Originally posted by Bossalinie @Blasphim umm...you just described pretty much every hobby that involves money...
Posts like Blasphim's lead me to believe it's an entitlement thing for some people.
you damn right it's an entitlement. you work, you earn money and you are entitled to spend that money any way you want. either it be to eat/pay bills/ a P2W game or whatever.
i prefer subscription myself. or games with vanity items to buy. in the end the game developers just want to make more money then they spent making it.
Originally posted by Bossalinie @Blasphim umm...you just described pretty much every hobby that involves money...
Posts like Blasphim's lead me to believe it's an entitlement thing for some people.
you damn right it's an entitlement. you work, you earn money and you are entitled to spend that money any way you want. either it be to eat/pay bills/ a P2W game or whatever.
i prefer subscription myself. or games with vanity items to buy. in the end the game developers just want to make more money then they spent making it.
I don't think you quite understood the post.
You are entitled to spend your money, almost entirely how you choose.
You are not entitled to whatever you want, including a particular game or even a hobby, or that particular games price model. You are only entitled to determine if you are willing to play it, and pay what they ask.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
It's doing that by providing content people want at a price they are willing to pay.
Or are you suggesting it's something else?
Perhaps I'm saying people are willing to pay more, for less content. And perhaps, I am asking said people to please look at what they are doing and ask themselves if it is a good thing.
One thing I've learned about this community is that many of it's members have a serious lack of foresight. You seem like a logical fellow, but I don't think you're going to get through to many of the people in this thread. They quite literally believe that this "F2P" trend is in their best interest and cannot see the forest for the trees.
I've been saying for years that "F2P" is simply a system where you pay more and get less (if you want to have the option to play a game in it's entirety). This path was never going to lead to a very nice place.
It never ceases to amaze how anyone would settle for this nonsense.
And you really, really have no idea how that post of yours comes across, Cecropia? Holy cow, man.
To you it may seem like less for the money. They don't feel that way. They feel it is worth their money. Your price tag for a virtual hat is different from someone else's. Your level of investment (interest, time, effort, money) is going to be different from someone else's. As far as game prices go, on the average a F2P is dirt cheap to play compared to a subscription game, so I don't quite get where you're getting this "willing to pay more for less" when most people pay nothing at all for a F2P game.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
It's doing that by providing content people want at a price they are willing to pay.
Or are you suggesting it's something else?
Perhaps I'm saying people are willing to pay more, for less content. And perhaps, I am asking said people to please look at what they are doing and ask themselves if it is a good thing.
One thing I've learned about this community is that many of it's members have a serious lack of foresight. You seem like a logical fellow, but I don't think you're going to get through to many of the people in this thread. They quite literally believe that this "F2P" trend is in their best interest and cannot see the forest for the trees.
I've been saying for years that "F2P" is simply a system where you pay more and get less (if you want to have the option to play a game in it's entirety). This path was never going to lead to a very nice place.
It never ceases to amaze how anyone would settle for this nonsense.
And you really, really have no idea how that post of yours comes across, Cecropia? Holy cow, man.
To you it may seem like less for the money. They don't feel that way. They feel it is worth their money. Your price tag for a virtual hat is different from someone else's. Your level of investment (interest, time, effort, money) is going to be different from someone else's. As far as game prices go, on the average a F2P is dirt cheap to play compared to a subscription game, so I don't quite get where you're getting this "willing to pay more for less" when most people pay nothing at all for a F2P game.
Totally agree. With the exception of EQ2, the f2p games I play cost me far far far less then the p2p games and I'm playing the same way in all of them. To you that may seem like a 2nd class citizen or not accessing the whole game. To me I say so what, thats the way I played in the p2p game.
EQ2 cost me a lot more just because my only reason for playing was the build your own house option and since I got alot of enjoyment out of it, and it wasn't available any other way, I decided it was worth the money. Simple.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by Gravarg Not all free to play games are pay to win. There's actually several games that I played that had purely cosmetic items for sell, and they made plenty of money. It depends on what youre definition of Pay to Win means really. Most games that are free to play also offer things like expirience boosts and things that make the game easier, but it's hardly pay to win. Pay to win means that with enough money you have an advantage over players that don't. Most Free to Play games that I've played, offer a way to buy some of the best things in the game, but they're still obtainable by free players with more work. To me that's perfectly fine. I'm more a journey guy anyways. I'll never buy anything to make things easier or faster. I miss games that used to take hours and hours of commitment to do something special. I can remember sitting in my guild house for days in DAoC just crafting non-stop. I can remember even older games where you could build houses, but it took 6000+ planks of wood, 1000s of ingots, and numerous other resources to build. And to get those items you first had to go harvest them, then turn them into the items you needed to turn them into the items you needed to build the house. It took months to do
How exactly do experience boosts not provide a significant advantage to those willing to pay for them?
Also, companies have a history of starting with "cosmetic only" and then adding boosts, items, classes, races and every other bit of content they can in the interest of making some cash.
