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!

Free to Play, why?

1246

Comments

  • JC-SmithJC-Smith Chiang MaiPosts: 412Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by firefly2003
    In regards to problem players... wouldn't it be easier to just for registration and to actually play the game require a Credit Card on your account file as a mandatory requirement, if a player is banned that CC on file is banned and another CC number is required to make another account? People only have a finite number of cards once their banned they can't come back. It would be a good deterrence to such players and nothing would be charged to the card unless you buy something of course but a ID requirement would be a nice thing to have in all future MMOs and a CC is the best solution, I think their would be a small minority of players out there would be against this mostly, paranoid people, kids, and hackers-cheaters.

    I don't think it's a terrible idea, it's similar to what a lot of companies have done with their free trials.

    The main problem for us though is that it creates a barrier of entry. We don't want players to feel that they have to pay to play. We value free players. Maybe they convert to paying customers later, but either way we like having them in the game. The percentage of problem players is pretty small, so you cut out of a lot of potentially good players to get rid of a much smaller number of problem players. We want EVERYONE to try our game. If they like it keep playing, if they don't move on. But that's hard to do when you force them to enter in credit card details before playing the game. People are wary they are going to get auto-charged after at time period, which some free trials did automatically at the end of trial periods unless you manually cancel. They may be kids who don't want to go through the effort of trying to talk their parents into giving them some money for it if they haven't tried it yet. They might be suspicious of giving out credit card information to a company they aren't familiar with. Maybe they are on a shared computer and don't want to get out a card. Or maybe they are just too lazy to walk to the table and pull out their credit card just to try a game. 

    Bannings have an effect, even on free players. Sure they can make a new account. But they lose all the time they put in to their character. I think people tend to underestimate how much that affects players actions. The cost of a box or a subscription is probably far less affecting to many players than the loss of days, weeks, or months of time. I don't think it's much of an issue when players have already put time into their characters. If they were going to behave like jerks, they would have done that in a subscription game, as well. You just ban them like you would in one.

    The problem players that does not help with are the gold spammers. But there are good solutions for that out there already. Automatic flaggings/bannings, ignore features, report features, auto-ignore, and then more complex and sweeping things like having an option to filter out global chat from non-members in a membership game. 

     

  • crasset15crasset15 TallinnPosts: 183Member

    You could approach F2P in some other way besides having a cash shop, for example have a free portion of the game in the same way as runescape, and then a subscriber's area. Heck you could even make expansion packs and sell those.

    Cash shop in any shape or form is harmful for a game's reputation, especially after games like neverwinter. Many people simply don't trust cash shop games anymore and (myself included) have a hard time making a commitment to such games.

    Call me oldschool but I find the act of exchanging real money for virtual items distasteful and in my opinion it lessens the reliability/credibility (was this the word I was looking for) of any game that does it.

  • crasset15crasset15 TallinnPosts: 183Member
    double post
  • MkilbrideMkilbride Hooksett, NHPosts: 637Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by crasset15

    You could approach F2P in some other way besides having a cash shop, for example have a free portion of the game in the same way as runescape, and then a subscriber's area. Heck you could even make expansion packs and sell those.

    Cash shop in any shape or form is harmful for a game's reputation, especially after games like neverwinter. Many people simply don't trust cash shop games anymore and (myself included) have a hard time making a commitment to such games.

    Call me oldschool but I find the act of exchanging real money for virtual items distasteful and in my opinion it lessens the reliability/credibility (was this the word I was looking for) of any game that does it.

    Except this is a Sandbox. That kind of system RuneScape uses is tough to do in a game that relies on players making the content.

    Help get Camelot Unchained made, a old-school MMORPG, with no hand holding!

    http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/13861848/camelot-unchained

  • PhryPhry HampshirePosts: 6,296Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by bestever
    Originally posted by GwapoJosh
    F2p is the only thing I hate about The Ropop..  It is a game that will need a great community and f2p brings so much trash.

