What I can not understand is a war between P2P and F2P. One person would enjoy p2p only (without cashs hops and any restrictions). Another person would enjoy free world (with some restrictions and possible cash shop).
What's wrong then? I like McDonalds, you like Hesburger, but we both like same type of food. Why say ""McDonalds:you don''t want this" or "Hesburger:you don't want this"?
Once I saw a movie where one woman escaped from mafia prison, grabbed a bag with cash and went to buy a car. She chose a car and then asked some shoes to be sold. Seller goes to manager: "Sir, this mad woman wants shoes to the car, but we don't sell shoes!". Manager: "Do you want to know why you are still seller and I am manager?". Seller: "yes". Manager: "This woman is a wise one, because she came to shop with us".
In short: if user choses pay-to-play model, it's ok. If user choses buy-to-play model, it's ok. If user choses freemium (please note I do not use word "free" since no game is 100% free) content, it's ok. Companies just adapt to this. If all users would start requesting that all food in any MMORPG would be called "burger", companies would surely rename to burgers.
In Lithuania some students launched an online game (cosmic strategy). Freemium, of course: want to accelerate that building - pay in cash. One person spent some 600 $ in a day and they asked why. "I just did not want to wait" - told that person from some Scandinavian country.
So - if users are willing to use freemium model, what's wrong with it? I do not claim future is for f2p, p2p or b2p. So far freemium content is what seems to be future.
One more note: even at freemium content, you may play and spent zero dollars zero cents. No one forces you to pay (yes, that cool armor won't be yours and that line of quests won't be yours too, but you can still enjoy the game). It's up to you, no company would ever push you "buy or get banned".
When mmos go f2p players unfortuantely forgive developers for making a crap game because they don't have to pay the monthly fee anymore so to them all is so much better now. F2P is bad for the mmo genre for the long term because the expectations of a f2p mmo is so much lower than a subscription mmo which have much higher expectations. F2P is nothing more than an excuse for devs not to work as hard as they should.
Plus, people won't decide, anything. Companies will just use deceptive marketing (paid forum posters, etc), and push it down our throats how that $100 sword, $20 dungeon, or $5 xp potion are of great value. It's called nickle & diming, but making you think that you're getting the last laugh because of the 'high value' you seen these items have by forum posters that mostly consist of blind sheep or paid shills.
That's absolutely ridiculous. I really wish people would stop playing the victim of "these evil corporations". If you aren't smart enough or informed enough to make a good decision about how you spend your money and time, that is your problem. If a company takes advantage of the fact that you are a fool who is easily parted with his money, who's to blame? I say the fool is.
Besides, all you have to do is start playing an f2p game - for free btw, you know, no up front costs - and stop when you come across something you don't agree with in the cash shop. If you can't stop yourself because you "love this game so much", maybe you should seek professional help.
Just because some poster in a forum says so and so game is awesome and such and such sword is the most awesome thing ever, doesn't mean you have to fall for it. But....like P.T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute."
Just to be clear, when I say "you", I'm not referring directly to you personally, Warley. Unless of course you are actually one of the "fools" I talked about in the first paragraph.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Well, I don't like to brag, but I've read alot of these types of threads, AND I've read the front page of the Weekly World News on occasion when I'm getting groceries or a slurpee. The truth of the matter, is that F2P and all the conspiracies are true. Kind of. You see it's the aliens that are instigating the F2P revolution so they can take power away from companies that just want to charge their fee and earn their dollar. The aliens, using F2P games, are able to send us subliminal messages while we play these games and nobody can do anything about it because it's fricken aliens man! Anyhow, these messages are usually pretty tame. Eat Doritos, drink more cola, spicy food is your friend, that sort of thing. They also want you to stay up sooo late that you pass out cold when you fall asleep. It's seems silly until you put it all together! And thats when it hits you so hard it blows your mind! Aliens want you to eat Doritos, and drink cola because..... wait for it..... they want to turn us into noxious gas machines!!!! Thats right man! Oh wow! I told you it would blow your mind!!! See the aliens can't breathe oxygen like we can. No way. They need a different chemical coctail in the atmosphere for them to breathe. So they make us eat all sorts of gassy foods to cause us to change the atmosphere!!! BOOM! I know, I know. Your mind is blown. But wait, check this out. The reason that games keep us up for so long, so that we fall asleep like totally sound, is so they can test our wind without us waking up! Sick right! I know!!! I'll never sleep on my stomach after eating nachos again!!
So anyhow dudes, and dudettes for the more feminine persuasion. Don't play F2P games.
Holy crap! "Eyelolled" my ass off!
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
:Ia Subs are a forced commitment, which is something that can't stand up to the increased options available that don't force a monetary commitment from players. I really don't think it's about "value" or how much you'll pay in the long run, but about being given that choice to pay.
To give you a slightly different perspective on it, subscriptions are on "rails." The amount you pay is determined by the publisher, what you get for your money is determined by the devs and publisher. There is no freedom in this payment model, your choices are made for you, you either abide by them or don't play.
Can F2P cost you more? Yes.
Can it include underhanded tactics to encourage players to pay more? Yes.
Anyone who has played a F2P mmo knows this. You aren't bringing anything new to the table by pointing these things out.
But F2P also offers choices in how, when, why, and if they want to spend that money. And those choices make the payment model extremely appealing, and are why F2P is currently gaining more and more strength.
My solution?
Find a sub mmo and support if you feel that strongly about this. Otherwise, learn to adapt, because soapboxing on a forum isn't going to change this.
Originally posted by WarleyPlus, people won't decide, anything. Companies will just use deceptive marketing (paid forum posters, etc), and push it down our throats how that $100 sword, $20 dungeon, or $5 xp potion are of great value. It's called nickle & diming, but making you think that you're getting the last laugh because of the 'high value' you seen these items have by forum posters that mostly consist of blind sheep or paid shills.
This is highly unlikely. P2W has a very negative association; no AAA game company would shoot themselves in the foot like that. As I mentioned, pretty much all the devs of upcoming games have made explicit mention of the cash shops not being P2W.
It's possible that they could be lying, but it's clear that they're aware that P2W is bad. If they launch as a P2W, then they'll get eaten alive. I think the stigma of old F2P games needs to die... and it is to a degree. I used to be fairly anti-F2P, but I started noticing a change in the trend. I think that the model will improve end become good for players and developers alike.
Diablo 3 is an AAA game even if it is not an MMORPG and it is pay to win in the sense that someone that is willing to spend lets say 1000$ can afford the best available gear from the get go while a player that cant or wont pay will have to farm for ages for the same gear.
Now about companyes explicit mentioning that cash shop is not P2W, so what? No company on their right mind would ever say up front they are doing such things, games that do provide the P2W model do not advertise (looking at u Perfect World and Fiesta).