I'm all about profitibility for a company; but not at the cost of me receiving an inferior product at a greater cost.
What significant advantage do those people get? What should they get for paying money?
You complain about significant advantage for xp boosts and then complain about the cost of receiving an inferior product? So what should one get for the money they spend? What is worth the money spent?
Some P2P games have offered xp boosts, among other veteran rewards, for subbing a long time. How is that any less P2W than just selling them in a cash shop? You must pay over several years to get those. Someone who is new to the game is at a severe disadvantage by comparison.
You are begining to wax philosophical here. What is worth the money spent? Really?
Should we being a conversation about value and the very subjective ideals thereof?
Or perhaps we could look at where gaming is heading?
Another genre as been down this road: The FPS.
I like to use the First Person Shooter model as another prime example of "new business models" and this is why. Back in the day, someone made a First Person Shooter game, the consumer paid for it, and the gamers were allowed to create a community around them. The players added content, created maps, hosted servers, enhanced the game over years...
Now? You pay for content every year (or more often in the case of BF3). (Modern Warfare)
Player made content? Gone.
New maps for free? Gone. Micro-transaction DLC.
See a trend here?
Today its F2P MMOs. Download the demo version free, then pay for hotbars, bags, items, experience (you used to earn this as did everyone else in your community at the base rate...), and on and on this keeps going.
You think this will save you money? At the end of this journey is a place where you are paying for every bit of content you get. Soon you'll be paying for each dungeon, each armor set, each new class. You think this will save you money over time?
The players, playing those games, might not even remember that Asheron's Call or Dark Age provided monthly content upgrades, and additional large chunks of content via Expansion Packs. At a price its gamers happily paid, and without all the gold farmers, botters, moochers and looters grabbing a free account, cause hey look you can jump in and spam general chat for free!
I sure havent seen a lot of F2P games of superior quality in the last couple of years, so yes, I call today's F2P MMO product inferior.
P.S. GW2 was not F2P so please dont go there.
You're the one who brought up value for money spent and you didn't answer my questions.
I didn't answer most of your questions becuase they were both subjective and irrelavent to the subject of this thread.
It's doing that by providing content people want at a price they are willing to pay.
Or are you suggesting it's something else?
Perhaps I'm saying people are willing to pay more, for less content. And perhaps, I am asking said people to please look at what they are doing and ask themselves if it is a good thing.
One thing I've learned about this community is that many of it's members have a serious lack of foresight. You seem like a logical fellow, but I don't think you're going to get through to many of the people in this thread. They quite literally believe that this "F2P" trend is in their best interest and cannot see the forest for the trees.
I've been saying for years that "F2P" is simply a system where you pay more and get less (if you want to have the option to play a game in it's entirety). This path was never going to lead to a very nice place.
It never ceases to amaze how anyone would settle for this nonsense.
And you really, really have no idea how that post of yours comes across, Cecropia? Holy cow, man.
To you it may seem like less for the money. They don't feel that way. They feel it is worth their money. Your price tag for a virtual hat is different from someone else's. Your level of investment (interest, time, effort, money) is going to be different from someone else's. As far as game prices go, on the average a F2P is dirt cheap to play compared to a subscription game, so I don't quite get where you're getting this "willing to pay more for less" when most people pay nothing at all for a F2P game.
Totally agree. With the exception of EQ2, the f2p games I play cost me far far far less then the p2p games and I'm playing the same way in all of them. To you that may seem like a 2nd class citizen or not accessing the whole game. To me I say so what, thats the way I played in the p2p game.
EQ2 cost me a lot more just because my only reason for playing was the build your own house option and since I got alot of enjoyment out of it, and it wasn't available any other way, I decided it was worth the money. Simple.
This is an endless loop. Remove the subjectivity from the equation. What you or I feel is worth more or less is irrelavent.
The only thing that is relavent is whether or not a consumer is getting more content at a lower price on average (via Freemium models) and by extrapolation, whether or not that is good for the gamer in general.
I would further suggest that as this model develops you will see a trend towards more and more micro transactions in all models of game.
I further suggest that if you think you are "getting one over" on these developers you need to check yourself. Do a google search for Free to Play Business models and stop deluding yourself. These crafty marketting folks will slowly get more and more money from gamers and deliver less for it.
The primary reason there is a more and more vocal opposition to this model is because the Freemium model and F2P plague are eroding games in other ways:
- More game hopping eroding communities and detracting from long term playability
- More botters/farmers
- More Spam/Chat Issues
- More Trolling, after all banning a free account does little to deter negative behavior
- Longer Queues
- More Crowding of less committed gamers
This list could go on a long way. Its about more than just value, its about the impact the model has on the games which are essentially their communities.
Please provide details on how F2P improves the communities/games? (Other than, I get to play it and leech off of others' committment to a game.)
The primary reason there is a more and more vocal opposition to this model is ...
All data I've seen points to greater acceptance and interest across all major platforms - PC, console, mobile.
Can you link to data that shows a rise in opposition to it from either developers or consumers?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
It's doing that by providing content people want at a price they are willing to pay.
