the fact that a f2p char stores a little and one that pays stores a lot isn't a problem in most games. EQ2 aside. The problem is someone at some point spent time developing the code that shrinks that storage space for a f2p character by implementing bag limits.
they DEVELOPED LIMITATIONS. They literarly...developed...limitations.
that to me is disturbing. If it comes out that way out the gate its one thing. When you go back and re-squeeze it...then it gets ugly.
That is a FARSE.
It doesnt matter if a game is F2P, B2P or P2P, they have bag size limits. The only difference is that one is giving you the illusion of being able to INCREASE the size, the other does not by making it so you can NEVER increase the size at all beyond what they give you.
Seriously, name me the P2P games that allow unlimited storage...you are INVENTING reasons to hate F2P...worse yet, you are hating for having to spend...$2 for a PERM increase in bag size to defend games that charge $15 a month EVERY month for giving you what you end up with after spending pocket change lol.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
if I say "eve" ill you say "no storage can ever be infinite due to the definition of infinity" ?
has anyone ever filled one single Station Container in eve? I mean you can have as many of them as you want but has anyone ever filled ONE of them ?
So yet again you base your entire argument on the very very few games you have played and cannot seem to add any examples from outside it.
Sadly, the world of MMOs is not that small and most of us have sampled a larger portion of it and will not limit ourselves to a small island off the coast of nowhere. But I do thank you for at least coming close to a refute this time.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
personally I have a very difficult time with the simple concept of ME giving things to MY CHARACTER. Shouldn't we be one and the same from a RP standpoint ? It's not my main issue, it's a very minor one in fact but ... can you relate to your character when at its core the game presents "it" as different than 'you' ?
buying expansions and access is no problem in this sense since I'm not giving 'it' an expansion. i'm just opening the gates. but items, bags, stats, potions...that's the issue.
Well if the game is good (from a personal perspective) it would probably support the reason to sub. Meaning if it had a sub I would probably pay it because I would feel Im getting my money's worth. Would F2P change that? Good question. It depends on the implementation. If the content I enjoy are part of the F2P portion I would question the need to continue the sub (and put that money elsewhere... such as a new or other MMO).
A developer cant determine what F2P can change for me. I make that decision based on whats offered versus how much they want me to pay for it.
I have no interest in how your character recieved things. When I see you in the game I dont ponder 'Wow, Where did he get that item' Granted maybe others do it. So if you purchased it or earned it in a dungeon doesnt change how I feel about the game and if I enjoy it. Well Role Play to me just means I play a role when I play. I cant enforce that role on others or place their role/character in my world. It sounds nice but hard to see how effective it would be considering you cant control the other players in the game. To me thats part of the fun of an MMO that I cant predict what another player would do or what their intentions are.
Yes I say there are different ways to role play. One way is to play as a character in a game. The character is your avatar and is a representation of my actions in the game. Watching that avatar grow, change and achieve is fun. But its more of an arcade role play rather than a realistic/virtual world role play. Another way is like Everquest II. This is closer to your definition where the character is me. But EQ2 allows this level of immersion due to the level of content and detail in the game giving me devices to get lost in. So to me the level of role play or immersion is directly related to how the game delivers the content. The more detailed the more immersive. But in either case what another character does in the world doesnt take me out of character or ruin my fun. I just accept it as another part of the world like it or not.
I can agree somewhat with items. I personally dont buy XP boosters, revive vials and the such. But I have been known to buy the occassional bag and it didnt wear on my conscience. It was just another means to whatever goal I was trying to obtain at the moment. I cant get so deep into a game that I deny myself fun, which makes it ok for me to use things in a cash shop if I deem them necessary.
a f2p without a cash shop like Greed Monger promises I would have no problem with.
Maybe because I'm an EVE player, I feel storage (fixed and mobile) space is part of a character. In Eve, each ship has its unique cargo size and it's often very relevant. how you fly a stealth bomber for example who has to carry those huge bombs, and barely has room for torpedoes...matters.
the fact that a f2p char stores a little and one that pays stores a lot isn't a problem in most games. EQ2 aside. The problem is someone at some point spent time developing the code that shrinks that storage space for a f2p character by implementing bag limits.
they DEVELOPED LIMITATIONS. They literarly...developed...limitations.
that to me is disturbing. If it comes out that way out the gate its one thing. When you go back and re-squeeze it...then it gets ugly.
