Doesn't matter what the dev said, the fact is that people are playing for a whole bunch of reason.
Why does a developer keep a non-paying F2P player in the game outside of entertaining the paying customers in the beginning of the game.
I really doubt you can come up with a reasonable reason.
allready answered.
Nope, you twisted around my argument and argumented from the player point of view.
I'm asking why the developer keeps the non-paying customer in a F2P game.
Nope I didn't thats the reason. When the population is low, the game sinks into obscurity, it's a vicious cycle. Low pop, no word of mouth, little money, no money for advertising, lower population. Having people in game generates word of mouth. Having it free means no barrier, more population, more word of mouth and more paying customers.
So you can't come up with a reasonable reason except for populating the world for the paying customer.
-your money argument is wrong, since I specifically said "non-paying" player
-your word of mouth argument is ridiculous, those F2P players cost more in network costs and customer service than they will ever advertise the game
So you admit, the F2P player is there for 1 reason and 1 reason only in F2P games, that is to entertain the paying player.
This single fact undermines the whole F2P model since the non-paying customer will always come second and once the paying player is hooked, there is no reasoon to support them anymore, and each time the power of items increases, and even the people paying $10 don't matter anymore when some are paying $1000.
This whole F2P model is plain ridiculous and it's starting to show cracks, every F2P forum I read is non-stop complaints about the cash shop being overpowered.
I gave you the reason, it is a very reasonable one. You just choose to reject it.
The argument is right, more people means more money, not all will be paying, but every customer in means more word of mouth.
I never once stated nor implied in any way shape or form that f2p is mean to entertain only the paying gamer.
I gave you the reason several times. More people means more people talking about the game which means a larger population which translates into more money for the developer, not all will pay, but all are walking advertisements.
The f2p model is very sustainable, been around longer than p2p.
Every p2p forum is non stop complaints as well.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
The f2p model is very sustainable, been around longer than p2p.
the B2P model where you buy a box and play the game without a cash shop is not the same as the F2P model where you can spend thousands of dollars in a cash shop
I hope you're not saying they're the same thing, they're totally different business models, the cash shop model has certainly not been around longer than B2P or even P2P, I remember paying for counterstrike servers long ago, cash shop is very recent.
The f2p model is very sustainable, been around longer than p2p.
the B2P model where you buy a box and play the game without a cash shop is not the same as the F2P model where you can spend thousands of dollars in a cash shop
I hope you're not saying they're the same thing, they're totally different business models, the cash shop model has certainly not been around longer than B2P or even P2P, I remember paying for counterstrike servers long ago, cash shop is very recent.
I have nothing against F2P games that fund themselves through advertisments or other means like Quake Online did.
But F2P with a cash shop is a disaster.
In a F2P game like Quake online that is funded through advertisments, ID tries to keep everyone happy, in a F2P game with a cash shop, the paying customers are way more important than the non-paying ones for developers.
I have nothing against F2P games that fund themselves through advertisments or other means like Quake Online did.
But F2P with a cash shop is a disaster.
In a F2P game like Quake online that is funded through advertisments, ID tries to keep everyone happy, in a F2P game with a cash shop, the paying customers are way more important than the non-paying ones for developers.
Furcadia has been around since 1996 and is a freemium model with a cash shop.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I have nothing against F2P games that fund themselves through advertisments or other means like Quake Online did.
But F2P with a cash shop is a disaster.
In a F2P game like Quake online that is funded through advertisments, ID tries to keep everyone happy, in a F2P game with a cash shop, the paying customers are way more important than the non-paying ones for developers.
Furcadia has been around since 1996 and is a freemium model with a cash shop.
F2p games are better for casuals that don't have the "Must have it all now" mentality. They are terrible for hardcores.
every customer, paying or not, is a walking advertisement the game. Every customer is a potential paying customer. This is the model of the f2p game.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by CalmOceans That's great for them, current F2P MMO are a wasteland in a matter of months.
Once again no, current f2p games have the same populations or higher than most p2p games including wow. For the ones that were f2p from the start, no real changes. For the ones that went from p2p to f2p, I'd say most were wastelands (not all by any means) before f2p so f2p had nothing to do with that.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Sometimes they can be pretty bad, sometimes they can be very good. I'll use EQ2 and FE as examples.
I didn't have to buy a mount in either game, FE I crafted one, EQ2 I quested them.