Or are you suggesting it's something else?
Perhaps I'm saying people are willing to pay more, for less content. And perhaps, I am asking said people to please look at what they are doing and ask themselves if it is a good thing.
One thing I've learned about this community is that many of it's members have a serious lack of foresight. You seem like a logical fellow, but I don't think you're going to get through to many of the people in this thread. They quite literally believe that this "F2P" trend is in their best interest and cannot see the forest for the trees.
I've been saying for years that "F2P" is simply a system where you pay more and get less (if you want to have the option to play a game in it's entirety). This path was never going to lead to a very nice place.
It never ceases to amaze how anyone would settle for this nonsense.
And you really, really have no idea how that post of yours comes across, Cecropia? Holy cow, man.
To you it may seem like less for the money. They don't feel that way. They feel it is worth their money. Your price tag for a virtual hat is different from someone else's. Your level of investment (interest, time, effort, money) is going to be different from someone else's. As far as game prices go, on the average a F2P is dirt cheap to play compared to a subscription game, so I don't quite get where you're getting this "willing to pay more for less" when most people pay nothing at all for a F2P game.
Totally agree. With the exception of EQ2, the f2p games I play cost me far far far less then the p2p games and I'm playing the same way in all of them. To you that may seem like a 2nd class citizen or not accessing the whole game. To me I say so what, thats the way I played in the p2p game.
EQ2 cost me a lot more just because my only reason for playing was the build your own house option and since I got alot of enjoyment out of it, and it wasn't available any other way, I decided it was worth the money. Simple.
This is an endless loop. Remove the subjectivity from the equation. What you or I feel is worth more or less is irrelavent.
The only thing that is relavent is whether or not a consumer is getting more content at a lower price on average (via Freemium models) and by extrapolation, whether or not that is good for the gamer in general.
I would further suggest that as this model develops you will see a trend towards more and more micro transactions in all models of game.
I further suggest that if you think you are "getting one over" on these developers you need to check yourself. Do a google search for Free to Play Business models and stop deluding yourself. These crafty marketting folks will slowly get more and more money from gamers and deliver less for it.
The primary reason there is a more and more vocal opposition to this model is because the Freemium model and F2P plague are eroding games in other ways:
- More game hopping eroding communities and detracting from long term playability
- More botters/farmers
- More Spam/Chat Issues
- More Trolling, after all banning a free account does little to deter negative behavior
- Longer Queues
- More Crowding of less committed gamers
This list could go on a long way. Its about more than just value, its about the impact the model has on the games which are essentially their communities.
Please provide details on how F2P improves the communities/games? (Other than, I get to play it and leech off of others' committment to a game.)
I disagree that f2p caused more of that. It was out of control before, nothing changed.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
It's doing that by providing content people want at a price they are willing to pay.
Or are you suggesting it's something else?
Perhaps I'm saying people are willing to pay more, for less content. And perhaps, I am asking said people to please look at what they are doing and ask themselves if it is a good thing.
One thing I've learned about this community is that many of it's members have a serious lack of foresight. You seem like a logical fellow, but I don't think you're going to get through to many of the people in this thread. They quite literally believe that this "F2P" trend is in their best interest and cannot see the forest for the trees.
I've been saying for years that "F2P" is simply a system where you pay more and get less (if you want to have the option to play a game in it's entirety). This path was never going to lead to a very nice place.
It never ceases to amaze how anyone would settle for this nonsense.
It never ceases to amaze me how the P2P zealots think they know better than anyone else and more over they seem to care deeply how other people spend their money and game, or how everyone else is thickheaded but them. That's the best you can do?
I've said many times, and have even provided a cost breakdown of different games I've played; P2P games have always cost me more in the long run. Couple that with the fact I'm only renting temporary access to the game for those hundreds of dollars and it's not a good deal.
I'm an opportunist. I'll go with the good deal every time I can.
So prove your claims.
Again, this has to be about more than mere cost, as an individual it is very possible to skip around and play a bunch of "free" games that other people are paying to support. Its the game industry equivalent of food stamps. Will those food stamps buy you as good a meal as a fat paycheck?
Can a gamer spend less on a F2P model game than a P2P? Absolutely.
The "zealots" are merely gamers want to see games build communities, have some longevity, and be allowed to flourish.
There are objective ways in which the F2P model has determintally impacted gaming envirnments. I've listed them in a seperate post, please feel free to review and explain how any of those things makes a game better for the community as a whole. There are several more not on their, I'll trickle those in as this post develops.
You want proof?
Use google. There are tons of articles about how to make more money with F2P than you do with P2P. Including several prominent companies that break down how it makes them ALOT more money to do F2P.
You explain the math: If F2P makes a company more money, how exactly is that less cost for the community? Not an individual who chooses to support no game, but the community as a whole.
