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 ^^;
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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... /snip
Explain how the sub has sustained games for years if it isn't capable of it? Because the way you people talk a game like EQ should have been dead in the first 2-6 months.
No one has argued obvious things like 'more and more games are going F2P'... What *has* been argued is this flawed assertion that the sub model cannot support a game, when the weight of evidence shows clearly that it can.
Originally posted by Kleptobrainiac There are literally millions of people who are willing to pay sub fees for a quality game. This has been proven. The only thing that a free to play model does is keep sub par games afloat. Give me 3 or 4 quality P2P games a year & I'll be far happier than trudging through a never ending buffet of unsatisfying MMOs.
There's even more people who can't.
Let them eat cake.
Ironic statement considering what happened to the person that said it.
-Atziluth-
- Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
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... /snip
Explain how the sub has sustained games for years if it isn't capable of it? Because the way you people talk a game like EQ should have been dead in the first 2-6 months.
No one has argued obvious things like 'more and more games are going F2P'... What *has* been argued is this flawed assertion that the sub model cannot support a game, when the weight of evidence shows clearly that it can.
Comparing an MMO that came out in 1999 when competition was almost nonexistent and a highly competitive mature genre 13 years later is flawed. EQ with a sub if released today would have a lifespan of maybe 18 months before transitioning... probably much shorter than that.
What many in this thread are completely glazing over is the business model. MMOs are a product developed to make a profit. This means the best revenue model to reach maximum profits without seriously impacting consumer opinions wins. The B2P and F2P model wins that race by a mile.
-Atziluth-
- Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
"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."
This is an accurate portrayal of where we are now. It is well known that Sub MMO's can survive on reduced subscriptions. EQ, Vanguard, SWG and so on did for years. Vesavius here talks about the sweet spot for charging and how because players don't stick around long you have get as much out of them as you can. Well now they are starting up their cash shops in beta, the MMO has not even launched and they want you in the sweet spot.
The MMO is not officially ready to play, but it is ready to pay. That is not to say you cannot have fairer hybrid payment models, but the desire to squeeze every last penny out of a MMO means we will see less and less of such models. P2W, not fair playing field is already the norm.
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
Can't disagree more, any game with decent content can easily support a subscription model. There are plenty of people out there that will pay for a sub if the content is there. Heck many of these people drop more money on some of these f2p games than they would if the game was a subscription.
"AAA" games will have a subscription option for a long time in the future and there is a huge difference between games that have a subscription option and those that don't!
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... /snip
Explain how the sub has sustained games for years if it isn't capable of it? Because the way you people talk a game like EQ should have been dead in the first 2-6 months.
No one has argued obvious things like 'more and more games are going F2P'... What *has* been argued is this flawed assertion that the sub model cannot support a game, when the weight of evidence shows clearly that it can.
If EQ released today yes it would be going F2P within first year. What you are ignoring here is that there has been big change in gaming culture and the gamers itself. No one is denying that P2P wasn't viable in days of EQ but is it viable today? nope.
I believe that now even more after i came to know that even Arch Age is going F2P. So doesn't matter how good the game is, in today's time you just can not survive on pure P2P model. Either go hybrid or go F2P / B2P.
Your game has to be really exceptional to survive on P2P model alone. So like i said if couple or new MMOS release and stay P2P all the way till they shut their servers down you would have proved your point. But even you know the chances of that happening in case of AAA MMO are next to zero.
"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
Can't disagree more, any game with decent content can easily support a subscription model. There are plenty of people out there that will pay for a sub if the content is there. Heck many of these people drop more money on some of these f2p games than they would if the game was a subscription.
"AAA" games will have a subscription option for a long time in the future and there is a huge difference between games that have a subscription option and those that don't!
Yeah heard that a million times already. Not that MMOS with decent content haven't released, but players still didn't support it. Latest example is Arch Age going F2P even before it hit the western market.
A small budget India MMO might still have a chance to survive on P2P model but a AAA MMO? nope sorry not happening.
I don't know where are these people you keep talking about who would support a MMO with decent content because they surely didn't support Arch Age..and if that MMO is not considered decent then i have no hope for future MMOS.