Didn't have to buy dunggeon access in eitehr game.
Storage was not an issue in either game
Only had 3 characters in FE and one main, only a few in EQ2, characters was not an issue but they do have a charater, race, class limit.
No decor in FE, I did pay for decor in EQ2. That was actually my reason for going back there a few months ago in the first place. Loved building that castle but I hit the 1100 item limit so that was that.
Didn'tneed to pay for armor or weapon upgrades in either game. Crafted all my own stuff.
No secret boxes in either game.
So yes again sometimes they can be bad, I'm not really liking vanguards f2p, but sometimes they are vey good.
edit - I actually wonder how FE is making any money since going f2p. I don't mind item shops, however there was absolutely nothing I wanted in there. Even the cosmetic stuff I thought was pretty darn ugly, would have loved to buy a good dog but no they only had ugly ones.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Sometimes they can be pretty bad, sometimes they can be very good. I'll use EQ2 and FE as examples.
I didn't have to buy a mount in either game, FE I crafted one, EQ2 I quested them.
Didn't have to buy dunggeon access in eitehr game.
Storage was not an issue in either game
Only had 3 characters in FE and one main, only a few in EQ2, characters was not an issue but they do have a charater, race, class limit.
No decor in FE, I did pay for decor in EQ2. That was actually my reason for going back there a few months ago in the first place. Loved building that castle but I hit the 1100 item limit so that was that.
Didn'tneed to pay for armor or weapon upgrades in either game. Crafted all my own stuff.
No secret boxes in either game.
So yes again sometimes they can be bad, I'm not really liking vanguards f2p, but sometimes they are vey good.
edit - I actually wonder how FE is making any money since going f2p. I don't mind item shops, however there was absolutely nothing I wanted in there. Even the cosmetic stuff I thought was pretty darn ugly, would have loved to buy a good dog but no they only had ugly ones.
Those were P2P first, F2P games originaly arent like that at all. Most my stuff from EQ2 and FE were obtained and collected before they went F2P.
Games like atlantica online on the other hand is nothing but a gambling game. Many more like that. F2P just hurts my eyes when i read about it and dread any of the newer games i like will be released that way.
Sometimes they can be pretty bad, sometimes they can be very good. I'll use EQ2 and FE as examples.
I didn't have to buy a mount in either game, FE I crafted one, EQ2 I quested them.
Didn't have to buy dunggeon access in eitehr game.
Storage was not an issue in either game
Only had 3 characters in FE and one main, only a few in EQ2, characters was not an issue but they do have a charater, race, class limit.
No decor in FE, I did pay for decor in EQ2. That was actually my reason for going back there a few months ago in the first place. Loved building that castle but I hit the 1100 item limit so that was that.
Didn'tneed to pay for armor or weapon upgrades in either game. Crafted all my own stuff.
No secret boxes in either game.
So yes again sometimes they can be bad, I'm not really liking vanguards f2p, but sometimes they are vey good.
edit - I actually wonder how FE is making any money since going f2p. I don't mind item shops, however there was absolutely nothing I wanted in there. Even the cosmetic stuff I thought was pretty darn ugly, would have loved to buy a good dog but no they only had ugly ones.
Those were P2P first, F2P games originaly arent like that at all. Most my stuff from EQ2 and FE were obtained and collected before they went F2P.
Games like atlantica online on the other hand is nothing but a gambling game. Many more like that. F2P just hurts my eyes when i read about it and dread any of the newer games i like will be released that way.
Yes they were p2p originally however they are examples of good f2p. There is no reason why a game couldn't be designed from the start that way.
I haven't tried swtors f2p, and truthfully have barely glanced at it, however they did have a f2p plan in the backpocket, just as an example.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
What really irritates me about the whole "F2P sucks" argument: the examples of "F2P" games are games that converted to a F2P model. In other words, the publisher is trying to squeeze every last dime out of the game before it dies and think they can trick more people into playing (and spending money) on a crappy game with the F2P model. The exapmles of F2P cited every time: SWToR, LOtR, etc. Those are not F2P games! They are crappy games that failed with their original business model.
Your argument makes sense until you consider that some of the best F2P MMOs on the market, as stated by both critics and fans, are those that have made the jump from P2P to F2P, namely STO, DDO, LotRo and Aion. Aion is considered the BEST value for money of ANY F2P MMO, including those that were born as F2P MMOs.
