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] Marvel Heroes: F2P Isn't a Charity

24567

Comments

  • YamotaYamota LondonPosts: 6,620Member
    Originally posted by Grakulen
    Lets just call them Microtransaction based or u2P.

    Also Visavius. I wrote an article talking about how I disliked Neverwinter's gamble to win economics. It was on the site two weeks ago titled the Duplication Debacle.

     

    Yes this is a good idea. The F2P therm needs to die and something more descriptive should be used and Microtransaction based is far more descriptive that free to play.

  • VesaviusVesavius BristolPosts: 7,645Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Grakulen
    Lets just call them Microtransaction based or u2P.

    Also Visavius. I wrote an article talking about how I disliked Neverwinter's gamble to win economics. It was on the site two weeks ago titled the Duplication Debacle.

     

     

    Can you link me to this please? Forum search is throwing nothing up.

  • AstropuyoAstropuyo Stock, CAPosts: 1,797Member
    Originally posted by Grakulen
    Lets just call them Microtransaction based or u2P.

    Also Visavius. I wrote an article talking about how I disliked Neverwinter's gamble to win economics. It was on the site two weeks ago titled the Duplication Debacle.

     

    MT2P, exactly.

    It fits and it's a totally fair representation of the game. That's the problem with mmorpg's (Sites and games) the mislabeled marketing attempts by Asian companies like the defunct Gravity and the Good ole Nexon have really gotten you western marketers by the short hair.

    I mean it's taken five suggestions after 7 years for us to get down to the knitty gridy?

    And that's the "F2p" term no longer works and is misrepresenting the business model.

    That's just not cool for business and consumers alike. You are literally lying to their faces when you say "Free" in a game.

  • DamonVileDamonVile Vancouver, BCPosts: 4,818Member
    Originally posted by Yamota
    Originally posted by DamonVile
    Originally posted by kevjards
    would have thought the point was that these games like marvel are not free therefore its a case of false advertising.free means it costs nothing..in all so called f2p it ends up costing you something therefore it aint free.

    that argument is no more valid than water isn't free because you can buy it in bottles.

    Choosing to spend money on a game doesn't mean it wasn't free to play it.

    Strawman argument. It is more like advertising bottled water as free but then charging for drinking more than a mouthful.

    And your second statement makes no sense. If you spend money on something then it is by definition not free and you always choose to, or not, spend money on a game regardless of it is F2P or not. F2P is basically like free preview of the game but you have to pay up to get the full game.

    It's not a strawman argument. You're just using false information to try and prove a point. You never have to spend money in this game at any point. You can play all content and given enough time all heroes for free. So it's not false advertising to say the game is free to play. No they're got giving you the bottle and charging you if you take more than a mouth full.  That's also the point of this thread...people like you who seem to think that if they charge for anything in a f2p game they lie.

    If you can't wait and want things right away you can buy them. That choices doesn't make the free to play title a lie.

  • jazneojazneo cuba city, WIPosts: 16Member Uncommon

    then they won't get my money.   only the stupid will pay for $20  for one character. it p2w game 

  • WicoaWicoa LondonPosts: 1,602Member Uncommon

    The price of characters is too much in my opinion especially since you need to buy banking space and costumes? To be frank I was put off before launch, the price of the founders packs were rediculous, go ahead and tell me again that the store value was worth it. All I saw was that the packs cost 200$ and thats half the price of an xbox one.

     

    Too much, even for the marvel name.

  • kevjardskevjards carlislePosts: 1,463Member
    Originally posted by Grakulen
    Lets just call them Microtransaction based or u2P.

    Also Visavius. I wrote an article talking about how I disliked Neverwinter's gamble to win economics. It was on the site two weeks ago titled the Duplication Debacle.

     

    I prefer the term microtransaction game than f2p..it doesn't cause any confusion and people know exactly what they are getting(for their money)

  • KohleKohle NorCal, CAPosts: 7Member
    Originally posted by MikeB
    Originally posted by Purutzil

    The issue is more so what is offered as far as an advantage and the amount MORE you spend then say a traditional MMO.

    For some, this can certainly be true, but it's not with Marvel Heroes. Outside of maybe a couple of inventory tabs, there's nothing of value to buy in Marvel Heroes other than heroes and skins, and those also drop in the game. This is the studio's primary source of revenue, since they've made literally just about everything else free. In a non-F2P MMO, you would have spent $50-60 up front, and if you played for as little as three months, another 30$ in subscription fees (excluding the free first month). This puts you $80-90 in the hole already and the value only gets worse with each additional month you play. If you like the game, I'm not sure how anyone would prefer the former option to the latter, even given Gazillion's pricing structure. It's a clear cut savings.

    For that much money, or even just the standard $60 you'd normally pay for the game and free month, you could have easily picked up a bundle for Marvel Heroes giving you a stable of four additional heroes (you're given three entirely free), skins and bank tabs for each of those heroes, and literally anywhere from $30 to $55 in in-game currency to spend on whatever you want. The value with these packs was absolutely nuts. And if you didn't buy a pack? You can still pick up a decent amount of characters within that $60 budget right now. $60 would get you: three of the most expensive ($20), five of the second highest priced ($12), and it gets even better for the cheaper characters ($6-9). How is this outrageous? It's not. On top of that, consider Gazillion will be offering sales and, this bears repeating, you can also find all of this stuff in game without dropping a dime.