The primary reason there is a more and more vocal opposition to this model is because the Freemium model and F2P plague are eroding games in other ways:
- More game hopping eroding communities and detracting from long term playability
- More botters/farmers
- More Spam/Chat Issues
- More Trolling, after all banning a free account does little to deter negative behavior
- Longer Queues
- More Crowding of less committed gamers
This list could go on a long way. Its about more than just value, its about the impact the model has on the games which are essentially their communities.
Please provide details on how F2P improves the communities/games? (Other than, I get to play it and leech off of others' committment to a game.)
I disagree that f2p caused more of that. It was out of control before, nothing changed.
It's doing that by providing content people want at a price they are willing to pay.
Or are you suggesting it's something else?
Perhaps I'm saying people are willing to pay more, for less content. And perhaps, I am asking said people to please look at what they are doing and ask themselves if it is a good thing.
One thing I've learned about this community is that many of it's members have a serious lack of foresight. You seem like a logical fellow, but I don't think you're going to get through to many of the people in this thread. They quite literally believe that this "F2P" trend is in their best interest and cannot see the forest for the trees.
I've been saying for years that "F2P" is simply a system where you pay more and get less (if you want to have the option to play a game in it's entirety). This path was never going to lead to a very nice place.
It never ceases to amaze how anyone would settle for this nonsense.
And you really, really have no idea how that post of yours comes across, Cecropia? Holy cow, man.
To you it may seem like less for the money. They don't feel that way. They feel it is worth their money. Your price tag for a virtual hat is different from someone else's. Your level of investment (interest, time, effort, money) is going to be different from someone else's. As far as game prices go, on the average a F2P is dirt cheap to play compared to a subscription game, so I don't quite get where you're getting this "willing to pay more for less" when most people pay nothing at all for a F2P game.
Totally agree. With the exception of EQ2, the f2p games I play cost me far far far less then the p2p games and I'm playing the same way in all of them. To you that may seem like a 2nd class citizen or not accessing the whole game. To me I say so what, thats the way I played in the p2p game.
EQ2 cost me a lot more just because my only reason for playing was the build your own house option and since I got alot of enjoyment out of it, and it wasn't available any other way, I decided it was worth the money. Simple.
This is an endless loop. Remove the subjectivity from the equation. What you or I feel is worth more or less is irrelavent.
The only thing that is relavent is whether or not a consumer is getting more content at a lower price on average (via Freemium models) and by extrapolation, whether or not that is good for the gamer in general.
I would further suggest that as this model develops you will see a trend towards more and more micro transactions in all models of game.
I further suggest that if you think you are "getting one over" on these developers you need to check yourself. Do a google search for Free to Play Business models and stop deluding yourself. These crafty marketting folks will slowly get more and more money from gamers and deliver less for it.
I am the consumer. I am using the same content I did before at a lower price. Further I now have the choice on how much I wish to spend.
Invalid premise. You are a gamer not the gamer.
Individuals have choice on the amount spent absolutely.
F2P is the gaming welfare system, an individual can flutter from game to game and take advantage of the worlds being supported by others (at a higher price, see Ubisoft article and others via goodle explaining that they make MORE money off microtransaction than P2P.) and not spend as much.
That doesn't mean the quality of the game isnt suffering for the model though. Please visit my other post detailing the issues that have worsened to the extreme with F2P.
Planetside is a great example. I loved Planetside and played it for a couple of years. The PS2 free version? Please...its been plauged by hacks, exploits, server loads being over-taxing, and micro transactions making progress to unlocks unbearably long or expensive..@ 15 a month with no free accounts I'd be playing it now instead of typing this post. Freemium? I uninstalled it after a couple of weeks (and after having paid to help support it...)
I was hoping it would overcome the faults of the F2P model, it failed. I'm still disappointed by that one..
Except for the fact that the two have no correlation at all.
One is my opinion that gamers are growing increasing dissatisfied with the trend of Freemium models.
The second list is a group of statements about how F2P models have been detrimintal to the MMO gaming community and the games the model support in general.
Therfore, I withdraw my statement regarding the increasingly vocal gamers until I have more data; as a statement of anything other than my opinion. I do hold that it is still what I am observing as an individual and why I am taking the time to add my voice to those others.
Now, I ask you:
How has the F2P improved the quality of games supported by the model?
Can you provide specific examples of good communities in games with the F2P model on anything greater than the scale of a single guild?
The primary reason there is a more and more vocal opposition to this model is because the Freemium model and F2P plague are eroding games in other ways:
- More game hopping eroding communities and detracting from long term playability
- More botters/farmers
- More Spam/Chat Issues
- More Trolling, after all banning a free account does little to deter negative behavior
- Longer Queues
- More Crowding of less committed gamers
This list could go on a long way. Its about more than just value, its about the impact the model has on the games which are essentially their communities.
Please provide details on how F2P improves the communities/games? (Other than, I get to play it and leech off of others' committment to a game.)
I disagree that f2p caused more of that. It was out of control before, nothing changed.
How long have you been gaming?
since 2000.
edit - IMO those things you listed really have very little or nothing to do with f2p, f2p did not cause any of those things. Those things are a result of the market going mainstream, appealing to a wider audience. As more games and gamers come into the market those things you listed increase. The rise in f2p is also because of more gamers and more games.
