Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

[Review] Vanguard: Saga of Heroes: The F2P Review

124

Comments

  • OzmodanOzmodan Hilliard, OHPosts: 7,191Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Nadia
    Originally posted by Torvaldr

    I really hate the "you can level to xx with no problem" argument.  It's not about the "can you".  It's about is it "fun and compelling" to do this.

    i found EQ2 leveling fun and compelling --- why else would i keep playing for 85 levels ?

     

    what makes DOV different is all quest gear is legendary at 86+,  and it kills the fun unless you are a subscriber

    Well Nadia good for you, sure you can level to 85 without spending a dime, but really, you are missing a lot of the game doing so.  What is the point of that?  Again I am not against spending money on a game I enjoy and I did spend money on EQ2, but I got tired of having to constantly spend money on the game.  You might just as well sub.  All of SOE's f2p games are exactly like that.  I just felt that time has passed EQ2 by, it just was not worth the sub any more.

    That is exactly why, when I saw all the restrictions on Vanguard, I just gave it a pass.  SOE just does not get how to appeal to the f2p audience.  I do have an existing Vanguard account too, played for the first 6 months of the game.

  • ZiyadahZiyadah Knoxville, TNPosts: 13Member







    Originally posted by Ozmodan












    Originally posted by Nadia












    Originally posted by Torvaldr

    I really hate the "you can level to xx with no problem" argument.  It's not about the "can you".  It's about is it "fun and compelling" to do this.





    i found EQ2 leveling fun and compelling --- why else would i keep playing for 85 levels ?





     





    what makes DOV different is all quest gear is legendary at 86+,  and it kills the fun unless you are a subscriber





    Well Nadia good for you, sure you can level to 85 without spending a dime, but really, you are missing a lot of the game doing so.  What is the point of that?  Again I am not against spending money on a game I enjoy and I did spend money on EQ2, but I got tired of having to constantly spend money on the game.  You might just as well sub.  All of SOE's f2p games are exactly like that.  I just felt that time has passed EQ2 by, it just was not worth the sub any more.





    That is exactly why, when I saw all the restrictions on Vanguard, I just gave it a pass.  SOE just does not get how to appeal to the f2p audience.  I do have an existing Vanguard account too, played for the first 6 months of the game.














     


    You start off by saying that you're not against spending money on games you enjoy, but you're tired of having to constantly spend money on the games.

    That mindset is not compatible with MMO development and support.

    Without continuing income, they cannot provide continuing development, and eventually they run out of money.  It's a very simple concept, and it's been played out time and time again across the games development world as a whole.  Either they make the game, release it, and that's it except for bug fixes, or they continue to try to develop new content and fail financially due to lack of a revenue stream.

    No company in their right mind should "appeal to the f2p audience" as you're representing that audience.  There is zero reason to want to attract a crowd of players who will bring you inadequate revenue - you can't even point to word of mouth increasing the game's popularity, because more players won't significantly increase the revenue stream.

    Even if they'd limited the cash shop to strictly vanity and appearance items, there's a limited return on that - many F2P players don't buy that crap at all, and the ones that do typically don't buy it on a constant, ongoing basis.

    That's precisely why SOE uses hybrid F2P models.  A true F2P system doesn't provide enough predictable revenue to run your company.


    I genuinely fail to understand this mindset.  An MMO subscription is almost literally the cheapest form of on-demand entertainment possible.




     

  • TorvalTorval Oregon CountryPosts: 7,215Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Ziyadah

    Originally posted by Ozmodan

    Well Nadia good for you, sure you can level to 85 without spending a dime, but really, you are missing a lot of the game doing so.  What is the point of that?  Again I am not against spending money on a game I enjoy and I did spend money on EQ2, but I got tired of having to constantly spend money on the game.  You might just as well sub.  All of SOE's f2p games are exactly like that.  I just felt that time has passed EQ2 by, it just was not worth the sub any more.

    That is exactly why, when I saw all the restrictions on Vanguard, I just gave it a pass.  SOE just does not get how to appeal to the f2p audience.  I do have an existing Vanguard account too, played for the first 6 months of the game.

    You start off by saying that you're not against spending money on games you enjoy, but you're tired of having to constantly spend money on the games.

    That mindset is not compatible with MMO development and support.

    Without continuing income, they cannot provide continuing development, and eventually they run out of money.  It's a very simple concept, and it's been played out time and time again across the games development world as a whole.  Either they make the game, release it, and that's it except for bug fixes, or they continue to try to develop new content and fail financially due to lack of a revenue stream.

    No company in their right mind should "appeal to the f2p audience" as you're representing that audience.  There is zero reason to want to attract a crowd of players who will bring you inadequate revenue - you can't even point to word of mouth increasing the game's popularity, because more players won't significantly increase the revenue stream.

