swtor's f2p bugged me. IT's the only game I played where I was constantly reminded about buying something. The UI locks (told that is gone now though) and evey time I turned in a quest was the reward window telling you what you could get.
It just got annoying.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
swtor's f2p bugged me. IT's the only game I played where I was constantly reminded about buying something. The UI locks (told that is gone now though) and evey time I turned in a quest was the reward window telling you what you could get.
It just got annoying.
Notifications go away as you unlock stuff. Hell, you can even buy unlocks with in-game credits from the GTN if you really want to get cheap about it.
Europeans are far more comfortable with the idea that you pay once (tax) and then you dont have to think with your wallet every time you feel a bit under the weather. So we know how much we spent. And we know how much we can spend on fun and food.. Getting sick might keep us from working. But it wont saddle us with crippling medical expenses on top ot that.
And how did that work out for them? Greece, Spain, Cyrus ...
Germany, England, Norway, Sweden, Denmark...
I don't think you have an argument here. It works better for some worse for others ue to factors that have nothing to di with the topic at hand.
That's really irrelevant to this thread. Would you say that subscription games are doing well in Europe and nothing there gets marketed as "free to play"? Because if the revenue models that MMORPGs use in Europe are about the as in the US, then you're reduced to explaining the origin of differences that don't even exist.
Originally posted by Quizzical I prefer to know a game's business model up front before deciding whether to play it. When a company advertises a game as "free to play", they're trying to hide the business model, as they're never going to truly give away everything for free. Do you think "free to play" will eventually become a derogatory term that marketers avoid for that reason?
I disagree that they're trying to hide the business model. I find that notion to be quite odd.
I get that having to download a game to find out the content of it's cash shop to be a bit of a turn off, but I wouldn't consider that "hiding" the cash shop. Just like you won't know if you like say, Skyrim, unless you spend $60 to play the game. They're not hiding the game. The only difference is that for F2Ps, you don't have to spend any money at all to play.
If they tell you that the price tag is $60, then of course they're not hiding it. "Free to play" is more akin to saying, play for a while and then we'll tell you the price tag later.
Originally posted by Quizzical I prefer to know a game's business model up front before deciding whether to play it. When a company advertises a game as "free to play", they're trying to hide the business model, as they're never going to truly give away everything for free. Do you think "free to play" will eventually become a derogatory term that marketers avoid for that reason?
Subscription is, " We'll never tell you how bad the game's going to be or how poorly it's at launch or the fact that we'll add an additional cash shop on the side. Heck we might never add any content to the short lifespan our game has. But you'll have to blindly trust us with you 15 dollar donations up front."
See what I did there? Stop it.
You can have a free trial on a subscription game. Games have done that for a long time. Now a subscription game with a free trial will be marketed as "free to play", though, which further confuses the issue.
swtor's f2p bugged me. IT's the only game I played where I was constantly reminded about buying something. The UI locks (told that is gone now though) and evey time I turned in a quest was the reward window telling you what you could get.
It just got annoying.
Notifications go away as you unlock stuff. Hell, you can even buy unlocks with in-game credits from the GTN if you really want to get cheap about it.
Would the reward one change? it showed your reward and then a sub reward, think there was a 3rd one too, can't recall. Unless you had a sub that notification wouldn't change right?
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Sorry for steering the discussion off topic... was precisely why I was loathe to get in to it in the first place. But "when someone is wrong on the internet", noone, least of all myself can leave it alone.
Few things I want to weigh in on though:
Americans do play F2P more often than Europeans. (or so it was when last I saw some number ages ago) If that is no longer the case, then I was trying to explain away a moot point.
As for who started the credit crunch , burst the financial bubble, screwed us all. Well its Wall street, the banks, "homeowners who put themselves underwater thinking they could always flip the house for more later on.. And then PANIC. And for greece, retiring at 50 is probably too early for a sustainable economy. Personally Im doing fine and havent felt the whole disaster.. But then again I rent.
I was going to post something on topic.. but I just hit the wall and need sleep
You can have a free trial on a subscription game. Games have done that for a long time. Now a subscription game with a free trial will be marketed as "free to play", though, which further confuses the issue.