Your list and free to play are both caused by the same thing - more games and gamers. F2p did not cause those things.
I find the same communities, good and bad in p2p and f2p. IMO the model doesn't influence the community.
edit 2 - IMO the only thing that influences whether the community is good or bad is the size of the community. Smaller communities are typically more like minded. I've seen good and bad in f2p and p2p but typically good in small whether f2p, p2p or freemium.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
The primary reason there is a more and more vocal opposition to this model is because the Freemium model and F2P plague are eroding games in other ways:
- More game hopping eroding communities and detracting from long term playability
- More botters/farmers
- More Spam/Chat Issues
- More Trolling, after all banning a free account does little to deter negative behavior
- Longer Queues
- More Crowding of less committed gamers
This list could go on a long way. Its about more than just value, its about the impact the model has on the games which are essentially their communities.
Please provide details on how F2P improves the communities/games? (Other than, I get to play it and leech off of others' committment to a game.)
I disagree that f2p caused more of that. It was out of control before, nothing changed.
How long have you been gaming?
since 2000.
In that 13 years, you honestly believe that the negativity and "trollish" behavior in modern F2P games isnt much higher than in the P2P games of 2000? Which games were you playing in 2000 that were P2P and had large populations of negitive gamers?
I realize this is fully subjective and "unprovable" without much greter research capabilities than I have, but I'd guess that you were very much in the minority with this belief. (All subjective etc etc)
Edit: I'm certainly glad you added that.
Check this out for logic:
F2P increases the size of the community.
Larger communities create more negative envirnoments. (You just conceded this point in your post.)
Therefore, F2P contributes to the negitivity in a game's community.
That's just one example. I can continue.
Please provide an argument for F2P making a game community better?
The primary reason there is a more and more vocal opposition to this model is because the Freemium model and F2P plague are eroding games in other ways:
- More game hopping eroding communities and detracting from long term playability
- More botters/farmers
- More Spam/Chat Issues
- More Trolling, after all banning a free account does little to deter negative behavior
- Longer Queues
- More Crowding of less committed gamers
This list could go on a long way. Its about more than just value, its about the impact the model has on the games which are essentially their communities.
Please provide details on how F2P improves the communities/games? (Other than, I get to play it and leech off of others' committment to a game.)
I disagree that f2p caused more of that. It was out of control before, nothing changed.
How long have you been gaming?
since 2000.
In that 13 years, you honestly believe that the negativity and "trollish" behavior in modern F2P games isnt much higher than in the P2P games of 2000? Which games were you playing in 2000 that were P2P and had large populations of negitive gamers?
I realize this is fully subjective and "unprovable" without much greter research capabilities than I have, but I'd guess that you were very much in the minority with this belief. (All subjective etc etc)
See my edits. The trollish behaviour has gotten worse in general, not specific to f2p.
EQ community, despite what people think, was so bad the devs had to implement and enforce a play nice policy.
And if communities were nicer it was because they were smaller, again nothing to do with free or pay.
Back in an hour to continue this
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
The primary reason there is a more and more vocal opposition to this model is because the Freemium model and F2P plague are eroding games in other ways:
- More game hopping eroding communities and detracting from long term playability
- More botters/farmers
- More Spam/Chat Issues
- More Trolling, after all banning a free account does little to deter negative behavior
- Longer Queues
- More Crowding of less committed gamers
This list could go on a long way. Its about more than just value, its about the impact the model has on the games which are essentially their communities.
Please provide details on how F2P improves the communities/games? (Other than, I get to play it and leech off of others' committment to a game.)
I disagree that f2p caused more of that. It was out of control before, nothing changed.
How long have you been gaming?
since 2000.
In that 13 years, you honestly believe that the negativity and "trollish" behavior in modern F2P games isnt much higher than in the P2P games of 2000? Which games were you playing in 2000 that were P2P and had large populations of negitive gamers?
I realize this is fully subjective and "unprovable" without much greter research capabilities than I have, but I'd guess that you were very much in the minority with this belief. (All subjective etc etc)
See my edits. The trollish behaviour has gotten worse in general, not specific to f2p.
EQ community, despite what people think, was so bad the devs had to implement and enforce a play nice policy.
And if communities were nicer it was because they were smaller, again nothing to do with free or pay.
Back in an hour to continue this
I'll check out your response tomorrow.
I am curious as to how you are going to argue that allowing anyone to play a game doesnt increase the pool of players....
The primary reason there is a more and more vocal opposition to this model is because the Freemium model and F2P plague are eroding games in other ways:
- More game hopping eroding communities and detracting from long term playability
- More botters/farmers
- More Spam/Chat Issues
- More Trolling, after all banning a free account does little to deter negative behavior
- Longer Queues
- More Crowding of less committed gamers
This list could go on a long way. Its about more than just value, its about the impact the model has on the games which are essentially their communities.