    Even if they'd limited the cash shop to strictly vanity and appearance items, there's a limited return on that - many F2P players don't buy that crap at all, and the ones that do typically don't buy it on a constant, ongoing basis.

    That's precisely why SOE uses hybrid F2P models.  A true F2P system doesn't provide enough predictable revenue to run your company.

    I genuinely fail to understand this mindset.  An MMO subscription is almost literally the cheapest form of on-demand entertainment possible.

    You make a lot of assumptions in your reasoning, but the highlighted piece stands out the most.  Where do you come up with that?  The F2P market is more profitible than the P2P market by a long shot.  There is a huge reason to attract a large volume of players to a massively multiplayer online game.  Accepting potentially smaller revenue per account is acceptable because math says so when your base is magnified factors larger than subscription games.

    Restructering how SoE approaches the payment model doesn't mean they have to remain unprofitible and assuming that is the only option here is what has led us down this path of ridiculous pricing models.  Then you go on to say something really silly about the predictibility of the F2P business model when it has been wildly successful.

    Don't stop there because you top yourself with a subscription being the cheapest form of on demand entertainment.  If you include all game genres and payment models, and no other forms of entertainment, the subscription model is guaranteed not be the cheapest form.  A F2P game can always be cheaper.  A B2P game will be cheaper after a short period of time which is likely to be one month.

  • TorvalTorval Oregon CountryPosts: 7,215Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Nadia
    Originally posted by Torvaldr

    I really hate the "you can level to xx with no problem" argument.  It's not about the "can you".  It's about is it "fun and compelling" to do this.

    i found EQ2 leveling fun and compelling --- why else would i keep playing for 85 levels ?

    what makes DOV different is all quest gear is legendary at 86+,  and it kills the fun unless you are a subscriber

    I wasn't really trying to say that leveling in EQ2 isn't fun.  It is a lot of fun.   It's the idea that because one can level without paying a dime that missing out on a lot of the other fun stuff is somehow okay that bothers me.

    I played EQ2 to the 80s not only for the leveling.  I played for the interesting quest chains.  My deity quest chain was one of the most interesting and (forgive my word invention here) role-playey adventures I've been on in any game. 

    But those weren't all the reasons I leveled where I did.  I also enjoyed crafting Master Crafted gear (before it got neutered) and doing crafting quests.  I enjoyed grinding faction.  I loved to collect shinies, play the market, buy more shinies, sell rare drops for lots of money, and do overland Epics with my guild.  But wait, that's not all.  I loved, almost more than anything, collecting housing items from heritage and L&L quests along with all the other cool housing fluff to be found.  Most of all, as a Fae Warden, my character loved to make his house into a zoo by gathering collectible pets.  I loved getting rare drops and equipping them to improve my character.  I glossed over the broker, but it was my favorite AH type of trade system in most any game I played because it was a mini-game all its own that had multiple purposes to it.

    A very large portion of that fun was ripped out of the game with SoE's "F2P" model from day one it was implemented.  I guess it's a matter of knowing what you've lost when it's gone.  When you know how fun the game can be, settling for second best just feels kind of empty and unfulfilling.

  • ZiyadahZiyadah Knoxville, TNPosts: 13Member

    Originally posted by Torvaldr

    You make a lot of assumptions in your reasoning, but the highlighted piece stands out the most.  Where do you come up with that?  The F2P market is more profitible than the P2P market by a long shot.  There is a huge reason to attract a large volume of players to a massively multiplayer online game.  Accepting potentially smaller revenue per account is acceptable because math says so when your base is magnified factors larger than subscription games.

    Restructering how SoE approaches the payment model doesn't mean they have to remain unprofitible and assuming that is the only option here is what has led us down this path of ridiculous pricing models.  Then you go on to say something really silly about the predictibility of the F2P business model when it has been wildly successful.

    Don't stop there because you top yourself with a subscription being the cheapest form of on demand entertainment.  If you include all game genres and payment models, and no other forms of entertainment, the subscription model is guaranteed not be the cheapest form.  A F2P game can always be cheaper.  A B2P game will be cheaper after a short period of time which is likely to be one month.


     

    Your entire argument falls flat right there.

    I have never seen any evidence that the F2P market is more profitable than the P2P market for MMORPGs on anything but a short term basis.  If you have it, I'd love to see it.  People love to spout the phrase I highlighted in your post, but no one ever seems to be able to back it up.  Logically it doesn't even make sense - the only way in which a F2P MMORPG could remain more profitable than a P2P MMORPG is if the "F2P" system is designed to require financial investment to continue playing.  On a short term basis a F2P MMORPG will be more profitable, absolutely.  People are very likely to sink a decent chunk of money into a game when a cash shop is first introduced.  To keep that up, you have to either constantly bring in new players who will make that initial investment into the cash shop, which typically does not happen.