Good point lets talk cash shops. Assuming we are in pretty much agreement that F2P is subjective but in all is not a bad thing in and of itself but could have a bad implementation.
I dont think I've played a F2P without a cash shop. Someone give me an example if they have one. Would like to check it out.
I dont have issues with cash shops but again its a balancing act. If I feel the prices are too high for what they are offering I begin to question the motives of the game. So its sensitive. I haven't seen P2W items in Cash Shops but then again I dont believe in P2W. Now someone can probably come up with some remote example where actual P2W items are actually sold in a cash shop. But even in that example I would question the game. If I played a game where the only way I could proceed (I dont see how you 'win' a MMO) was to purchase something I felt should be in the world... I simply boycott that game. No sub. No cash shop money. If they can be financed by others dropping millions to play? More power to them. I'm more concerned with what I enjoy playing rather than what other gamers are doing.
What's disturbing about bag limits? At some point we have to separate the minutiae from a real problem. Yes they do limit bag space and probably a ton of other stuff if I sat and really thought about it. But at somepoint it becomes nitpicking.
Play Vindictus if you want to know what's wrong with F2P.
You don't have 15k ATK?
-> You don't get to join groups until you do.
Want 15k ATK?
-> You have two options, you grind this scroll that drops in 1 out of 10,000 runs and has a 99% of failing, it will take you 6 months. OR you just buy scrolls and runes from the marketplace and you'll have your weapon in 2 miutes.
I don't play the game anymore, I never played it serious since I have my guild in another game, but this is what's wrong with F2P.
Originally posted by Theocritus I dont really see anything wrong with it....The option to try games for free is very appealing....IMO its a much better business model than b2p or p2p....Theres jsut too many games out now to justify paying for each one......
but that's not F2P.
you're describing "Freemium". or free trials which bigger P2P games have. I played a trial for WoW and for EvE. My investment wasnt blind.
Freemium, F2P ... its all the same thing. You dont have to pay (immediately) to enjoy a majority of the game. EQ2 has F2P but under your definition I would consider it Freemium. As you start to get to max level it begins to push you to sub to fully enjoy the game. I dont think SOE lied or implemented a bad model. If you played absolutely free up to level 80-90 and then you find you really need to sub to continue enjoying the game. Then sub. Playing a game that long or getting that far demonstrates some level of interest to convince you a sub is worth your money. This is where I think people become cheap.
I'm all for a sub, just not as the only/dominant model. If you still feel you shouldnt pay a sub, then stop playing the game. Its naive to think you can play something completely free.
Now a free trial and F2P are different. A free trial typically has a time-based/level-based limitation. You can only play WoW until level 20. Then you sub or nothing. SOE has F2P. You start EQ2 F2P you can go up to max level (with effort). There are still limitation like plat level (I think lifted for Kronos), etc but it doesnt have a hard stop at a particular level.
I argue all free trials should be F2P. If you give someone the ability to play a game for months I would say it would present a better case to justify a sub. You cant really experience what WoW has to offer in 20 levels. Its just enough to get your appetite wet.
I mean MY argument is obviously derived from my experiences and can't add examples from outside my experience.
I'm not sure what's unusual or unexpected here.
what's unusual is that, I dont know, some people may actually realize they dont know much about the genre and then either take the time to learn more...or not try to judge an entire market based on knowing shiznit about it. But, much like your other posts, you really do love to skip the refutes thrown at you and dodge them by talking about something else.
Your point, F2P limits bag space on purpose, a sign the developers are out to get us.
Your experience, EvE and WoW. EvE has large storage space....WoW does not, limited bag space. You avoid talking about that, turn to Eve instead because WoW defeats your own argument about F2P games.
Please, post again with yet more invented reasons to not like F2P, I am sure more people will be more than willing to shoot them down while you turn to talking about something unrelated so you may continue your diatribe based on nothing tangent.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Play Vindictus if you want to know what's wrong with F2P.