Please provide details on how F2P improves the communities/games? (Other than, I get to play it and leech off of others' committment to a game.)
I disagree that f2p caused more of that. It was out of control before, nothing changed.
How long have you been gaming?
since 2000.
In that 13 years, you honestly believe that the negativity and "trollish" behavior in modern F2P games isnt much higher than in the P2P games of 2000? Which games were you playing in 2000 that were P2P and had large populations of negitive gamers?
I realize this is fully subjective and "unprovable" without much greter research capabilities than I have, but I'd guess that you were very much in the minority with this belief. (All subjective etc etc)
Edit: I'm certainly glad you added that.
Check this out for logic:
F2P increases the size of the community.
Larger communities create more negative envirnoments. (You just conceded this point in your post.)
Therefore, F2P contributes to the negitivity in a game's community.
That's just one example. I can continue.
Please provide an argument for F2P making a game community better?
f2p can create a big community, however advertising does more. There are many small f2p games. So once f2p is not the determining factor.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
The primary reason there is a more and more vocal opposition to this model is because the Freemium model and F2P plague are eroding games in other ways:
- More game hopping eroding communities and detracting from long term playability
- More botters/farmers
- More Spam/Chat Issues
- More Trolling, after all banning a free account does little to deter negative behavior
- Longer Queues
- More Crowding of less committed gamers
This list could go on a long way. Its about more than just value, its about the impact the model has on the games which are essentially their communities.
Please provide details on how F2P improves the communities/games? (Other than, I get to play it and leech off of others' committment to a game.)
I disagree that f2p caused more of that. It was out of control before, nothing changed.
How long have you been gaming?
since 2000.
In that 13 years, you honestly believe that the negativity and "trollish" behavior in modern F2P games isnt much higher than in the P2P games of 2000? Which games were you playing in 2000 that were P2P and had large populations of negitive gamers?
I realize this is fully subjective and "unprovable" without much greter research capabilities than I have, but I'd guess that you were very much in the minority with this belief. (All subjective etc etc)
Edit: I'm certainly glad you added that.
Check this out for logic:
F2P increases the size of the community.
Larger communities create more negative envirnoments. (You just conceded this point in your post.)
Therefore, F2P contributes to the negitivity in a game's community.
That's just one example. I can continue.
Please provide an argument for F2P making a game community better?
f2p can create a big community, however advertising does more. There are many small f2p games. So once f2p is not the determining factor.
It certainly isnt the sole determining factor, but surely you (and others) will concede it is a determining factor.
Further, the P2P model does in fact discourage botting/farming by virtue of increasing the cost to do so.
How has the F2P improved the quality of games supported by the model?
Can you provide specific examples of good communities in games with the F2P model on anything greater than the scale of a single guild?
From my personal experience: A game being F2P, B2P or P2P have little to no effect on communities or even on the quality of the game. Also I'm pretty sure the "goodness of communities" is largely subjective, so I wouldn't know how to go about measuring that.
The effects payment models have:
P2P games tend to have more grind and timesinks in them, because it is in their best interest to make players play as long as possible.
Many F2P games are designed so the cash shop is strongly encouraged by carefully inconveniencing the players. Again, in their best interest.
B2P games need to churn out new content at a relatively rapid rate. Their only motivation is to make the game or expansion so good that the players will want to buy the next one.
You get what you pay for.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
In that 13 years, you honestly believe that the negativity and "trollish" behavior in modern F2P games isnt much higher than in the P2P games of 2000? Which games were you playing in 2000 that were P2P and had large populations of negitive gamers?
I realize this is fully subjective and "unprovable" without much greter research capabilities than I have, but I'd guess that you were very much in the minority with this belief. (All subjective etc etc)
Edit: I'm certainly glad you added that.
Check this out for logic:
F2P increases the size of the community.
Larger communities create more negative envirnoments. (You just conceded this point in your post.)
Therefore, F2P contributes to the negitivity in a game's community.
That's just one example. I can continue.
Please provide an argument for F2P making a game community better?
f2p can create a big community, however advertising does more. There are many small f2p games. So once f2p is not the determining factor.
It certainly isnt the sole determining factor, but surely you (and others) will concede it is a determining factor.
Further, the P2P model does in fact discourage botting/farming by virtue of increasing the cost to do so.
Back now. I posit that the f2p actually did very little to increase the population (I will concede that it does a bit). However lets look at what happens when a game announces it goes f2p:
We talk about it in the forums.
Gaming magazines talk about it
Gaming sites talk about it.
Everyone talks about it at the announcement, during the transition, the week before it goes live, the day it goes live, the days and weeks after.
I posit that that is an absolutely huge amount of advertising and word of mouth that is directly responsible for the influx in player. I submit that if the game could generate that much free advertising and word of mouth (and WoW actually managed to do this) the population would be almost as high, if not the same level as if it was p2p.
If f2p was the determining factor in a large population there would be no small f2p games, this is of course a rediculous statement. There are many small f2p games, there it being f2p is not the determinant of a large population.