    The second place your argument trips and falls on its face is the "wildly successful" part.  Exactly where in the MMO marketplace has it been wildly successful?  It's done well in a few games - it's failed miserably in a lot more.  I don't know of anywhere that I'd characterize it the way you are.

    And no, sorry, but it IS the cheapest form of on demand entertainment.  Yes, you can make the argument that B2P games are cheaper after a short period - and when you show me a B2P game that continually evolves, and releases substantial amounts of new content on a regular basis, with each release being either a substantial portion, or exceeding in some cases, the content of the ogirinal game, I'll agree with you.  Oh, and provides the same length and depth of content.  I mean Modern Warfare 3 *totally* has 200+ hours of different stuff to do, right?  I mean you can point to Guild Wars 2, sure, which people are already getting bored with in droves, and hasn't released a single plan to provide new content as of yet.  Or to any number of true F2P MMOs that people play briefly before discovering that they're absurdly shallow and poorly designed.

    Sorry, but this is one thing you'll never, ever convince me on, or a lot of other people.  I don't disagree that a true F2P model can make players happy.  But on a long term basis it's miserable for the game's health.

  • LyrieLyrie Clearwater, FLPosts: 3Member

    Wow... this review was all over the place. It felt like someone had a deadline to make, played the game for a few days (or less), decided they didn't like what they saw, and wrote a (amazingly) short story about why. All attempts at explaining why systems seemed lackluster were either on the bye, or non-existent. Even the pro's felt like they were summed up without very much explanation as to why. And that's just my hash at how the review was written, and has nothing to do with my utter disagreement with the review's outlook at Vanguard in general. My review of this review is 3/10. If you're going to call out a games system (i.e: Diplo/Crafting a "chrore")... explain yourself.  If you're going to say they're great.. explain yourself. And do so in an organized manner. I also agree with previous posts in regard to how the system was tallied in regard to the summary given for that category.. Anyway you look at it, though, this whole review reeks of an amateur stab at reviewing a complex system. 

  • GyrusGyrus Lost City of ZPosts: 2,335Member

    I am a Vanguard F2P Player.

    I haven't hit any of the restrictions yet... because I haven't been playing solidly... so my views may change when I do but...

     

    Vanguard is great for me because it is an "old school MMO".  As an explorer - it's nice not to run into all the 'invisible walls' and 'impassible cliffs' that so many other (modern / themepark) MMOs tend to come with.

    The world of Telon is acually a world which is something missing from many of the newer MMOs.

    As for crafting and diplomacy - I have to agree with many of the other posters here.

    These are definate strengths of the game.  Coming from someone who is NOT A CRAFTER you could call that praise. 

    Even though crafting doesn't appeal to me - I know that many people do like it - and I often wonder how a "1 x stick + 1 x leather + [MAKE BOW] = Longbow of Agility!" crafting system can have any appeal to them?  Vanguard's system offers a depth that many crafters say they want.  It appears to reward hard work and those who actually care about what they are doing?

    The diplomacy system is also something unique.  I am not sure a better system couldn't be devised - but it beats the hell out of the "you may only accept missions from this NPC when your "reputation" is above 100..." sytem in use in many other MMOs.

    Advancing in diplomacy takes thought and planning.  And the game allows you to plan your encounters by warning you what sort of approach to take ("incite" vs "inspire" for example).

    All in all I think Vanguard still has a lot to offer.  In fact as far as MMOs go, a lot of the current Dev teams could do well to actually play it to see that simply cloning all things WoW is not the only possible approach.

    Oh, and yes, SOE don't understand gamers.  I am sure the F2P limits will annoy me when I get there.

    Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.

  • DavisFlightDavisFlight Talahasee, FLPosts: 2,556Member

    I don't think I've ever seen a site that gives worse reviews for MMOs thant his one. Maybe Gamespot.

    Seriously, SWTOR gets a 9. Age of Conan gets a 9. This gets a 6.

    Seems this site bases its reviews off how much money they get from a given company.

  • Yavin_PrimeYavin_Prime Oak Park, CAPosts: 233Member
    I have to admit I hate the freemium method SOE and Turbine has picked up. I like PWI's true F2P the kind you see in Star Trek Online.
  • lotapartylotaparty taxila canttPosts: 514Member

    Originally posted by LightHeretic

    I have to admit I hate the freemium method SOE and Turbine has picked up. I like PWI's true F2P the kind you see in Star Trek Online.

     

    yup that one is good 

    image

  • VesaviusVesavius BristolPosts: 7,645Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Ziyadah

    Originally posted by Torvaldr

    You make a lot of assumptions in your reasoning, but the highlighted piece stands out the most.  Where do you come up with that?  The F2P market is more profitible than the P2P market by a long shot.  