I see people worried about the free to play trend because there are plenty of bad executions of the model and they are worried that if the companys find it more profitable they are very likely to choose this bussness model and provide a service similar to the bad ones around.
I do believe it is possible to make a good free to play game that is balanced but the issue i have is that majority of the player base are dumb as a door and companys are greedy.The combination of those 2 things are enought to turn a sucessfull well balanced free to play game into a pay to win.After all the company can add new items to the cash shop at any given time so even if it starts fine it can change at any given time and there are plenty of examples of P2W games out there that are doing pretty well meaning there are enought players willing to fork the money to win no matter what.Just saying so people can keep this in mind, once u had spent months playing a game capping, farming gear, making friends and a few items ur not happy with are added to the cash shop it is harder to leave then when ur about to start playing and u dislike the stuff they are selling.
I see what you're saying, and your right; D3 is totally a P2W game. However, I'll mention two things.
One, you can still technically buy most of the same stuff with in-game gold, so people that use real money don't have a unique advantage.
Two, they recieved a ton of flack for it, and they damaged their company name in doing so. People are starting to turn on Blizzard. If they make too many more money grabs like they did with Diablo 3, then it's going to start costing them financially.
Another thing is that developers have to be a lot more careful with F2P, because if there's no box charge and they drive away their player-base with crummy money grabs, then they're going to fail. D3 was a special case; the IP is huge, and very few, if any, games could get away with what they did. I really don't expect that to become the norm; it's the exception.
"F2P: You don't want this" ... I dont? Lemme think... actually I think I somewhat do
I like to hop around mmo's and since all of my played ones went to f2p during the last couple of years, it's much more easier to play them. Don't have to resub/cancel, planning forward what would I like for the next month, etc.
When I find some free time, I can play with any of them, log in to help a buddy, participate in events or just socialize.
For me f2p means this freedom first, and only second the "free as in cost-free" aspect.
But of course it's playstyle dependant, I play mmo's for the content (the rpg part), and since the majority of the playerbase are towards the opposite (powerlevelling, endgame grinding, etc), companies usually charge that part - which is good for me
As BigRock wrote:
Originally posted by BigRock411 F2P is fine if you dont like endgame or dont care to compete
I want f2p. I seriously do. And if I like what I see I might even throw in few bucks for something extra.
What I really don't want is to pay 60$ for a box and then further 20$ for monthly sub just to get nothing in return. I don't like buying pig in a poak.
No fate but what we make, so make me a ham sandwich please.
I prefer P2P games, the charges are up front and clear, you know what your buying into. With F2P games thats often not the case, getting the same 'level' of gameplay out of a F2P game, you often have to pay a lot more than you would if you had been playing a P2P game.
MMO's have to be profitable to exist, but a lot of F2P games on the market, perhaps not all of them, but enough to allow a 'generalisation', are short termist cash grabs that arent concerned about how long a player stays with the game, but only about how much money they will spend while they are.
B2P is probably the most reputable form of F2P there is, but as with all F2P games, its always wise to research the game and read the small print.
Originally posted by WarleyPlus, people won't decide, anything. Companies will just use deceptive marketing (paid forum posters, etc), and push it down our throats how that $100 sword, $20 dungeon, or $5 xp potion are of great value. It's called nickle & diming, but making you think that you're getting the last laugh because of the 'high value' you seen these items have by forum posters that mostly consist of blind sheep or paid shills.
This is highly unlikely. P2W has a very negative association; no AAA game company would shoot themselves in the foot like that. As I mentioned, pretty much all the devs of upcoming games have made explicit mention of the cash shops not being P2W.
It's possible that they could be lying, but it's clear that they're aware that P2W is bad. If they launch as a P2W, then they'll get eaten alive. I think the stigma of old F2P games needs to die... and it is to a degree. I used to be fairly anti-F2P, but I started noticing a change in the trend. I think that the model will improve end become good for players and developers alike.
Diablo 3 is an AAA game even if it is not an MMORPG and it is pay to win in the sense that someone that is willing to spend lets say 1000$ can afford the best available gear from the get go while a player that cant or wont pay will have to farm for ages for the same gear.
Now about companyes explicit mentioning that cash shop is not P2W, so what? No company on their right mind would ever say up front they are doing such things, games that do provide the P2W model do not advertise (looking at u Perfect World and Fiesta).
I see people worried about the free to play trend because there are plenty of bad executions of the model and they are worried that if the companys find it more profitable they are very likely to choose this bussness model and provide a service similar to the bad ones around.
I do believe it is possible to make a good free to play game that is balanced but the issue i have is that majority of the player base are dumb as a door and companys are greedy.The combination of those 2 things are enought to turn a sucessfull well balanced free to play game into a pay to win.After all the company can add new items to the cash shop at any given time so even if it starts fine it can change at any given time and there are plenty of examples of P2W games out there that are doing pretty well meaning there are enought players willing to fork the money to win no matter what.Just saying so people can keep this in mind, once u had spent months playing a game capping, farming gear, making friends and a few items ur not happy with are added to the cash shop it is harder to leave then when ur about to start playing and u dislike the stuff they are selling.
I see what you're saying, and your right; D3 is totally a P2W game. However, I'll mention two things.
One, you can still technically buy most of the same stuff with in-game gold, so people that use real money don't have a unique advantage.
Two, they recieved a ton of flack for it, and they damaged their company name in doing so. People are starting to turn on Blizzard. If they make too many more money grabs like they did with Diablo 3, then it's going to start costing them financially.
Another thing is that developers have to be a lot more careful with F2P, because if there's no box charge and they drive away their player-base with crummy money grabs, then they're going to fail. D3 was a special case; the IP is huge, and very few, if any, games could get away with what they did. I really don't expect that to become the norm; it's the exception.
This kind comes down to each person definition on Pay to Win, the way i see it if someone for the sake of example with umlimited funds can obtain items or anything else that would take a regular player months to get by farming gold or farming for rares thats pay to win for me.The only definition that everybody seems to agree on is that of cash shops that sell items that are superior than anything else in the game and can only be bought from the cash shop but there are other kinds as i just mentioned even though it varies from player to player.
As far as i can tell Blizzard received alot of negative response from Diablo 3 mostly because the player base thinks the game is bad i didnt see many complains regarding the real money auction house, i could be wrong of course just saying that the complains i saw werent so much adressed at that feature as it was to the gameplay.You should also notice that what billzard did on Diablo 3 is sort of a "test drive" they were experimenting on this bussness model and wanted to see the kind of response and money they could make out of it.Sadly none other than Blizzard itself has the number concerning the RMAH so we dont know if it is providing to be a sucess or not but assuming it turns out to be making alot of money despite complains or not do u honestly think they wouldnt add such feature to their future games if they believe it is a winning strategy? Gotta keep in mind that the big companys tend to follow trends, like P2P is the bussness model that majority uses if it turns out F2W provides more revenue of course majority of the AAA games will follow that model.