    You're right F2P can bring trash but it also lets people check out the game. I wish they would just let people check out mmo's these days for a month then let them sub. Would be such a smart move and show that they have faith in the game.

    while i do agree with your wish that P2P MMO's would be great if they allowed people to play for a month before opting to buy into them, the one thing i have noticed, about F2P games, and the P2P games that went F2P, is that while there is an increase in the number of players, there is also an increase/appearance of trashy players too, whose sole mission seems to be to spoil the game in question for as many as possible before they get admin kicked.. which is probably why PWE have the automated system that censures bad players once a certain level of player complaint is reached, after seeing some of the behaviour in these games i can't say i blame them. This in a way will be a hurdle that the Repop will have to overcome, and not something i particularly envy them for, because if they adopt a similar system to PWE, then there are bound to be repercussions, particularly from the affected players, regardless of how deserved the action is, as was seen in Neverwinter. And its not like they can safely ignore bad player behaviour either. F2P does after all have more than a few weaknesses, this is just one of them.image

  • AdalwulffAdalwulff Sacramento, CAPosts: 1,152Member
    Originally posted by Dihoru
    Originally posted by CyclopsSlayer
    F2P is the death of Community. Players seem to feel much more dedicated to a P2P world, when it comes to things like Guilds and group activities. In every F2P game I have played so far guilds and such groups seem to fail time and time again as people feel little need to log on and work together. RP seems to be in need of a strong group and coordinated activity, F@P does not support such.

    Aside from EVE and WoW name two communities of P2P games which are dedicated to their game more than the best F2P communities, until such a time keep your opinions under the format of opinions not facts.

     

    F2P is death to a community, Ive played dozens of them.

    DAOC is still got a great community, so does EQ. That's two communities, check mate!

    image
  • MkilbrideMkilbride Hooksett, NHPosts: 637Member Uncommon
     
     
    Originally posted by Adalwulff
    Originally posted by Dihoru
    Originally posted by CyclopsSlayer
    F2P is the death of Community. Players seem to feel much more dedicated to a P2P world, when it comes to things like Guilds and group activities. In every F2P game I have played so far guilds and such groups seem to fail time and time again as people feel little need to log on and work together. RP seems to be in need of a strong group and coordinated activity, F@P does not support such.

    Aside from EVE and WoW name two communities of P2P games which are dedicated to their game more than the best F2P communities, until such a time keep your opinions under the format of opinions not facts.

     

    F2P is death to a community, Ive played dozens of them.

    DAOC is still got a great community, so does EQ. That's two communities, check mate!

     

     

    Final Fantasy XI has the best community of any MMORPG. It's P2P, and has 300,000 subscribers. Not bad for a game that came out in 2002. Such helpful people I met in that game I will never forget.

     

    Help get Camelot Unchained made, a old-school MMORPG, with no hand holding!

    http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/13861848/camelot-unchained

  • safgrilsafgril McKinney, TXPosts: 7Member
    Originally posted by Dihoru
    Originally posted by CyclopsSlayer
    F2P is the death of Community. Players seem to feel much more dedicated to a P2P world, when it comes to things like Guilds and group activities. In every F2P game I have played so far guilds and such groups seem to fail time and time again as people feel little need to log on and work together. RP seems to be in need of a strong group and coordinated activity, F@P does not support such.

    Aside from EVE and WoW name two communities of P2P games which are dedicated to their game more than the best F2P communities, until such a time keep your opinions under the format of opinions not facts.

    see you are confusing what he means by community.. its not the gaming company.. its the player community.  And yeah he is right.  the player community is nowhere near as good as a pay to play community because they are dedicated by paying each month and are there to play.  Lots of free to play players dont respect anybody as it is free.... they arent putting any money into it.  So they technically dont care, as they can move to the next free 2 play game.  

     

    so no his "opinions"  are quite right.   Asheron's Call 1 and 2.. DAOC, SWG, all pay to play had the strongest communities of players.  Heck if a person enjoyed dancing or playing an instrument in SWG just for fun because they got to socialize tells you a bit how a community was built.  

  • JC-SmithJC-Smith Chiang MaiPosts: 412Member Uncommon

    Those examples you gave are all older titles in the forced grouping era of MMORPGs. During that era players generally behaved much better, because they needed one another. They were always grouping and if you got a bad reputation you weren't going to find groups. When grouping you were generally sociable and it made for much better communities in general.

