Haven't spent anything -yet-, In a couple of months I probably will though. I've gotten almost everything I need from the Gem store via gold though....so there's really no need to.
So with a normal subscription MMO you'd have brought in $3120 from these people. If you assume best case scenario and they've all just subbed up for month 2 at $15 it would be $3900.
With GW2 model and this poll and assuming dead center in each choice as the average spent and assuming $300 for the 251+ you end up with: ~$4340 or 1.4x as much money spent over if 100% of the people subbing for a second month in a sub based game.
Yes B2P as the future sounds great for gamers...
Seems almost everyone who purchased, bought bag/bank space. Those are really a one-off and I can't see the same spend occuring month after month.
You make some poorly based assumptions.
None of the assumptions are the least bit poorly based. To assume that a company which makes money off a store won't continue to come up with things for people to spend money on would be the poor assumption.
Given how many people I saw running around in game with the ridiculous sunglasses and boxing gloves, I would also say people aren't just spending money on bag/bank space.
You'll also notice in my assumption I helped the B2P model by assuming a 100% continue to play rate which raises how much the subscription type of game costs. In reality you at best end up with a 50% rate on the first month if not lower which further increases the cost difference between the two models.
But be that guy who just says anything anyone says is just wrong if it is at all critical of the game they love.
I don't mind being critical, there's plenty I don't like about GW2.
To jump in and make assumptions based on a poll with only 50 or so votes, seems a bit premature.
My argument still stands and it doesn't matter whether it's GW2 or not, you're talking about the whole B2P model.
The vast majority have spent nothing, some chose to make things easier by buying something they may see as essential, in this case bank and bag space.
If a gamer has disposable income he wants to dispose of to increase his enjoyment, how is that bad for gamers?
It doesn't lessen my enjoyment of the game.
So be that guy who in the absence of a reasonable argument, stoops to the safety zone of calling me a fanboy.
Yes I "stooped" to anything. I put out data with my reasons. Your rebuttal was "no" followed by sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalalalalala". No rebuttal data, no sources, no studies. Just a "Nuh-huh" response, the lowest form of debate.
As the poll progresses it is actually driving the number up as some of the higher categories previously had no responses but now do yet the 0 percentage is mostly unchanged.
The fact of the matter is average player spending, regardless of individual spending, is higher compared to a subscription model with no store. That is not a good thing for gamers. End of story.
Now that I've played the game for a month, I do think they gimped you on the amount of bank space you are given since it is shared account-wide.
And I already know you can alts to hold items, but, really, nearly every other MMO gives plenty of bank space. So I think they intentially limited you to pump their cash shop.
I think a interesting variation on this poll would be how many gems have you spent in the store. Cause lots of people on here have bought stuff just with gems they got through gold and that still means that someone somewhere had to pay for those gems.
The fact of the matter is average player spending, regardless of individual spending, is higher compared to a subscription model with no store. That is not a good thing for gamers. End of story.
And? It's their money to spend. I bought the game and haven't been able to play the past month. I didn't spend an extra $15 for that time. Gamers can make up their own minds. End of story.
You aimed too low on the top end. In these cash games some people and it doesn't matter the game will drop thousands. Yes thousands. That is really why they go FTP, they tap into rich boys checkbook, that tower over the pesants contributions. But being the saints they are, they accept any and all monetary donations.
Bags and Bank space is the only thing I have spent money on. I will admit given how slow I am earning gold (I'm not 80 yet) I was briefly tempted to buy some gold with gems to get my racial armor but it was only for a moment and I got over it quickly enough. There will be time to grind gold once I hit 80.
spent $10 the rest of my gems I got with ingame gold.. I plan on spending $10 a month to support them as I feel the game is well worth it.
I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg
The fact of the matter is average player spending, regardless of individual spending, is higher compared to a subscription model with no store. That is not a good thing for gamers. End of story.
And? It's their money to spend. I bought the game and haven't been able to play the past month. I didn't spend an extra $15 for that time. Gamers can make up their own minds. End of story.
If a game has 1 million players and an average cost of $15 per gamer (aka sub model) it is a cost to all gamers of $15 million for a month of that game.
If the same game has 1 million players and an average cost of $21 per gamer it is a cost to all gamers of $21 million for a month of that game.