As i said i believe you can create a very good free to play game with a cash shop that wont affect players gameplay based on how much they spend, there are a few sucessfull examples on the market even though most are FSP or MOBA the issue i have is even if u do start it off fair nothing stoping the ones in charge from chaning it to P2W in the future.
There are 2 main reasons to mess with a good F2P game:
1-It aint paying itself up, like it or not if u release an AAA game as free to play right of the bat u need to make plenty of money to pay up for developming costs, u need people to buy stuff of the cash shop and cosmetic stuff alone prolly wont generate alot of revenue so they will add more advantages in hopes of getting more players to spent and get enought money to pay for the game
2-Game is doing fine but the ones in charge want more money.People mention this over and over again on this forums, companys are in for the profit.They might be making money but want more so they start slowly changing the cash shop into P2W in baby-steps, add new items that provide small advantages and see the community response and sales and see how far they can go and get away with.I have seen couple games that did such thing, some even started of without a cash shop and it slowly evolved into the P2W model.
You want to know why companies are pushing F2P so hard? It's not that the F2P model is superior - for the customer. It's so taht they can combine a subscription model with the F2P, but give players the illusion that they have options. Sure, you have options -technically- because you don't have to play all the content offered. In fact, you have even more options after you fork over the monthly subscription; like PAYING EVEN MORE to unlock content.
Here's some truth about SOE, and the other big companies; they're in it to MAKE MONEY, AS MUCH AS THEY CAN, AT THE LOWEST COST TO THEM THAT THEY CAN. So, here's the whole reason why they're so heavily shoving F2P down our throats. Once all games adapt to the business model, only then will you see the true nature of the beast. Take a moment and play some games like Perfect World (or the plethora of other Asian junk). Try to level up past 15 or 20 without paying a dime, then watch and see how many options you have for enjoying that game. That doesn't even get into the worse part about those games; their world is absolutely dull and lifeless.
You think SWTOR was lifeless, wait until you get a load of the next-generation of F2P MMORPG's. But, go ahead and allow the viral marketing (paid for forum posts, game site articles, and blog posts/comments) to engineer your thinking that F2P somehow brings more value to the player than a subscription model. They're salvating at the fact that they'll ultimately get people to fully accept F2P models, and yet, maintain a form of subscription on top of it knowing that people will eventually accept the double dip business model as 'superior'.
Also, enjoy the time when you'll only truly ever be able to compete in future MMORPG's after you bought the $100 swords and $150 armor from the item shop; because F2P brings so much more value and options than subscriptions.
Every company in the world.
The reason we go to work? To make money.
Opportunity to make more money? We take it.
Opportunity to have less outgoing payments? We take it.
We like to vilify "corporations" for trying make money, while each and every one of us is out to do the best we can at making the best possible living we can.
We all know by now how F2P makes money: more people paying less overall than having a few people pay more. It's easier to get 750K people to spend 5$ a month than it is to get 250K people to spend 15$. The companies with the best way of doing this will win out in the end.
I want a mmorpg where people have gone through misery, have gone through school stuff and actually have had sex even. -sagil
I don't see a problem if a game has a Subscription model and a Free to Play model within it. The subscription model typically gives the player all available content, and the other a pay as you go sort of deal. It kind've is the best for both parties.
That said, I've spent more money on subscription games the past fourteen years or so than I ever have on F2P microtransactions. Had multiple accounts on UO, like five mules on FFXI, one on planetside, five accounts on WoW, two on DAoC, one on warhammer, one on Age of Conan, FFXIV, TOR, etc. Most of the time they were all active at once simply because I maybe wanted to play one once a month whenever I felt like it. Match that with server transfers among other things that they typically have offered, along with expansions, I probably spent tens upon tens of thousands of dollars on subscription fee based games.
Granted I also made quite a bit of money selling old UO accounts back when MMO gaming was more so considered an investment to some; accounts that had multiple castles and vilas were worth incredible sums of money on player to player transactions. Then that craze roughly ended around FFXI's time with gil sellers and their strike teams to prevent such, and the community grew off the idea of IRL transactions = bad. This is especially true with the WoW crowd, since WoW brought in so many people to the genre who basically grew up on the matter that Peer to peer transactions or third party transactions weren't good. Though, Blizzard tried to bring peer to peer back with their four player RPG Diablo III.
All in all, I'd like a game that didn't hold my characters hostage with a monthly fee, especially since I enjoy many MMOs and feel harassed to play a game more than I would like a month simply to get my money's worth.
Due to frequent travel in my youth, English isn't something I consider my primary language (and thus I obtained quirky ways of writing). German and French were always easier for me despite my family being U.S. citizens for over a century. Spanish I learned as a requirement in school, Japanese and Korean I acquired for my youthful desire of anime and gaming (and also work now). I only debate in English to help me work with it (and limit things). In addition, I'm not smart enough to remain fluent in everything and typically need exposure to get in the groove of things again if I haven't heard it in a while. If you understand Mandarin, I know a little, but it has actually been a challenge and could use some help.
Also, I thoroughly enjoy debates and have accounts on over a dozen sites for this. If you wish to engage in such, please put effort in a post and provide sources -- I will then do the same with what I already wrote (if I didn't) as well as with my responses to your own. Expanding my information on a subject makes my stance either change or strengthen the next time I speak of it or write a thesis. Allow me to thank you sincerely for your time.
I understand the OP, because I was there once. Those of us who have played MMOs for more than a couple years remember the early f2p games. Every one of them to the last was P2W. Every last one required massive purchases, well over the monthly expense of a sub, just to stay competitive. They were greedy cash cows. And when a game was sub and went F2P...well it was an obvious sign back then that the game was dying.
I remember when Richard Aoshi started his "free zone" column on this site. I almost stopped coming here. I was CONVINCED Aoshi, and by extension MMORPG.com, were selling out and trying to indoctrinate us all into this money-grubbing f2p wave that was sweeping over MMOs. DDO and Lotro went free, and I remember thinking I'd never play them then.
Then a funny ting happened: League of Legends. I had some coworkers playing it, and they asked me to join in. F2P? in a PvP-only game? That's a recipe for disaster...but whatever, they'd get bored and I could go back to WoW or whatever. I played the game, and I poured over their cash shop, eager to find how they were shilling people into spending hundreds a month in order to play. And was shocked to find none. There was nothing I could get in the shop that I couldn't get without difficulty in game, and nothing that could decide a win or loss. As other games went F2P, I started to look at their shops and realize that they too offered similar designs. Oh, there's still P2W (APB....sigh...what you could have been), but it's becoming less popular.
And probably making less money. Ask me if I'd pay 2 dollars a month in cash shop purchases in order to be promised a pvp win. I'd tell you that I wouldn't spend a dime. But I look at GW2, and can reasonably see me throwing some money at a few char slots.
