you get bored much much quickier.
Hitting out at ALL cashshop games in the way the OP is is not the way to go at all and you not considering how clever and not at all negative the B2P + Cosmetic shop is. especially in thi day and age where the majority of MMO gamers are in their twenties and no longer have the time to put in enough playing to warrant a Sub. Free games get around this issue and for me this is why im going to play GW2. Wow may be better (I dont think so) Tor may be better (again i dont think so but maybe) but that doesnt beat the fact that I can play GW2 for years without paying anything other than the $60 I paid for the game and I never have to think that im wasting my sub because I havnt logged in all week or whatever.
Different models exist for different markets and people. If the cashshop model didn't work, it wouldnt exsist and the people who believe this is just some fad that the companies are going through lack any real intelligence. Companies use cashshop because they work and for a lot of consumers they are the better option to a sub fee.
Also the cashshop model has been making more money for companies than the sub model EVER has. To see this you have to consider the amount of investment VS. the profits made. WoW may still make more money but it took millions to make and thousands more to maintain. Then you have Farmville which doesnt make as much as WoW but if you look at the build cost and the maintaince costs involved, its ****ing all over WoW for return on investment.
Cashshop are here to stay, get over it or rewrite you opinion after you gain some more knowledge on the subject (maybe play a f2p game?).
If you continue to make sweeping statements like you know what everyone everywhere thinks about a certain topic then I am going to shout at you. It easy to type 'I think this is the worst game ever' Rather than the 'This is the worst game ever'
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
'...' is not a valid form of punctuation for ever other sentance. I just stopped reading it....
Actually "..." is a very valid form of punctuation, it's called an ellipsis. Here's the Definition:
Ellipsis (plural ellipses; from the Ancient Greek: ?λλειψις, élleipsis, "omission" or "falling short") is a series of marks that usually indicate an intentional omission of a word, sentence or whole section from the original text being quoted. An ellipsis can also be used to indicate an unfinished thought or, at the end of a sentence, a trailing off into silence (aposiopesis), example: "But I thought he was . . ." When placed at the beginning or end of a sentence, the ellipsis can also inspire a feeling of melancholy or longing. The ellipsis calls for a slight pause in speech or any other form of text, but it is incorrect to use ellipses solely to indicate a pause in speech.
So the OP is a quote and not the opinion of the poster? doesnt that mean it should have been in " "?
If you continue to make sweeping statements like you know what everyone everywhere thinks about a certain topic then I am going to shout at you. It easy to type 'I think this is the worst game ever' Rather than the 'This is the worst game ever'
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
'...' is not a valid form of punctuation for ever other sentance. I just stopped reading it....
Actually "..." is a very valid form of punctuation, it's called an ellipsis. Here's the Definition:
Ellipsis (plural ellipses; from the Ancient Greek: ?λλειψις, élleipsis, "omission" or "falling short") is a series of marks that usually indicate an intentional omission of a word, sentence or whole section from the original text being quoted. An ellipsis can also be used to indicate an unfinished thought or, at the end of a sentence, a trailing off into silence (aposiopesis), example: "But I thought he was . . ." When placed at the beginning or end of a sentence, the ellipsis can also inspire a feeling of melancholy or longing. The ellipsis calls for a slight pause in speech or any other form of text, but it is incorrect to use ellipses solely to indicate a pause in speech.
So the OP is a quote and not the opinion of the poster? doesnt that mean it should have been in " "?
I'm only correcting the person who said that the ellipsis was not a valid punctuation. I did not say that the OP was using it correctly
fair
/takebacksarcasm
If you continue to make sweeping statements like you know what everyone everywhere thinks about a certain topic then I am going to shout at you. It easy to type 'I think this is the worst game ever' Rather than the 'This is the worst game ever'
Seems to me that the OP would struggle to stop himself from hitting the *Take me to the closing scene/battle/credits for $20" option if it was given to him.
I see this as Fat ppl blaming McDonalds for their weight. No one is making you buy these items and most games with any common sense (GW2, Lotr) make it so that the game is totally playable WITHOUT having buy anything from their cashshop.
