Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

[Column] General: Becoming a F2P Convert

12346

Comments

  • duuude007duuude007 MERIDIAN, IDPosts: 112Member
    double post
  • duuude007duuude007 MERIDIAN, IDPosts: 112Member
    Originally posted by duuude007
    Originally posted by eddieg50
    the great thing about F2P games are you can spend little or no money or sub if you want, I love it because it gives you that option

    The great thing about a P2P game is that if they are capable of sustaining P2P with regular updates, it is a strong indicator that the title is successful. The same cannot be not said for an F2P title.

     

     

     

  • BoneserinoBoneserino London, ONPosts: 1,630Member Uncommon
    Worst analogy ever?

    FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!

  • DoogiehowserDoogiehowser ParisPosts: 1,873Member
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    I P2P were such an awesome model it would be self-sustaining, but time has shown it's not. 

     

    Wow. No literally WoW and of course Everquest and a lot of other games for years. Hell Darkfall was self sustaining if only barely. Bad games are not self sustaining under any business model. 

    If everquest released in 2013 it would be different story and same goes for WOW. 

    "The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'
    -Jesse Schell

    "Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid."
    -Luke McKinney

    image

  • BoneserinoBoneserino London, ONPosts: 1,630Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nttajira
    Originally posted by Boneserino
    Worst analogy ever?

     

    you love mcdonalds ? sorry

    Sometimes.

    But your analogy is the worst! :P

     

    p2p are the good looking girl ( who can be a fucking bitch and end up f2p ) or the best girl in the world , where you subs all life , you dont know  , but it worth the try !! 

    LOL

    FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!

  • Aldous.HuxleyAldous.Huxley Monticello, MNPosts: 418Member
    Originally posted by Doogiehowser
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    I P2P were such an awesome model it would be self-sustaining, but time has shown it's not. 

     

    Wow. No literally WoW and of course Everquest and a lot of other games for years. Hell Darkfall was self sustaining if only barely. Bad games are not self sustaining under any business model. 

    If everquest released in 2013 it would be different story and same goes for WOW. 

    Finally, the distortion of time & space argument. Now we're getting somewhere! I'll try one.

     

    If free to play games were released in 1957, not s single one would be played at all. Zero player base & zero money earned.

  • DoogiehowserDoogiehowser ParisPosts: 1,873Member
    Originally posted by Kleptobrainiac
    Originally posted by Doogiehowser
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    I P2P were such an awesome model it would be self-sustaining, but time has shown it's not. 

     

    Wow. No literally WoW and of course Everquest and a lot of other games for years. Hell Darkfall was self sustaining if only barely. Bad games are not self sustaining under any business model. 

    If everquest released in 2013 it would be different story and same goes for WOW. 

    Finally, the distortion of time & space argument. Now we're getting somewhere! I'll try one.

     

    If free to play games were released in 1957, not s single one would be played at all. Zero player base & zero money earned.

    Ignore it all you like but the time period makes a big difference. Gamers have changed over the years. What was relevant during times of Everquest isn't relevant anymore. And this goes not only for MMOS but ever changing trend in all other sources for entertainment as well.

    After the news of Arch Age going F2P i know for sure now that 'people pay for quality' MMO is nothing more than some pipe dream in 2013.

    "The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'
    -Jesse Schell

    "Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid."
    -Luke McKinney

    image

  • TorvalTorval Oregon CountryPosts: 7,222Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Vesavius
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by Vesavius
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by Pie_Rat

    If FP2 were such an awesome model, people wouldn't spend so much time and energy trying to convince the world of its merits.

    I P2P were such an awesome model it would be self-sustaining.

    The debate here isn't actually between whether or not the sub model is self sustaining, because it has actually been proven that it is. Games have run for literally years on it alone.

    The core issue here is not what generates profit, it is what generates *more* profit.

    'F2P' simply generates more, especially when it is carried by a sub user base. As a gamer though, I care about games, not increased profit that benefits none but the VCs and the shareholders.