FACT: As long as a game is NOT P2W, it is more economically sensible for a player than a sub game. 0 is less than 15. That's all there is to it.
FACT: It is possible to make a F2P game that is now P2W. While many will dispute certain games, I have never heard a single person say a thing about LoL. And there are others.
FACT: Players will spend money on a F2P game they enoy. Riot makes good money, as does Wargaming.net, as do Turbine and Cryptic.
FACT: Most players hate P2W. I don't know a soul that would play a game they felt was P2W, and these forums certainly rail against the concept.
So if we look at all that, doesn't a fair F2P game make sense? Sure your money comes sporadically, in trickles, but it's still coming in. And in the long term probably makes more than a sub, even when you aren't suckering people for their life savings for a Sword Of Pwnage.
As a gaming publisher in tis day and age, I would take F2P seriously. It has the potential to bring in far more players, and possibly make more money than a traditional sub. Subs are good for when you start and you want to rack up a big chunk of change to show your investors, who don't get it yet. But once you have them...switch to F2P. Make the real money.
I predicted it elsewhere and I repeat it here. TSW will be F2P in a year, WoW in 3. And I bet you right now that ToR will be a greater financial success as a hybrid F2P title, especially if they avoid the P2W trap.
Youre (OP) not talking bout real f2p, youre talking about freemium. Big difference, and indeed freemium is, ussually, a worse then p2p model for the customer. If a game is real f2p tho ( with no DLC or p2w crap ),,, and quality game at same time, its pure awesomemness then.
Games previously played: AO, AoC, Aion, AoW, Eve, SWTor, WaR, STO, TSW, DCUO, FE, BP, ProjectEntropia, FootballSuperstars!
You want to know why companies are pushing F2P so hard? It's not that the F2P model is superior - for the customer. It's so taht they can combine a subscription model with the F2P, but give players the illusion that they have options. Sure, you have options -technically- because you don't have to play all the content offered. In fact, you have even more options after you fork over the monthly subscription; like PAYING EVEN MORE to unlock content.
Here's some truth about SOE, and the other big companies; they're in it to MAKE MONEY, AS MUCH AS THEY CAN, AT THE LOWEST COST TO THEM THAT THEY CAN. So, here's the whole reason why they're so heavily shoving F2P down our throats. Once all games adapt to the business model, only then will you see the true nature of the beast. Take a moment and play some games like Perfect World (or the plethora of other Asian junk). Try to level up past 15 or 20 without paying a dime, then watch and see how many options you have for enjoying that game. That doesn't even get into the worse part about those games; their world is absolutely dull and lifeless.
You think SWTOR was lifeless, wait until you get a load of the next-generation of F2P MMORPG's. But, go ahead and allow the viral marketing (paid for forum posts, game site articles, and blog posts/comments) to engineer your thinking that F2P somehow brings more value to the player than a subscription model. They're salvating at the fact that they'll ultimately get people to fully accept F2P models, and yet, maintain a form of subscription on top of it knowing that people will eventually accept the double dip business model as 'superior'.
Also, enjoy the time when you'll only truly ever be able to compete in future MMORPG's after you bought the $100 swords and $150 armor from the item shop; because F2P brings so much more value and options than subscriptions.
You're ill informed. SOE and all the other companies are pushing F2P because players chose it, but at the same time those options DO NOT nickle and dime those who subscribe. SOE lets me pay a subscription and I get everything as it has always been. No content is denied to me. You are nickle and dimed if you choose to play free, which then teaches you the true low cost of subbing. If you sub, you get all content updates for free, yet might have to buy expansions which is really no different than it has ever been. So yes they give options, it sucks for the free players, but for the subbing players life is no different. Stop being so doom and gloom about things [mod edit]
F2P is fine if done correctly. The issue right now is most companies do not.
I have no problem with F2P because in order for these companies to make money the game has to be good, no? Who is gonna waste money on something that is shitty? This atleast puts pressure on them to make something decent out of the gate instead of charging you $60 for something and you can't do anything about it afterwards.
Planetside 2, DUST 514 and Guild Wars 2 seem to have the right idea. The one thing about DUST though is that you can buy better (if slightly) stuff for cash. Of course if not familiar with DUST you do lose your stuff when you die so it's not like you just continue to respawn after X amount of deaths with the "Shotgun of Kick Ass" once your AUR (cash credits) run out. Doesn't seem to be "too" much of an issue at the moment. I'd say the issue is new players vs vets, and this may be an issue with Planetside 2, but we'll see.
You want to know why companies are pushing F2P so hard? It's not that the F2P model is superior - for the customer. It's so taht they can combine a subscription model with the F2P, but give players the illusion that they have options. Sure, you have options -technically- because you don't have to play all the content offered. In fact, you have even more options after you fork over the monthly subscription; like PAYING EVEN MORE to unlock content.
Here's some truth about SOE, and the other big companies; they're in it to MAKE MONEY, AS MUCH AS THEY CAN, AT THE LOWEST COST TO THEM THAT THEY CAN. So, here's the whole reason why they're so heavily shoving F2P down our throats. Once all games adapt to the business model, only then will you see the true nature of the beast. Take a moment and play some games like Perfect World (or the plethora of other Asian junk). Try to level up past 15 or 20 without paying a dime, then watch and see how many options you have for enjoying that game. That doesn't even get into the worse part about those games; their world is absolutely dull and lifeless.
You think SWTOR was lifeless, wait until you get a load of the next-generation of F2P MMORPG's. But, go ahead and allow the viral marketing (paid for forum posts, game site articles, and blog posts/comments) to engineer your thinking that F2P somehow brings more value to the player than a subscription model. They're salvating at the fact that they'll ultimately get people to fully accept F2P models, and yet, maintain a form of subscription on top of it knowing that people will eventually accept the double dip business model as 'superior'.
Also, enjoy the time when you'll only truly ever be able to compete in future MMORPG's after you bought the $100 swords and $150 armor from the item shop; because F2P brings so much more value and options than subscriptions.
Please list ALL the f2p games you have played. I have found that people who predict this doom and gloom future due to F2P are all people who have ONLY played sub games for the last 10 years and have suddenly become area of the f2p option and are lashing out at it because its different.
Yes companies want to make money (OMG SHOCK)
Value is decided by the consumer, if said consumer is fickle enough to believe marketing and advertising saying that a f2p game is better value than a sub game then that is their problem. Why should companies have to deal with people who are not smart enough to make their own decisions?
I make my arguements on a case by case perspective and not with all sweeping F2P= bad SUB = good.
Examples (I have played):
SWTOR - Sub = BAD (game was below par for even some well polished f2p games that are avilable. missing feature etc etc etc, we have done this before)
Battle of the Immortals - F2P(cashshop) = Bad (I had fun for a while due to waiting for swtor (oops) then realised cashshop was extrmely P2W and I quit.