Word.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I can see pros and cons to both sides of the coin, so to speak, on this subject.
F2P with their CS content, provides an avenue for people to play, or as it was stated "try", a game out and if they like it enough to cough up some cash they can at their leisure and on what they choose. It also limits the devolper in what they can provide as new content as they have an unpredictable flow of income and therefore can only provide so much without empting the confers and going upside down on costs.
On the other hand, the P2P model minus the CS allows a consistant and measurable income for the company in which to plan future content and enhancements and therefore can provide new meaningful content. It also, in my opinion, encourages gamers to play the game more often, becasue they are paying for the game monthly, and thus adding to the overall experience and community of the game.
Back in the day I could never have imagined paying for the new look or that flashy new mount because everything I needed was already in the game and could be obtained from inside the game and what had been released in expansions. I was also ignorant to think that the game I was playing would be online for my life time (I so laugh at that these days).
Now though, the F2P does have some appeal to me considering the rollercoaster ride of the MMO industry. Why would I pay monthly for a game that in a years time could close it's doors? I would NEVER consider paying a life time sub any longer for ANY game for that exact reason as well. F2P on the other hand gives me the opportunity to play that game and not spend anything if I so choose and if the game bombs or the developer/backer decides to pull the plug, I have lost nothing but time.
I do still pay subs for games I deem worthy in my eyes such as DAOC, which I still play, however, I do not run out and sub to the new games any longer until I have researched, played beta, read reviews, or otherwise have a good grasp on how the game will look in a years time.
Bottom line, the industry has changed and will continue to change and we, as gamers old and new, have to change with it or find another avenue for our escape from reality.
Comments
NOt if there is competition. If a game is not fun and free, i move on to another game.
And from what i am seeing, many F2P are still fun.
Cool, good to know.
Sure, competition can help differentiate between more and less successfull implimentations in ANY business model.....assuming there is some real point of differentuation between competing products and not simply differently skinned versions of the same product. However, it's kind of irrelevant to the point I was making since I was talking about the problems caused by the MODEL itself....not whether there are better or worse iterations of it. ALL models (including sub or B2P) have better or worse itterations of them. But the MODEL of F2P creates some unique pitfalls in terms of producing and maintaining a good design/product. Probably why many people are under the impression that "most" F2P games are crap or blatant cash grabs, even while they may be able to cite individual ones which are good.
The other things to keep in mind is that the pressure to maximize proffits by incentivizing purchasing behavior is an ONGOING concern. Even if the intitial design isn't overly egrigious that doesn't mean that it won't move toward an egrigious level over time (i.e. boil the frog slowly rather then drop it straight into a boiling pot). The other issue is that different users have different tolerances for annoyances or purposefull flaws. You may have a higher tolerance for such things than others....which means that something which is still fun for you becomes absolutely unplayable for someone else. Judging the tolerance of your user base for such defects, can be a rather tricky endevour.
I believe I have the gist of your post, but what you are speaking of doesn't seem all that different to me than the P2P developers that intentionally design timesinks (raid lockouts, etc) into their games to keep players p[l]aying. In both scenarios, there are better and worse implementations for this, but how is one inherently better than another?
i know im late in this convo.
but the p2p and f2p is all flawed.
what ever happened to just buying a game and then u play it to your hearts content ever gone to?
p2p i find dumb cuz why should i buy the game and then on top of that pay to play it.
f2p at least gives u the option to play for free.
i personally thinks gw has the best mmo set up as in buy it then play and dont have any really killer item in the cash shop.
Standalone singleplayer/multiplayer games still exist.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
mmorpg have more excuse since they need to constantly patching it, and release more content. And your comment dont' make sense since the only game fit in the case for mmorpg is gw1 and soon gw2.
HEY! What do you mean, "You people"????
F2P is here to stay. Unethical cash shops are the problem, not the F2P model.
If in 1982 we played with the current mentality, we would have burned down all the pac man games since the red ghost was clearly OP. Instead we just got better at the game.
That is irrelevant. You look at a F2P game, if it is fun, play it. If they try to push too much puchasing stuff and it is no longer fun, quit.
So what if the design change? You can ALWAYS quit. It is not like there are not 100 other games to play?