    Except the model itself is not self-sustaining. 

    Strong statement. Prove it?

    I have the fact that plenty of games operated for literally years on a sub alone, generating profit and supporting ongoing development, to back me up.

    Honestly, I sometimes wonder how you guys think EQ etc survived all that time before the addition revenue generator of the cash shop was forced over time in to up the profits... going by your thinking EQ should have been dead in a year.

    The very status quo proves it.  What recently released AAA game has been able to do P2P?  How many coming down the pipeline will be able to pull it off? I explained in the previous posts that niche games will be able to succeed on a form of sub-lock, but not AAA games.  Again, EVE can do this and thrive because no one else delivers exactly what they do.

    I don't think ESO will be able to.  I'm going to watch FFXIV closely.  There are a lot of FF fans and could be enough to support that, but other huge IPs like Star Wars, Conan, and Lord of the Rings haven't been able to do so.  Why would FFXIV be able to do this?  Some IPs like this might try the sub+box fee route for the first year or two and then convert, but I don't think people will go for this long term.  Would you want to support a game that you knew was going to switch to f2p 9 - 18 months down the road?

    I'm saying the model isn't self-sustaining because it hasn't been able to add any new entrants into its group.  Even the giant WoW, as people mentioned above citing its success, has lost a huge chunk of their subscriber base over the last couple of quarters.  They can afford to, but the other games can not.  As that pool ages it will eventually be marginalized.

    So as a counter example what games recently released or coming up on the horizon can you point to that will shift this perception that F2P/B2P is a more favored payment model?

  • duuude007duuude007 MERIDIAN, IDPosts: 112Member
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by Vesavius
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by Vesavius
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by Pie_Rat

    If FP2 were such an awesome model, people wouldn't spend so much time and energy trying to convince the world of its merits.

    I P2P were such an awesome model it would be self-sustaining.

    The debate here isn't actually between whether or not the sub model is self sustaining, because it has actually been proven that it is. Games have run for literally years on it alone.

    The core issue here is not what generates profit, it is what generates *more* profit.

    'F2P' simply generates more, especially when it is carried by a sub user base. As a gamer though, I care about games, not increased profit that benefits none but the VCs and the shareholders.

    Except the model itself is not self-sustaining. 

    Strong statement. Prove it?

    I have the fact that plenty of games operated for literally years on a sub alone, generating profit and supporting ongoing development, to back me up.

    Honestly, I sometimes wonder how you guys think EQ etc survived all that time before the addition revenue generator of the cash shop was forced over time in to up the profits... going by your thinking EQ should have been dead in a year.

    The very status quo proves it.  What recently released AAA game has been able to do P2P?  How many coming down the pipeline will be able to pull it off? I explained in the previous posts that niche games will be able to succeed on a form of sub-lock, but not AAA games.  Again, EVE can do this and thrive because no one else delivers exactly what they do.

    I don't think ESO will be able to.  I'm going to watch FFXIV closely.  There are a lot of FF fans and could be enough to support that, but other huge IPs like Star Wars, Conan, and Lord of the Rings haven't been able to do so.  Why would FFXIV be able to do this?  Some IPs like this might try the sub+box fee route for the first year or two and then convert, but I don't think people will go for this long term.  Would you want to support a game that you knew was going to switch to f2p 9 - 18 months down the road?

    I'm saying the model isn't self-sustaining because it hasn't been able to add any new entrants into its group.  Even the giant WoW, as people mentioned above citing its success, has lost a huge chunk of their subscriber base over the last couple of quarters.  They can afford to, but the other games can not.  As that pool ages it will eventually be marginalized.

    So as a counter example what games recently released or coming up on the horizon can you point to that will shift this perception that F2P/B2P is a more favored payment model?

