I see lots of complaints about the "free" games here.
Some people can't deal with progress and would rant about any change.
F2P *is* the future. More and more games are F2P .. either first, or converting to F2P.
Some people can't allow different type of changes, or allow the old to stick around while the new progresses. You should know that first hand!
How? I play SP games, MMORPGs, online ARPGs, MMOFPS .. and accept new features (like LFD) instead of holding onto past ideas (like virtual worlds).
F2P is obviously newer than P2P .. don't you agree with that?
F2P is obviously newer than P2P you ask. The clear answer is no unless you are very narrowly focused on the recent period of video gaming. F2P has been around since the begining of video gaming. People devolping games on university, government and research computers either as part of research or as a fun side project is the origin of computer gaming. Only when it became viable did the monetization start with games like pong. But make no mistake, people have been playing computer games for free forever. Just take a look at PLATO.
I am talking about commercial video games as entertainment products. Not hobbies that only 50 grad students would ever enjoy.
Even Pong is P2P. The phenomenon of F2P with massive (millions) of players is pretty much recent. And we are not just talking about playing a game for free. We are talking about a business model with cash shops and ads, and stuff like that. There is no cash shop on PLATO, right?
Obvioiusly pong is p2p. Didn't imply any other way DID I???????????
So at least you admit you were limitedly focused to commercial. So you must see technically F2P has been around prior. But that is only natural. People invent things and if they are marketable, then they can be sold. SO the F2P point suggested was wrong.
f2p has been around since the first online games.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
How many of the top 10 voted released games on this site are F2P?
When I start seening games from Perfect World being voted as top 10 then I will believe the F2P hype.
Well the top is b2p, which is IMO essentially f2p where they managed to convince you to buy a box. And the 3rd one is going f2p very soon.
Please explain how buying something is the same as getting it for free.
A sub based game that is freemium is alot better quality than a game that was F2P from launch. There is a reason why no one talks much about Perfect World games.
Its apparent you don't know what a F2P game is. Hint, they are the ones where everyone complains about the game being p2w.
Be careful what you wish for.
It isn't which is the great marketing gimmick that GW2 has done. They gave you a game with a CS and said but we're not f2p so you cant' compare us to all those. So everyone and their dog was willing to shell out money for box for a game with a cash shop all while screaming how f2p games with cash shops are the devil.
Please explain how buying something is the same a free.
I guess I'll just rewrite what I said for you:
It isn't which is the great marketing gimmick that GW2 has done. They gave you a game with a CS and said but we're not f2p so you cant' compare us to all those. So everyone and their dog was willing to shell out money for box for a game with a cash shop all while screaming how f2p games with cash shops are the devil.
In other words you got the same thing as all the f2p games, only you had to pay more for it than they did.
If something is free why does one have to pay? If you are paying for something than its obviously not free is it.
Don't see how you can argue that. Just admit that you are wrong.
How many of the top 10 voted released games on this site are F2P?
When I start seening games from Perfect World being voted as top 10 then I will believe the F2P hype.
Well the top is b2p, which is IMO essentially f2p where they managed to convince you to buy a box. And the 3rd one is going f2p very soon.
Please explain how buying something is the same as getting it for free.
A sub based game that is freemium is alot better quality than a game that was F2P from launch. There is a reason why no one talks much about Perfect World games.
Its apparent you don't know what a F2P game is. Hint, they are the ones where everyone complains about the game being p2w.
Be careful what you wish for.
It isn't which is the great marketing gimmick that GW2 has done. They gave you a game with a CS and said but we're not f2p so you cant' compare us to all those. So everyone and their dog was willing to shell out money for box for a game with a cash shop all while screaming how f2p games with cash shops are the devil.
Please explain how buying something is the same a free.
I guess I'll just rewrite what I said for you:
It isn't which is the great marketing gimmick that GW2 has done. They gave you a game with a CS and said but we're not f2p so you cant' compare us to all those. So everyone and their dog was willing to shell out money for box for a game with a cash shop all while screaming how f2p games with cash shops are the devil.