You don't have 15k ATK?
-> You don't get to join groups until you do.
Want 15k ATK?
-> You have two options, you grind this scroll that drops in 1 out of 10,000 runs and has a 99% of failing, it will take you 6 months. OR you just buy scrolls and runes from the marketplace and you'll have your weapon in 2 miutes.
I don't play the game anymore, I never played it serious since I have my guild in another game, but this is what's wrong with F2P.
Thats not a problem with F2P. Its a problem with the implementation that the developer of Vindictus chose to use.
You represent an example of my point. If F2P is implemented poorly it will drive more players away then attract. But an interesting question is if Vindictus had a sub would you pay it? Or was the draw to vindictus the fact that it was F2P?
Play Vindictus if you want to know what's wrong with F2P.
You don't have 15k ATK?
-> You don't get to join groups until you do.
Play WoW if you want to know what's wrong with subs.
You dont have ____ gear score?
-> you dont get to join raids until you do.
Sorry, your point can be applied to P2P games as well thus proving once again, the arguments against F2P games are made by people with double standards or just plain dont know the market at all.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
...because I'm not seeing it. Open to all arguments but please try to stay logical and back them up.
Looking to see if this is more a personal choice (opinion) or actually a bonafide benefit (or constraint) to the player.
Whats your view?
Go!
Balancing the game around the Cash Shop.
Interesting. Can you expand on your point so I get a better idea of what you mean?
Making assumptions, if we agree that F2P are not really free and that games need to be subsidized for cost isnt balance around the cash shop the core of the model?
Second, is your argument that cash shops are inbalanced? And if so what would be your recommendation to balance?
Definitely the sensitive area of F2P where developers need to tread lightly.
...because I'm not seeing it. Open to all arguments but please try to stay logical and back them up.
Looking to see if this is more a personal choice (opinion) or actually a bonafide benefit (or constraint) to the player.
Whats your view?
Go!
Balancing the game around the Cash Shop.
I would take that any day of the week.
The cash shop feeds the company money to make the game so its an actual complete circle. Game wont keep players if it isnt fun, so it remains in focus. the shop feeds the game.
Now lets flip your arugment to P2P.
Balancing the game around PvP...can wreck PvE because its not part of the circle, PvP is a small part of most games yet changing it can ruin the whole.
Taadaa!
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
So-called "f2p" is anything but free. Let's face it, companies do not make games in which they can not MAKE MONEY. There is nothing wrong with that concept. What is totally illogical is to buy into the concept of "f2p" in the first place. SOMEONE has to pay in order to let one person to even attempt to play one of those "f2p" games for free. The fact that anyone is paying means that the game IS NOT free. The whole use of the term "free" in f2p is invalid.
Originally posted by Gruug So-called "f2p" is anything but free. Let's face it, companies do not make games in which they can not MAKE MONEY. There is nothing wrong with that concept. What is totally illogical is to buy into the concept of "f2p" in the first place. SOMEONE has to pay in order to let one person to even attempt to play one of those "f2p" games for free. The fact that anyone is paying means that the game IS NOT free. The whole use of the term "free" in f2p is invalid.
The fact that needs to be faced is that the vast majority of western MMO players have no concept of what F2P is, what the market is like and that there are companies making massive amounts of money off of F2P games.
There are FREE F2P games and they DO MAKE MONEY. They make so much money that some western companies figured they can take that concept, change it and get one of the many millions of idiots in the west to still give them money by tricking them into thinking they are getting a deal, and know that there are even more people willing to defend that deal by stating they are getting something for free and should feel lucky about it!
And the freemium market was born. Well, as we say in the US of A...there is a sucker born every minute...and most of them just love giving a company money every month to pay to play a game...they purchased!
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
The only problem to me about free to play is that it tends to encourage casual play. That is not a bad thing in and of itself however to create an immersive world I would imagine players should be more involved in that world, correct? Free to play enforces a mind set of not having to play as often or as "hardcore" as games in the past may have incentivized.