That means the company just got to profit more on the same amount of work and that is spread down to the gamers themselves. Some will pay more directly out of pocket, others will have to grind more to compete with those who paid more and in the end everyone does/pays more to be exactly how they would have been in the other model.
It has absolutely nothing to do with 1 gamer spending $200 of his/her own money. In the end when a game cost a collective group more for the same amount of stuff it is bad for that group. Of course the people who don't understand that are the ones who are repeatedly helping that same company rip off customers more.
I won't bother trying to explain it beyond that. I'll come back in 5 years and try to point it out when people wonder why it feels so expensive to play games in the future as the trend continues.
Same ones who are cutting out basic things in their lives to pay the higher and higher cell phone bills as the companies figure out how to exploit people more and more and yet those people never stop paying/downgrade to minimums to send a message. Best part is those phone companies don't even try to hide what they're doing and flat out say they think they can make people pay more for the same service. Pretty some certain game companies will realize they can be upfront about what they're doing because people will just pay anyways.
So with a normal subscription MMO you'd have brought in $3120 from these people. If you assume best case scenario and they've all just subbed up for month 2 at $15 it would be $3900.
With GW2 model and this poll and assuming dead center in each choice as the average spent and assuming $300 for the 251+ you end up with: ~$4340 or 1.4x as much money spent over if 100% of the people subbing for a second month in a sub based game.
Yes B2P as the future sounds great for gamers...
Seems almost everyone who purchased, bought bag/bank space. Those are really a one-off and I can't see the same spend occuring month after month.
You make some poorly based assumptions.
None of the assumptions are the least bit poorly based. To assume that a company which makes money off a store won't continue to come up with things for people to spend money on would be the poor assumption.
Given how many people I saw running around in game with the ridiculous sunglasses and boxing gloves, I would also say people aren't just spending money on bag/bank space.
You'll also notice in my assumption I helped the B2P model by assuming a 100% continue to play rate which raises how much the subscription type of game costs. In reality you at best end up with a 50% rate on the first month if not lower which further increases the cost difference between the two models.
But be that guy who just says anything anyone says is just wrong if it is at all critical of the game they love.
I don't mind being critical, there's plenty I don't like about GW2.
To jump in and make assumptions based on a poll with only 50 or so votes, seems a bit premature.
My argument still stands and it doesn't matter whether it's GW2 or not, you're talking about the whole B2P model.
The vast majority have spent nothing, some chose to make things easier by buying something they may see as essential, in this case bank and bag space.
If a gamer has disposable income he wants to dispose of to increase his enjoyment, how is that bad for gamers?
It doesn't lessen my enjoyment of the game.
So be that guy who in the absence of a reasonable argument, stoops to the safety zone of calling me a fanboy.
Yes I "stooped" to anything. I put out data with my reasons. Your rebuttal was "no" followed by sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalalalalala". No rebuttal data, no sources, no studies. Just a "Nuh-huh" response, the lowest form of debate.
As the poll progresses it is actually driving the number up as some of the higher categories previously had no responses but now do yet the 0 percentage is mostly unchanged.
The fact of the matter is average player spending, regardless of individual spending, is higher compared to a subscription model with no store. That is not a good thing for gamers. End of story.
Data?
Clearly you have no idea about data and how to properly analyse it.
How can you assume the same monthly spend, when all that this data shows is that a small percentage of people bought a one-off item early in the game.
Moreso, how does this equate to being bad for gamers?
It will certainly save me some cash because I have no intention of spending on vanity items or things I can get in-game anyway - as seems to be the case with most people who have replied here.
I hope Arenanet do make more money from the cash shop to support their game and business, but at least it will come from those who can afford it and choose to go that route.
Lets see, I bought a few mini's, some dye packs, bank space, the pirate costume for my Asura when hes strutting around town, and lvl 80 transmutation stones. Probably spent more than I should but I'm enjoying the game and the money isnt lacking.
So with a normal subscription MMO you'd have brought in $3120 from these people. If you assume best case scenario and they've all just subbed up for month 2 at $15 it would be $3900.
With GW2 model and this poll and assuming dead center in each choice as the average spent and assuming $300 for the 251+ you end up with: ~$4340 or 1.4x as much money spent over if 100% of the people subbing for a second month in a sub based game.
Yes B2P as the future sounds great for gamers...