So your point stands so long as you ignore the "crappy games that failed", which then went on to be the best example of F2P games
Then there are the people who wax poetic about how they love grinding for stuff in WoW, but diss any F2P game because it's a "grindfest". Wait, wut? It matters not if you're grinding for rare item x or for levels, it's still a grind.
You're misrepresenting the level of grind in both in order to make your point. WoW has grind, but it's certainly not comparable to the amount of grinding one would have to do on an F2P game if one wishes to see ALL of the content available to them. That's how they're designed. They don't want the grind to be easy, but hard; if it were as easy as get from 1 to 90 in WoW (which is very easy), no one would ever spend any money, or so they think.
So no, there is no difference in grinding for a rare item or for levels when you fail to consider the amount of grind involved. There is a huge difference between having to grind for 40 hours to hit level cap, and having to grind for 150+ hours to get that super rare item.
Yes, there are plenty of F2P games that are poorly designed, ill concieved, and badly implemented. But the same is just as true of P2P too. Just because there are examples of bad games does not mean that the business model is a bust.
The point is clearly that the F2P genre has more POORLY designed implementations, which are invariably going to stick out like a sore thumb. The fact that failed P2P games that were panned by consumers can go on to make successful F2P games should tell you all you need to know about the quality of games in the F2P genre.
"F2P is a ripoff desigend to squeeze the maximum cash from gamers"; lol. This argument always amuses me especially when coming from a WoW fanboy. Lets use the WoW model, shall we? Go to retailer, buy box for $40-80, install game, go to web site to create account, pay $15 per month for sub with the understanding that the sub is how new content will be paid for, when new content is released pay $20-50 for access to content that was supposedly already paid for with the sub, repeat ad nauseum. (insert cash register sfx here) Sure plenty of F2P games can squeeze more out of a player per month than P2P games using the WoW model. But long term, companies make more money out of more players (thus achieving greater profits) than do companies using F2P. Just because the grip isn't tight, doesn't mean you aren't getting squeezed.
Again, you're misrepresenting information in order to make a point. You pay for the boxed copy of the game which gives you access to software. You then pay a subscription fee to access the game's servers. The fee does not cover content. When they release an expansion, you pay for the update to the software. The fee, again, does not cover that content.
I don't play WoW (because I dislike sub fees), but misrepresenting them to your own ends is hardly a great way to make a point.
: well pretty much everything at your finger tips 24/7 for 50 cents a day (stop being cheap)
F2P: 0.00$ +only few hundred $$$ a week on crap you get free in P2P
: Have to buy mounts (20-25$)
: Have to buy dungeon access (10-20$x10+/-)
: Pay for more storage
: Pay for more characters
: Pay for more races
: Pay for more classes
: Pay for decor
: Pay for armor upgrades (chances to upgrade can fail!)
: Pay for weapon upgrades (chances to upgrade can fail! )
: Pay for "secret boxes" 1 in 25 items per box will be epic item .. But only .0000001% chance to get.....oooohhh wooooow
: pay for ....well pretty much anything they can suck a dime out of you , they will.........add yours here.
And the cash shop is updated usualy weekly or bi-weekly so you have to spend more to get the newest item lol
Yeah ill stick to my 50 cents a day entertainment.........
I agree with you so much it isn't funny. I'm a casual gamer and people think I should like F2P more... but I don't. I really don't care for F2P at all. I like my sub knowing that I don't have to put any additional money out. And I could give less then a shit about the $15 a month. It's not a life altering amount of money... and if it is, you shouldn't be gaming as it is a luxury.
Originally posted by CalmOceans That's great for them, current F2P MMO are a wasteland in a matter of months.
Once again no, current f2p games have the same populations or higher than most p2p games including wow. For the ones that were f2p from the start, no real changes. For the ones that went from p2p to f2p, I'd say most were wastelands (not all by any means) before f2p so f2p had nothing to do with that.
Yeah .. LOL has more active players than WOW.
I am playing some planetside 2 now and there are LOTS of players. Every time i logged into DCUO, there are also a lot of players.
: Pay for "secret boxes" 1 in 25 items per box will be epic item .. But only .0000001% chance to get.....oooohhh wooooow
Yep, which is gambling.