    All of the above is precisely why I used Marvel Heroes as an example of how ridiculous this trend of outrage has become. By all means, if a developer takes an Allods Online approach with you, give 'em hell for it. But it seems that there are some unreasonable expectations for Free-to-Play games from, perhaps a vocal minority, I don't know.  I just know that I see it quite a bit of this and it's not exclusive to Marvel Heroes by a long shot. In any case, it's a subject worth discussing, and I wanted to use my column this week to raise the issue.

     

    Are you honestly comparing the cost and worth of a full MMO to a game like this? The two are so completely different and if you can't see how much more a game like WoW or even TOR offers compared to MH, then I can't help ya.

  • romelloromello Calgary, ABPosts: 34Member

    more like free to fail / pay to have any fun at all

    u paid for stuff? good for u! now play with other payers! want to lure other ppl to pay too coz u did? too bad!

    hallo ~_~

  • TorvalTorval Oregon CountryPosts: 7,221Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Yamota
    Originally posted by Grakulen
    Lets just call them Microtransaction based or u2P.

    Also Visavius. I wrote an article talking about how I disliked Neverwinter's gamble to win economics. It was on the site two weeks ago titled the Duplication Debacle.

     

    Yes this is a good idea. The F2P therm needs to die and something more descriptive should be used and Microtransaction based is far more descriptive that free to play.

    I agree F2P confuses people, the sub-locked proponents most of all.  Anyone who isn't an MMO noob knows what F2P has meant historically... no subscription required to play as it is free to access the servers.  You know when most games were P2P, the term F2P never confused anyone.

    Personally I like to define games as "sub-locked" and "sub-free".  Sub-free games don't require a subscription to access the servers.  They may have box fees, cash shops, rmt, or whatever, but no sub required.  Sub-locked games like WoW, EVE, and other smaller niche games require a subscription to access the servers.

    I don't like using the term Micro-transaction based because both WoW and EVE have microtransactions or RMT of some sort and they're sub-locked.  Hell, most games now regardless of subscription have some sort of RMT/MT.  That's more misleading than F2P.  Gamers just like to play word lawyer so now the term F2P means something different so gamers can whine and complain about false advertising.

  • TorvalTorval Oregon CountryPosts: 7,221Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by kevjards
    Originally posted by Grakulen
    Lets just call them Microtransaction based or u2P.

    Also Visavius. I wrote an article talking about how I disliked Neverwinter's gamble to win economics. It was on the site two weeks ago titled the Duplication Debacle.

     

    I prefer the term microtransaction game than f2p..it doesn't cause any confusion and people know exactly what they are getting(for their money)

    Do you mean micro-transaction games like WoW and EVE or micro-transaction games like LotRO and EQ2?

  • DamonVileDamonVile Vancouver, BCPosts: 4,818Member
    Originally posted by Torvaldr

    I agree F2P confuses people, the sub-locked proponents most of all.  Anyone who isn't an MMO noob knows what F2P has meant historically... no subscription required to play as it is free to access the servers.  You know when most games were P2P, the term F2P never confused anyone.

    Personally I like to define games as "sub-locked" and "sub-free".  Sub-free games don't require a subscription to access the servers.  They may have box fees, cash shops, rmt, or whatever, but no sub required.  Sub-locked games like WoW, EVE, and other smaller niche games require a subscription to access the servers.

    I don't like using the term Micro-transaction based because both WoW and EVE have microtransactions or RMT of some sort and they're sub-locked.  Hell, most games now regardless of subscription have some sort of RMT/MT.  That's more misleading than F2P.  Gamers just like to play word lawyer so now the term F2P means something different so gamers can whine and complain about false advertising.

    No matter what you call it there is always ppl who take the exact literal meaning with no interpritation...or thought allowed. I'm sure the first argument you'll see is I just spent $50 on this game. I wouldn't call that a microtrasnaction!!!! Things should never cost more than xxx$ in a microtransaction game!

    People know what free to play means. we should just feel sorry for the people who make the argument if you can buy anything it's not free. Their life is going to be way harder than it should be already.

  • sketocafesketocafe StoupaPosts: 802Member Uncommon

    You're right, F2P isn't a charity. In the case of marvel heroes it's a monetization strategy designed to pull far more money out of players willing to pay than either a box purchase or subscription would at the going rates. $20 for one hero isn't a microtransaction. That's a month's subscription to EVE or WoW with five bucks left over for a delicious coffee at Starbucks. 

    You're upset with players complaining about Gazillion's methods. Why shouldn't we be upset? How is it acceptable that I can spend more than 15 dollars in a month and not have access to the whole game, when that's been the industry standard for a decade? How is it acceptable that I could buy three characters for the same price that I can get everything in Guild Wars 2? 