Seems almost everyone who purchased, bought bag/bank space. Those are really a one-off and I can't see the same spend occuring month after month.
You make some poorly based assumptions.
None of the assumptions are the least bit poorly based. To assume that a company which makes money off a store won't continue to come up with things for people to spend money on would be the poor assumption.
Given how many people I saw running around in game with the ridiculous sunglasses and boxing gloves, I would also say people aren't just spending money on bag/bank space.
You'll also notice in my assumption I helped the B2P model by assuming a 100% continue to play rate which raises how much the subscription type of game costs. In reality you at best end up with a 50% rate on the first month if not lower which further increases the cost difference between the two models.
But be that guy who just says anything anyone says is just wrong if it is at all critical of the game they love.
Heres the issue, optional cosmetics and optional services are not things that are required to enjoy the game. B2P is great for gamers, because it's entirely OPTIONAL.
Yes, they will put stuff on the store that people want. Name one thing on the store that people need.
A monthly fee - forced additional fees
F2P - Gated content and progression that forces you to purchase off of the store
B2P - Access to everything with no additional fees, Optional Fluff and services offered on store.
You really want to sit there and try to claim B2P is bad for gamers?
Additionaly keep in mind you can buy gems with in game gold so you still don't have to spend real money to get the fluff items.
Clearly you have no idea about data and how to properly analyse it.
How can you assume the same monthly spend, when all that this data shows is that a small percentage of people bought a one-off item early in the game.
Moreso, how does this equate to being bad for gamers?
I'm the one that doesn't understand data when you're the one who doesn't get simple math? Interesting.
I took the poll results, went with exact middle of each range as the average a person choosing that range would spend. I then tallied up that money along with a $60 box price for each of those poll users. I then compared that to if the game was $60 and a $15 month for a subscription after the first month free and assumed a 100% retention rate of those same players for a second month. It was a 1.4x increase in average cost per player with the GW2 approach.
It really is the simplest math and datat to understand so there you go.
As for your last point, try reading things since you asked a question I already answered.
So with a normal subscription MMO you'd have brought in $3120 from these people. If you assume best case scenario and they've all just subbed up for month 2 at $15 it would be $3900.
With GW2 model and this poll and assuming dead center in each choice as the average spent and assuming $300 for the 251+ you end up with: ~$4340 or 1.4x as much money spent over if 100% of the people subbing for a second month in a sub based game.
Yes B2P as the future sounds great for gamers...
Seems almost everyone who purchased, bought bag/bank space. Those are really a one-off and I can't see the same spend occuring month after month.
You make some poorly based assumptions.
None of the assumptions are the least bit poorly based. To assume that a company which makes money off a store won't continue to come up with things for people to spend money on would be the poor assumption.
Given how many people I saw running around in game with the ridiculous sunglasses and boxing gloves, I would also say people aren't just spending money on bag/bank space.
You'll also notice in my assumption I helped the B2P model by assuming a 100% continue to play rate which raises how much the subscription type of game costs. In reality you at best end up with a 50% rate on the first month if not lower which further increases the cost difference between the two models.
But be that guy who just says anything anyone says is just wrong if it is at all critical of the game they love.
Heres the issue, optional cosmetics and optional services are not things that are required to enjoy the game. B2P is great for gamers, because it's entirely OPTIONAL.
Yes, they will put stuff on the store that people want. Name one thing on the store that people need.
A monthly fee - forced additional fees
F2P - Gated content and progression that forces you to purchase off of the store
B2P - Access to everything with no additional fees, Optional Fluff and services offered on store.
You really want to sit there and try to claim B2P is bad for gamers?
Additionaly keep in mind you can buy gems with in game gold so you still don't have to spend real money to get the fluff items.
So yes... B2P as the future IS great for gamers.
Paying $60 upfront for access to all content vs getting some content for free and deciding which content to pay money for (often $10-$15 per group/area of content) is better? I don't think so. You will pay less the second way. In the future GW2 will have gated content with the expansion packs anyway.
The main money makers in F2P games are more storage/more character slots so I wouldn't call GW2's B2P store "fluff items". The difference is that in a true F2P you will have gone into the game and paid NOTHING at all and then if you decided to spend a few bucks to unlock storage or character slots you will have spent a few bucks, where as with GW2 you will have spent a few bucks on top of $60.