Luminary - F2P = GOOD I played this for AGES. this game was fun due to its unqiue crafting, loot system (everything was lootable was craftable etc) It was pretty much p2w but I still had a really good time for about 2 years (I paid nothing for this game ever)
SWG - Sub - GOOD ( Again I loved this game, was amazing, well worth the sub I paid for it until the CU. I dont see how cashshop would have worked in this game, would have ruined it much much more than cashshop is gonna ruin swtor)
Monster&Me - F2P - GOOD (This game was the ultimate grind and if you were into it it was awesome. basically infinte levels and infinte monster grind system. I had loads of fun with this game for 2 years and again I never paid a penny
Inbetween most of these games I tried a few other F2P games and found a lot that were terrible, offered nothing original like the ones I have mentioned above and was usually pretty obvious it was P2W.
I think we should move on from the internet of sweeping opinions of things, it does not make for productive discussion.
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'
Also, enjoy the time when you'll only truly ever be able to compete in future MMORPG's after you bought the $100 swords and $150 armor from the item shop; because F2P brings so much more value and options than subscriptions.
The fact that you think that this is how f2p game cash shops work proves you have absolutely no idea how f2p games actually work.
Except for Alganon, but that game just sucks, so it is a bad example of everything save for being a good example of how to not make a game, p2p or f2p.
People have forgotten (or are too young to know) how this all started.
MMO's started as pay by the minute.
They changed to a flat monthly fee (based on how many minutes the average person played).
They have recently changed to free access, with a variety of secondary options (subscription, micro transactions, etc).
This is a very logical progression, based on how the costs to operate have changed. It used to be that the bandwidth and server cost was the main driver. Now this is so cheap it is negligible... but the cost of creating content has increased significantly. None of this should be a suprise to anyone.
A good example of this exact market change is Email. Most people use a free email... but years ago everyone laughed when companies tried to launch free email services. They were told that no one would ever want to use them, and that they were lower quality services that should be scorned. Sound familiar?
People have forgotten (or are too young to know) how this all started.
MMO's started as pay by the minute.
They changed to a flat monthly fee (based on how many minutes the average person played).
They have recently changed to free access, with a variety of secondary options (subscription, micro transactions, etc).
This is a very logical progression, based on how the costs to operate have changed. It used to be that the bandwidth and server cost was the main driver. Now this is so cheap it is negligible... but the cost of creating content has increased significantly. None of this should be a suprise to anyone.
A good example of this exact market change is Email. Most people use a free email... but years ago everyone laughed when companies tried to launch free email services. They were told that no one would ever want to use them, and that they were lower quality services that should be scorned. Sound familiar?
Your email example doesn't even remotely apply to F2P games. Plus when hotmail launched, and it was free... and not msn... no one laughed. We used it.
People have forgotten (or are too young to know) how this all started.
MMO's started as pay by the minute.
They changed to a flat monthly fee (based on how many minutes the average person played).
They have recently changed to free access, with a variety of secondary options (subscription, micro transactions, etc).
This is a very logical progression, based on how the costs to operate have changed. It used to be that the bandwidth and server cost was the main driver. Now this is so cheap it is negligible... but the cost of creating content has increased significantly. None of this should be a suprise to anyone.
A good example of this exact market change is Email. Most people use a free email... but years ago everyone laughed when companies tried to launch free email services. They were told that no one would ever want to use them, and that they were lower quality services that should be scorned. Sound familiar?
Your email example doesn't even remotely apply to F2P games. Plus when hotmail launched, and it was free... and not msn... no one laughed. We used it.
Here we go, people getting WE and I mixed up again. Maybe you did, and maybe you knew some people who also did but can you categorically state that there was never ever any backlash to the idea of a free email service over a paid one?
YOUR opinion is that you don't beleive there was ever a backlash to free email from people beleiving it would go no where. this does not mean that such a bashlash never happened.
Otherwise I could end this WHOLE thread right now with:
"Who doesnt like F2P? I...We Like it so its all good."
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'
People have forgotten (or are too young to know) how this all started.
MMO's started as pay by the minute.
They changed to a flat monthly fee (based on how many minutes the average person played).
They have recently changed to free access, with a variety of secondary options (subscription, micro transactions, etc).
This is a very logical progression, based on how the costs to operate have changed. It used to be that the bandwidth and server cost was the main driver. Now this is so cheap it is negligible... but the cost of creating content has increased significantly. None of this should be a suprise to anyone.
A good example of this exact market change is Email. Most people use a free email... but years ago everyone laughed when companies tried to launch free email services. They were told that no one would ever want to use them, and that they were lower quality services that should be scorned. Sound familiar?
Your email example doesn't even remotely apply to F2P games. Plus when hotmail launched, and it was free... and not msn... no one laughed. We used it.
Here we go, people getting WE and I mixed up again. Maybe you did, and maybe you knew some people who also did but can you categorically state that there was never ever any backlash to the idea of a free email service over a paid one?
YOUR opinion is that you don't beleive there was ever a backlash to free email from people beleiving it would go no where. this does not mean that such a bashlash never happened.
Otherwise I could end this WHOLE thread right now with:
"Who doesnt like F2P? I...We Like it so its all good."
The big year for Free Email was 96 where a few startups were able to get enough VC funding to go big with free email as a service. This is the year that Hotmail and Rocketmail were able to push free email to the masses as the new, hot thing. The services were seen as substandard, and neither of these were able to break even... but they were able to reach critical mass, and in doing so, were bought out.
In 97 (??) they were both bought out (Microsoft and Yahoo) and became the foundation of the email system used by most today. It took a few years before they were able to turn a profit, and to be accepted as 'legitimate' services (I can remember when most companies would just block all email from them out of hand).
In fact, it wasnt until 2001/2002 that Microsoft decided to make Hotmail 'legitimate' by converting the service to its own product, Exchange. This was the first major acceptance that free email services were not just for spammers, those with something to hide, or the lower class. It was a move to recognize that free email was something that corporate america would be using.
That puts us at a timeline of 5+ years. F2P has been around (in the US) for a few years, but it wasnt until 2011/12 that big companies decided it was time to jump in (equivelent to 97 for email). This tells me that there is still a few years until it is accepted as 'normal' but it might come along faster this time.
Nice Superman0X. I can never be bothered to go get facts, especially when its replying to ppl who made their arguement without even thinking about facts.
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'
Here we go, people getting WE and I mixed up again. Maybe you did, and maybe you knew some people who also did but can you categorically state that there was never ever any backlash to the idea of a free email service over a paid one?
YOUR opinion is that you don't beleive there was ever a backlash to free email from people beleiving it would go no where. this does not mean that such a bashlash never happened.
Otherwise I could end this WHOLE thread right now with:
"Who doesnt like F2P? I...We Like it so its all good."