There is nothing wrong with that and in fact the amount of people playing one game or another at any one time may point towards this or that success story until later on when that game fades off as people that have no real stake in the game peel off.
Now there are many people here and everywhere that applaud casual play, everyone has a life to lead outside of gaming. Family, friends, social life, etc. But there is a strong audience here and elsewhere that I think desire something more immersive. A sub tends to encourage more playtime and dedication, at least in my experience.
Boiling it down, it has just seemed to me over the past few years that a F2P/cash shop game is casual outside of a small percentage of people. A sub game keeps a player logging in more often. Both have pros and cons, but there is a reason besides IP that WoW is still as popular as it is. Not only ties from the past that people stay on with but that people also feel like if they don't log in they are wasting their money.
In the future though for a sub based to be successful it better be a damn good game or have an IP that keeps people drawn into it. And I think SWTOR has shown that even an IP can't do it on it's own.
...because I'm not seeing it. Open to all arguments but please try to stay logical and back them up.
Looking to see if this is more a personal choice (opinion) or actually a bonafide benefit (or constraint) to the player.
Whats your view?
Go!
Balancing the game around the Cash Shop.
Interesting. Can you expand on your point so I get a better idea of what you mean?
Making assumptions, if we agree that F2P are not really free and that games need to be subsidized for cost isnt balance around the cash shop the core of the model?
Second, is your argument that cash shops are inbalanced? And if so what would be your recommendation to balance?
Definitely the sensitive area of F2P where developers need to tread lightly.
Fiesta a free to play mmo from Outspark sold percent increases to stat boost. Around level 60 content not only demanded a player to have maxed out weapons, but also needed be using these boosts in hopes of being successful.
Another more modern game would be Warframe, a game where you can level you gear as well as your "rank". All equipment is stat locked at level 15, and a player can only gain access to level 30 with the use of Catalysts/Reactors. These Reactors can be obtained through "special" Alerts, which only occur about 3 times each day, the chance that a catalyst will be rewarded is about once a week. Reactors however are about once a month, and they are used for your Warframe, which is arguably the most important piece of your gear. The other option is daily log-in reward, upon receiving 7 daily log in rewards you can have a chance to get Reactors/Catalyst. Getting a reactor/catalyst from these daily log ins are near impossible. So essentially the item that you need to progress within Warframe cannot be farmed, but only awarded through RNG events. However you could always spend cash to progress.
Play Vindictus if you want to know what's wrong with F2P.
You don't have 15k ATK?
-> You don't get to join groups until you do.
Play WoW if you want to know what's wrong with subs.
You dont have ____ gear score?
-> you dont get to join raids until you do.
Sorry, your point can be applied to P2P games as well thus proving once again, the arguments against F2P games are made by people with double standards or just plain dont know the market at all.
Then something is wrong with WoW to, I have played EQ for 6 years now and not once have I asked the stats of someone when grouping, not once in 6 years and not once in 6 years have I seen anyone ask the stats of anyone. It would be considered pretty rude to do that.
Originally posted by 123443211234 Because f2p games tend to revolve around ways the devs can extract more money out of you rather than just focusing on creating a good game.
Yeah, there never been P2P MMOs like that...
But really, the bad thing with F2P games is that they tend to make devs that are already greedy greedier. Some of them charge a huge amount far beyond what a monthly fee would cost for people to play the game after the initial noob game. If you want a good example, look on EQ2.
F2P is in itself not bad as long as the developer sell enough stuff to earn money but not so much that you always have to buy to be able to play the game as intended.
Freemium on the other hand is usually a rip off. To get anywhere you more or less both have to pay a monthly fee and buy stuff. Not always but usually (DDO seems pretty fair to me for example).
Originally posted by 123443211234 Because f2p games tend to revolve around ways the devs can extract more money out of you rather than just focusing on creating a good game.
Yeah, there never been P2P MMOs like that...
I dont know, seems to me that when you sub to a P2P, they got your money... and thats it. How could they extract more? At that point the plan would be to keep you "as a customer", by providing just that, a good game. By adding new content, updates, etc.