Yes, GW2 version of B2P is bad for gamers. True B2P (no store, just a copy of the game and copies of the expansion with no store or subscription) is great for gamers.
The options should be:
Subscription based game
Free to Play game with store
B2P game with no store/no subscription
GW2 takes two of those models which means increased cost to users.
The fact of the matter is average player spending, regardless of individual spending, is higher compared to a subscription model with no store. That is not a good thing for gamers. End of story.
And? It's their money to spend. I bought the game and haven't been able to play the past month. I didn't spend an extra $15 for that time. Gamers can make up their own minds. End of story.
If a game has 1 million players and an average cost of $15 per gamer (aka sub model) it is a cost to all gamers of $15 million for a month of that game.
If the same game has 1 million players and an average cost of $21 per gamer it is a cost to all gamers of $21 million for a month of that game.
That means the company just got to profit more on the same amount of work and that is spread down to the gamers themselves. Some will pay more directly out of pocket, others will have to grind more to compete with those who paid more and in the end everyone does/pays more to be exactly how they would have been in the other model.
Pay attention to the part in yellow. If someone doesn't want to grind, that's up to them... though I'm not sure why you're using GW2 to support your argument, since there is absolutely no reason to spend money to remain competitive, and F2P's have been doing worse than this for years.
Take Allods for example. Remember how they made the cash shop almost a necessity to enjoy the game? And look what happened to them. If it ever comes to the point you say it will, people will stop paying or just avoid the game altogether. Even in the rare case they don't and are happy to shell out the $$$, it won't be because of ANet. Far less honest payment plans exist right now. I think you worry too much, or at least you worry about the wrong games getting one over on fans... people are mostly buying BAG SPACE, and when you can do it by spending time in-game, you can't blame ANet if some people take shortcuts. It's called smart business.
The main money makers in F2P games are more storage/more character slots so I wouldn't call GW2's B2P store "fluff items".
But the question is, how many of those F2P games allow you to get the same bonuses (bag space, character slots) through in game gold? Not any that I can recall.
So with a normal subscription MMO you'd have brought in $3120 from these people. If you assume best case scenario and they've all just subbed up for month 2 at $15 it would be $3900.
With GW2 model and this poll and assuming dead center in each choice as the average spent and assuming $300 for the 251+ you end up with: ~$4340 or 1.4x as much money spent over if 100% of the people subbing for a second month in a sub based game.
Yes B2P as the future sounds great for gamers...
Seems almost everyone who purchased, bought bag/bank space. Those are really a one-off and I can't see the same spend occuring month after month.
You make some poorly based assumptions.
None of the assumptions are the least bit poorly based. To assume that a company which makes money off a store won't continue to come up with things for people to spend money on would be the poor assumption.
Given how many people I saw running around in game with the ridiculous sunglasses and boxing gloves, I would also say people aren't just spending money on bag/bank space.
You'll also notice in my assumption I helped the B2P model by assuming a 100% continue to play rate which raises how much the subscription type of game costs. In reality you at best end up with a 50% rate on the first month if not lower which further increases the cost difference between the two models.
But be that guy who just says anything anyone says is just wrong if it is at all critical of the game they love.
Heres the issue, optional cosmetics and optional services are not things that are required to enjoy the game. B2P is great for gamers, because it's entirely OPTIONAL.
Yes, they will put stuff on the store that people want. Name one thing on the store that people need.
A monthly fee - forced additional fees
F2P - Gated content and progression that forces you to purchase off of the store
B2P - Access to everything with no additional fees, Optional Fluff and services offered on store.
You really want to sit there and try to claim B2P is bad for gamers?
Additionaly keep in mind you can buy gems with in game gold so you still don't have to spend real money to get the fluff items.
So yes... B2P as the future IS great for gamers.
Paying $60 upfront for access to all content vs getting some content for free and deciding which content to pay money for (often $10-$15 per group/area of content) is better? I don't think so. You will pay less the second way. In the future GW2 will have gated content with the expansion packs anyway.
You also can buy gems with in game gold... please keep this in mind.
The main money makers in F2P games are more storage/more character slots so I wouldn't call GW2's B2P store "fluff items". The difference is that in a true F2P you will have gone into the game and paid NOTHING at all and then if you decided to spend a few bucks to unlock storage or character slots you will have spent a few bucks, where as with GW2 you will have spent a few bucks on top of $60.