    I have never seen any evidence that the F2P market is more profitable than the P2P market for MMORPGs on anything but a short term basis.  If you have it, I'd love to see it.  People love to spout the phrase I highlighted in your post, but no one ever seems to be able to back it up.  

     

    Me neither.

    I would love to see a credible long term *neutral* report on how F2P performs in these games in the West once the initial surge of the relaunch it brings passes.

    Seeing as all these companies hide the real numbers and gaming sites simply regurgitate their press releases though the only real signs we ever really get that all is not well or delivering the expected level of riches is when F2P games shut down.

    There seems to be a *lot* of 'fact' from the pro-cash shop crowd that is simply recieved wisdom that they heard a F2P dev, or someone with a clear vested interest in promoting the model, say once on the internet somewhere.

  • kevjardskevjards carlislePosts: 1,463Member

    One of the main reasons i played vanguard was the community..its not often you come across a game with so many dedicated players who are willing to help..only other game i come across a community like this is lotro(laurelin server).crafting is also a blast in vanguard..its the best i have ever seen in any mmo.although i dont play this game anymore i would'nt hesitate to recommend this game to anyone..only thing is dont expect to complete anything quickly..which is what i like about it.you have to work to get what you want..content wise there is enough in this game to keep you goin for a few yrs.gfx are still great.character models suck but what the hell ,who cares?

    btw to any VG player reading this.how's the population these days?

  • darkhalf357xdarkhalf357x Brooklyn, NYPosts: 1,164Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by evilastro
    Originally posted by Nadia
    Originally posted by Torvaldr

    I really hate the "you can level to xx with no problem" argument.  It's not about the "can you".  It's about is it "fun and compelling" to do this.

    i found EQ2 leveling fun and compelling --- why else would i keep playing for 85 levels ?

     

    what makes DOV different is all quest gear is legendary at 86+,  and it kills the fun unless you are a subscriber

    Which is done intentionally because SoE have a terrible F2P model and want a cash grab. Sorry but the SoE F2P models are the absolute worst, and do not inspire anyone to give them any money, which is why their servers are so dead.

    Whats the best F2P model? I'm curious.

    The model is functional and serves its purpose.  It allows you to play a SUBBED game for free with obvious limitations.  Its not meant for you to do whatever you want and run through end game.  If you want to do that then sub and all your issues go away. 

    F2P is meant to allow you to play long enough in the game to determine if you want to sub.  All of these complaints thats its too restrictive makes it sound you like want something for nothing -- which isnt going to happen.

    image
  • grimgryphongrimgryphon Pacific Northwest, WAPosts: 682Member

    "Diplomacy and crafting are a chore"

    This is a joke, right?

    /facepalm

    Optional PvP = No PvP
  • grimgryphongrimgryphon Pacific Northwest, WAPosts: 682Member



    Originally posted by Ryowulf

    Sorry but what was said rings true for many new players trying the game out for the first time.

    Well, this is true...and...it provides an additional benefit of making it easy to identify who is part of the instant gratification crowd so they can be safely avoided.

    Optional PvP = No PvP
  • darkhalf357xdarkhalf357x Brooklyn, NYPosts: 1,164Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Suzie_Ford

    With Vanguard: Saga of Heroes' recent transition from a subscription based title to a hybrid F2P-subscription revenue generator, interest has been renewed in the game. We've put the F2P version of Vanguard to the test to see how it fares. Read our review and then let us know what you think.

    The world of Telon is an absolutely beautiful creation, and there is no doubt about that. Every part of the games landscape is explorable. Literally, you can swim, run, climb and fly over every inch of the game world and is an aspect which Vanguard builds upon superbly. Upon release many people became familiar with the /flush command, it was a command which hopefully will never see the light of day again. The command itself was used to re-set the graphic engines whilst playing through the game in order to fix the many graphical problems throughout the game. Thankfully, 5 years on, there is no use for this and graphical bugs are absent. But the same high requirement game engine is still in place, which will become a pain with those who own lower end systems. 

    Read more of George Dimmock's Vanguard: Saga of Heroes: The F2P Review.

    image

    That was a pretty terrible review.  I actually consider it an opinion piece as opposed to a review which I view as an objective look at a game explaining its mechanics.  It was clearly obvious that this reviewer didnt fully understand, play, or enjoy the game.  Telling someone that something sucks in so many words (without explaining) is not a review.

    The game is from an era when MMOs were challenging and players engaged each other to get through the content.  Unfortunately that style of gameplay is no longer popular nor accepted by the new generation of MMO gamers (who I feel have to have everything handed to them).  It is now the era of instant gratification which coincidentally is easier to develop/produce than the older content so its a win win right?