In other words you got the same thing as all the f2p games, only you had to pay more for it than they did.
If something is free why does one have to pay? If you are paying for something than its obviously not free is it.
Don't see how you can argue that. Just admit that you are wrong.
The End.
Wrong about what? That people that bought GW2 are getting a game with a cash shop that they had to pay more for than other games with cash shops. Sorry thats not wrong.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Except we still don't know the reasons why CoH closed. All indicators that we have are that the population was stable and unchanged for several years, and in the black. It's very possible that it was making profit but not enough, NcSoft has in the past shown a willingness to close games that were not profitable enough.
edit - as as shown f2p has been here since before UO.
Oh come now, of course we know why CoH closed.
Publishing and administrative bloat. That's the only reason why a game that the end users can financially support can be taken from them.
In the early days of online gaming, back in the MUD days, the developers and the users were partners, not patrons and clients. The developers did little more than create a random number generator and a scripting language, and let the users design the world. All that changed, however.
Back when this was a growing industry, we could thank the publishers and development houses for building high quality games that could be distributed to the masses. It really grew this form of entertainment from one that attracted only a few enthusiasts, to one that became popular.
But the days of easy growth are over. The "easy" customers are already here, causing the developers and publishers to think of ever more exotic ways to attract new devotees to the genre while shaking down the present ones out of more cash, ways like "free to play." Ways that Zinga perfected. It's kind of like a star going to red giant phase. The easy hydrogen is gone, so it starts to feed on the less efficient helium, lithium and so on.
But these publishers and development houses are so big now, and so divorced from their games, that one bad financing deal or an executive decision can ruin the whole thing. How much revenue does a game have to make these days to justify its existence? Does it have to have a profit margin of 1%? 10%? 100%? It really doesn't matter how much profit a game makes these days because, as City of Heroes showed us, the basketball can be taken away from the consumers for factors wholly unrelated to their ability to pay.
And that is a big problem, one that neither free to play nor pay to play can rectify. Why? Because what was once the solution to online gaming (big publishing and big development) is now online gaming's biggest problem. The playerbase can't feed the development beast enough money. The development beast can't feed the playerbase enough content.
The days of big, professionalized MMO publishing and development are drawing to a close. The only way this form of entertainment is going to survive is collaborative MMO publishing and development.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Except we still don't know the reasons why CoH closed. All indicators that we have are that the population was stable and unchanged for several years, and in the black. It's very possible that it was making profit but not enough, NcSoft has in the past shown a willingness to close games that were not profitable enough.
edit - as as shown f2p has been here since before UO.
Oh come now, of course we know why CoH closed.
Publishing and administrative bloat. That's the only reason why a game that the end users can financially support can be taken from them.
In the early days of online gaming, back in the MUD days, the developers and the users were partners, not patrons and clients. The developers did little more than create a random number generator and a scripting language, and let the users design the world. All that changed, however.
Back when this was a growing industry, we could thank the publishers and development houses for building high quality games that could be distributed to the masses. It really grew this form of entertainment from one that attracted only a few enthusiasts, to one that became popular.
But the days of easy growth are over. The "easy" customers are already here, causing the developers and publishers to think of ever more exotic ways to attract new devotees to the genre while shaking down the present ones out of more cash, ways like "free to play." Ways that Zinga perfected. It's kind of like a star going to red giant phase. The easy hydrogen is gone, so it starts to feed on the less efficient helium, lithium and so on.
But these publishers and development houses are so big now, and so divorced from their games, that one bad financing deal or an executive decision can ruin the whole thing. How much revenue does a game have to make these days to justify its existence? Does it have to have a profit margin of 1%? 10%? 100%? It really doesn't matter how much profit a game makes these days because, as City of Heroes showed us, the basketball can be taken away from the consumers for factors wholly unrelated to their ability to pay.
And that is a big problem, one that neither free to play nor pay to play can rectify. Why? Because what was once the solution to online gaming (big publishing and big development) is now online gaming's biggest problem. The playerbase can't feed the development beast enough money. The development beast can't feed the playerbase enough content.