Yes, GW2 version of B2P is bad for gamers. True B2P (no store, just a copy of the game and copies of the expansion with no store or subscription) is great for gamers.
The options should be:
Subscription based game
Free to Play game with store
B2P game with no store/no subscription
GW2 takes two of those models which means increased cost to users.
I'm sorry, you're not making any sense.
Yes, in GW2's buy to play model you pay $60 up front and get access to all the content. You pay less with GW2's system.
A F2P forces you to spend money in the store, it intentionally hampers enjoyment to do so. Sure... you can suffer through and say at leasts its free but... I don't see much point in that. I can play a "f2p" that will in the end force me to pay through the nose to be competitive in PvP, to enjoy the game, and in some even use Global chat lol. Things of this nature are why F2P is terrible for gamers.
I think the issue seems to be you don't quite grasp how these models work, if you like I don't have a problem explaining them to you.
Now that I've played the game for a month, I do think they gimped you on the amount of bank space you are given since it is shared account-wide.
And I already know you can alts to hold items, but, really, nearly every other MMO gives plenty of bank space. So I think they intentially limited you to pump their cash shop.
I made a personal guild and am using the influence things you get from the personal story to buy guild storage. Free extra storage
Now that I've played the game for a month, I do think they gimped you on the amount of bank space you are given since it is shared account-wide.
And I already know you can alts to hold items, but, really, nearly every other MMO gives plenty of bank space. So I think they intentially limited you to pump their cash shop.
I made a personal guild and am using the influence things you get from the personal story to buy guild storage. Free extra storage
Yeah lol, so far I've unlocked the 50 slot Guild bank, working on the next upgrades to increase it.
Comments
Yes I "stooped" to anything. I put out data with my reasons. Your rebuttal was "no" followed by sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalalalalala". No rebuttal data, no sources, no studies. Just a "Nuh-huh" response, the lowest form of debate.
As the poll progresses it is actually driving the number up as some of the higher categories previously had no responses but now do yet the 0 percentage is mostly unchanged.
The fact of the matter is average player spending, regardless of individual spending, is higher compared to a subscription model with no store. That is not a good thing for gamers. End of story.
$10 for bank space.
Now that I've played the game for a month, I do think they gimped you on the amount of bank space you are given since it is shared account-wide.
And I already know you can alts to hold items, but, really, nearly every other MMO gives plenty of bank space. So I think they intentially limited you to pump their cash shop.
And? It's their money to spend. I bought the game and haven't been able to play the past month. I didn't spend an extra $15 for that time. Gamers can make up their own minds. End of story.
I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg
If a game has 1 million players and an average cost of $15 per gamer (aka sub model) it is a cost to all gamers of $15 million for a month of that game.
If the same game has 1 million players and an average cost of $21 per gamer it is a cost to all gamers of $21 million for a month of that game.
That means the company just got to profit more on the same amount of work and that is spread down to the gamers themselves. Some will pay more directly out of pocket, others will have to grind more to compete with those who paid more and in the end everyone does/pays more to be exactly how they would have been in the other model.
It has absolutely nothing to do with 1 gamer spending $200 of his/her own money. In the end when a game cost a collective group more for the same amount of stuff it is bad for that group. Of course the people who don't understand that are the ones who are repeatedly helping that same company rip off customers more.
I won't bother trying to explain it beyond that. I'll come back in 5 years and try to point it out when people wonder why it feels so expensive to play games in the future as the trend continues.
Same ones who are cutting out basic things in their lives to pay the higher and higher cell phone bills as the companies figure out how to exploit people more and more and yet those people never stop paying/downgrade to minimums to send a message. Best part is those phone companies don't even try to hide what they're doing and flat out say they think they can make people pay more for the same service. Pretty some certain game companies will realize they can be upfront about what they're doing because people will just pay anyways.
Data?
Clearly you have no idea about data and how to properly analyse it.
How can you assume the same monthly spend, when all that this data shows is that a small percentage of people bought a one-off item early in the game.
Moreso, how does this equate to being bad for gamers?
It will certainly save me some cash because I have no intention of spending on vanity items or things I can get in-game anyway - as seems to be the case with most people who have replied here.
I hope Arenanet do make more money from the cash shop to support their game and business, but at least it will come from those who can afford it and choose to go that route.
spend 10$ in the shop.
bought over 3000 gems with in game gold.