I wouldn't be surprised if one day F2P MMO are prohibited from using this, it's pure gambling with real money, online gambling is illegal in many countries.
It's no longer about the game in those games, the game is a facade built around the cash shop. The goal is no longer playing the game, the goal is spending money in the cash shop.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar The gambling thing is s fair point. But p2p games have that too. Eq1 2 and wow have cards that only give a chance of a Mount
LoN (the card game) is half the reason I stopped playing EQ, there were other reasons but that was a major reason. I like friendly open games that are accessible to all, not what happens right now that one part of the community is the haves and the other the have nots (and it's not because I can't afford it, I can, I just don't think this is right).
If they can make F2P that rely on advertisments like sites do nowadays, then I'm all for it, but the cash shops devide players based on income, I don't think that's right at all.
The thing with F2P is always developer get greedy. And it is the beginning of either grind for ever or spend massive money on the cash shop.
I do enjoy B2P/F2P games though. You just need to find the less greedy cash shop game. Which is hard to find. Currently enjoying diablo 3 and guild war 2. The RMAH and cashshop isn't bothering me that much in those 2 games.
The thing with F2P is always developer get greedy. And it is the beginning of either grind for ever or spend massive money on the cash shop.
I do enjoy B2P/F2P games though. You just need to find the less greedy cash shop game. Which is hard to find. Currently enjoying diablo 3 and guild war 2. The RMAH and cashshop isn't bothering me that much in those 2 games.
D3 RMAH has a bad name just because it is hte first. In fact, you don't even have to use it. Everything is available on the gold AH, and you can play it the traditional way.
But the point i want to make is this .. grind is deceptive. If combat (and hence grind) is fun, then it is all good. I am playing Planetside 2 recently. "Grinding" kills is quite slow. But so what? I am having fun sniping people from afar. And so what if that is not the most efficient manner of earning points ... that is how i want to play the game. I am also NOT going to pay a dime.
Comments
I gave you the reason, it is a very reasonable one. You just choose to reject it.
The argument is right, more people means more money, not all will be paying, but every customer in means more word of mouth.
I never once stated nor implied in any way shape or form that f2p is mean to entertain only the paying gamer.
I gave you the reason several times. More people means more people talking about the game which means a larger population which translates into more money for the developer, not all will pay, but all are walking advertisements.
The f2p model is very sustainable, been around longer than p2p.
Every p2p forum is non stop complaints as well.
the B2P model where you buy a box and play the game without a cash shop is not the same as the F2P model where you can spend thousands of dollars in a cash shop
I hope you're not saying they're the same thing, they're totally different business models, the cash shop model has certainly not been around longer than B2P or even P2P, I remember paying for counterstrike servers long ago, cash shop is very recent.
I"m not talking b2p, I'm talking f2p
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-play
It's been around for a very long time, before UO.
F2P is not the same as F2P with cash shop.
I have nothing against F2P games that fund themselves through advertisments or other means like Quake Online did.
But F2P with a cash shop is a disaster.
In a F2P game like Quake online that is funded through advertisments, ID tries to keep everyone happy, in a F2P game with a cash shop, the paying customers are way more important than the non-paying ones for developers.
Furcadia has been around since 1996 and is a freemium model with a cash shop.
F2p games are better for casuals that don't have the "Must have it all now" mentality. They are terrible for hardcores.
every customer, paying or not, is a walking advertisement the game. Every customer is a potential paying customer. This is the model of the f2p game.
Once again no, current f2p games have the same populations or higher than most p2p games including wow. For the ones that were f2p from the start, no real changes. For the ones that went from p2p to f2p, I'd say most were wastelands (not all by any means) before f2p so f2p had nothing to do with that.
P2P : 15$ a month down to 10$ for longer subs.
: Unlimited entertainment
: Craft or tame a mount/transportation
: Dungeon access unlimited
: all items can be made or found in game
: well pretty much everything at your finger tips 24/7 for 50 cents a day (stop being cheap)
F2P: 0.00$ +only few hundred $$$ a week on crap you get free in P2P
: Have to buy mounts (20-25$)
: Have to buy dungeon access (10-20$x10+/-)
: Pay for more storage
: Pay for more characters
: Pay for more races
: Pay for more classes
: Pay for decor
: Pay for armor upgrades (chances to upgrade can fail!)