    Proves "it", by "It" do you mean that the definition of AAA has changed? That Player attention spans and general game loyalty have ceased to be relevant? Or perhaps that the market is merely overflowing with games designed for quick cash grabs, rather than consistent pay for continued development?

    Just because so few MMORPGS can go P2P does not mean that they do not want to. The financial stability of P2P is just one of those pipe dreams for many developers. Ideal, but out of reach due to other factors.

  • GameByNightGameByNight Columnist / Podcast Host Rochester, NYPosts: 122Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by duuude007
    Originally posted by GameByNight
    @Vesavius: This is a column. It is my opinion. So no, you don't have a right to demand impartiality. Like most sites of our type, we maintain separate wings for editorials and news reporting. If you're looking for an fair and balanced, I would advise you scroll just a little further down and read the news.

    To be perfectly accurate, he has the right to demand, and you have the right to ignore said demand ^^;

    Hah. Touche.

    Writer of the RPG Files
    Official Podcast Host
    Blogger at GameByNight.com

  • duuude007duuude007 MERIDIAN, IDPosts: 112Member
    Originally posted by GameByNight
    @Vesavius: This is a column. It is my opinion. So no, you don't have a right to demand impartiality. Like most sites of our type, we maintain separate wings for editorials and news reporting. If you're looking for an fair and balanced, I would advise you scroll just a little further down and read the news.

    To be perfectly accurate, he has the right to demand, and you have the right to ignore said demand ^^;

  • zymurgeistzymurgeist Pittsville, VAPosts: 5,215Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Doogiehowser
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    I P2P were such an awesome model it would be self-sustaining, but time has shown it's not. 

     

    Wow. No literally WoW and of course Everquest and a lot of other games for years. Hell Darkfall was self sustaining if only barely. Bad games are not self sustaining under any business model. 

    If everquest released in 2013 it would be different story and same goes for WOW. 

    WoW is released in 2013. It's in direct competition with every game out there and doing quite well in spite of being ten year old technology. I assume if Everquest were released in 2013 it would be F2P because it is.

    "Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause" ~Victor Hugo

  • duuude007duuude007 MERIDIAN, IDPosts: 112Member
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Originally posted by Doogiehowser
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    I P2P were such an awesome model it would be self-sustaining, but time has shown it's not. 

     

    Wow. No literally WoW and of course Everquest and a lot of other games for years. Hell Darkfall was self sustaining if only barely. Bad games are not self sustaining under any business model. 

    If everquest released in 2013 it would be different story and same goes for WOW. 

    WoW is released in 2013. It's in direct competition with every game out there and doing quite well in spite of being ten year old technology. I assume if Everquest were released in 2013 it would be F2P because it is.

    EQ was P2P for years before converting to F2P. For that matter, Anarchy Online is still P2P, and predates WOW or FFXI (also P2P)

  • RohnRohn Saint Peters, MOPosts: 3,740Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by duuude007
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Originally posted by Doogiehowser
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    I P2P were such an awesome model it would be self-sustaining, but time has shown it's not. 

     

    Wow. No literally WoW and of course Everquest and a lot of other games for years. Hell Darkfall was self sustaining if only barely. Bad games are not self sustaining under any business model. 

    If everquest released in 2013 it would be different story and same goes for WOW. 

    WoW is released in 2013. It's in direct competition with every game out there and doing quite well in spite of being ten year old technology. I assume if Everquest were released in 2013 it would be F2P because it is.

    EQ was P2P for years before converting to F2P. For that matter, Anarchy Online is still P2P, and predates WOW or FFXI (also P2P)

     

    Anarchy Online was an absolute trainwreck at launch - so much so, it became the standard for what NOT to do at launch, often garnering the title of "Worst Launch Ever" within the genre.  It was also one of the first to adopt the hybrid F2P model just to survive.  One can pay a sub, but it is most definitely not a P2P-only game.  In the genre today, it's not even close to being competitive.