I actually hadnt heard publishing and adminstrative gloat before but that definately sounds reasonable.
I do agree with this statement:
And that is a big problem, one that neither free to play nor pay to play can rectify. Why? Because what was once the solution to online gaming (big publishing and big development) is now online gaming's biggest problem. The playerbase can't feed the development beast enough money. The development beast can't feed the playerbase enough content.
and have said similar things before. Games are getting too expensive. We want more features and each feature costs money meaning that it needs a larger playerbase and ends up with a lowest common demoninator (sheesh I hate this phrase but it fits) problem.
Gamers need to accept less features in the hopes that over time the game will grow and add them. Then developers can start making things interesting.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
If something is free why does one have to pay? If you are paying for something than its obviously not free is it.
Don't see how you can argue that. Just admit that you are wrong.
The End.
So...
If something is free why does one have to pay?
I guess if you use that way of looking at it, a lot of f2p games are not really free to play, as you actaully have to pay to enjoy the full game content. And by your definition that makes them NOT f2p.
Interesting. So what do we call those games? Free to sample? Pay to continue? What?
Nah. I think we can stick by the broader definition. GW2 though defies the definitions. Its not b2p nor f2p, but a hybrid of the two.
I just like playing good games...I couldn't care less if I have to pay or not. There just aren't any good games out right now. The only F2P games I keep on my hard drive are Lotro and DCUO. I am currently playing SWTOR, but as soon as my sub runs out I am done with it. The cash shop in SWTOR has ruined a large part of my gaming pleasure, crafting. You can buy great stat armor from the shop, win armor from there, win vehicles, but basically win/buy a lot of items that crafters rely on selling for credits.
Originally posted by bigsmiff I just like playing good games...I couldn't care less if I have to pay or not. There just aren't any good games out right now. The only F2P games I keep on my hard drive are Lotro and DCUO. I am currently playing SWTOR, but as soon as my sub runs out I am done with it. The cash shop in SWTOR has ruined a large part of my gaming pleasure, crafting. You can buy great stat armor from the shop, win armor from there, win vehicles, but basically win/buy a lot of items that crafters rely on selling for credits.
Hear hear. My view exactly. Couldn't care about the payment model, just care if it's fine.
I haven't really heard anything about swtor's cash shop or f2p model, what do they limit? bags, classes...
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Most people have no clue what's really good for themselves or the genre as a whole, as evidenced in this very thread.
And you do? How condenscending. People "have no clue" if they have difference preference than you, is that it?
Once you've lived enough life, it's crystal clear that what he says is logical and wise. And by "lived" I don't mean a quantity of years. Most people never live enough life to come close to comprehending what he typed up there. If they did, we wouldn't have this thread now, would we
As a statement what Kyleran said is likely true. However the fallacy is that everyone things they know what is right and that everyone else doesn't know what is going on.
Therefore what Nari said is also true, unless there is some objective evidence it is very arrogant, condescending and likely not true that any one person actually is right.
Human beings and foresight are very rarely dance partners unfortunately. I calls 'em as I sees 'em.
Actually, I never said that I know that is best for the genre, though I do know what I prefer.
I am also very aware that many of the things I wished for back in my early years of gaming came true and I later realized what a mistake it had been for the genre to move in that direction.
You have to be careful what you ask for, there's almost always a negative to go with any positive benefit.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Originally posted by bigsmiff I just like playing good games...I couldn't care less if I have to pay or not. There just aren't any good games out right now. The only F2P games I keep on my hard drive are Lotro and DCUO. I am currently playing SWTOR, but as soon as my sub runs out I am done with it. The cash shop in SWTOR has ruined a large part of my gaming pleasure, crafting. You can buy great stat armor from the shop, win armor from there, win vehicles, but basically win/buy a lot of items that crafters rely on selling for credits.
Hear hear. My view exactly. Couldn't care about the payment model, just care if it's fine.
I haven't really heard anything about swtor's cash shop or f2p model, what do they limit? bags, classes...