    Vanguard is a game for the explorers who want to test thier gaming mettle against a persistent world that doesnt hold back from wanting to destroy you.  You can mindlessly go out there and 'grind' mobs (unless you over level them).  They will kill you and I mean at the early levels.  My idea of fun.  Its aesthetics are dated but functional.  I do agree the character models begin to slide into the uncanny valley but it is not enough to detract from the sheer amount of content and things to do in this game.

    Lets be honest.  Crafting today has been reduced to a relunctant side game that has no real pressence.  Clicking on materials and pressing a 'craft' execution button is not crafting.  While all crafting in MMOs is a mini-game, Vanguard's version required more skill and thought and gave the impression of actual avatar crafting.  Not only did you need your materials (ore, water, oil, etc) but you had to refine some of them first and then mix them together in the right order.  As you went through the progression of crafting the item certain events could occur that would reduce your quality.  It became a (complete) mini-game where you had to balance having enough resource to complete crafting while managing the highest quality.  With today's gamers I can easily see them getting fustrated with this model even if they quit before they finished.  They lack the patience and commitment to succeed.  But I digress...

    Questing was fun due to the fact that the (persistent) world with NO instancing was very realistic.  While it gave off a cartoon-like feeling it was more pratical impelmentation than say EQ1 or the high fantasy of EQ2.  It was unique.  The world alone turned people away because they didnt know what to do. 

    I'm still feeling on what character/class I want to play.  Currently have a Human Paladin, and dark elf rogue.  I might try a warrior as I like melee weapons.

     Guilds are prevalent. Just have to ask.  The community is more mature than most curent MMOs and very friendly.  I am constantly asking for shortcut and other commands and never had issues getting a response. 

    But nothing is perfect.  Things I dont like.  I dont like the map.  However it is implemented it is not intuitive and does not provide an easy way to see my objective or figure out how to get there.  That doesnt mean that functionality is missing, but more so that it requires more time than it should to learn.  With a map I expect to push one button and see a graphical layout of my area with point of interests I can either tag or get more information.  The engine is a mess and graphical faus paux still exist.  For the longest time I could hear rain but never see it.   This game punishes people who like the solo, it is one of the most group heavy MMOs that I have ever played.  With that said, while I'm not opposed to grouping it is fairly challenging as the community is light.  There are people in the game, but the world is literally so huge you will rarely see the people you talk in world chat. 

    In conclusion, Vanguard at its core is an excellent example of what a true MMORPG can be.  A balanced mix of questing, free exploration, raiding, and side systems (housing, crafting,diplomacy).  It was unfortunately a poor execution which could benefit from either a serious enhancement or sequel built from the same.   It serves as a reminder and more recently as a turning point milestone as the last of the great open world MMORPGs.

    I for one will not lose hope this style to return, even if its a small niche game.

    Yes I am a subscriber. I am SOE AllPass.  I play Vanguard now (as well as EQ1, DCUO, WOW, EQ2, GW2)   This isn't for everybody (especially you youngins) -- but for the older set its definitely an experience that is not lacking.

    image
  • DavisFlightDavisFlight Talahasee, FLPosts: 2,556Member
    What a god awful review. I guess SoE forgot to pay MMORPG.com for 9s like SWTOR and all the other AAA MMOs?
  • TorvalTorval Oregon CountryPosts: 7,215Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by darkhalf357x
    Originally posted by evilastro
    Originally posted by Nadia
    Originally posted by Torvaldr

    I really hate the "you can level to xx with no problem" argument.  It's not about the "can you".  It's about is it "fun and compelling" to do this.

    i found EQ2 leveling fun and compelling --- why else would i keep playing for 85 levels ?

    what makes DOV different is all quest gear is legendary at 86+,  and it kills the fun unless you are a subscriber

    Which is done intentionally because SoE have a terrible F2P model and want a cash grab. Sorry but the SoE F2P models are the absolute worst, and do not inspire anyone to give them any money, which is why their servers are so dead.

    Whats the best F2P model? I'm curious.

    The model is functional and serves its purpose.  It allows you to play a SUBBED game for free with obvious limitations.  Its not meant for you to do whatever you want and run through end game.  If you want to do that then sub and all your issues go away. 

    F2P is meant to allow you to play long enough in the game to determine if you want to sub.  All of these complaints thats its too restrictive makes it sound you like want something for nothing -- which isnt going to happen.

    No, F2P isn't meant to allow you to play long enough to sub.  F2P is now just a marketing term, but was originally understood to mean allowing you game access without a subscription, or a payment model that didn't involve a subscription.