/shrug....All I know is I have paid considerably less for f2p games than I ever did for p2p games.....I think they are a great deal though I guess I am in the minority.
Originally posted by Quizzical I prefer to know a game's business model up front before deciding whether to play it. When a company advertises a game as "free to play", they're trying to hide the business model, as they're never going to truly give away everything for free. Do you think "free to play" will eventually become a derogatory term that marketers avoid for that reason?
When was the last MMO like B2P or Sub game that was any different? Clothing, XP pots, potions, gambling box keys, etc. all show up in every MMO regradless of pay model in some form or anouther to the point where these different models are more about cost of entry than they are anything else.
B2P with a cash shop is just a F2P game with a upfront cost. Is there really a difference between that and preordering a founders pack from a F2P game that gives you everything you need to get started?
Sub games with a cash shop just give you the features you would likely be buying anyways in a convinent monthy fee. There are still always more items you could be buying the cash shop if you liked as well.
They are all just the same business model wrapped up slightly differently.
swtor's f2p bugged me. IT's the only game I played where I was constantly reminded about buying something. The UI locks (told that is gone now though) and evey time I turned in a quest was the reward window telling you what you could get.
It just got annoying.
Notifications go away as you unlock stuff. Hell, you can even buy unlocks with in-game credits from the GTN if you really want to get cheap about it.
Would the reward one change? it showed your reward and then a sub reward, think there was a 3rd one too, can't recall. Unless you had a sub that notification wouldn't change right?
I think you're right about that one. I never worried about it, personally, because the "locked" reward always seemed to be a loot box (usually the basic green one).
Originally posted by Quizzical I prefer to know a game's business model up front before deciding whether to play it. When a company advertises a game as "free to play", they're trying to hide the business model, as they're never going to truly give away everything for free. Do you think "free to play" will eventually become a derogatory term that marketers avoid for that reason?
I doubt it will ever become a derogatory term. Publishers use it as a marketing term to get players to check out their game. It really doesn't have anything to do with the business model. P2W more accurately describes how these companies earn their money, and I see P2W becoming more of the main stream term used by players.
IMHO, the only way F2P will ever disappear from advertisements is when lawmakers step in, and that time may be soon now that EA is looking in the direction of the cash shop model.
Originally posted by Quizzical I prefer to know a game's business model up front before deciding whether to play it. When a company advertises a game as "free to play", they're trying to hide the business model, as they're never going to truly give away everything for free. Do you think "free to play" will eventually become a derogatory term that marketers avoid for that reason?
I don't think of it like that.
If I know it's f2p, I expect I can play a good portion of the game free, however I also expect that the devs will try and get me to pay something. How much I pay is up to me.
Doesn't seem very hidden to me.
I don't think it will be become derogatory. I think it was derogatory and is becoming more accepted, I expect that to continue.
Well yes you are correect but there is more to it than that.F2P games are designed to run and operate cheaper to support the no sub model.Also with no income to recover they are going to limit how much they invest.You are almost guaranteed an inferior product technically and overall content is most likely lacking as well.GM and support msot likely lacking as well.Content and updates probably also lacking.So many are being mislead by F2p games adding in content after releasing a very shallow game.You should not get credit for releasing half a game then bringing in parts slowly along the way.
My point is that F2P games tend to be already a bit or a lot weaker than a full fledged subbed game.So now add in the fact the yare going to further dumb that game down to force you to pay,so now you really get an inferior product.Plus just the fact theat you are not able to play the full game as intended by design is really bad as well.
There are only two benefits to this design,one if you simply do not have money ,it allows you some access.The second thing is becuase it allows some access to players who would not be there otherwise,it keeps the game world some what busy looking so that paying customers don't have an empty looking world.
There is absolutely no benefit to the game or it's design,only possible detriments.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
In a single player or co-op game then the F2P mentality of paying whatever you feel like to pay for, might work. However in a competetive game it is completely ridicilous to allow for shortcuts, if you open your wallet.
So don't play competitively. It's quite simple really. Stop acting like playing a game is just an excuse to swing your e-peen around. It's not.
I find this an highly idiotic statement. You can't dismiss something like that so easily. It only shows how ignorant you are.