    Having said that, if a game needs to convert to a F2P model, I don't have any problem with it.  F2P is fast becoming the standard within MMOs.  It just depends on the exact scheme they adopt as to whether or not it's worth playing.

    Hell hath no fury like an MMORPG player scorned.

  • duuude007duuude007 MERIDIAN, IDPosts: 112Member
    Originally posted by Rohn
    Originally posted by duuude007
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Originally posted by Doogiehowser
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    I P2P were such an awesome model it would be self-sustaining, but time has shown it's not. 

     

    Wow. No literally WoW and of course Everquest and a lot of other games for years. Hell Darkfall was self sustaining if only barely. Bad games are not self sustaining under any business model. 

    If everquest released in 2013 it would be different story and same goes for WOW. 

    WoW is released in 2013. It's in direct competition with every game out there and doing quite well in spite of being ten year old technology. I assume if Everquest were released in 2013 it would be F2P because it is.

    EQ was P2P for years before converting to F2P. For that matter, Anarchy Online is still P2P, and predates WOW or FFXI (also P2P)

     

    Anarchy Online was an absolute trainwreck at launch - so much so, it became the standard for what NOT to do at launch, often garnering the title of "Worst Launch Ever" within the genre.  It was also one of the first to adopt the hybrid F2P model just to survive.  One can pay a sub, but it is most definitely not a P2P-only game.  In the genre today, it's not even close to being competitive.

    Having said that, if a game needs to convert to a F2P model, I don't have any problem with it.  F2P is fast becoming the standard within MMOs.  It just depends on the exact scheme they adopt as to whether or not it's worth playing.

    AO was a trainwreck? I came in about a year late, but I found it to be a fantastic game compared to the alternatives. It remained fully P2P until after 2 subsequent expansions, after which you gain limited access to the game (free until you add an expansion, then it is forced P2P), much like in WoW you can play free until you get to a certain level. So Yeah, AO is still P2P, much like WoW is.

     

    And no, F2P isnt "the" standard, nor is P2P. They are payment options, neither is the end all-be all option, nor should it be.

    Game design determines payment plan compatibility.

    The breadth of a game's success determines its ability to sustain P2P or F2P. Not the other way around.

  • crazyed66crazyed66 MoePosts: 17Member

    F2p is a very general term, I will admit most are still annoying to play, but it is no longer the general rule of f2p to be sub par.

    May I suggest to the subby only believers (of which I was one) that they play something like Tera for a month, free without buying a thing. Get through the 'its no good cause its different' stage. What I KNOW is that you will have a better experience than you think. Rift, of which I am still a subscriber, is going totally free on the 12th of June and whether or not they pull it off  is yet to be seen but the quality of mmo can not be questioned. 

    The free to play and buy to play industry is changing and refining all the time and with a select few 'free' mmos I find that the incentive to spend is out of a RESPECT for the game and the level of enjoyment I get from it, not from a tyrannical rule that I must spend to progress. 

    I know after spending a huge chunk of ones life paying a sub, investing in a great game like WOW or Rift makes going free seem a cop out but I can say from experience that it is not.

  • duuude007duuude007 MERIDIAN, IDPosts: 112Member
    Originally posted by crazyed66

    F2p is a very general term, I will admit most are still annoying to play, but it is no longer the general rule of f2p to be sub par.

    May I suggest to the subby only believers (of which I was one) that they play something like Tera for a month, free without buying a thing. Get through the 'its no good cause its different' stage. What I KNOW is that you will have a better experience than you think. Rift, of which I am still a subscriber, is going totally free on the 12th of June and whether or not they pull it off  is yet to be seen but the quality of mmo can not be questioned. 

    The free to play and buy to play industry is changing and refining all the time and with a select few 'free' mmos I find that the incentive to spend is out of a RESPECT for the game and the level of enjoyment I get from it, not from a tyrannical rule that I must spend to progress. 