: Pay for weapon upgrades (chances to upgrade can fail! )
: Pay for "secret boxes" 1 in 25 items per box will be epic item .. But only .0000001% chance to get.....oooohhh wooooow
: pay for ....well pretty much anything they can suck a dime out of you , they will.........add yours here.
And the cash shop is updated usualy weekly or bi-weekly so you have to spend more to get the newest item lol
Yeah ill stick to my 50 cents a day entertainment.........
Sometimes they can be pretty bad, sometimes they can be very good. I'll use EQ2 and FE as examples.
I didn't have to buy a mount in either game, FE I crafted one, EQ2 I quested them.
Didn't have to buy dunggeon access in eitehr game.
Storage was not an issue in either game
Only had 3 characters in FE and one main, only a few in EQ2, characters was not an issue but they do have a charater, race, class limit.
No decor in FE, I did pay for decor in EQ2. That was actually my reason for going back there a few months ago in the first place. Loved building that castle but I hit the 1100 item limit so that was that.
Didn'tneed to pay for armor or weapon upgrades in either game. Crafted all my own stuff.
No secret boxes in either game.
So yes again sometimes they can be bad, I'm not really liking vanguards f2p, but sometimes they are vey good.
edit - I actually wonder how FE is making any money since going f2p. I don't mind item shops, however there was absolutely nothing I wanted in there. Even the cosmetic stuff I thought was pretty darn ugly, would have loved to buy a good dog but no they only had ugly ones.
Yes thats why Nexon has so little players on their games right?
Oh and lets not forget that the most concurrent users ever recorded come from a F2P mmo, Dungeon fighter Online.
Those were P2P first, F2P games originaly arent like that at all. Most my stuff from EQ2 and FE were obtained and collected before they went F2P.
Games like atlantica online on the other hand is nothing but a gambling game. Many more like that. F2P just hurts my eyes when i read about it and dread any of the newer games i like will be released that way.
Yes they were p2p originally however they are examples of good f2p. There is no reason why a game couldn't be designed from the start that way.
I haven't tried swtors f2p, and truthfully have barely glanced at it, however they did have a f2p plan in the backpocket, just as an example.
I agree with you so much it isn't funny. I'm a casual gamer and people think I should like F2P more... but I don't. I really don't care for F2P at all. I like my sub knowing that I don't have to put any additional money out. And I could give less then a shit about the $15 a month. It's not a life altering amount of money... and if it is, you shouldn't be gaming as it is a luxury.
Yeah .. LOL has more active players than WOW.
I am playing some planetside 2 now and there are LOTS of players. Every time i logged into DCUO, there are also a lot of players.
Yep, which is gambling.
I wouldn't be surprised if one day F2P MMO are prohibited from using this, it's pure gambling with real money, online gambling is illegal in many countries.
It's no longer about the game in those games, the game is a facade built around the cash shop. The goal is no longer playing the game, the goal is spending money in the cash shop.
LoN (the card game) is half the reason I stopped playing EQ, there were other reasons but that was a major reason. I like friendly open games that are accessible to all, not what happens right now that one part of the community is the haves and the other the have nots (and it's not because I can't afford it, I can, I just don't think this is right).
If they can make F2P that rely on advertisments like sites do nowadays, then I'm all for it, but the cash shops devide players based on income, I don't think that's right at all.
two reasons:
1) as content for the paid customers. In a pvp game, there might not be enough people for you to kill if you don't have non-paying customers.
2) They are potential paying customers. If you can convert 5% of them into paying customer, and it only costs electricity to keep them, why not?
The thing with F2P is always developer get greedy. And it is the beginning of either grind for ever or spend massive money on the cash shop.
I do enjoy B2P/F2P games though. You just need to find the less greedy cash shop game. Which is hard to find. Currently enjoying diablo 3 and guild war 2. The RMAH and cashshop isn't bothering me that much in those 2 games.
D3 RMAH has a bad name just because it is hte first. In fact, you don't even have to use it. Everything is available on the gold AH, and you can play it the traditional way.
But the point i want to make is this .. grind is deceptive. If combat (and hence grind) is fun, then it is all good. I am playing Planetside 2 recently. "Grinding" kills is quite slow. But so what? I am having fun sniping people from afar. And so what if that is not the most efficient manner of earning points ... that is how i want to play the game. I am also NOT going to pay a dime.