Most people have no clue what's really good for themselves or the genre as a whole, as evidenced in this very thread.
And you do? How condenscending. People "have no clue" if they have difference preference than you, is that it?
Once you've lived enough life, it's crystal clear that what he says is logical and wise. And by "lived" I don't mean a quantity of years. Most people never live enough life to come close to comprehending what he typed up there. If they did, we wouldn't have this thread now, would we
As a statement what Kyleran said is likely true. However the fallacy is that everyone things they know what is right and that everyone else doesn't know what is going on.
Therefore what Nari said is also true, unless there is some objective evidence it is very arrogant, condescending and likely not true that any one person actually is right.
Human beings and foresight are very rarely dance partners unfortunately. I calls 'em as I sees 'em.
Actually, I never said that I know that is best for the genre, though I do know what I prefer.
I am also very aware that many of the things I wished for back in my early years of gaming came true and I later realized what a mistake it had been for the genre to move in that direction.
Me too.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
F2P is not the future. There are many F2P games at the moment, and many more every month, some of them are "sub" games that failed. Soon tere wiil be not enough market for all of them. So some F2P game will begin to lose money and banish.
P2P is not the future. There are few games with this profit system, if many games copy this system in the future they lose money. For the same reason, there is not enough market for them
Sub is not the future. For the same reasons.
GOOD GAMES are the future. And the way you pay them is secondary. There are too many games at the moment, so soon only the better games will survive. Bad, undeveloped, bugged or boring games wont be able to survive
*You get acces to everything, no annoying "Oh i dont have that dungeon, i cant join you"
*You start on same level as everyone else, i have acces to every gear, dungeon, raid, area as the player next to me.
*No need to buy bagspace, vaultspace, character slots, dyes, pets, content, dungeons, you name it, that ends up with you paying more then an usual fee anyways.
*Developers spend alot of time thinking of ways to conect new content with the item shop "buy this itme to get more chance to get this item to drop" or "you can get this item in the new expansion, but this item we sell i nitem shop looks much better"
Instead of focusing 100% on the content, alot of time gets spent on item shop.
*No "LFG lvl 60 with Loot drop chance/group exp item/xxxxx" <--that only sells in item shop
*No RNG item that "has a chance" to give you an extremly rare item that looks MUCH better, rare pet or something else that then sells for an extreme amount of money totaly inflating the economy (Hellooooo goldsellers)
Also those RNG items are usually chest that you need to buy a key from that is extremly rare drop so you get frustrated and buy it in item shop.
F2P is based on getting alot of players with bad spending habits spend alot of money, usually people that cant really afford it but gets forced to pay to compete.
F2P is not added as a kindness to players, its added becouse its a profitable system giving them more money then a normal subscriptionfee, meaning on an avaragre, subscriptionfee is cheaper then F2P.
Many of those so called "F2P" also have "VIP" status, that in general, if you want to compete, you need to have, which in most cases, are more expensive the normal subscription, and ONTOP of that, you need to buy the other things in the item shop.
As far as I can tell, people who are proclaiming F2P as the future, seem to think that means the game is entirely free for them to play, with only trivial restrictions. Reality can't really live up to that kind of expectation, which is why people are also complaining.
Originally posted by asmkm22 As far as I can tell, people who are proclaiming F2P as the future, seem to think that means the game is entirely free for them to play, with only trivial restrictions. Reality can't really live up to that kind of expectation, which is why people are also complaining.
"seem to think that"? you are wrong.
I know pretty much that F2P means that you get a portion of the game up front, then you have to grind, or no access to a large part.
But so what? I can always go to the next game when i can't advance (or it is too slow to do so).
Originally posted by asmkm22 As far as I can tell, people who are proclaiming F2P as the future, seem to think that means the game is entirely free for them to play, with only trivial restrictions. Reality can't really live up to that kind of expectation, which is why people are also complaining.
"seem to think that"? you are wrong.
I know pretty much that F2P means that you get a portion of the game up front, then you have to grind, or no access to a large part.