If a game just went f2p and there wasn't all the hoopla surrounding it, do you really think it would have an increased population?
This also means that as more games become f2p that the hoopla will die down and therefore without all that talk, there won't be the population increase. This actually may be starting to happen now.
In regards to the p2p model discouraging botting/farming, while this seems logical, like many other things that seem logical, IMO it does not hold up in reality. 1. Many/Most p2p games have trials. 2. The biggest p2p games have a huge botting/farming problem.
Therefore I say once again that it is not f2p or p2p that determines a botters paradise, it is the size of the game. A small f2p doesn't have a botting problem because there is no audience to sell the proceeds to.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Comments
you damn right it's an entitlement. you work, you earn money and you are entitled to spend that money any way you want. either it be to eat/pay bills/ a P2W game or whatever.
i prefer subscription myself. or games with vanity items to buy. in the end the game developers just want to make more money then they spent making it.
I don't think you quite understood the post.
You are entitled to spend your money, almost entirely how you choose.
You are not entitled to whatever you want, including a particular game or even a hobby, or that particular games price model. You are only entitled to determine if you are willing to play it, and pay what they ask.
And you really, really have no idea how that post of yours comes across, Cecropia? Holy cow, man.
@Foe
To you it may seem like less for the money. They don't feel that way. They feel it is worth their money. Your price tag for a virtual hat is different from someone else's. Your level of investment (interest, time, effort, money) is going to be different from someone else's. As far as game prices go, on the average a F2P is dirt cheap to play compared to a subscription game, so I don't quite get where you're getting this "willing to pay more for less" when most people pay nothing at all for a F2P game.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Totally agree. With the exception of EQ2, the f2p games I play cost me far far far less then the p2p games and I'm playing the same way in all of them. To you that may seem like a 2nd class citizen or not accessing the whole game. To me I say so what, thats the way I played in the p2p game.
EQ2 cost me a lot more just because my only reason for playing was the build your own house option and since I got alot of enjoyment out of it, and it wasn't available any other way, I decided it was worth the money. Simple.
I didn't answer most of your questions becuase they were both subjective and irrelavent to the subject of this thread.
This is an endless loop. Remove the subjectivity from the equation. What you or I feel is worth more or less is irrelavent.
The only thing that is relavent is whether or not a consumer is getting more content at a lower price on average (via Freemium models) and by extrapolation, whether or not that is good for the gamer in general.
I would further suggest that as this model develops you will see a trend towards more and more micro transactions in all models of game.
I further suggest that if you think you are "getting one over" on these developers you need to check yourself. Do a google search for Free to Play Business models and stop deluding yourself. These crafty marketting folks will slowly get more and more money from gamers and deliver less for it.
Take this article from a developer :
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-08-22-guillemot-as-many-pc-players-pay-for-f2p-as-boxed-product
The primary reason there is a more and more vocal opposition to this model is because the Freemium model and F2P plague are eroding games in other ways:
- More game hopping eroding communities and detracting from long term playability
- More botters/farmers
- More Spam/Chat Issues
- More Trolling, after all banning a free account does little to deter negative behavior
- Longer Queues
- More Crowding of less committed gamers
This list could go on a long way. Its about more than just value, its about the impact the model has on the games which are essentially their communities.
Please provide details on how F2P improves the communities/games? (Other than, I get to play it and leech off of others' committment to a game.)
All data I've seen points to greater acceptance and interest across all major platforms - PC, console, mobile.
Can you link to data that shows a rise in opposition to it from either developers or consumers?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I'll research that some.
Can you refute my other statements?
I am the consumer. I am using the same content I did before at a lower price. Further I now have the choice on how much I wish to spend.
I disagree that f2p caused more of that. It was out of control before, nothing changed.
Again, this has to be about more than mere cost, as an individual it is very possible to skip around and play a bunch of "free" games that other people are paying to support. Its the game industry equivalent of food stamps. Will those food stamps buy you as good a meal as a fat paycheck?
Can a gamer spend less on a F2P model game than a P2P? Absolutely.
The "zealots" are merely gamers want to see games build communities, have some longevity, and be allowed to flourish.
There are objective ways in which the F2P model has determintally impacted gaming envirnments. I've listed them in a seperate post, please feel free to review and explain how any of those things makes a game better for the community as a whole. There are several more not on their, I'll trickle those in as this post develops.
You want proof?
Use google. There are tons of articles about how to make more money with F2P than you do with P2P. Including several prominent companies that break down how it makes them ALOT more money to do F2P.
You explain the math: If F2P makes a company more money, how exactly is that less cost for the community? Not an individual who chooses to support no game, but the community as a whole.
How long have you been gaming?
Logic does not work like that. You have the burden of proof, not us.
Here's a helpful video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Invalid premise. You are a gamer not the gamer.
Individuals have choice on the amount spent absolutely.
F2P is the gaming welfare system, an individual can flutter from game to game and take advantage of the worlds being supported by others (at a higher price, see Ubisoft article and others via goodle explaining that they make MORE money off microtransaction than P2P.) and not spend as much.