    I know after spending a huge chunk of ones life paying a sub, investing in a great game like WOW or Rift makes going free seem a cop out but I can say from experience that it is not.

    These were games which began P2P, but struggled to remain so, and therefore changed their payment model. Sure, they may retain plenty of their P2P-implemented content, but what if you contrast patches from before and after the move to F2P?

    A game that cannot sustain its original payment model indeed has several critical flaws over one that was launched as P2P or F2P from day one, and never changed, and never added components such as MT or P2W, etc.

  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,769Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by duuude007
    Originally posted by crazyed66

    F2p is a very general term, I will admit most are still annoying to play, but it is no longer the general rule of f2p to be sub par.

    May I suggest to the subby only believers (of which I was one) that they play something like Tera for a month, free without buying a thing. Get through the 'its no good cause its different' stage. What I KNOW is that you will have a better experience than you think. Rift, of which I am still a subscriber, is going totally free on the 12th of June and whether or not they pull it off  is yet to be seen but the quality of mmo can not be questioned. 

    The free to play and buy to play industry is changing and refining all the time and with a select few 'free' mmos I find that the incentive to spend is out of a RESPECT for the game and the level of enjoyment I get from it, not from a tyrannical rule that I must spend to progress. 

    I know after spending a huge chunk of ones life paying a sub, investing in a great game like WOW or Rift makes going free seem a cop out but I can say from experience that it is not.

    These were games which began P2P, but struggled to remain so, and therefore changed their payment model. Sure, they may retain plenty of their P2P-implemented content, but what if you contrast patches from before and after the move to F2P?

    A game that cannot sustain its original payment model indeed has several critical flaws over one that was launched as P2P or F2P from day one, and never changed, and never added components such as MT or P2W, etc.

    Once again, they don't get it do they? TERA was P2P, it was funded as P2P and that quality you are seeing comes from that. Players need to open their eyes, what happens when gaming companies decide not to release anything as P2P? Where are these games that you guys keep saying are great F2P MMOs going to come from then?

    Unless they go down the B2P route the genre is heading for a crash in terms of quality. We are already at a stage where MMO's are small and there is less in the way of end game. MMO's having less funding than they do now does not indicate a bright future.

  • VesaviusVesavius BristolPosts: 7,647Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Doogiehowser
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    I P2P were such an awesome model it would be self-sustaining, but time has shown it's not. 

     

    Wow. No literally WoW and of course Everquest and a lot of other games for years. Hell Darkfall was self sustaining if only barely. Bad games are not self sustaining under any business model. 

    If everquest released in 2013 it would be different story and same goes for WOW. 

     

    That's irrelevant though.

    The fact being underlined by Zym is that these games were developed, launched, and supported on a sub model for years, and the fact that certain folks pretending the model cannot sustain a game is simply wrong.

    Sub to 'F2P' conversion isn't about making a profit, you would be amazed at how few paying players these things need to actually be in the black, it is about making *more* profit. The easy and generous profits generated by these games from EQ onwards under a sub model are exactly what brought these carpet baggers into the MMO space in the first place.

    'F2P' is simply about moving the player into the 'sweet spot' of charging (in other words, when they are lured in and addicted) as soon as possible and wringing more revenue out them in the shortest possible time (because very few stick around for long under the 'F2P' model and rinsing them quickly is essential). Some may appreciate this cynical and exploitative model that hides it's pricing and uses real money gambling to generate extra profit, but I don't.

    It might be good for the shareholders and investors that demand ever higher returns from you and me for less investment from themselves, but in reality 'F2P' does nothing for the gamer (unless you are one of the super transient three games at once player that brags about not paying a penny into development ever that we have seen created by the model) that cannot be done in more transparent ways that are better for the games and better for the gamer.

     

  • VesaviusVesavius BristolPosts: 7,647Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by duuude007
    Originally posted by GameByNight
    @Vesavius: This is a column. It is my opinion. So no, you don't have a right to demand impartiality. Like most sites of our type, we maintain separate wings for editorials and news reporting. If you're looking for an fair and balanced, I would advise you scroll just a little further down and read the news.