But so what? I can always go to the next game when i can't advance (or it is too slow to do so).
Tell that to the huge number of people complaining about SWtOR now.
Originally posted by asmkm22 As far as I can tell, people who are proclaiming F2P as the future, seem to think that means the game is entirely free for them to play, with only trivial restrictions. Reality can't really live up to that kind of expectation, which is why people are also complaining.
"seem to think that"? you are wrong.
I know pretty much that F2P means that you get a portion of the game up front, then you have to grind, or no access to a large part.
But so what? I can always go to the next game when i can't advance (or it is too slow to do so).
And right there the f2p model failed... If you move on without paying, the game producer dont make any cash, and if they dont earn money on the f2p model it will fail. Its about the money. Whatever they earn most doing they will end up doing.
Right now f2p is successfull be course people who say what you say, actually dont do that. They stay, and they pay. More so than if they only did sub based.
Not really rocket science.
That is why GW2 has a f2p model that makes you pay up front. Best of both worlds. A hybrid if you will.
Originally posted by asmkm22 As far as I can tell, people who are proclaiming F2P as the future, seem to think that means the game is entirely free for them to play, with only trivial restrictions. Reality can't really live up to that kind of expectation, which is why people are also complaining.
"seem to think that"? you are wrong.
I know pretty much that F2P means that you get a portion of the game up front, then you have to grind, or no access to a large part.
But so what? I can always go to the next game when i can't advance (or it is too slow to do so).
And right there the f2p model failed... If you move on without paying, the game producer dont make any cash, and if they dont earn money on the f2p model it will fail. Its about the money. Whatever they earn most doing they will end up doing.
Right now f2p is successfull be course people who say what you say, actually dont do that. They stay, and they pay. More so than if they only did sub based.
Not really rocket science.
That is why GW2 has a f2p model that makes you pay up front. Best of both worlds. A hybrid if you will.
Were you even paying attention? So what if I don't pay. There is a minority of players, called whales, who pay a lot. If i move on without paying, devs still make money off the whales.
Right now, most players don't pay and this models work for the devs.
it's quite obvious. Can anyone name one good F2P that they played for years ?
Why a "good" F2P game has to be played for years.
Dead Space is a great game. I play it for like 2-3 weeks.
I would much prefer a very fun 4 week MMO, than a mediocre 2 year one.
I wouldn't play a mediocre mmo for more than a week, if that. I have however played "very fun" mmos for as long as 6 years. Great mmos keep you coming back for more. Hell, we have a plethora of other gaming genres that cater to the "cheap thrills" type of gameplay. When I'm in the mood for that sort of fun, I pick one of those. A well done mmo shouldn't give you a reason to abandon ship in such a hurry.
The increasing homogenization of the genre combined with a long history of stagnation, doesn't paint a very healthy picture for the future of what could have been something unique in gaming.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I wouldn't play a mediocre mmo for more than a week, if that. I have however played "very fun" mmos for as long as 6 years. Great mmos keep you coming back for more. Hell, we have a plethora of other gaming genres that cater to the "cheap thrills" type of gameplay. When I'm in the mood for that sort of fun, I pick one of those. A well done mmo shouldn't give you a reason to abandon ship in such a hurry.
The increasing homogenization of the genre combined with a long history of stagnation, doesn't paint a very healthy picture for the future of what could have been something unique in gaming.
"something unique in gaming"? How can MMOs be somethign unique in gaming when there are so many entries, and millions play them?
I see it as just another genre like FPS, or ARPG. It is as unique as that.
Yes, Free to Play is the future. But do you really think the developers are doing this for the sake of us gamers? Hell no. It's all about the money now. Here is a direct quote from EA CEO John Riccitiello from a stockholder meeting last year.
“When you are six hours into playing Battlefield and you run out of ammo in your clip and we ask you for a dollar to reload, you’re really not that price sensitive at that point in time."
Free to Play? Yes
Free to Enjoy? Not so much
If you don't enjoy it, why do you play?
I say "Free to play *and* enjoy".