    The anti-social players started when games became completely soloable. Post-WoW it just became easier and easier for players to do that, and in many cases grouping slowed you down. Suddenly players are rejecting group invites when they are solo because they don't want to have to get slowed down. If they want group content they use group finders with cross server grouping. They may never see these other guys again. So suddenly you have a lot more Greed looters, and anti-social types. There are less repercussions for doing so.

    That problem is both in the P2P and F2P games in this era.

  • willvaswillvas Joliet, ILPosts: 137Member
    Originally posted by JC-Smith

    Those examples you gave are all older titles in the forced grouping era of MMORPGs. During that era players generally behaved much better, because they needed one another. They were always grouping and if you got a bad reputation you weren't going to find groups. When grouping you were generally sociable and it made for much better communities in general.

    The anti-social players started when games became completely soloable. Post-WoW it just became easier and easier for players to do that, and in many cases grouping slowed you down. Suddenly players are rejecting group invites when they are solo because they don't want to have to get slowed down. If they want group content they use group finders with cross server grouping. They may never see these other guys again. So suddenly you have a lot more Greed looters, and anti-social types. There are less repercussions for doing so.

    That problem is both in the P2P and F2P games in this era.

    umm and there are not that many p2p games today so your point is?

    doesnt matter what era, games of the past were all p2p... games of today are mainly free2play.  your whole argument you just posted up is exactly why those games in teh past did well.  And why todays games dont do so well.  Why games as old as Asheron's Call are still running till this day.  Now companies are will to just shut them down.  Now gaming companies are taking on the model of buy my game in p2p now.. then we will turn to free 2 play after we sucked you dry... the games are designed to be anti social.  They dont have P2P anymore today.  look at the chain of free 2 play games coming out.  including this one, The Population.   back then a quality pay to play model was that the developers did have game masters that made their game involved.  today nope.  its just a dead world. So yeah games back then were more quality.  games may have started out as pay to play but they dont stay long.  the quality of gaming is basically have affected the games of today.  im sure yuo can name a couple of pay to play today but those games are most likely just aweful. 

  • nerovipus32nerovipus32 dublinPosts: 2,735Member
    They are an indie company and less people will try their game if it's a subscription model.
  • JC-SmithJC-Smith Chiang MaiPosts: 412Member Uncommon
    My point is that people are blaming the payment model for communities being worse today than they were 10-15 years ago. I agree with you that they are. But I think the primary blame for the community dropping off is the lack of need of other players.
  • FoomerangFoomerang Portland, ORPosts: 5,565Member Uncommon

    Hey jc, you guys ever kick around the idea of releasing this game on PlayStation network? This pc mmo crowd grows more finicky by the day ;)

  • MkilbrideMkilbride Hooksett, NHPosts: 637Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Foomerang

    Hey jc, you guys ever kick around the idea of releasing this game on PlayStation network? This pc mmo crowd grows more finicky by the day ;)

    Doubtful. PS4 is around the corner. Moving to Consoles is expensive even for successful Indie Devs and they've got nothing to show so far.

    Help get Camelot Unchained made, a old-school MMORPG, with no hand holding!

    http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/13861848/camelot-unchained

  • ReaperUkReaperUk Cambridgeshire, UKPosts: 657Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Foomerang

    Hey jc, you guys ever kick around the idea of releasing this game on PlayStation network? This pc mmo crowd grows more finicky by the day ;)

    I think you were saying that tongue in cheek but I did play Defiance for several months earlier this year. That had PS3, XBox360 and PC versions, which because of the console companies policies had to have separate servers for each platform. That must have had a severe impact on running costs for a start. Then of course, the game had to have numerous compromises to run on all three platforms. That resulted in a poor GUI, a poor text and voice chat system etc. etc. That's my only experience of an mmo running on multiple platforms but it had lots of problems caused by that.

    Regarding P2P versus F2P, I think all this nostalgia for the "Golden days" of P2P mmo's is a case of "rose tinted glasses" distorting people views.