    In one sense, VG is F2P.  But there are different models out there.  Both Perfect World and NCSoft, among others have F2P business models that offer game play that doesn't require a subscription.  If there are restrictions they can be unlocked via the cash shop, but those two companies mostly don't have restrictions, but sell buffs and boosts to accelerate progression.

    STO, GW2, Aion, Lineage II, and RaiderZ are examples of games with unrestrictive subscription free models.  The content and mechanics aren't locked behind a paywall.  Subscribers get stipends of game cash (STO), shorter cooldowns on content timers (Aion raids), and unrestricted access to content creation tools (STO foundry).  Just like P2P games, it's the subs that offer the P2W advantages not the cash shop.  In the case of GW2 and B2P everyone has the same access and there is no subscription (P2W) advantage.

    P2P games sell P2W advantages all the time.  Preorder Storm Legion (RIFT) or EQ2s new xpac and you get special advantages that no one else gets.  Buy the "Collector's Pack" and you get even more perks that you paid extra to acquire.

    The bottom line is this game isn't worth a subscription fee to most people, obviously.  Trying to shoehorn people into that is a mistake and raises the barrier to the game that F2P is supposed to lower.

  • darkhalf357xdarkhalf357x Brooklyn, NYPosts: 1,164Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by darkhalf357x
    Originally posted by evilastro
    Originally posted by Nadia
    Originally posted by Torvaldr

    I really hate the "you can level to xx with no problem" argument.  It's not about the "can you".  It's about is it "fun and compelling" to do this.

    i found EQ2 leveling fun and compelling --- why else would i keep playing for 85 levels ?

    what makes DOV different is all quest gear is legendary at 86+,  and it kills the fun unless you are a subscriber

    Which is done intentionally because SoE have a terrible F2P model and want a cash grab. Sorry but the SoE F2P models are the absolute worst, and do not inspire anyone to give them any money, which is why their servers are so dead.

    Whats the best F2P model? I'm curious.

    The model is functional and serves its purpose.  It allows you to play a SUBBED game for free with obvious limitations.  Its not meant for you to do whatever you want and run through end game.  If you want to do that then sub and all your issues go away. 

    F2P is meant to allow you to play long enough in the game to determine if you want to sub.  All of these complaints thats its too restrictive makes it sound you like want something for nothing -- which isnt going to happen.

    No, F2P isn't meant to allow you to play long enough to sub.  F2P is now just a marketing term, but was originally understood to mean allowing you game access without a subscription, or a payment model that didn't involve a subscription.

    In one sense, VG is F2P.  But there are different models out there.  Both Perfect World and NCSoft, among others have F2P business models that offer game play that doesn't require a subscription.  If there are restrictions they can be unlocked via the cash shop, but those two companies mostly don't have restrictions, but sell buffs and boosts to accelerate progression.

    STO, GW2, Aion, Lineage II, and RaiderZ are examples of games with unrestrictive subscription free models.  The content and mechanics aren't locked behind a paywall.  Subscribers get stipends of game cash (STO), shorter cooldowns on content timers (Aion raids), and unrestricted access to content creation tools (STO foundry).  Just like P2P games, it's the subs that offer the P2W advantages not the cash shop.  In the case of GW2 and B2P everyone has the same access and there is no subscription (P2W) advantage.

    P2P games sell P2W advantages all the time.  Preorder Storm Legion (RIFT) or EQ2s new xpac and you get special advantages that no one else gets.  Buy the "Collector's Pack" and you get even more perks that you paid extra to acquire.

    The bottom line is this game isn't worth a subscription fee to most people, obviously.  Trying to shoehorn people into that is a mistake and raises the barrier to the game that F2P is supposed to lower.

    F2P is a model that has various implementation.  In the context of this thread where we are speaking about P2P MMOs that are now have a F2P option - its a way to test the game out to determine if you want to sub or not.

    PWI isn't the same type of game or model.  It was created to support a sub to begin with - it was created to support free players to leverage a cash shop.  Trying doing PWI end game without using the cash shop.  Most of the F2P games of this model that I've played follow this type of implementation.  Given that, I'd prefer the former.

    We cant speak for the developer, but I dont believe they are trying to shoehorn anybody.  I beleive they are granting an option for users to leverage to try the game out (for a lengthy period).  If I played a game to level 86 and then hit a restriction it would be my decision to sub to continue or to stop playing.  Getting mad that you are restricted for doing something when you pay absolutely nothing is silly.  Simply dont play the game.  SOE wont have any hurt feelings.

    Somebody has to pay to get the servers lit up. Even in a F2P model.

    image
  • DavisFlightDavisFlight Talahasee, FLPosts: 2,556Member

    How anyone can be upset at Vanguards FTP model is beyond me.

     

    Every zone, dungeon, and quest is completely open to play. You know, the important part of the games. Even all the classes are open until 20, and 6 are open until level cap!