And so far, because of competition, i still find MANY f2p games fun. Is there a reason why i should not play a game that is fun and also FREE? I do NOT think so.
In general, I agree with the OP. F2P can often be the most expensive model for the players, if they want to experience all new content with minimal mind-numbing repetition. However, F2P can't be avoided. Why? Customers.
People, a large number of whom have no idea what FTP means, will always look at the word "FREE" and get sucked right in to whatever product it is. Think of this, a man in the desert is giving away free tacos. He doesn't tell customers what is in a taco unless they ask. Each taco comes loaded with Jalepenos and extra hot sauce. He then sells water at $10 a glass. That day, the man makes thousands of dollars selling water.
That is the F2P model. People come for the word "free" and then pay ridiculous amounts of cash for their "own convenience."
Error: 37. Signature not found. Please connect to my server for signature access.
MMos are dead anyways.Not gw2 nor anything else will save your gameplay dream.
For me mmo means sandbox.Anything else outside of sandbox is a singleplayer game with multiplayer elements.
Enough said.
The only true mmos are daoc,ultima online,vanguard and maybe Archeage
all others are 2 month money stealers
Sometimes I don't believe there is any other kind of thread on this site.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Sorry to say but he lied to you. i played PWI for a couple years, and it is very much a Pay 2 win game.
in order to get R9 which is the best gear u pretty much can get and is impossible to get without paying in the cash shop. and if u pvp its very important as any r9 can just kill u with ease if you dont have r9. now pwe other games like forsaken world is little better as it has fewer things. but pwi its self is very cash shop reliant if you want to compete with the best pvp'rs and most time nirvana groups only look for r9s also. i can go on with pwi's flaws but this thread aint really bout pwi so ill shut up at this point.
Not sure whether I agree with you or not OP. But the idea that cash shops are just there for people who want them and other players can just ignore it is an illusion. The developer is going to do everything in their power to tempt you to use the cash shop. It's like the "don't laugh" game. Your friend does everthing in his power to get you to laugh but you've gotta keep a straight face. Except in the MMO the developer holds convenient, cute, and shiny things in front of you and encourages you to buy them lol.
You ever wonder why they don't allow you to bring food and beverages into movies, clubs, or make it difficult to at sports stadiums? It's because they know that while you're there they can bombard you food and drinks smells, pictures, seeing other people eating and drinking and then you'll want to buy their expensive overpriced food and drinks. It's a tried and true business model. Cash shops work the exact same way.
Give me a break! F2P is fine and in many ways better. If you dont like it dont play!
Stop whinning booo hooo...
Why is it to stay competitive in games F2P games like Lotro, STO, DDO you end up spending more per month than a subscription would cost? Why do game companies that start of as subscription but later go F2P start making more money as F2P? Those two things are related.
To stay competitive against...?
Spending more per month than a sub? So only 5-10% stays competitive?
You'd have less questions if you stuck to real facts instead of making stuff up and trying to answer it.
"Why do game companies that start of as subscription but later go F2P start making more money as F2P? Those two things are related."
Because MMO gamers prefer F2P is the most logical answer, but your initial spew of talking points seems to indicate you probably think it's some nefarious conspiracy of psychological mindscrewing and parlor tricks to convince people that's what they would like.
Watch the pendulum and count backwards from 10 to 1, sir. Wipe all subscription thoughts out of your mind and start counting.... slowly.... 10... 9... 8... that's it... you loooove free to play.... 7... 6... 5... you're feeling sleepy...
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Seems to me that the OP would struggle to stop himself from hitting the *Take me to the closing scene/battle/credits for $20" option if it was given to him.
I see this as Fat ppl blaming McDonalds for their weight. No one is making you buy these items and most games with any common sense (GW2, Lotr) make it so that the game is totally playable WITHOUT having buy anything from their cashshop.
I do see your point when you have the situation when you have items that you HAVE to buy. But I reckon you have never truely come across this, otherwise you'd have a better opinion of GW2. See Below.