    Back in 2004, I was the mayor of a metropolis in SWG. I kept adding accounts until I had five in total. I had all the important characters the city needed under my control: Mayor, Architect, Guild Leader, Master Doc, even a Master Entertainer in the cantina running a looping macro almost 24 hrs per day  via my backup PC. At the time, it seemed normal, when I look back now, I must have been crazy to take a game that seriously. The interesting thing is a number of people have claimed in this thread that P2P makes for better communities. Well, most people I came across in SWG were fine but there were some notorious exceptions. One person was famous on the Farstar server for parking his Bantha on the ticket inspector at Coronet starport so nobody could see him. Another pair went out of there way to ruin any community events being organised. These people basically played the game to grief and were happy to pay $15 per month to do so.

    A while after leaving SWG, I tried WoW, a P2P game. Well that is still the worst community I have ever come across. The public chat channel was full of morons, the were griefers around every corner it seemed. I only lasted around six weeks in that game before I'd had enough. LotRO became my main game for many years after and was a total contrast to WoW.  I have a lifetime sub for that, which made it B2P in effect. LotRO has always been known for its great community and when it went F2P (or freemium more accurately) there was a big surge in player numbers but the quality of the players didn't go down as far as I could see.

    I've played lots of other games in recent years. Most had a sub to start with but I, along with nearly everyone else, played for a month or two until max level and then quit. I think every single one of them has gone F2P or B2P since. It should be clear to everyone by now that the P2P model is history but this site seems to have many deniers burying their heads like ostriches, while trying to avoid the obvious.

    The only viable long term options for games companies going forward are B2P or F2P. If big budget titles like Rift, SWTOR and TSW can't make a monthly sub stick, a small indie publisher won't be able to either.

     

     

  • shinkanshinkan BestinPosts: 229Member

    free to play is my biggest concern as well for this game.

    If they deliver a solid product they can spin of that, more or less like what was done with Eve Online. Thing that would be much better for building a strong community and then work on growing.

  • DihoruDihoru ConstantaPosts: 2,731Member
    Would the people who have it stuck up in their mind that F2P = bad kindly get it unstuck and out of their minds? The Repopulation would sink like a stone if it were P2P because the market's just not even remotely as friendly as it used to be back when EVE started out... to say nothing of the fact that if it were P2P its direct competition for the regular sandbox gamer (that is who doesn't care about aesthetics but does about the freedom in the game) would likely be a F2P game by the name of Archeage. B2P would also be very risky as well, far better for them to just go F2P with a non-intrusive cash shop (aesthetics stuff) and just for them to push some cash into their marketing department and encourage people to try their game and if they like it to tell a friend.

    image
  • cirsyndiccirsyndic BeogradPosts: 261Member

    Hopefully the wowkiddies won't ruin the game with their demands for raids and global banks and global auction houses and being perfectly safe everywhere so nobody's e-feelings can get hurt.

     

    Played WoW already, not interested in playing another even if its free.

  • dreadlordnafdreadlordnaf Washington, DCPosts: 65Member

    It is 2013 people, I'm surprised the F2p model still has its doubters.  F2p doesnt mean it is pay2win as the dev responding has already pointed out.

    Many people will not pay a dollar to pay a game, so if it's subscription-only the company gets zero dollars from them which hurts the overall game.  But if you offer optional services like bigger bank slots, cosmetics etc, then certain whale gamers will gladly spend 100 bucks+ on this type of stuff.    Those things make your gaming experience more convenient and unique, but they dont affect things like PVE or PVP.    In essence you have a smaller number of gamers subsidizing those who dont want to pay anything.  But if this choice of deciding to pay is optional and self selecting then why not?  The people who pay get custom features and those are f2p get a free game.  In the end both parties win since without the payers the game would shut down, but without the f2pers there would be a smaller and less vibrant server population, something that is critical in games with player driven economics and in-depth crafting. 

     

     

     

  • BetaguyBetaguy Halifax, NSPosts: 2,590Member
    Originally posted by dreadlordnaf

    It is 2013 people, I'm surprised the F2p model still has its doubters.  F2p doesnt mean it is pay2win as the dev responding has already pointed out.