Well it's a clear expectation that there is resistance to change. Most people have a hard time dealing with change.
This thread wouldn't even exist without a dislike of change, and a misunderstanding of the factors at play with F2P gaming.
But F2P is the inevitable norm for at least a big chunk of gaming (and probably a very large majority of gaming.)
F2P is better for everyone. Players get to experience a game before paying, which is a really big deal and protects them from being suckered into paying for crappy games (which happens in any game where money changes hands before the player has played.)
I guess it's not better for everyone. F2P is bad for two groups: Bad Developers (who want to be able to sucker players into paying by hyping their bad game) and Advertisers (who do the hyping.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
What I can not understand is a war between P2P and F2P. One person would enjoy p2p only (without cashs hops and any restrictions). Another person would enjoy free world (with some restrictions and possible cash shop).
What's wrong then? I like McDonalds, you like Hesburger, but we both like same type of food. Why say ""McDonalds:you don''t want this" or "Hesburger:you don't want this"?
Once I saw a movie where one woman escaped from mafia prison, grabbed a bag with cash and went to buy a car. She chose a car and then asked some shoes to be sold. Seller goes to manager: "Sir, this mad woman wants shoes to the car, but we don't sell shoes!". Manager: "Do you want to know why you are still seller and I am manager?". Seller: "yes". Manager: "This woman is a wise one, because she came to shop with us".
In short: if user choses pay-to-play model, it's ok. If user choses buy-to-play model, it's ok. If user choses freemium (please note I do not use word "free" since no game is 100% free) content, it's ok. Companies just adapt to this. If all users would start requesting that all food in any MMORPG would be called "burger", companies would surely rename to burgers.
In Lithuania some students launched an online game (cosmic strategy). Freemium, of course: want to accelerate that building - pay in cash. One person spent some 600 $ in a day and they asked why. "I just did not want to wait" - told that person from some Scandinavian country.
So - if users are willing to use freemium model, what's wrong with it? I do not claim future is for f2p, p2p or b2p. So far freemium content is what seems to be future.
One more note: even at freemium content, you may play and spent zero dollars zero cents. No one forces you to pay (yes, that cool armor won't be yours and that line of quests won't be yours too, but you can still enjoy the game). It's up to you, no company would ever push you "buy or get banned".
http://www.mmoblogg.wordpress.com
When mmos go f2p players unfortuantely forgive developers for making a crap game because they don't have to pay the monthly fee anymore so to them all is so much better now. F2P is bad for the mmo genre for the long term because the expectations of a f2p mmo is so much lower than a subscription mmo which have much higher expectations. F2P is nothing more than an excuse for devs not to work as hard as they should.
Grim Dawn, the next great action rpg!
http://www.grimdawn.com/
That's absolutely ridiculous. I really wish people would stop playing the victim of "these evil corporations". If you aren't smart enough or informed enough to make a good decision about how you spend your money and time, that is your problem. If a company takes advantage of the fact that you are a fool who is easily parted with his money, who's to blame? I say the fool is.
Besides, all you have to do is start playing an f2p game - for free btw, you know, no up front costs - and stop when you come across something you don't agree with in the cash shop. If you can't stop yourself because you "love this game so much", maybe you should seek professional help.
Just because some poster in a forum says so and so game is awesome and such and such sword is the most awesome thing ever, doesn't mean you have to fall for it. But....like P.T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute."
Just to be clear, when I say "you", I'm not referring directly to you personally, Warley. Unless of course you are actually one of the "fools" I talked about in the first paragraph.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Be afraid.....The dragons are HERE!
Only 2 good P2P ~~> FTP games I have seen/played were Aion and Lineage 2. (Hold up wait I actually enjoyed FTP games)
Holy crap! "Eyelolled" my ass off!
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Be afraid.....The dragons are HERE!
:Ia Subs are a forced commitment, which is something that can't stand up to the increased options available that don't force a monetary commitment from players. I really don't think it's about "value" or how much you'll pay in the long run, but about being given that choice to pay.
To give you a slightly different perspective on it, subscriptions are on "rails." The amount you pay is determined by the publisher, what you get for your money is determined by the devs and publisher. There is no freedom in this payment model, your choices are made for you, you either abide by them or don't play.
Can F2P cost you more? Yes.
Can it include underhanded tactics to encourage players to pay more? Yes.
Anyone who has played a F2P mmo knows this. You aren't bringing anything new to the table by pointing these things out.
But F2P also offers choices in how, when, why, and if they want to spend that money. And those choices make the payment model extremely appealing, and are why F2P is currently gaining more and more strength.
My solution?
Find a sub mmo and support if you feel that strongly about this. Otherwise, learn to adapt, because soapboxing on a forum isn't going to change this.
I see what you're saying, and your right; D3 is totally a P2W game. However, I'll mention two things.
One, you can still technically buy most of the same stuff with in-game gold, so people that use real money don't have a unique advantage.
Two, they recieved a ton of flack for it, and they damaged their company name in doing so. People are starting to turn on Blizzard. If they make too many more money grabs like they did with Diablo 3, then it's going to start costing them financially.
Another thing is that developers have to be a lot more careful with F2P, because if there's no box charge and they drive away their player-base with crummy money grabs, then they're going to fail. D3 was a special case; the IP is huge, and very few, if any, games could get away with what they did. I really don't expect that to become the norm; it's the exception.
"F2P: You don't want this" ... I dont? Lemme think... actually I think I somewhat do
I like to hop around mmo's and since all of my played ones went to f2p during the last couple of years, it's much more easier to play them. Don't have to resub/cancel, planning forward what would I like for the next month, etc.
When I find some free time, I can play with any of them, log in to help a buddy, participate in events or just socialize.
For me f2p means this freedom first, and only second the "free as in cost-free" aspect.
But of course it's playstyle dependant, I play mmo's for the content (the rpg part), and since the majority of the playerbase are towards the opposite (powerlevelling, endgame grinding, etc), companies usually charge that part - which is good for me
As BigRock wrote:
I want f2p. I seriously do. And if I like what I see I might even throw in few bucks for something extra.
What I really don't want is to pay 60$ for a box and then further 20$ for monthly sub just to get nothing in return. I don't like buying pig in a poak.
No fate but what we make, so make me a ham sandwich please.
I prefer P2P games, the charges are up front and clear, you know what your buying into. With F2P games thats often not the case, getting the same 'level' of gameplay out of a F2P game, you often have to pay a lot more than you would if you had been playing a P2P game.
MMO's have to be profitable to exist, but a lot of F2P games on the market, perhaps not all of them, but enough to allow a 'generalisation', are short termist cash grabs that arent concerned about how long a player stays with the game, but only about how much money they will spend while they are.
B2P is probably the most reputable form of F2P there is, but as with all F2P games, its always wise to research the game and read the small print.