There are games where you literally need an item that drops maybe 1/1'000'000 in the real game, but you can buy for a few dollars in the cash shop. These items will be FUNDAMENTAL to the weapon/gear upgrade process (sometimes there are the items that save your gear from being destroyed when you fail an upgrade). These cashshop are unfair and create a Pay2Win scenario. These types of games will not live for long in thw western market and in the end everything but the Whales with cash end up leaving them after a few months from release. Ever noticed how many F2P games there are compared to Sub games? Its because they are not sustainable, when you buy everything you get bored much much quickier.
Hitting out at ALL cashshop games in the way the OP is is not the way to go at all and you not considering how clever and not at all negative the B2P + Cosmetic shop is. especially in thi day and age where the majority of MMO gamers are in their twenties and no longer have the time to put in enough playing to warrant a Sub. Free games get around this issue and for me this is why im going to play GW2. Wow may be better (I dont think so) Tor may be better (again i dont think so but maybe) but that doesnt beat the fact that I can play GW2 for years without paying anything other than the $60 I paid for the game and I never have to think that im wasting my sub because I havnt logged in all week or whatever.
Different models exist for different markets and people. If the cashshop model didn't work, it wouldnt exsist and the people who believe this is just some fad that the companies are going through lack any real intelligence. Companies use cashshop because they work and for a lot of consumers they are the better option to a sub fee.
Also the cashshop model has been making more money for companies than the sub model EVER has. To see this you have to consider the amount of investment VS. the profits made. WoW may still make more money but it took millions to make and thousands more to maintain. Then you have Farmville which doesnt make as much as WoW but if you look at the build cost and the maintaince costs involved, its ****ing all over WoW for return on investment.
Cashshop are here to stay, get over it or rewrite you opinion after you gain some more knowledge on the subject (maybe play a f2p game?).
If you continue to make sweeping statements like you know what everyone everywhere thinks about a certain topic then I am going to shout at you.
It easy to type 'I think this is the worst game ever'
Rather than the 'This is the worst game ever'
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
So the OP is a quote and not the opinion of the poster? doesnt that mean it should have been in " "?
If you continue to make sweeping statements like you know what everyone everywhere thinks about a certain topic then I am going to shout at you.
It easy to type 'I think this is the worst game ever'
Rather than the 'This is the worst game ever'
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
fair
/takebacksarcasm
If you continue to make sweeping statements like you know what everyone everywhere thinks about a certain topic then I am going to shout at you.
It easy to type 'I think this is the worst game ever'
Rather than the 'This is the worst game ever'
Word.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
You misspelled 'every'. I read you criticism, I just discounted it...
I can see pros and cons to both sides of the coin, so to speak, on this subject.
F2P with their CS content, provides an avenue for people to play, or as it was stated "try", a game out and if they like it enough to cough up some cash they can at their leisure and on what they choose. It also limits the devolper in what they can provide as new content as they have an unpredictable flow of income and therefore can only provide so much without empting the confers and going upside down on costs.
On the other hand, the P2P model minus the CS allows a consistant and measurable income for the company in which to plan future content and enhancements and therefore can provide new meaningful content. It also, in my opinion, encourages gamers to play the game more often, becasue they are paying for the game monthly, and thus adding to the overall experience and community of the game.
Back in the day I could never have imagined paying for the new look or that flashy new mount because everything I needed was already in the game and could be obtained from inside the game and what had been released in expansions. I was also ignorant to think that the game I was playing would be online for my life time (I so laugh at that these days).
Now though, the F2P does have some appeal to me considering the rollercoaster ride of the MMO industry. Why would I pay monthly for a game that in a years time could close it's doors? I would NEVER consider paying a life time sub any longer for ANY game for that exact reason as well. F2P on the other hand gives me the opportunity to play that game and not spend anything if I so choose and if the game bombs or the developer/backer decides to pull the plug, I have lost nothing but time.
I do still pay subs for games I deem worthy in my eyes such as DAOC, which I still play, however, I do not run out and sub to the new games any longer until I have researched, played beta, read reviews, or otherwise have a good grasp on how the game will look in a years time.
Bottom line, the industry has changed and will continue to change and we, as gamers old and new, have to change with it or find another avenue for our escape from reality.