    Many people will not pay a dollar to pay a game, so if it's subscription-only the company gets zero dollars from them which hurts the overall game.  But if you offer optional services like bigger bank slots, cosmetics etc, then certain whale gamers will gladly spend 100 bucks+ on this type of stuff.    Those things make your gaming experience more convenient and unique, but they dont affect things like PVE or PVP.    In essence you have a smaller number of gamers subsidizing those who dont want to pay anything.  But if this choice of deciding to pay is optional and self selecting then why not?  The people who pay get custom features and those are f2p get a free game.  In the end both parties win since without the payers the game would shut down, but without the f2pers there would be a smaller and less vibrant server population, something that is critical in games with player driven economics and in-depth crafting. 

     

     

     

    I have yet to play a free to play MMO that is better than a pay to play mmo. I been playing 15+ years and played every single one to date on both sides of the fence... just saying...

    image

  • RusqueRusque Las Vegas, NVPosts: 2,229Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by cirsyndic

    Hopefully the wowkiddies won't ruin the game with their demands for raids and global banks and global auction houses and being perfectly safe everywhere so nobody's e-feelings can get hurt.

     

    Played WoW already, not interested in playing another even if its free.

    Don't us "wowkiddies" aren't interested in your game. Enjoy.

  • coretex666coretex666 PraguePosts: 1,928Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by dreadlordnaf

    It is 2013 people, I'm surprised the F2p model still has its doubters.  F2p doesnt mean it is pay2win as the dev responding has already pointed out.

    Many people will not pay a dollar to pay a game, so if it's subscription-only the company gets zero dollars from them which hurts the overall game.  But if you offer optional services like bigger bank slots, cosmetics etc, then certain whale gamers will gladly spend 100 bucks+ on this type of stuff.    Those things make your gaming experience more convenient and unique, but they dont affect things like PVE or PVP.    In essence you have a smaller number of gamers subsidizing those who dont want to pay anything.  But if this choice of deciding to pay is optional and self selecting then why not?  The people who pay get custom features and those are f2p get a free game.  In the end both parties win since without the payers the game would shut down, but without the f2pers there would be a smaller and less vibrant server population, something that is critical in games with player driven economics and in-depth crafting. 

     

     

     

    They do affect the gameplay. Or at least for me, they completely ruin immersion.

    Why would I want to buy bigger bag with RL money? I want to craft it or fight for it inside game world and rather pay subscription which is just charged from my account in the most subtle way imaginable.

    F2P and its omnipresent cashshop ruin my gameplay. I want Repopulation P2P rather than F2P.

    It is my subjective opinion. I realize that some people do not mind being confronted with cash shops and real money transactions in their MMOs if they are in return allowed to play game for free. I realize it, but I dont understand it.

    Waiting for L2 EU Classic

  • GrahorGrahor aaaPosts: 828Member

    The vast majority of players aren't really interested in community, immersion or devotion to any one game. Players like me, who just want to have fun, without pressure, without commitment. You know, "players" - people playing games, not living in them.

     

    I'm not going to play another P2P, ever. So if any company wants my money, it's B2P or F2P.

     

    Apparently, a lot of them do want my money.

  • ReaperUkReaperUk Cambridgeshire, UKPosts: 657Member Uncommon
    Fotunately, there are millions of us quite happy with F2P or B2P, which is why nearly every new mmo is going for one of those payment models. It's tough luck for those dinosaurs who don't like them and can't face up to the new reality, as they are going to be faced with fewer and fewer alternative options as time goes by.
  • NildenNilden null, NBPosts: 1,284Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by NamelessC
    F2p or P2p, a good game will be a good game, a bad game will be a bad game. Stop this F2p vs P2p things, i am sick of hearing it.

    The thing is it's not just good or bad you have generic moderate middle of the road stuff that isn't junk but also isn't top shelf that all goes free2play. Even F2P can be Marvel Heroes, cash grab, blatant milking with a founders price tag of $260 USD, limited bag space, bank space, gold limits, store ads on every loading screen. I'm sorry but not having an in-game real money store makes for a much better experience IMHO. Let's not delude ourselves and call EVE or WOW subscription models only because they sell mounts for $20 and the monocle for $70 thing.

    Look here's the skinny: Almost every MMORPG has a cash shop there's no escaping it now.

    I can only fondly remember the days when MMO's didn't have cash shops.

    How to post links.

    "classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
    Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer

Sign In or Register to comment.