"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
The game design's compatibility with the model + the game's active popularity determines whether it will be self sustaining... not the model itself.
I definitely agree with this statement when it comes to P2P games, but cash shop based games are an entirely different story. If you have ever stayed around long enough in one to see the different items being introduced it becomes quite evident that the model itself is self destructive. The perfect example is Allods.
This game was generating huge buzz until they started to release their items in the cash shop. I have never seen a game drop so fast off the front page of this website. It wasn't because of changes in the game design, but because of the introduction of items into the cash shop.
I have personally witnessed the deterioration of two cash shop based games from early development to their current point in time. Rappelz was a decent game until they made changes to push more cash shop items and the NA publisher is on the brink of closing it down. Maplestory (NA) is also on it's way out the door.
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.
Yeah, that happens. It's called confirmation bias. People that constantly attack opposing models and support their own model blindly and without expressing arguments are guilty of this all the time. It's why people tend to watch FOX or MSNBC over CNN (CNN is probably a bad example).
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.
I didn't think I was being aggressive. And you aren't asking for balance, you are asking for your viewpoint to be expressed in an opinion piece. You think that your viewpoint is a counterbalance to his opinion. But really, it's just another opinion. He isn't attacking P2P. He is only expressing that he has opened his mind up to F2P the older he gets and there are logical reasons to back up his change of mood about it.
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.
And now it's a conspiracy theory and all of them are shills. It gets closer and closer to tinfoil hat status. This isn't an article about the pros and cons of P2P vs F2P. This isn't a news piece. This is the author expressing his path towards his acceptance of F2P. It's a perfectly normal piece of work that is mild in tone and respectful of both payment models.
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.
He is a single writer on a site with many writers that all have different opinions. If you begin to feel like he doesn't mesh well with your tastes, stop reading his stuff. I don't like a lot of writers in the New York Times (pick your favorite news outlet) and so I avoid them. I don't just blame the whole paper and call them a bunch of shills. You accuse me of being aggressive, but I can help but feel like you are projecting.
TBH Cold, way too many cliché cheap tactics and obvious attempts to twist and misrepresent what's being said on your part to make your reply worth answering in detail, so I am not going to. It's better if we just pretend the whole mess didn't happen for the sake of clarity.
The bottom line is that I do not mind seeing any opinion represented by a stated independent newscaster website as long as it is balanced or at least partially critical. If I just see continuous positive puff pieces on any subject coming from a number of different writers I have to wonder what is happening and why the other side isn't being shown or why relevant questions are not being asked. Nothing ends up in that news box by accident after all.
I would have thought that any intelligent consumer would agree with the need for critical balance when looking at what they are being sold, but I guess that may be a case over over estimation on my part.
For me a game is not a game unless you can play on a level playing field. The only exception being time ... and player skill. So the fabled F2P is as the OP said a myth and everyone knows it.
Now if the so called F2P games , had filter options so you could purely play against players who had never spent a dime on P2W options then i'd be happy to play.
I don't care if people are better than me because they have invested more time in a game or are just better skill wise or more intelligent tactics wise. But I do care if the wallet wins, as it makes these games a pointless exercise ..
________________________________________________________ Sorcery must persist, the future is the Citadel
Comments
To be perfectly accurate, he has the right to demand, and you have the right to ignore said demand ^^;
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)?
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.
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.
=============================
I have a soap box and I am not afraid to use it.
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?
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
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.
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.
Explain how the sub has sustained games for years if it isn't capable of it? Because the way you people talk a game like EQ should have been dead in the first 2-6 months.
No one has argued obvious things like 'more and more games are going F2P'... What *has* been argued is this flawed assertion that the sub model cannot support a game, when the weight of evidence shows clearly that it can.
Ironic statement considering what happened to the person that said it.
-Atziluth-
- Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
Comparing an MMO that came out in 1999 when competition was almost nonexistent and a highly competitive mature genre 13 years later is flawed. EQ with a sub if released today would have a lifespan of maybe 18 months before transitioning... probably much shorter than that.
What many in this thread are completely glazing over is the business model. MMOs are a product developed to make a profit. This means the best revenue model to reach maximum profits without seriously impacting consumer opinions wins. The B2P and F2P model wins that race by a mile.