  • TorvalTorval Oregon CountryPosts: 7,215Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by darkhalf357x
    Originally posted by Torvaldr

    No, F2P isn't meant to allow you to play long enough to sub.  F2P is now just a marketing term, but was originally understood to mean allowing you game access without a subscription, or a payment model that didn't involve a subscription.

    In one sense, VG is F2P.  But there are different models out there.  Both Perfect World and NCSoft, among others have F2P business models that offer game play that doesn't require a subscription.  If there are restrictions they can be unlocked via the cash shop, but those two companies mostly don't have restrictions, but sell buffs and boosts to accelerate progression.

    STO, GW2, Aion, Lineage II, and RaiderZ are examples of games with unrestrictive subscription free models.  The content and mechanics aren't locked behind a paywall.  Subscribers get stipends of game cash (STO), shorter cooldowns on content timers (Aion raids), and unrestricted access to content creation tools (STO foundry).  Just like P2P games, it's the subs that offer the P2W advantages not the cash shop.  In the case of GW2 and B2P everyone has the same access and there is no subscription (P2W) advantage.

    P2P games sell P2W advantages all the time.  Preorder Storm Legion (RIFT) or EQ2s new xpac and you get special advantages that no one else gets.  Buy the "Collector's Pack" and you get even more perks that you paid extra to acquire.

    The bottom line is this game isn't worth a subscription fee to most people, obviously.  Trying to shoehorn people into that is a mistake and raises the barrier to the game that F2P is supposed to lower.

    F2P is a model that has various implementation.  In the context of this thread where we are speaking about P2P MMOs that are now have a F2P option - its a way to test the game out to determine if you want to sub or not.

    PWI isn't the same type of game or model.  It was created to support a sub to begin with - it was created to support free players to leverage a cash shop.  Trying doing PWI end game without using the cash shop.  Most of the F2P games of this model that I've played follow this type of implementation.  Given that, I'd prefer the former.

    We cant speak for the developer, but I dont believe they are trying to shoehorn anybody.  I beleive they are granting an option for users to leverage to try the game out (for a lengthy period).  If I played a game to level 86 and then hit a restriction it would be my decision to sub to continue or to stop playing.  Getting mad that you are restricted for doing something when you pay absolutely nothing is silly.  Simply dont play the game.  SOE wont have any hurt feelings.

    Somebody has to pay to get the servers lit up. Even in a F2P model.

    I'm not talking about Perfect/Forsaken World as games, but PWE (Perfect World Entertainment) as a publisher.

    In general SoE pushes the sub pretty hard.  They lock/restrict some systems squarely behind Gold status.  They push the Go Gold popup.  You can't get the same game play as a cash shop - non sub player that a subscriber can.  That is why the model is inferior in my opinion to the revenue models presented by games like STO, RaiderZ, Aion, Lineage II, and GW2.

    It's all subjective but when you hit the wall of subscribe or get a second hand experience, then that to me is shoehorning players into the subscription.  It's not about getting mad.  Why would you think my rejecting the business model would make me mad?  I already play EQ2 and am familiar with how things work at SoE.  Because their model is lame I'm not interested with investing in another game that does this.  If I weren't invested in EQ2 I wouldn't pick it up based on the revenue model.

    With successful games players can tell others to shove off.  Just remember that you are telling others to shove off if they don't like it and your game has a pathetic population.  You can't be exclusive and successful at the same time.  It will be interesting to watch how this game progresses over the next year, especially after EQN launches.  Try and bring more players in or SoE won't have any hurt feelings when they shut down your game either.  Just ask the Matrix and SWG fans and SWG was at least more popular than VG.  Maybe the hardcore VG community should be a little more open to new ideas and feedback.

  • darkhalf357xdarkhalf357x Brooklyn, NYPosts: 1,164Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by darkhalf357x
    Originally posted by Torvaldr

    No, F2P isn't meant to allow you to play long enough to sub.  F2P is now just a marketing term, but was originally understood to mean allowing you game access without a subscription, or a payment model that didn't involve a subscription.

    In one sense, VG is F2P.  But there are different models out there.  Both Perfect World and NCSoft, among others have F2P business models that offer game play that doesn't require a subscription.  If there are restrictions they can be unlocked via the cash shop, but those two companies mostly don't have restrictions, but sell buffs and boosts to accelerate progression.

    STO, GW2, Aion, Lineage II, and RaiderZ are examples of games with unrestrictive subscription free models.  The content and mechanics aren't locked behind a paywall.  Subscribers get stipends of game cash (STO), shorter cooldowns on content timers (Aion raids), and unrestricted access to content creation tools (STO foundry).  Just like P2P games, it's the subs that offer the P2W advantages not the cash shop.  In the case of GW2 and B2P everyone has the same access and there is no subscription (P2W) advantage.