Not the same with F2P. I mean, in the games I've tried in the past, I'd say 50% of "updates" were in fact additions to the cash shop "look, we added this new weapon! Or this or that!", instead of focusing on adding actual content or fixing actual bugs.
I know, its free, they can do whatever they want, but honestly I'd rather pay 15$/month for a quality product than play a shitty game for free. My time is limited
Comments
There is no benefit to a F2P player. At one point or another he/she must buy something. Or they can stay gimped forever :-D
Logically if a mmorpg was truly free to play it would not last long or would depend on donations to keep its server up.
That is a FARSE.
It doesnt matter if a game is F2P, B2P or P2P, they have bag size limits. The only difference is that one is giving you the illusion of being able to INCREASE the size, the other does not by making it so you can NEVER increase the size at all beyond what they give you.
Seriously, name me the P2P games that allow unlimited storage...you are INVENTING reasons to hate F2P...worse yet, you are hating for having to spend...$2 for a PERM increase in bag size to defend games that charge $15 a month EVERY month for giving you what you end up with after spending pocket change lol.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
So yet again you base your entire argument on the very very few games you have played and cannot seem to add any examples from outside it.
Sadly, the world of MMOs is not that small and most of us have sampled a larger portion of it and will not limit ourselves to a small island off the coast of nowhere. But I do thank you for at least coming close to a refute this time.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
*raises hand* Yes.
( I didn't fill the max volume, but I managed to hit the ceiling on the number of different items )
Well if the game is good (from a personal perspective) it would probably support the reason to sub. Meaning if it had a sub I would probably pay it because I would feel Im getting my money's worth. Would F2P change that? Good question. It depends on the implementation. If the content I enjoy are part of the F2P portion I would question the need to continue the sub (and put that money elsewhere... such as a new or other MMO).
A developer cant determine what F2P can change for me. I make that decision based on whats offered versus how much they want me to pay for it.
I have no interest in how your character recieved things. When I see you in the game I dont ponder 'Wow, Where did he get that item' Granted maybe others do it. So if you purchased it or earned it in a dungeon doesnt change how I feel about the game and if I enjoy it. Well Role Play to me just means I play a role when I play. I cant enforce that role on others or place their role/character in my world. It sounds nice but hard to see how effective it would be considering you cant control the other players in the game. To me thats part of the fun of an MMO that I cant predict what another player would do or what their intentions are.
Yes I say there are different ways to role play. One way is to play as a character in a game. The character is your avatar and is a representation of my actions in the game. Watching that avatar grow, change and achieve is fun. But its more of an arcade role play rather than a realistic/virtual world role play. Another way is like Everquest II. This is closer to your definition where the character is me. But EQ2 allows this level of immersion due to the level of content and detail in the game giving me devices to get lost in. So to me the level of role play or immersion is directly related to how the game delivers the content. The more detailed the more immersive. But in either case what another character does in the world doesnt take me out of character or ruin my fun. I just accept it as another part of the world like it or not.
I can agree somewhat with items. I personally dont buy XP boosters, revive vials and the such. But I have been known to buy the occassional bag and it didnt wear on my conscience. It was just another means to whatever goal I was trying to obtain at the moment. I cant get so deep into a game that I deny myself fun, which makes it ok for me to use things in a cash shop if I deem them necessary.
Good point lets talk cash shops. Assuming we are in pretty much agreement that F2P is subjective but in all is not a bad thing in and of itself but could have a bad implementation.
I dont think I've played a F2P without a cash shop. Someone give me an example if they have one. Would like to check it out.
I dont have issues with cash shops but again its a balancing act. If I feel the prices are too high for what they are offering I begin to question the motives of the game. So its sensitive. I haven't seen P2W items in Cash Shops but then again I dont believe in P2W. Now someone can probably come up with some remote example where actual P2W items are actually sold in a cash shop. But even in that example I would question the game. If I played a game where the only way I could proceed (I dont see how you 'win' a MMO) was to purchase something I felt should be in the world... I simply boycott that game. No sub. No cash shop money. If they can be financed by others dropping millions to play? More power to them. I'm more concerned with what I enjoy playing rather than what other gamers are doing.
What's disturbing about bag limits? At some point we have to separate the minutiae from a real problem. Yes they do limit bag space and probably a ton of other stuff if I sat and really thought about it. But at somepoint it becomes nitpicking.
Play Vindictus if you want to know what's wrong with F2P.
You don't have 15k ATK?
-> You don't get to join groups until you do.
Want 15k ATK?
-> You have two options, you grind this scroll that drops in 1 out of 10,000 runs and has a 99% of failing, it will take you 6 months. OR you just buy scrolls and runes from the marketplace and you'll have your weapon in 2 miutes.
I don't play the game anymore, I never played it serious since I have my guild in another game, but this is what's wrong with F2P.
Freemium, F2P ... its all the same thing. You dont have to pay (immediately) to enjoy a majority of the game. EQ2 has F2P but under your definition I would consider it Freemium. As you start to get to max level it begins to push you to sub to fully enjoy the game. I dont think SOE lied or implemented a bad model. If you played absolutely free up to level 80-90 and then you find you really need to sub to continue enjoying the game. Then sub. Playing a game that long or getting that far demonstrates some level of interest to convince you a sub is worth your money. This is where I think people become cheap.
I'm all for a sub, just not as the only/dominant model. If you still feel you shouldnt pay a sub, then stop playing the game. Its naive to think you can play something completely free.
Now a free trial and F2P are different. A free trial typically has a time-based/level-based limitation. You can only play WoW until level 20. Then you sub or nothing. SOE has F2P. You start EQ2 F2P you can go up to max level (with effort). There are still limitation like plat level (I think lifted for Kronos), etc but it doesnt have a hard stop at a particular level.
I argue all free trials should be F2P. If you give someone the ability to play a game for months I would say it would present a better case to justify a sub. You cant really experience what WoW has to offer in 20 levels. Its just enough to get your appetite wet.
what's unusual is that, I dont know, some people may actually realize they dont know much about the genre and then either take the time to learn more...or not try to judge an entire market based on knowing shiznit about it. But, much like your other posts, you really do love to skip the refutes thrown at you and dodge them by talking about something else.
Your point, F2P limits bag space on purpose, a sign the developers are out to get us.
Your experience, EvE and WoW. EvE has large storage space....WoW does not, limited bag space. You avoid talking about that, turn to Eve instead because WoW defeats your own argument about F2P games.
Please, post again with yet more invented reasons to not like F2P, I am sure more people will be more than willing to shoot them down while you turn to talking about something unrelated so you may continue your diatribe based on nothing tangent.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Thats not a problem with F2P. Its a problem with the implementation that the developer of Vindictus chose to use.
You represent an example of my point. If F2P is implemented poorly it will drive more players away then attract. But an interesting question is if Vindictus had a sub would you pay it? Or was the draw to vindictus the fact that it was F2P?
Play WoW if you want to know what's wrong with subs.
You dont have ____ gear score?
-> you dont get to join raids until you do.
Sorry, your point can be applied to P2P games as well thus proving once again, the arguments against F2P games are made by people with double standards or just plain dont know the market at all.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Balancing the game around the Cash Shop.
Interesting. Can you expand on your point so I get a better idea of what you mean?
Making assumptions, if we agree that F2P are not really free and that games need to be subsidized for cost isnt balance around the cash shop the core of the model?
Second, is your argument that cash shops are inbalanced? And if so what would be your recommendation to balance?
Definitely the sensitive area of F2P where developers need to tread lightly.
I would take that any day of the week.
The cash shop feeds the company money to make the game so its an actual complete circle. Game wont keep players if it isnt fun, so it remains in focus. the shop feeds the game.
Now lets flip your arugment to P2P.
Balancing the game around PvP...can wreck PvE because its not part of the circle, PvP is a small part of most games yet changing it can ruin the whole.
Taadaa!
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Let's party like it is 1863!
The fact that needs to be faced is that the vast majority of western MMO players have no concept of what F2P is, what the market is like and that there are companies making massive amounts of money off of F2P games.
There are FREE F2P games and they DO MAKE MONEY. They make so much money that some western companies figured they can take that concept, change it and get one of the many millions of idiots in the west to still give them money by tricking them into thinking they are getting a deal, and know that there are even more people willing to defend that deal by stating they are getting something for free and should feel lucky about it!
And the freemium market was born. Well, as we say in the US of A...there is a sucker born every minute...and most of them just love giving a company money every month to pay to play a game...they purchased!
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
The only problem to me about free to play is that it tends to encourage casual play. That is not a bad thing in and of itself however to create an immersive world I would imagine players should be more involved in that world, correct? Free to play enforces a mind set of not having to play as often or as "hardcore" as games in the past may have incentivized.
There is nothing wrong with that and in fact the amount of people playing one game or another at any one time may point towards this or that success story until later on when that game fades off as people that have no real stake in the game peel off.
Now there are many people here and everywhere that applaud casual play, everyone has a life to lead outside of gaming. Family, friends, social life, etc. But there is a strong audience here and elsewhere that I think desire something more immersive. A sub tends to encourage more playtime and dedication, at least in my experience.
Boiling it down, it has just seemed to me over the past few years that a F2P/cash shop game is casual outside of a small percentage of people. A sub game keeps a player logging in more often. Both have pros and cons, but there is a reason besides IP that WoW is still as popular as it is. Not only ties from the past that people stay on with but that people also feel like if they don't log in they are wasting their money.
In the future though for a sub based to be successful it better be a damn good game or have an IP that keeps people drawn into it. And I think SWTOR has shown that even an IP can't do it on it's own.
Fiesta a free to play mmo from Outspark sold percent increases to stat boost. Around level 60 content not only demanded a player to have maxed out weapons, but also needed be using these boosts in hopes of being successful.
Another more modern game would be Warframe, a game where you can level you gear as well as your "rank". All equipment is stat locked at level 15, and a player can only gain access to level 30 with the use of Catalysts/Reactors. These Reactors can be obtained through "special" Alerts, which only occur about 3 times each day, the chance that a catalyst will be rewarded is about once a week. Reactors however are about once a month, and they are used for your Warframe, which is arguably the most important piece of your gear. The other option is daily log-in reward, upon receiving 7 daily log in rewards you can have a chance to get Reactors/Catalyst. Getting a reactor/catalyst from these daily log ins are near impossible. So essentially the item that you need to progress within Warframe cannot be farmed, but only awarded through RNG events. However you could always spend cash to progress.
Then something is wrong with WoW to, I have played EQ for 6 years now and not once have I asked the stats of someone when grouping, not once in 6 years and not once in 6 years have I seen anyone ask the stats of anyone. It would be considered pretty rude to do that.
i dont see anything wrong with F2P either
as long as i enjoy a game, im happy with it whether its F2P, B2P or P2P heh :P
There are people who play games and then there are gamers.
http://alzplz.blogspot.com
Yeah, there never been P2P MMOs like that...
But really, the bad thing with F2P games is that they tend to make devs that are already greedy greedier. Some of them charge a huge amount far beyond what a monthly fee would cost for people to play the game after the initial noob game. If you want a good example, look on EQ2.
F2P is in itself not bad as long as the developer sell enough stuff to earn money but not so much that you always have to buy to be able to play the game as intended.
Freemium on the other hand is usually a rip off. To get anywhere you more or less both have to pay a monthly fee and buy stuff. Not always but usually (DDO seems pretty fair to me for example).
I dont know, seems to me that when you sub to a P2P, they got your money... and thats it. How could they extract more? At that point the plan would be to keep you "as a customer", by providing just that, a good game. By adding new content, updates, etc.
Not the same with F2P. I mean, in the games I've tried in the past, I'd say 50% of "updates" were in fact additions to the cash shop "look, we added this new weapon! Or this or that!", instead of focusing on adding actual content or fixing actual bugs.
I know, its free, they can do whatever they want, but honestly I'd rather pay 15$/month for a quality product than play a shitty game for free. My time is limited
IMO:
f2p = how to nickel and dime your playerbase in order to gain profit .
p2p = how to create a fun game and keep content going on in order to keep subs (to gain profit)