-Atziluth-
- Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
"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."
This is an accurate portrayal of where we are now. It is well known that Sub MMO's can survive on reduced subscriptions. EQ, Vanguard, SWG and so on did for years. Vesavius here talks about the sweet spot for charging and how because players don't stick around long you have get as much out of them as you can. Well now they are starting up their cash shops in beta, the MMO has not even launched and they want you in the sweet spot.
The MMO is not officially ready to play, but it is ready to pay. That is not to say you cannot have fairer hybrid payment models, but the desire to squeeze every last penny out of a MMO means we will see less and less of such models. P2W, not fair playing field is already the norm.Can't disagree more, any game with decent content can easily support a subscription model. There are plenty of people out there that will pay for a sub if the content is there. Heck many of these people drop more money on some of these f2p games than they would if the game was a subscription.
"AAA" games will have a subscription option for a long time in the future and there is a huge difference between games that have a subscription option and those that don't!
If EQ released today yes it would be going F2P within first year. What you are ignoring here is that there has been big change in gaming culture and the gamers itself. No one is denying that P2P wasn't viable in days of EQ but is it viable today? nope.
I believe that now even more after i came to know that even Arch Age is going F2P. So doesn't matter how good the game is, in today's time you just can not survive on pure P2P model. Either go hybrid or go F2P / B2P.
Your game has to be really exceptional to survive on P2P model alone. So like i said if couple or new MMOS release and stay P2P all the way till they shut their servers down you would have proved your point. But even you know the chances of that happening in case of AAA MMO are next to zero.
"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
Yeah heard that a million times already. Not that MMOS with decent content haven't released, but players still didn't support it. Latest example is Arch Age going F2P even before it hit the western market.
A small budget India MMO might still have a chance to survive on P2P model but a AAA MMO? nope sorry not happening.
I don't know where are these people you keep talking about who would support a MMO with decent content because they surely didn't support Arch Age..and if that MMO is not considered decent then i have no hope for future MMOS.
"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
I definitely agree with this statement when it comes to P2P games, but cash shop based games are an entirely different story. If you have ever stayed around long enough in one to see the different items being introduced it becomes quite evident that the model itself is self destructive. The perfect example is Allods.
This game was generating huge buzz until they started to release their items in the cash shop. I have never seen a game drop so fast off the front page of this website. It wasn't because of changes in the game design, but because of the introduction of items into the cash shop.
I have personally witnessed the deterioration of two cash shop based games from early development to their current point in time. Rappelz was a decent game until they made changes to push more cash shop items and the NA publisher is on the brink of closing it down. Maplestory (NA) is also on it's way out the door.
He is a single writer on a site with many writers that all have different opinions. If you begin to feel like he doesn't mesh well with your tastes, stop reading his stuff. I don't like a lot of writers in the New York Times (pick your favorite news outlet) and so I avoid them. I don't just blame the whole paper and call them a bunch of shills. You accuse me of being aggressive, but I can help but feel like you are projecting.
TBH Cold, way too many cliché cheap tactics and obvious attempts to twist and misrepresent what's being said on your part to make your reply worth answering in detail, so I am not going to. It's better if we just pretend the whole mess didn't happen for the sake of clarity.
The bottom line is that I do not mind seeing any opinion represented by a stated independent newscaster website as long as it is balanced or at least partially critical. If I just see continuous positive puff pieces on any subject coming from a number of different writers I have to wonder what is happening and why the other side isn't being shown or why relevant questions are not being asked. Nothing ends up in that news box by accident after all.
I would have thought that any intelligent consumer would agree with the need for critical balance when looking at what they are being sold, but I guess that may be a case over over estimation on my part.
For me a game is not a game unless you can play on a level playing field. The only exception being time ... and player skill. So the fabled F2P is as the OP said a myth and everyone knows it.
Now if the so called F2P games , had filter options so you could purely play against players who had never spent a dime on P2W options then i'd be happy to play.
I don't care if people are better than me because they have invested more time in a game or are just better skill wise or more intelligent tactics wise. But I do care if the wallet wins, as it makes these games a pointless exercise ..
________________________________________________________
Sorcery must persist, the future is the Citadel