I wouldn't be playing a game if I wasn't enjoying it. And i sure as hell wouldn't play a game if it's a necessity to dip into the cash shop to be on the same playing field as the paying players.
Based on your posts in this thread, there is no way anyone can convince you otherwise. Enjoy what is to come.
Comments
f2p has been around since the first online games.
If something is free why does one have to pay? If you are paying for something than its obviously not free is it.
Don't see how you can argue that. Just admit that you are wrong.
The End.
Meh. I've never been a fan of "one size fits all". f2p has its market, but hardly everything is going to be f2p.
Wrong about what? That people that bought GW2 are getting a game with a cash shop that they had to pay more for than other games with cash shops. Sorry thats not wrong.
Oh come now, of course we know why CoH closed.
Publishing and administrative bloat. That's the only reason why a game that the end users can financially support can be taken from them.
In the early days of online gaming, back in the MUD days, the developers and the users were partners, not patrons and clients. The developers did little more than create a random number generator and a scripting language, and let the users design the world. All that changed, however.
Back when this was a growing industry, we could thank the publishers and development houses for building high quality games that could be distributed to the masses. It really grew this form of entertainment from one that attracted only a few enthusiasts, to one that became popular.
But the days of easy growth are over. The "easy" customers are already here, causing the developers and publishers to think of ever more exotic ways to attract new devotees to the genre while shaking down the present ones out of more cash, ways like "free to play." Ways that Zinga perfected. It's kind of like a star going to red giant phase. The easy hydrogen is gone, so it starts to feed on the less efficient helium, lithium and so on.
But these publishers and development houses are so big now, and so divorced from their games, that one bad financing deal or an executive decision can ruin the whole thing. How much revenue does a game have to make these days to justify its existence? Does it have to have a profit margin of 1%? 10%? 100%? It really doesn't matter how much profit a game makes these days because, as City of Heroes showed us, the basketball can be taken away from the consumers for factors wholly unrelated to their ability to pay.
And that is a big problem, one that neither free to play nor pay to play can rectify. Why? Because what was once the solution to online gaming (big publishing and big development) is now online gaming's biggest problem. The playerbase can't feed the development beast enough money. The development beast can't feed the playerbase enough content.
The days of big, professionalized MMO publishing and development are drawing to a close. The only way this form of entertainment is going to survive is collaborative MMO publishing and development.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
I actually hadnt heard publishing and adminstrative gloat before but that definately sounds reasonable.
I do agree with this statement:
And that is a big problem, one that neither free to play nor pay to play can rectify. Why? Because what was once the solution to online gaming (big publishing and big development) is now online gaming's biggest problem. The playerbase can't feed the development beast enough money. The development beast can't feed the playerbase enough content.
and have said similar things before. Games are getting too expensive. We want more features and each feature costs money meaning that it needs a larger playerbase and ends up with a lowest common demoninator (sheesh I hate this phrase but it fits) problem.
Gamers need to accept less features in the hopes that over time the game will grow and add them. Then developers can start making things interesting.
So...
If something is free why does one have to pay?
I guess if you use that way of looking at it, a lot of f2p games are not really free to play, as you actaully have to pay to enjoy the full game content. And by your definition that makes them NOT f2p.
Interesting. So what do we call those games? Free to sample? Pay to continue? What?
Nah. I think we can stick by the broader definition. GW2 though defies the definitions. Its not b2p nor f2p, but a hybrid of the two.
Hear hear. My view exactly. Couldn't care about the payment model, just care if it's fine.
I haven't really heard anything about swtor's cash shop or f2p model, what do they limit? bags, classes...
Actually, I never said that I know that is best for the genre, though I do know what I prefer.
I am also very aware that many of the things I wished for back in my early years of gaming came true and I later realized what a mistake it had been for the genre to move in that direction.
You have to be careful what you ask for, there's almost always a negative to go with any positive benefit.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
SWTOR F2P FAQ
Me too.
F2P is not the future. There are many F2P games at the moment, and many more every month, some of them are "sub" games that failed. Soon tere wiil be not enough market for all of them. So some F2P game will begin to lose money and banish.