I 3930k -- Rampage IV Extreme -- G.skill RipjawsZ 32 GB -- Corsair Force Series 3 120gb -- G.skill Phoenix Pro 60gb -- WD 1 TB Black -- Corsair H 100 -- Thermaltake Level 10 Gt Snow Edition -- Corsair AX1200 -- Asus 560 Ti Sli -- Microsoft Sidewinder X4 -- Logitech G5 -- DELL UltraSharp 2007FP -- Samsung Syncmaster Sa700 -- Logitech Z2300 -- Logitech G35 -- Logitech G600 White -- coming soon : Dell U2711.
Heres the issue, optional cosmetics and optional services are not things that are required to enjoy the game. B2P is great for gamers, because it's entirely OPTIONAL.
Yes, they will put stuff on the store that people want. Name one thing on the store that people need.
A monthly fee - forced additional fees
F2P - Gated content and progression that forces you to purchase off of the store
B2P - Access to everything with no additional fees, Optional Fluff and services offered on store.
You really want to sit there and try to claim B2P is bad for gamers?
Additionaly keep in mind you can buy gems with in game gold so you still don't have to spend real money to get the fluff items.
So yes... B2P as the future IS great for gamers.
I'm the one that doesn't understand data when you're the one who doesn't get simple math? Interesting.
I took the poll results, went with exact middle of each range as the average a person choosing that range would spend. I then tallied up that money along with a $60 box price for each of those poll users. I then compared that to if the game was $60 and a $15 month for a subscription after the first month free and assumed a 100% retention rate of those same players for a second month. It was a 1.4x increase in average cost per player with the GW2 approach.
It really is the simplest math and datat to understand so there you go.
As for your last point, try reading things since you asked a question I already answered.
Paying $60 upfront for access to all content vs getting some content for free and deciding which content to pay money for (often $10-$15 per group/area of content) is better? I don't think so. You will pay less the second way. In the future GW2 will have gated content with the expansion packs anyway.
The main money makers in F2P games are more storage/more character slots so I wouldn't call GW2's B2P store "fluff items". The difference is that in a true F2P you will have gone into the game and paid NOTHING at all and then if you decided to spend a few bucks to unlock storage or character slots you will have spent a few bucks, where as with GW2 you will have spent a few bucks on top of $60.
Yes, GW2 version of B2P is bad for gamers. True B2P (no store, just a copy of the game and copies of the expansion with no store or subscription) is great for gamers.
The options should be:
Subscription based game
Free to Play game with store
B2P game with no store/no subscription
GW2 takes two of those models which means increased cost to users.
Pay attention to the part in yellow. If someone doesn't want to grind, that's up to them... though I'm not sure why you're using GW2 to support your argument, since there is absolutely no reason to spend money to remain competitive, and F2P's have been doing worse than this for years.
Take Allods for example. Remember how they made the cash shop almost a necessity to enjoy the game? And look what happened to them. If it ever comes to the point you say it will, people will stop paying or just avoid the game altogether. Even in the rare case they don't and are happy to shell out the $$$, it won't be because of ANet. Far less honest payment plans exist right now. I think you worry too much, or at least you worry about the wrong games getting one over on fans... people are mostly buying BAG SPACE, and when you can do it by spending time in-game, you can't blame ANet if some people take shortcuts. It's called smart business.
But the question is, how many of those F2P games allow you to get the same bonuses (bag space, character slots) through in game gold? Not any that I can recall.
I'm sorry, you're not making any sense.
Yes, in GW2's buy to play model you pay $60 up front and get access to all the content. You pay less with GW2's system.
A F2P forces you to spend money in the store, it intentionally hampers enjoyment to do so. Sure... you can suffer through and say at leasts its free but... I don't see much point in that. I can play a "f2p" that will in the end force me to pay through the nose to be competitive in PvP, to enjoy the game, and in some even use Global chat lol. Things of this nature are why F2P is terrible for gamers.
I think the issue seems to be you don't quite grasp how these models work, if you like I don't have a problem explaining them to you.
I made a personal guild and am using the influence things you get from the personal story to buy guild storage. Free extra storage
Yeah lol, so far I've unlocked the 50 slot Guild bank, working on the next upgrades to increase it.