    To be perfectly accurate, he has the right to demand, and you have the right to ignore said demand ^^;

     

    Duuude is ofc correct here. I simply do not enjoy one sided opinion pieces, especially when I do not see a balancing opinion. It gives the impression that the site itself is once more endorsing and promoting the revenue model, especially coming so soon after Bill's writing on the same subject.

    Help me out though? I scrolled down and couldn't see the balance regarding the F2P and Sub debate... Can you link the piece that you think I should see in regards appreciating this site's representation of both sides (via opinion puff or otherwise)?

     

     

  • jabhamanojabhamano Hong KongPosts: 22Member

    f2p games are pretending to not be pay2win. however every experienced player at some point will notice some great way to advance faster by spending real money in it. and thats the player base that they are aiming for. casual players with ambition to stand out in the crowd. free users will advance much slower even though they spend much more time in game comparing to money spenders. therefore those f2p games are hard to enjoy for those who dont want to spend money on game or want to spend just a few. 

     

    f2p are for casuals who are willing to spend alot of money on game.

    sub games are for those who has alot of time to advance in game on their own. nolife gamers who are willing to spend just 10-15 euro per month on game. which is reasonable since they spend whole days in game anyway. which is really reasonable to spend this small amount of money for all the time they troll in game.

    those who doesnt want to spend any money on games, but have infinite amount of time, can try to play f2p game and advance there through crafting, but still they wont be any richer and get theirs progress faster than those who spends real money. 

    those who wants to play for free and on casual basis should go for some moba games. where only skill matters and only thing you can buy are skins and etc. lol, dota, smite or whatever else is there.

  • Mopar63Mopar63 Carbondale, ILPosts: 296Member

    First the concept of P2W is stupid with the exception of pure PvP games. 90%of MMOs have no win they are about the journey not the destination. The only person hurt by the pay system in these games is the gamer that cheats himself of the games experience by buying through the content.

    As for if F2P is a good thing or not, it no longer matters. F2P is actually the prime development method of MMOs today not the subscription model.  It is here and it is not going anywhere.

     

     

     

  • DoogiehowserDoogiehowser ParisPosts: 1,873Member
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Originally posted by Doogiehowser
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    I P2P were such an awesome model it would be self-sustaining, but time has shown it's not. 

     

    Wow. No literally WoW and of course Everquest and a lot of other games for years. Hell Darkfall was self sustaining if only barely. Bad games are not self sustaining under any business model. 

    If everquest released in 2013 it would be different story and same goes for WOW. 

    WoW is released in 2013. It's in direct competition with every game out there and doing quite well in spite of being ten year old technology. I assume if Everquest were released in 2013 it would be F2P because it is.

    You mean MOP expansion pack? then yes you are right. But we are talking about majority against minority and the majority trend is towards increasing number of F2P models. Other than WOW which other MMO has 9 million player on pure sub model? in cases like these if you want to make a point you do not quote exception but a rule. And WOW is an exception and one of its kind. Maybe there were more MMOS as successful as WOW today you would have a leg to stand on.

    The main argument here is that people pay and support better quality...so are you guys telling us that except for WOW there has been no quality MMO in recent times? 

     

    Originally posted by Vesavius
     

    That's irrelevant though.

    The fact being underlined by Zym is that these games were developed, launched, and supported on a sub model for years, and the fact that certain folks pretending the model cannot sustain a game is simply wrong.

     

     

    I doubt anyone even needs to prove anything here because picture is crystal clear. More and more MMOS are going F2P regardless of whether being good or bad because there are not enough players to support P2P model.. One doesn't even need to make up stuff here but just need to look at the number of MMOS rejecting pure P2P models to survive.