P2P is not the future. There are few games with this profit system, if many games copy this system in the future they lose money. For the same reason, there is not enough market for them
Sub is not the future. For the same reasons.
GOOD GAMES are the future. And the way you pay them is secondary. There are too many games at the moment, so soon only the better games will survive. Bad, undeveloped, bugged or boring games wont be able to survive
Subscriptionbased mmos has so many benefits.
*You get acces to everything, no annoying "Oh i dont have that dungeon, i cant join you"
*You start on same level as everyone else, i have acces to every gear, dungeon, raid, area as the player next to me.
*No need to buy bagspace, vaultspace, character slots, dyes, pets, content, dungeons, you name it, that ends up with you paying more then an usual fee anyways.
*Developers spend alot of time thinking of ways to conect new content with the item shop "buy this itme to get more chance to get this item to drop" or "you can get this item in the new expansion, but this item we sell i nitem shop looks much better"
Instead of focusing 100% on the content, alot of time gets spent on item shop.
*No "LFG lvl 60 with Loot drop chance/group exp item/xxxxx" <--that only sells in item shop
*No RNG item that "has a chance" to give you an extremly rare item that looks MUCH better, rare pet or something else that then sells for an extreme amount of money totaly inflating the economy (Hellooooo goldsellers)
Also those RNG items are usually chest that you need to buy a key from that is extremly rare drop so you get frustrated and buy it in item shop.
F2P is based on getting alot of players with bad spending habits spend alot of money, usually people that cant really afford it but gets forced to pay to compete.
F2P is not added as a kindness to players, its added becouse its a profitable system giving them more money then a normal subscriptionfee, meaning on an avaragre, subscriptionfee is cheaper then F2P.
Many of those so called "F2P" also have "VIP" status, that in general, if you want to compete, you need to have, which in most cases, are more expensive the normal subscription, and ONTOP of that, you need to buy the other things in the item shop.
You make me like charity
"seem to think that"? you are wrong.
I know pretty much that F2P means that you get a portion of the game up front, then you have to grind, or no access to a large part.
But so what? I can always go to the next game when i can't advance (or it is too slow to do so).
Tell that to the huge number of people complaining about SWtOR now.
You make me like charity
And right there the f2p model failed... If you move on without paying, the game producer dont make any cash, and if they dont earn money on the f2p model it will fail. Its about the money. Whatever they earn most doing they will end up doing.
Right now f2p is successfull be course people who say what you say, actually dont do that. They stay, and they pay. More so than if they only did sub based.
Not really rocket science.
That is why GW2 has a f2p model that makes you pay up front. Best of both worlds. A hybrid if you will.
Lotro
Were you even paying attention? So what if I don't pay. There is a minority of players, called whales, who pay a lot. If i move on without paying, devs still make money off the whales.
Right now, most players don't pay and this models work for the devs.
Why a "good" F2P game has to be played for years.
Dead Space is a great game. I play it for like 2-3 weeks.
I would much prefer a very fun 4 week MMO, than a mediocre 2 year one.
I wouldn't play a mediocre mmo for more than a week, if that. I have however played "very fun" mmos for as long as 6 years. Great mmos keep you coming back for more. Hell, we have a plethora of other gaming genres that cater to the "cheap thrills" type of gameplay. When I'm in the mood for that sort of fun, I pick one of those. A well done mmo shouldn't give you a reason to abandon ship in such a hurry.
The increasing homogenization of the genre combined with a long history of stagnation, doesn't paint a very healthy picture for the future of what could have been something unique in gaming.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
"something unique in gaming"? How can MMOs be somethign unique in gaming when there are so many entries, and millions play them?
I see it as just another genre like FPS, or ARPG. It is as unique as that.
I wouldn't be playing a game if I wasn't enjoying it. And i sure as hell wouldn't play a game if it's a necessity to dip into the cash shop to be on the same playing field as the paying players.
Based on your posts in this thread, there is no way anyone can convince you otherwise. Enjoy what is to come.