This kind comes down to each person definition on Pay to Win, the way i see it if someone for the sake of example with umlimited funds can obtain items or anything else that would take a regular player months to get by farming gold or farming for rares thats pay to win for me.The only definition that everybody seems to agree on is that of cash shops that sell items that are superior than anything else in the game and can only be bought from the cash shop but there are other kinds as i just mentioned even though it varies from player to player.
As far as i can tell Blizzard received alot of negative response from Diablo 3 mostly because the player base thinks the game is bad i didnt see many complains regarding the real money auction house, i could be wrong of course just saying that the complains i saw werent so much adressed at that feature as it was to the gameplay.You should also notice that what billzard did on Diablo 3 is sort of a "test drive" they were experimenting on this bussness model and wanted to see the kind of response and money they could make out of it.Sadly none other than Blizzard itself has the number concerning the RMAH so we dont know if it is providing to be a sucess or not but assuming it turns out to be making alot of money despite complains or not do u honestly think they wouldnt add such feature to their future games if they believe it is a winning strategy? Gotta keep in mind that the big companys tend to follow trends, like P2P is the bussness model that majority uses if it turns out F2W provides more revenue of course majority of the AAA games will follow that model.
As i said i believe you can create a very good free to play game with a cash shop that wont affect players gameplay based on how much they spend, there are a few sucessfull examples on the market even though most are FSP or MOBA the issue i have is even if u do start it off fair nothing stoping the ones in charge from chaning it to P2W in the future.
There are 2 main reasons to mess with a good F2P game:
1-It aint paying itself up, like it or not if u release an AAA game as free to play right of the bat u need to make plenty of money to pay up for developming costs, u need people to buy stuff of the cash shop and cosmetic stuff alone prolly wont generate alot of revenue so they will add more advantages in hopes of getting more players to spent and get enought money to pay for the game
2-Game is doing fine but the ones in charge want more money.People mention this over and over again on this forums, companys are in for the profit.They might be making money but want more so they start slowly changing the cash shop into P2W in baby-steps, add new items that provide small advantages and see the community response and sales and see how far they can go and get away with.I have seen couple games that did such thing, some even started of without a cash shop and it slowly evolved into the P2W model.
Every company in the world.
The reason we go to work? To make money.
Opportunity to make more money? We take it.
Opportunity to have less outgoing payments? We take it.
We like to vilify "corporations" for trying make money, while each and every one of us is out to do the best we can at making the best possible living we can.
We all know by now how F2P makes money: more people paying less overall than having a few people pay more. It's easier to get 750K people to spend 5$ a month than it is to get 250K people to spend 15$. The companies with the best way of doing this will win out in the end.
I want a mmorpg where people have gone through misery, have gone through school stuff and actually have had sex even. -sagil
I don't see a problem if a game has a Subscription model and a Free to Play model within it. The subscription model typically gives the player all available content, and the other a pay as you go sort of deal. It kind've is the best for both parties.
That said, I've spent more money on subscription games the past fourteen years or so than I ever have on F2P microtransactions. Had multiple accounts on UO, like five mules on FFXI, one on planetside, five accounts on WoW, two on DAoC, one on warhammer, one on Age of Conan, FFXIV, TOR, etc. Most of the time they were all active at once simply because I maybe wanted to play one once a month whenever I felt like it. Match that with server transfers among other things that they typically have offered, along with expansions, I probably spent tens upon tens of thousands of dollars on subscription fee based games.
Granted I also made quite a bit of money selling old UO accounts back when MMO gaming was more so considered an investment to some; accounts that had multiple castles and vilas were worth incredible sums of money on player to player transactions. Then that craze roughly ended around FFXI's time with gil sellers and their strike teams to prevent such, and the community grew off the idea of IRL transactions = bad. This is especially true with the WoW crowd, since WoW brought in so many people to the genre who basically grew up on the matter that Peer to peer transactions or third party transactions weren't good. Though, Blizzard tried to bring peer to peer back with their four player RPG Diablo III.
All in all, I'd like a game that didn't hold my characters hostage with a monthly fee, especially since I enjoy many MMOs and feel harassed to play a game more than I would like a month simply to get my money's worth.
I understand the OP, because I was there once. Those of us who have played MMOs for more than a couple years remember the early f2p games. Every one of them to the last was P2W. Every last one required massive purchases, well over the monthly expense of a sub, just to stay competitive. They were greedy cash cows. And when a game was sub and went F2P...well it was an obvious sign back then that the game was dying.
I remember when Richard Aoshi started his "free zone" column on this site. I almost stopped coming here. I was CONVINCED Aoshi, and by extension MMORPG.com, were selling out and trying to indoctrinate us all into this money-grubbing f2p wave that was sweeping over MMOs. DDO and Lotro went free, and I remember thinking I'd never play them then.
Then a funny ting happened: League of Legends. I had some coworkers playing it, and they asked me to join in. F2P? in a PvP-only game? That's a recipe for disaster...but whatever, they'd get bored and I could go back to WoW or whatever. I played the game, and I poured over their cash shop, eager to find how they were shilling people into spending hundreds a month in order to play. And was shocked to find none. There was nothing I could get in the shop that I couldn't get without difficulty in game, and nothing that could decide a win or loss. As other games went F2P, I started to look at their shops and realize that they too offered similar designs. Oh, there's still P2W (APB....sigh...what you could have been), but it's becoming less popular.
And probably making less money. Ask me if I'd pay 2 dollars a month in cash shop purchases in order to be promised a pvp win. I'd tell you that I wouldn't spend a dime. But I look at GW2, and can reasonably see me throwing some money at a few char slots.
FACT: As long as a game is NOT P2W, it is more economically sensible for a player than a sub game. 0 is less than 15. That's all there is to it.
FACT: It is possible to make a F2P game that is now P2W. While many will dispute certain games, I have never heard a single person say a thing about LoL. And there are others.
FACT: Players will spend money on a F2P game they enoy. Riot makes good money, as does Wargaming.net, as do Turbine and Cryptic.
FACT: Most players hate P2W. I don't know a soul that would play a game they felt was P2W, and these forums certainly rail against the concept.
So if we look at all that, doesn't a fair F2P game make sense? Sure your money comes sporadically, in trickles, but it's still coming in. And in the long term probably makes more than a sub, even when you aren't suckering people for their life savings for a Sword Of Pwnage.
As a gaming publisher in tis day and age, I would take F2P seriously. It has the potential to bring in far more players, and possibly make more money than a traditional sub. Subs are good for when you start and you want to rack up a big chunk of change to show your investors, who don't get it yet. But once you have them...switch to F2P. Make the real money.
I predicted it elsewhere and I repeat it here. TSW will be F2P in a year, WoW in 3. And I bet you right now that ToR will be a greater financial success as a hybrid F2P title, especially if they avoid the P2W trap.