About F2P. I hate the model. I wish Pay per month would get more popular again ;/
Sure you can, you can make a choice. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to be competitive. It's like going out to play basketball with your friends. You can either be hyper-competitive and probably piss everyone else off or you can just have a good time, not worry about the score and just toss the ball around.
You're choosing the first option. I'm choosing the second. It's your call.
Originally posted by Quizzical I prefer to know a game's business model up front before deciding whether to play it. When a company advertises a game as "free to play", they're trying to hide the business model, as they're never going to truly give away everything for free. Do you think "free to play" will eventually become a derogatory term that marketers avoid for that reason?
Free to play means just what it sounds like - it's free to play, not free to play forever. It's just like going to an all you can eat buffet doesn't ensure that you're going to get to eat for the rest of your life.
Free two play means to me FREE two play not part of game and if i want more i need to buy in cashshop no thx.
Same with DLC only if its a expansion that comes later not on day one that already should have been in the game at launch.
I rather pay subscription and know i get 100% then free two play and get 80% or maybe even less.
60 euro's for GW2 not one eurocent ive spent in cashshop i eventually stop playing it became a cashshop game items on trade became way to expensive rich people just bought gems to change them into gold.
Originally posted by Quizzical Originally posted by Mtibbs1989 Originally posted by Quizzical
You can have a free trial on a subscription game. Games have done that for a long time. Now a subscription game with a free trial will be marketed as "free to play", though, which further confuses the issue.
With the phrase: "Play for FREE" at any rate.
On the contrary, free to play fits perfectly, because as you know, youre always free to not play as well.
Originally posted by Quizzical I prefer to know a game's business model up front before deciding whether to play it. When a company advertises a game as "free to play", they're trying to hide the business model, as they're never going to truly give away everything for free. Do you think "free to play" will eventually become a derogatory term that marketers avoid for that reason?
I'll be honest, Most f2p's are fairy nickle and diming types. However some stand out, like Warframe and Path of exile, in PoE everything is mostly cosmetic. In Warframe almost everything in the cash shop except the color palletes can be earned in game and it doesn't take that long. Exception being the reactor/catalyst to upgrade your stuff (gives them 60 mod points (2 per rank) insted of 30 at rank 30) You can get them in game they are just fairly rare. Anyway these are 2 prime examples and ya know what? because the devs of both of these games don't nickle and dime you, alot of people spend to support them.
Honestly I don't think f2p is going anywhere, anytime soon, Alot of people prefer the model since there is no upfront costs to try the game out. Compared to a p2p mmo where u need to buy the box. Yes, some p2p games have trials but they are capped at usually such a low level that you cannot really experence the game much.
Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:
A. Proven right (if something bad happens)
or
B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)
I never understood the argument on this subject.. Its not like free to play is forcing anyone to pay.. If your content to have less, you can play the majority of the game with paying a cent. do you really need that cool mount skin that moves 5% faster?
Most ppl equate free to play as ransonware. these companies are not hiding your game screen unitl you donate money to them.. pay to play is more like ransonware that the free to play model.
I never understood the argument on this subject.. Its not like free to play is forcing anyone to pay.. If your content to have less, you can play the majority of the game with paying a cent. do you really need that cool mount skin that moves 5% faster?
Most ppl equate free to play as ransonware. these companies are not hiding your game screen unitl you donate money to them.. pay to play is more like ransonware that the free to play model.
Well the problem is Falstaff, that alot of these f2p mmo's are specifically setup to force you to use the cash shop to be even. Especally if it has pvp. Some of them have gear thats better than u can get dropped (SMT: imagine for example). What I do like is the f2p mmo's that allow cash shop items to be traded, so that people who do not want to pay, can buy them using ingame funds insted of rl cash and let someone else foot the bill. Its what I usually do, unless I really like the game if the items are tradable i'll just make the money in game for it. All the rare stuff my chars have in smt: imagine is all cash shop gear I bought with ingame money I farmed. I got some rare sets with awesome set bonuses that aren't avail anymore, and they look nice to boot.
Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:
A. Proven right (if something bad happens)
or
B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)
I used to love playing Mega Man. Then I found out you could buy a thing called Game Genie to get infinite lives. Now I hate Mega Man; I don't want to pay money for a Game Genie, so my version of the game is "crippled" because I only have 3 lives.
Judge the game sans cash shop on its own merits. Don't worry about what other people are doing, and don't worry about how much easier the game would be if you paid for help. The idea that the normal mode of a game can be crippled by the mere existence of an optional alternate way of playing is ludicrous.
Comments
swtor's f2p bugged me. IT's the only game I played where I was constantly reminded about buying something. The UI locks (told that is gone now though) and evey time I turned in a quest was the reward window telling you what you could get.
It just got annoying.
Notifications go away as you unlock stuff. Hell, you can even buy unlocks with in-game credits from the GTN if you really want to get cheap about it.
You make me like charity
That's really irrelevant to this thread. Would you say that subscription games are doing well in Europe and nothing there gets marketed as "free to play"? Because if the revenue models that MMORPGs use in Europe are about the as in the US, then you're reduced to explaining the origin of differences that don't even exist.
If they tell you that the price tag is $60, then of course they're not hiding it. "Free to play" is more akin to saying, play for a while and then we'll tell you the price tag later.
You can have a free trial on a subscription game. Games have done that for a long time. Now a subscription game with a free trial will be marketed as "free to play", though, which further confuses the issue.
Would the reward one change? it showed your reward and then a sub reward, think there was a 3rd one too, can't recall. Unless you had a sub that notification wouldn't change right?
Sorry for steering the discussion off topic... was precisely why I was loathe to get in to it in the first place. But "when someone is wrong on the internet", noone, least of all myself can leave it alone.
Few things I want to weigh in on though:
Americans do play F2P more often than Europeans. (or so it was when last I saw some number ages ago) If that is no longer the case, then I was trying to explain away a moot point.
As for who started the credit crunch , burst the financial bubble, screwed us all. Well its Wall street, the banks, "homeowners who put themselves underwater thinking they could always flip the house for more later on.. And then PANIC. And for greece, retiring at 50 is probably too early for a sustainable economy. Personally Im doing fine and havent felt the whole disaster.. But then again I rent.
I was going to post something on topic.. but I just hit the wall and need sleep
With the phrase: "Play for FREE" at any rate.
When was the last MMO like B2P or Sub game that was any different? Clothing, XP pots, potions, gambling box keys, etc. all show up in every MMO regradless of pay model in some form or anouther to the point where these different models are more about cost of entry than they are anything else.
B2P with a cash shop is just a F2P game with a upfront cost. Is there really a difference between that and preordering a founders pack from a F2P game that gives you everything you need to get started?
Sub games with a cash shop just give you the features you would likely be buying anyways in a convinent monthy fee. There are still always more items you could be buying the cash shop if you liked as well.
They are all just the same business model wrapped up slightly differently.
I think you're right about that one. I never worried about it, personally, because the "locked" reward always seemed to be a loot box (usually the basic green one).
You make me like charity
I doubt it will ever become a derogatory term. Publishers use it as a marketing term to get players to check out their game. It really doesn't have anything to do with the business model. P2W more accurately describes how these companies earn their money, and I see P2W becoming more of the main stream term used by players.
IMHO, the only way F2P will ever disappear from advertisements is when lawmakers step in, and that time may be soon now that EA is looking in the direction of the cash shop model.
p2p ,get all content for ~15$ per month.
f2p ,pay 1000$ per day and still you miss something.
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014.
**On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
F2P games are not free, people are blind.
Do you honestly think someone would come up with an idea, produce it, and advertize it only to give it away free?
You are either going to be gimped or pay out the butt in the cash shop. Either of those choices just suxx
You arent honestly comparing those trashy little games to mmorpgs are you?
Well yes you are correect but there is more to it than that.F2P games are designed to run and operate cheaper to support the no sub model.Also with no income to recover they are going to limit how much they invest.You are almost guaranteed an inferior product technically and overall content is most likely lacking as well.GM and support msot likely lacking as well.Content and updates probably also lacking.So many are being mislead by F2p games adding in content after releasing a very shallow game.You should not get credit for releasing half a game then bringing in parts slowly along the way.