That doesn't mean the quality of the game isnt suffering for the model though. Please visit my other post detailing the issues that have worsened to the extreme with F2P.
Planetside is a great example. I loved Planetside and played it for a couple of years. The PS2 free version? Please...its been plauged by hacks, exploits, server loads being over-taxing, and micro transactions making progress to unlocks unbearably long or expensive..@ 15 a month with no free accounts I'd be playing it now instead of typing this post. Freemium? I uninstalled it after a couple of weeks (and after having paid to help support it...)
I was hoping it would overcome the faults of the F2P model, it failed. I'm still disappointed by that one..
Except for the fact that the two have no correlation at all.
One is my opinion that gamers are growing increasing dissatisfied with the trend of Freemium models.
The second list is a group of statements about how F2P models have been detrimintal to the MMO gaming community and the games the model support in general.
Therfore, I withdraw my statement regarding the increasingly vocal gamers until I have more data; as a statement of anything other than my opinion. I do hold that it is still what I am observing as an individual and why I am taking the time to add my voice to those others.
Now, I ask you:
How has the F2P improved the quality of games supported by the model?
Can you provide specific examples of good communities in games with the F2P model on anything greater than the scale of a single guild?
since 2000.
edit - IMO those things you listed really have very little or nothing to do with f2p, f2p did not cause any of those things. Those things are a result of the market going mainstream, appealing to a wider audience. As more games and gamers come into the market those things you listed increase. The rise in f2p is also because of more gamers and more games.
Your list and free to play are both caused by the same thing - more games and gamers. F2p did not cause those things.
I find the same communities, good and bad in p2p and f2p. IMO the model doesn't influence the community.
edit 2 - IMO the only thing that influences whether the community is good or bad is the size of the community. Smaller communities are typically more like minded. I've seen good and bad in f2p and p2p but typically good in small whether f2p, p2p or freemium.
In that 13 years, you honestly believe that the negativity and "trollish" behavior in modern F2P games isnt much higher than in the P2P games of 2000? Which games were you playing in 2000 that were P2P and had large populations of negitive gamers?
I realize this is fully subjective and "unprovable" without much greter research capabilities than I have, but I'd guess that you were very much in the minority with this belief. (All subjective etc etc)
Edit: I'm certainly glad you added that.
Check this out for logic:
F2P increases the size of the community.
Larger communities create more negative envirnoments. (You just conceded this point in your post.)
Therefore, F2P contributes to the negitivity in a game's community.
That's just one example. I can continue.
Please provide an argument for F2P making a game community better?
See my edits. The trollish behaviour has gotten worse in general, not specific to f2p.
EQ community, despite what people think, was so bad the devs had to implement and enforce a play nice policy.
And if communities were nicer it was because they were smaller, again nothing to do with free or pay.
Back in an hour to continue this
I'll check out your response tomorrow.
I am curious as to how you are going to argue that allowing anyone to play a game doesnt increase the pool of players....
f2p can create a big community, however advertising does more. There are many small f2p games. So once f2p is not the determining factor.
It certainly isnt the sole determining factor, but surely you (and others) will concede it is a determining factor.
Further, the P2P model does in fact discourage botting/farming by virtue of increasing the cost to do so.
Because i can.
I'm Hopeful For Every Game, Until the Fan Boys Attack My Games. Then the Knives Come Out.
Logic every gamers worst enemy.
From my personal experience: A game being F2P, B2P or P2P have little to no effect on communities or even on the quality of the game. Also I'm pretty sure the "goodness of communities" is largely subjective, so I wouldn't know how to go about measuring that.
The effects payment models have:
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Back now. I posit that the f2p actually did very little to increase the population (I will concede that it does a bit). However lets look at what happens when a game announces it goes f2p:
We talk about it in the forums.
Gaming magazines talk about it
Gaming sites talk about it.
Everyone talks about it at the announcement, during the transition, the week before it goes live, the day it goes live, the days and weeks after.
I posit that that is an absolutely huge amount of advertising and word of mouth that is directly responsible for the influx in player. I submit that if the game could generate that much free advertising and word of mouth (and WoW actually managed to do this) the population would be almost as high, if not the same level as if it was p2p.
If f2p was the determining factor in a large population there would be no small f2p games, this is of course a rediculous statement. There are many small f2p games, there it being f2p is not the determinant of a large population.
If a game just went f2p and there wasn't all the hoopla surrounding it, do you really think it would have an increased population?
This also means that as more games become f2p that the hoopla will die down and therefore without all that talk, there won't be the population increase. This actually may be starting to happen now.
In regards to the p2p model discouraging botting/farming, while this seems logical, like many other things that seem logical, IMO it does not hold up in reality. 1. Many/Most p2p games have trials. 2. The biggest p2p games have a huge botting/farming problem.
Therefore I say once again that it is not f2p or p2p that determines a botters paradise, it is the size of the game. A small f2p doesn't have a botting problem because there is no audience to sell the proceeds to.