Youre (OP) not talking bout real f2p, youre talking about freemium. Big difference, and indeed freemium is, ussually, a worse then p2p model for the customer. If a game is real f2p tho ( with no DLC or p2w crap ),,, and quality game at same time, its pure awesomemness then.
Games previously played: AO, AoC, Aion, AoW, Eve, SWTor, WaR, STO, TSW, DCUO, FE, BP, ProjectEntropia, FootballSuperstars!
You're ill informed. SOE and all the other companies are pushing F2P because players chose it, but at the same time those options DO NOT nickle and dime those who subscribe. SOE lets me pay a subscription and I get everything as it has always been. No content is denied to me. You are nickle and dimed if you choose to play free, which then teaches you the true low cost of subbing. If you sub, you get all content updates for free, yet might have to buy expansions which is really no different than it has ever been. So yes they give options, it sucks for the free players, but for the subbing players life is no different. Stop being so doom and gloom about things [mod edit]
F2P is fine if done correctly. The issue right now is most companies do not.
I have no problem with F2P because in order for these companies to make money the game has to be good, no? Who is gonna waste money on something that is shitty? This atleast puts pressure on them to make something decent out of the gate instead of charging you $60 for something and you can't do anything about it afterwards.
Planetside 2, DUST 514 and Guild Wars 2 seem to have the right idea. The one thing about DUST though is that you can buy better (if slightly) stuff for cash. Of course if not familiar with DUST you do lose your stuff when you die so it's not like you just continue to respawn after X amount of deaths with the "Shotgun of Kick Ass" once your AUR (cash credits) run out. Doesn't seem to be "too" much of an issue at the moment. I'd say the issue is new players vs vets, and this may be an issue with Planetside 2, but we'll see.
Please list ALL the f2p games you have played. I have found that people who predict this doom and gloom future due to F2P are all people who have ONLY played sub games for the last 10 years and have suddenly become area of the f2p option and are lashing out at it because its different.
Yes companies want to make money (OMG SHOCK)
Value is decided by the consumer, if said consumer is fickle enough to believe marketing and advertising saying that a f2p game is better value than a sub game then that is their problem. Why should companies have to deal with people who are not smart enough to make their own decisions?
I make my arguements on a case by case perspective and not with all sweeping F2P= bad SUB = good.
Examples (I have played):
SWTOR - Sub = BAD (game was below par for even some well polished f2p games that are avilable. missing feature etc etc etc, we have done this before)
Battle of the Immortals - F2P(cashshop) = Bad (I had fun for a while due to waiting for swtor (oops) then realised cashshop was extrmely P2W and I quit.
Luminary - F2P = GOOD I played this for AGES. this game was fun due to its unqiue crafting, loot system (everything was lootable was craftable etc) It was pretty much p2w but I still had a really good time for about 2 years (I paid nothing for this game ever)
SWG - Sub - GOOD ( Again I loved this game, was amazing, well worth the sub I paid for it until the CU. I dont see how cashshop would have worked in this game, would have ruined it much much more than cashshop is gonna ruin swtor)
Monster&Me - F2P - GOOD (This game was the ultimate grind and if you were into it it was awesome. basically infinte levels and infinte monster grind system. I had loads of fun with this game for 2 years and again I never paid a penny
Inbetween most of these games I tried a few other F2P games and found a lot that were terrible, offered nothing original like the ones I have mentioned above and was usually pretty obvious it was P2W.
I think we should move on from the internet of sweeping opinions of things, it does not make for productive discussion.
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 fact that you think that this is how f2p game cash shops work proves you have absolutely no idea how f2p games actually work.
Except for Alganon, but that game just sucks, so it is a bad example of everything save for being a good example of how to not make a game, p2p or f2p.
Since when is Tuesday a direction?
People have forgotten (or are too young to know) how this all started.
MMO's started as pay by the minute.
They changed to a flat monthly fee (based on how many minutes the average person played).
They have recently changed to free access, with a variety of secondary options (subscription, micro transactions, etc).
This is a very logical progression, based on how the costs to operate have changed. It used to be that the bandwidth and server cost was the main driver. Now this is so cheap it is negligible... but the cost of creating content has increased significantly. None of this should be a suprise to anyone.
A good example of this exact market change is Email. Most people use a free email... but years ago everyone laughed when companies tried to launch free email services. They were told that no one would ever want to use them, and that they were lower quality services that should be scorned. Sound familiar?
Your email example doesn't even remotely apply to F2P games. Plus when hotmail launched, and it was free... and not msn... no one laughed. We used it.
Here we go, people getting WE and I mixed up again. Maybe you did, and maybe you knew some people who also did but can you categorically state that there was never ever any backlash to the idea of a free email service over a paid one?
YOUR opinion is that you don't beleive there was ever a backlash to free email from people beleiving it would go no where. this does not mean that such a bashlash never happened.
Otherwise I could end this WHOLE thread right now with:
"Who doesnt like F2P? I...We Like it so its all good."
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 big year for Free Email was 96 where a few startups were able to get enough VC funding to go big with free email as a service. This is the year that Hotmail and Rocketmail were able to push free email to the masses as the new, hot thing. The services were seen as substandard, and neither of these were able to break even... but they were able to reach critical mass, and in doing so, were bought out.
In 97 (??) they were both bought out (Microsoft and Yahoo) and became the foundation of the email system used by most today. It took a few years before they were able to turn a profit, and to be accepted as 'legitimate' services (I can remember when most companies would just block all email from them out of hand).
In fact, it wasnt until 2001/2002 that Microsoft decided to make Hotmail 'legitimate' by converting the service to its own product, Exchange. This was the first major acceptance that free email services were not just for spammers, those with something to hide, or the lower class. It was a move to recognize that free email was something that corporate america would be using.
That puts us at a timeline of 5+ years. F2P has been around (in the US) for a few years, but it wasnt until 2011/12 that big companies decided it was time to jump in (equivelent to 97 for email). This tells me that there is still a few years until it is accepted as 'normal' but it might come along faster this time.
Nice Superman0X. I can never be bothered to go get facts, especially when its replying to ppl who made their arguement without even thinking about facts.
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'
Well it's a clear expectation that there is resistance to change. Most people have a hard time dealing with change.
This thread wouldn't even exist without a dislike of change, and a misunderstanding of the factors at play with F2P gaming.
But F2P is the inevitable norm for at least a big chunk of gaming (and probably a very large majority of gaming.)
F2P is better for everyone. Players get to experience a game before paying, which is a really big deal and protects them from being suckered into paying for crappy games (which happens in any game where money changes hands before the player has played.)
I guess it's not better for everyone. F2P is bad for two groups: Bad Developers (who want to be able to sucker players into paying by hyping their bad game) and Advertisers (who do the hyping.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver