Why can't I pay for convenience? If you have 8 hours to play and I have 2, why not? What if they limited your time on the game because it wasn't fair? Becaus they would think that's an advantage, which it is since you have more time to play. Things like EXP just close the gap a little.
Lets make analogy out of this. Lets say we play a game of one on one basketball. I destroy you 24-0. The reason for this is because i played basketball on a team in highschool, college, and nowadays on weekends. You just recently started playing. when people spend more time on getting better at a game than you, they should be better than you at it. mmorpgs are a game just like basketball, so it should be the same thing. F2P cash shops are kinda like steroid use IRL games. you don't want to spend the extra effort to win, so you just cheat and buy enhancements instead.
if this was a game where significant skill was involvd I would totally agree with you.
MMO are typically not games requiring skill other than patience which I admit is a skill, just not the same kind.
MMO's are typically just about time. Spending more time in an MMO, doesn't really make you teh player any more skilled, the character is more powerfull, but yourself are not any more skilled really. (other than knowing mechanics).
Yes there are some that are, and there are some parts of all MMO's that are, but isn't teh majority of the game.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by Scot Being able to buy weapons in PS2 is not a fair playing field, but by not having a sub they boxed themsleves into that position.
Being able to talk about games you haven't played is fair play these days, but shame there are still a few arround that whack a mole the ones that talk without any experience.
Why can't I pay for convenience? If you have 8 hours to play and I have 2, why not? What if they limited your time on the game because it wasn't fair? Becaus they would think that's an advantage, which it is since you have more time to play. Things like EXP just close the gap a little.
Lets make analogy out of this. Lets say we play a game of one on one basketball. I destroy you 24-0. The reason for this is because i played basketball on a team in highschool, college, and nowadays on weekends. You just recently started playing. when people spend more time on getting better at a game than you, they should be better than you at it. mmorpgs are a game just like basketball, so it should be the same thing. F2P cash shops are kinda like steroid use IRL games. you don't want to spend the extra effort to win, so you just cheat and buy enhancements instead.
Why can't I pay for convenience? If you have 8 hours to play and I have 2, why not? What if they limited your time on the game because it wasn't fair? Becaus they would think that's an advantage, which it is since you have more time to play. Things like EXP just close the gap a little.
Lets make analogy out of this. Lets say we play a game of one on one basketball. I destroy you 24-0. The reason for this is because i played basketball on a team in highschool, college, and nowadays on weekends. You just recently started playing. when people spend more time on getting better at a game than you, they should be better than you at it. mmorpgs are a game just like basketball, so it should be the same thing. F2P cash shops are kinda like steroid use IRL games. you don't want to spend the extra effort to win, so you just cheat and buy enhancements instead.
+1
the analogy fails because you're talking P2W not F2P there
Free to play is a coffin either way. The only MMO I know of that has developed content after the free play model is LotRO and they sell their expansions to pay for it. You might see games provide small upgrades that were very likely coded and set aside for release but no free platform MMO has ever revamped their engine or added entire new regions to their game worlds.
Yes, games could make a go of it as free to play without pay to win because they don't cost anything to run. Considering they aren't using the money to polish the games, I don't know why anyone would pay to win.
Free to play is a coffin either way. The only MMO I know of that has developed content after the free play model is LotRO and they sell their expansions to pay for it. You might see games provide small upgrades that were very likely coded and set aside for release but no free platform MMO has ever revamped their engine or added entire new regions to their game worlds.
Yes, games could make a go of it as free to play without pay to win because they don't cost anything to run. Considering they aren't using the money to polish the games, I don't know why anyone would pay to win.
Free to play is a coffin either way. The only MMO I know of that has developed content after the free play model is LotRO and they sell their expansions to pay for it. You might see games provide small upgrades that were very likely coded and set aside for release but no free platform MMO has ever revamped their engine or added entire new regions to their game worlds.
Yes, games could make a go of it as free to play without pay to win because they don't cost anything to run. Considering they aren't using the money to polish the games, I don't know why anyone would pay to win.
What are you dreaming? Lots of F2P MMOs have added significant content or expansion after going F2P.
DDO, DCUO, STO (a new expansion is just coming out).
Originally posted by Scot Being able to buy weapons in PS2 is not a fair playing field, but by not having a sub they boxed themsleves into that position.
"boxed themselves"?
That was designed from the ground up. They can always/easily add a sub if they want to but why doing that when the trend is clear.
Free to play is a coffin either way. The only MMO I know of that has developed content after the free play model is LotRO and they sell their expansions to pay for it. You might see games provide small upgrades that were very likely coded and set aside for release but no free platform MMO has ever revamped their engine or added entire new regions to their game worlds.
Yes, games could make a go of it as free to play without pay to win because they don't cost anything to run. Considering they aren't using the money to polish the games, I don't know why anyone would pay to win.
What are you dreaming? Lots of F2P MMOs have added significant content or expansion after going F2P.
DDO, DCUO, STO (a new expansion is just coming out).
Add EQ, EQ2 to that list. DCUO had least added teh bases, don't know about a whole expansion though.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Free to play is a coffin either way. The only MMO I know of that has developed content after the free play model is LotRO and they sell their expansions to pay for it. You might see games provide small upgrades that were very likely coded and set aside for release but no free platform MMO has ever revamped their engine or added entire new regions to their game worlds.
The problem with your statement, other than it being completely and undeniably false, is that you have set it up so that anything a person presents you can knock down as 'well, that's not a REAL expansion' but we'll try presenting a few examples anyway and see how it goes. Although you can find major expansions in almost any F2P MMO (they're actually far more actively developed than most subscription MMOs), I looked up a few that specifically include new regions to meet your criteria.
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
Free to play is a coffin either way. The only MMO I know of that has developed content after the free play model is LotRO and they sell their expansions to pay for it. You might see games provide small upgrades that were very likely coded and set aside for release but no free platform MMO has ever revamped their engine or added entire new regions to their game worlds.
Yes, games could make a go of it as free to play without pay to win because they don't cost anything to run. Considering they aren't using the money to polish the games, I don't know why anyone would pay to win.
What are you dreaming? Lots of F2P MMOs have added significant content or expansion after going F2P.
DDO, DCUO, STO (a new expansion is just coming out).
Add EQ, EQ2 to that list. DCUO had least added teh bases, don't know about a whole expansion though.
And if you include WoT, they are *so* successful that they are adding two completely new tantem games to the mix ... F2P of course.
Originally posted by Scot Being able to buy weapons in PS2 is not a fair playing field, but by not having a sub they boxed themsleves into that position.
Being able to talk about games you haven't played is fair play these days, but shame there are still a few arround that whack a mole the ones that talk without any experience.
I am not sure what planet you are on Dihoru, but in the PS2 I play you can get buy credits which allow you to buy guns. You need to generate XP to get certs which update features on weapons, but the guns can be paid for in the cash shop. I think you are going to need put some certs into your Mole-Vision.
The fact the weapons can also be paid for by certs is mitigating, but bottom line you can buy a major advantage.
Trouble is, if they had not done this how would they make any money? The camo skins? In my other post This is what I meant my boxing themselves into having a P2W side to PS2.
I am not sure what planet you are on Dihoru, but in the PS2 I play you can get buy credits which allow you to buy guns. You need to generate XP to get certs which update features on weapons, but the guns can be paid for in the cash shop. I think you are going to need put some certs into your Mole-Vision.
The fact the weapons can also be paid for by certs is mitigating, but bottom line you can buy a major advantage.
Trouble is, if they had not done this how would they make any money? The camo skins? In my other post This is what I meant my boxing themselves into having a P2W side to PS2.
Scot is correct about how guns can be bought in PS2 (i played that game too).
However, how is that "boxing themselves into having a P2W side"? P2W was designed from the beginning. They can easily design the game as a sub-game, or any other ways of making money (access to different character types?, access to areas?). The dev CHOSE to sell guns.
I can't blame them though ..that is how most online F2P shooters are done. Proven business model.
If they had had a subscription, they would not have needed to sell guns, its that simple. Given the model they choose it was hard for them to do anything else but sell guns. Camos and helmets would not have made them enough cash. I think PS2 have have done the best job they can of making the game fair within the model they choose. But you cant escape the bottom line, chossing to finance the game via cash shop means you sell guns.
I never played PS1 but I know they had a subscription, I assume they had no cash shop. On that basis I bet they did not sell guns. That shows you the effect of F2P, a P2W playing field. The certs mitagate that, but do not make the game a fair playing field.
Depends on what do we call an advantage. And let us agree, that every game has to gain profit. So, any f2p game would have to sell something.
My point of view is: yes, it can. Take two games as example:
Istaria: no game shop, no option to buy anything for cash. Members can chose other races, have their plots of lands. No p2w ever.
Lord of the rings online: while they do sell exp boosts, keys for treasure boxes - player can as well loot them from monsters or gain some of them from a game when he reaches certain level (15 minutes exp advancement).
So, I think it is possible to keep f2p game while selling only cosmetic outfits, like Cloak of Great Chicken just looks very great and gain no advantage.
If they had had a subscription, they would not have needed to sell guns, its that simple. Given the model they choose it was hard for them to do anything else but sell guns. Camos and helmets would not have made them enough cash. I think PS2 have have done the best job they can of making the game fair within the model they choose. But you cant escape the bottom line, chossing to finance the game via cash shop means you sell guns.
I think you are confused. They chose NOT to have a subscription in the design stage. Don't tell me they are not able to do so, if they wanted to, when they built the game.
Indeed it was their choice not to have a sub, and that choice led them to allow guns to be bought in the cash shop. I see this as cause and effect you see it as a a holoistic design decision. Thats where we differ.
Lotro's cash shop started of well but has got worse. Deja Vu anyone? After a while they allowed you to get the upgrades you need for your legendary weapon in the cash shop. As far as I know all the upgrades you need can be bought online. You may still need to get the basic weapon as standard loot, but they just drop as you quest. And I still think you can get a better basic weapon by doing raids, but I might be wrong there. But as you can see, selling weapons and XP boosts is here already, what next?
Indeed it was their choice not to have a sub, and that choice led them to allow guns to be bought in the cash shop. I see this as cause and effect you see it as a a holoistic design decision. Thats where we differ.
Lotro's cash shop started of well but has got worse. Deja Vu anyone? After a while they allowed you to get the upgrades you need for your legendary weapon in the cash shop. As far as I know all the upgrades you need can be bought online. You may still need to get the basic weapon as standard loot, but they just drop as you quest. And I still think you can get a better basic weapon by doing raids, but I might be wrong there. But as you can see, selling weapons and XP boosts is here already, what next?
DOn't you think they design in the selling of guns from the getgo? In fact, what is wrong with it? It is a pretty much standard practice in online shooter.
Is it possible? Yes. But sooner or later greed makes them sell stuff for getting advantages. Even League of Legends allow you to, indirectly, buy runes by selling various boosts which allows you to buy them quicker. And yes, being able to get something quicker, IS an advantage because time is always a factor.
Comments
if this was a game where significant skill was involvd I would totally agree with you.
MMO are typically not games requiring skill other than patience which I admit is a skill, just not the same kind.
MMO's are typically just about time. Spending more time in an MMO, doesn't really make you teh player any more skilled, the character is more powerfull, but yourself are not any more skilled really. (other than knowing mechanics).
Yes there are some that are, and there are some parts of all MMO's that are, but isn't teh majority of the game.
Being able to talk about games you haven't played is fair play these days, but shame there are still a few arround that whack a mole the ones that talk without any experience.
+1
the analogy fails because you're talking P2W not F2P there
Free to play is a coffin either way. The only MMO I know of that has developed content after the free play model is LotRO and they sell their expansions to pay for it. You might see games provide small upgrades that were very likely coded and set aside for release but no free platform MMO has ever revamped their engine or added entire new regions to their game worlds.
Yes, games could make a go of it as free to play without pay to win because they don't cost anything to run. Considering they aren't using the money to polish the games, I don't know why anyone would pay to win.
Bend over:
http://fw.perfectworld.com/
http://sto.perfectworld.com/
http://vindictus.nexon.net/
http://www.joymax.com/silkroad/
Need I continue?(there are way more than that, some of which pre-date WoW if I am not mistaken).
You mean a f2p like Dota2?
What are you dreaming? Lots of F2P MMOs have added significant content or expansion after going F2P.
DDO, DCUO, STO (a new expansion is just coming out).
"boxed themselves"?
That was designed from the ground up. They can always/easily add a sub if they want to but why doing that when the trend is clear.
Add EQ, EQ2 to that list. DCUO had least added teh bases, don't know about a whole expansion though.
The problem with your statement, other than it being completely and undeniably false, is that you have set it up so that anything a person presents you can knock down as 'well, that's not a REAL expansion' but we'll try presenting a few examples anyway and see how it goes. Although you can find major expansions in almost any F2P MMO (they're actually far more actively developed than most subscription MMOs), I looked up a few that specifically include new regions to meet your criteria.
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
And if you include WoT, they are *so* successful that they are adding two completely new tantem games to the mix ... F2P of course.
I am not sure what planet you are on Dihoru, but in the PS2 I play you can get buy credits which allow you to buy guns. You need to generate XP to get certs which update features on weapons, but the guns can be paid for in the cash shop. I think you are going to need put some certs into your Mole-Vision.
The fact the weapons can also be paid for by certs is mitigating, but bottom line you can buy a major advantage.
Trouble is, if they had not done this how would they make any money? The camo skins? In my other post This is what I meant my boxing themselves into having a P2W side to PS2.
Scot is correct about how guns can be bought in PS2 (i played that game too).
However, how is that "boxing themselves into having a P2W side"? P2W was designed from the beginning. They can easily design the game as a sub-game, or any other ways of making money (access to different character types?, access to areas?). The dev CHOSE to sell guns.
I can't blame them though ..that is how most online F2P shooters are done. Proven business model.
If they had had a subscription, they would not have needed to sell guns, its that simple. Given the model they choose it was hard for them to do anything else but sell guns. Camos and helmets would not have made them enough cash. I think PS2 have have done the best job they can of making the game fair within the model they choose. But you cant escape the bottom line, chossing to finance the game via cash shop means you sell guns.
I never played PS1 but I know they had a subscription, I assume they had no cash shop. On that basis I bet they did not sell guns. That shows you the effect of F2P, a P2W playing field. The certs mitagate that, but do not make the game a fair playing field.
Depends on what do we call an advantage. And let us agree, that every game has to gain profit. So, any f2p game would have to sell something.
My point of view is: yes, it can. Take two games as example:
Istaria: no game shop, no option to buy anything for cash. Members can chose other races, have their plots of lands. No p2w ever.
Lord of the rings online: while they do sell exp boosts, keys for treasure boxes - player can as well loot them from monsters or gain some of them from a game when he reaches certain level (15 minutes exp advancement).
So, I think it is possible to keep f2p game while selling only cosmetic outfits, like Cloak of Great Chicken just looks very great and gain no advantage.
http://www.mmoblogg.wordpress.com
I think you are confused. They chose NOT to have a subscription in the design stage. Don't tell me they are not able to do so, if they wanted to, when they built the game.
Indeed it was their choice not to have a sub, and that choice led them to allow guns to be bought in the cash shop. I see this as cause and effect you see it as a a holoistic design decision. Thats where we differ.
Lotro's cash shop started of well but has got worse. Deja Vu anyone? After a while they allowed you to get the upgrades you need for your legendary weapon in the cash shop. As far as I know all the upgrades you need can be bought online. You may still need to get the basic weapon as standard loot, but they just drop as you quest. And I still think you can get a better basic weapon by doing raids, but I might be wrong there. But as you can see, selling weapons and XP boosts is here already, what next?
DOn't you think they design in the selling of guns from the getgo? In fact, what is wrong with it? It is a pretty much standard practice in online shooter.
My gaming blog
Nope.
It can be argued to what degree a cash shop sells advantages, but the basis of the design is to sell players in-game content.