    So i am sorry but this model can not sustain itself. To prove us wrong all you need is 3 or 4 P2P MMOS which release as a P2P and do not change to F2P within a year and continue to be P2P. The day that happens the above statement will have its relevance. 

    Short term sustainence doesn't help your case

    "The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'
    -Jesse Schell

    "Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid."
    -Luke McKinney

    image

  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread PshPosts: 5,503Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Vesavius
    Originally posted by duuude007
    Originally posted by GameByNight
    @Vesavius: This is a column. It is my opinion. So no, you don't have a right to demand impartiality. Like most sites of our type, we maintain separate wings for editorials and news reporting. If you're looking for an fair and balanced, I would advise you scroll just a little further down and read the news.

    To be perfectly accurate, he has the right to demand, and you have the right to ignore said demand ^^;

    Duuude is ofc correct here. I simply do not enjoy one sided opinion pieces, especially when I do not see a balancing opinion. It gives the impression that the site itself is once more endorsing and promoting the revenue model, especially coming so soon after Bill's writing on the same subject.

    Help me out though? I scrolled down and couldn't see the balance regarding the F2P and Sub debate... Can you link the piece that you think I should see in regards appreciating this site's representation of both sides (via opinion puff or otherwise)?

    Sometimes a person ends up so far to one side of an argument that it is not possible for a writer to appear balanced to them because there is nothing left that doesn't offend their sensibilities. If I were to say there is a place for both models and that both types of games have had solid communities and that payment model is a matter of preference, many people would say that I am being biased and unbalanced because P2P has better communities, it is a superior system for the consumer and only poor, transient people prefer F2P games.

     

    One side of that argument is so far gone that they can no longer accept reasonable stances on the subject.

  • VesaviusVesavius BristolPosts: 7,647Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by colddog04
    Originally posted by Vesavius
    Originally posted by duuude007
    Originally posted by GameByNight
    @Vesavius: This is a column. It is my opinion. So no, you don't have a right to demand impartiality. Like most sites of our type, we maintain separate wings for editorials and news reporting. If you're looking for an fair and balanced, I would advise you scroll just a little further down and read the news.

    To be perfectly accurate, he has the right to demand, and you have the right to ignore said demand ^^;

    Duuude is ofc correct here. I simply do not enjoy one sided opinion pieces, especially when I do not see a balancing opinion. It gives the impression that the site itself is once more endorsing and promoting the revenue model, especially coming so soon after Bill's writing on the same subject.

    Help me out though? I scrolled down and couldn't see the balance regarding the F2P and Sub debate... Can you link the piece that you think I should see in regards appreciating this site's representation of both sides (via opinion puff or otherwise)?

    Sometimes a person ends up so far to one side of an argument that it is not possible for a writer to appear balanced to them because there is nothing left that doesn't offend their sensibilities. One side of that argument is so far gone that they can no longer accept reasonable stances on the subject.

     

    Maybe you are right, but the author himself fully admits that this piece isn't balanced and is in no way meant to be.

    I would offer that sometimes a person ends up so far to one side of the argument that all they want to see is maybe someone telling them that they are right continuously and all desire for balance vanishes.

    Look, I am asking for equal balance in representation of an ongoing debate in the pages of a gaming news site. I do wonder how, as a gamer and a paying customer, that can bother you to the point that you feel the need to make this kind of passive aggressive post.

    My one sensibility being 'offended' here is the apparent one sided repeated shilling of an industry revenue model by a site that gives the impression (and would claim vocally no doubt) that it is impartial in it's stance towards it. The debate about the model itself is actually separate from this... I would want any issue that different folks felt strongly about because it impacted their games deeply to be looked at critically and in a balanced way by an apparently independent newscaster. Otherwise there can be no trust.

    If there is a question in my mind that the owners of a commercial news site cannot be critical or balanced, or free of outside influences, towards a specific issue then everything that they say becomes questionable and pretty worthless, opinion piece or not.

     

Sign In or Register to comment.