    P2P games sell P2W advantages all the time.  Preorder Storm Legion (RIFT) or EQ2s new xpac and you get special advantages that no one else gets.  Buy the "Collector's Pack" and you get even more perks that you paid extra to acquire.

    The bottom line is this game isn't worth a subscription fee to most people, obviously.  Trying to shoehorn people into that is a mistake and raises the barrier to the game that F2P is supposed to lower.

    F2P is a model that has various implementation.  In the context of this thread where we are speaking about P2P MMOs that are now have a F2P option - its a way to test the game out to determine if you want to sub or not.

    PWI isn't the same type of game or model.  It was created to support a sub to begin with - it was created to support free players to leverage a cash shop.  Trying doing PWI end game without using the cash shop.  Most of the F2P games of this model that I've played follow this type of implementation.  Given that, I'd prefer the former.

    We cant speak for the developer, but I dont believe they are trying to shoehorn anybody.  I beleive they are granting an option for users to leverage to try the game out (for a lengthy period).  If I played a game to level 86 and then hit a restriction it would be my decision to sub to continue or to stop playing.  Getting mad that you are restricted for doing something when you pay absolutely nothing is silly.  Simply dont play the game.  SOE wont have any hurt feelings.

    Somebody has to pay to get the servers lit up. Even in a F2P model.

    I'm not talking about Perfect/Forsaken World as games, but PWE (Perfect World Entertainment) as a publisher.

    In general SoE pushes the sub pretty hard.  They lock/restrict some systems squarely behind Gold status.  They push the Go Gold popup.  You can't get the same game play as a cash shop - non sub player that a subscriber can.  That is why the model is inferior in my opinion to the revenue models presented by games like STO, RaiderZ, Aion, Lineage II, and GW2.

    It's all subjective but when you hit the wall of subscribe or get a second hand experience, then that to me is shoehorning players into the subscription.  It's not about getting mad.  Why would you think my rejecting the business model would make me mad?  I already play EQ2 and am familiar with how things work at SoE.  Because their model is lame I'm not interested with investing in another game that does this.  If I weren't invested in EQ2 I wouldn't pick it up based on the revenue model.

    With successful games players can tell others to shove off.  Just remember that you are telling others to shove off if they don't like it and your game has a pathetic population.  You can't be exclusive and successful at the same time.  It will be interesting to watch how this game progresses over the next year, especially after EQN launches.  Try and bring more players in or SoE won't have any hurt feelings when they shut down your game either.  Just ask the Matrix and SWG fans and SWG was at least more popular than VG.  Maybe the hardcore VG community should be a little more open to new ideas and feedback.

    Sorry. Thought you meant PWI as a game.  

    I agree with everything you are saying about the SOE model, but that just me their F2P model is try before you buy.  Its kind of how they set it up, even when you look at the matrix and see what is offered for free, silver and gold.  (i.e. - if you want to do THIS you need to go gold).  Saying they should have a model like RaiderZ is valid, but just unrealistic.  Its just not their implemenation and i dont see them changing it.

    I've always been of the view if I play a F2P game (of any implementation) - if I like I sub or support the cash shop.  

    With SOE I have a SOE All Access Pass so Im gold across all their games.  I started with F2P and after playing I realized I wanted the full experience (understanding it would be a sub).  I'm just glad they offered an opportunity for me to really play the game.  I wish ALL publishers did this.  I would love to try all MMORPGs free of charge but restricted ... then decide if I want to sub.

    Case in point. FFXIV ARR.  In order for me to even try the game I have to buy the new title an a one month sub.  If I dont like it, Im stuck.  Thats the wrong model imo.

    If they shutdown the game, thats their perogative - I couldnt influence either way. Actually you have to accept that when you play ANY Online game because you dont have control of the media.  If they shut down EQ1, Ill just play something else. 

    The community has nothing to do with the F2P model a publisher uses.

    image
  • tank017tank017 Glendale, CAPosts: 2,192Member
    For me, the awesomeness of the game outweighs its problems.I personally enjoy the crafting and diplomacy as well.
  • birkenbirken Fort Covinton, NYPosts: 122Member
    Vanguards is a great game one of the last good mmorpg out there the review was very poor.
  • RedRaptor22RedRaptor22 Slaughter, LAPosts: 44Member

    Ftp has since changed, now all races and classes can be played to cap by ftp players, and as before most rare items are locked to ftp gamers but are unlockable through cs potions,  along with many many other things, new dungeons, reworked dungeons.

    I for one like the new changes, and they are bringing lots of new players and lots of development dollars, the game is finally seeing some serious updates and fixxes for a change.

Sign In or Register to comment.