My point is that F2P games tend to be already a bit or a lot weaker than a full fledged subbed game.So now add in the fact the yare going to further dumb that game down to force you to pay,so now you really get an inferior product.Plus just the fact theat you are not able to play the full game as intended by design is really bad as well.
There are only two benefits to this design,one if you simply do not have money ,it allows you some access.The second thing is becuase it allows some access to players who would not be there otherwise,it keeps the game world some what busy looking so that paying customers don't have an empty looking world.
There is absolutely no benefit to the game or it's design,only possible detriments.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Sure you can, you can make a choice. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to be competitive. It's like going out to play basketball with your friends. You can either be hyper-competitive and probably piss everyone else off or you can just have a good time, not worry about the score and just toss the ball around.
You're choosing the first option. I'm choosing the second. It's your call.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Turn off ad-block and check out all the freeness on that site.
Free to play means just what it sounds like - it's free to play, not free to play forever. It's just like going to an all you can eat buffet doesn't ensure that you're going to get to eat for the rest of your life.
Free two play means to me FREE two play not part of game and if i want more i need to buy in cashshop no thx.
Same with DLC only if its a expansion that comes later not on day one that already should have been in the game at launch.
I rather pay subscription and know i get 100% then free two play and get 80% or maybe even less.
60 euro's for GW2 not one eurocent ive spent in cashshop i eventually stop playing it became a cashshop game items on trade became way to expensive rich people just bought gems to change them into gold.
You can have a free trial on a subscription game. Games have done that for a long time. Now a subscription game with a free trial will be marketed as "free to play", though, which further confuses the issue.
With the phrase: "Play for FREE" at any rate.
On the contrary, free to play fits perfectly, because as you know, youre always free to not play as well.I'll be honest, Most f2p's are fairy nickle and diming types. However some stand out, like Warframe and Path of exile, in PoE everything is mostly cosmetic. In Warframe almost everything in the cash shop except the color palletes can be earned in game and it doesn't take that long. Exception being the reactor/catalyst to upgrade your stuff (gives them 60 mod points (2 per rank) insted of 30 at rank 30) You can get them in game they are just fairly rare. Anyway these are 2 prime examples and ya know what? because the devs of both of these games don't nickle and dime you, alot of people spend to support them.
Honestly I don't think f2p is going anywhere, anytime soon, Alot of people prefer the model since there is no upfront costs to try the game out. Compared to a p2p mmo where u need to buy the box. Yes, some p2p games have trials but they are capped at usually such a low level that you cannot really experence the game much.
Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:
A. Proven right (if something bad happens)
or
B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)
Either way, you can't lose! Try it out sometime!
I never understood the argument on this subject.. Its not like free to play is forcing anyone to pay.. If your content to have less, you can play the majority of the game with paying a cent. do you really need that cool mount skin that moves 5% faster?
Most ppl equate free to play as ransonware. these companies are not hiding your game screen unitl you donate money to them.. pay to play is more like ransonware that the free to play model.
Well the problem is Falstaff, that alot of these f2p mmo's are specifically setup to force you to use the cash shop to be even. Especally if it has pvp. Some of them have gear thats better than u can get dropped (SMT: imagine for example). What I do like is the f2p mmo's that allow cash shop items to be traded, so that people who do not want to pay, can buy them using ingame funds insted of rl cash and let someone else foot the bill. Its what I usually do, unless I really like the game if the items are tradable i'll just make the money in game for it. All the rare stuff my chars have in smt: imagine is all cash shop gear I bought with ingame money I farmed. I got some rare sets with awesome set bonuses that aren't avail anymore, and they look nice to boot.
Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:
A. Proven right (if something bad happens)
or
B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)
Either way, you can't lose! Try it out sometime!
I used to love playing Mega Man. Then I found out you could buy a thing called Game Genie to get infinite lives. Now I hate Mega Man; I don't want to pay money for a Game Genie, so my version of the game is "crippled" because I only have 3 lives.
Judge the game sans cash shop on its own merits. Don't worry about what other people are doing, and don't worry about how much easier the game would be if you paid for help. The idea that the normal mode of a game can be crippled by the mere existence of an optional alternate way of playing is ludicrous.