    Why do they deserve a pass for parceling their game up into chunks with a price tag far beyond what gamers expect to pay for a game, just because the first chunk you get is free? You say you get all of Marvel Heroes free? That isn't the truth. The addictive arpg progression in this game has been shifted from that hot gear drop to the next skill for my hero. Skill up seven of them and then you're done, unless of course you want to purchase another one. I can get all of Diablo 3 for 60 bones and never run into  a wall where I simply can't progress anymore without adding money. I can get all of Path of Exile for absolutely nothing and, again, never reach a point where I have to pay them to have more fun. 

    We're complaining because, compared to other options we have, this game wants to sell us less for more money. You wouldn't hear a peep if we could pay the standard box price and play to our heart's content like in Diablo. You would not hear one word if Grinding Gear Games made this and you were just buying extra storage which is nice but not required or cosmetic effects which look cool. Other games do exist, and Marvel Heroes suffers in comparison them to them. That isn't our fault.

  • HrimnirHrimnir Qeynos, COPosts: 1,597Member Uncommon

    What i find hilarious is that you truly seem to be surprised or bewildered by the fact that our entitlement society/generation feels like they deserve things for free.  Some of us have been saying for years that this is the driving factor behind F2P.  It has nothing to do with it being a "better" model.  Subscription is CLEARLY a better model to anyone with any level of logic.  But, F2P is popular because 1.Entitlement generations gets to feel like they're getting something for "free".  2. People are too stupid to realize they actually spend more money on F2P games than on sub games.

    They've done plenty of studies that have shown the average player spends $27/mo on f2p games.  Yet, those same people act like they're being essentially raped by the evil corporate bastards by even *suggesting* they pay $15/mo for a game.

    You see, us adults and people who aren't frankly insane children, realize that $15/mo is an excellent value and really have no qualms paying that.

    Anyways, /rantoff

    "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

    - Friedrich Nietzsche

  • kevjardskevjards carlislePosts: 1,463Member
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by kevjards
    Originally posted by Grakulen
    Lets just call them Microtransaction based or u2P.

    Also Visavius. I wrote an article talking about how I disliked Neverwinter's gamble to win economics. It was on the site two weeks ago titled the Duplication Debacle.

     

    I prefer the term microtransaction game than f2p..it doesn't cause any confusion and people know exactly what they are getting(for their money)

    Do you mean micro-transaction games like WoW and EVE or micro-transaction games like LotRO and EQ2?

    any games that have a sub could be called sub based game with microtransactions.those that use the term f2p just knwn has microtransaction game..simple.

  • SiphaedSiphaed Everywhere!Posts: 878Member Uncommon

    Dude, this article hit the bloody nail on the head.  Rightfully so.

    Now, I don't play Marvel Heroes (nor do I care too since I don't like the Diablo-style gameplay), but this article really brings it home to how a certain group of GW2 players are to each FREE content patch that also adds in new stuff to the gem store.  Items like the weapon skins (skins only, no stats even!), the mini pets, the town cloths, and the unlimited gather tools (of which are cosmetic and the price of each won't be earned back by gathering within at the very least 8 months of play).  Those certain player groups expect...nay, DEMAND those things that are in the gem store to be free on top of the game's added content that's also free.  They neglect to understand that those gem store items pay for the free content that we get on what has now been a biweekly clock.


  • GruugGruug Chillicothe, ILPosts: 1,311Member Uncommon
    The problem I have with "free to play" is that it is dishonest and therefore deceptive. While it is true you can play a portion of these game "for free", if you wish to really get into MOST of them you are almost required to spend some form of cash. I do not have a problem with paying cash mind you....just that I don't think the term FREE should be used if I am PAYING real money. Therefore, I call the use of free to play a totally dishonest and deceptive practice. Until game companies stop using that term, I will continue to resist playing their games.

    Let's party like it is 1863!

  • thecapitainethecapitaine West Chester, PAPosts: 401Member Uncommon

    Here we go with the F2P entitlement argument again.  It's true, there are some people who want everything to be free.  It's true, they post on forums.  It's true they're in the wrong.  But by lumping everyone who balks at the prices of some of these games into one pile, it's very easy to dismiss what is otherwise a reasonable case.  When it comes to people spending their own money, they have the right to say if they think something is overpriced, whether you or I agree with them or not.  It doesn't make them entitled and it's ridiculous to assume that there's some universal gauge of what price is fair for an object.

     

    I find it embarassingly unsurprising that Gazillion gets a pass on this site for having a cash shop that some people find overpriced while Neverwinter (ie Cryptic and PWE) gets hammered for it.  Especially when NW has the advantage of allowing players to earn in-game currency to pay for items, which MH does not.  Or when no mention is made of how incredibly rare the hero drops seem to be, fueling people's frustration.  Or that this method is in fact an improvement over what Gazillion had planned before, which was to force people to buy tokens with a random chance of dropping the hero that they wanted.  Or that in some cases the costumes themselves cost more than heroes.

     

    The truth that gets consistently ignored is that this whole debate stems from the devs/publishers and the way they've marketed their games.  From LOTRO to NW, they've trumpeted the ability of players to enjoy their game to the fullest without playing a dime while at the same time striving for bigger payoffs through more and more expensive cash shops.  If they were honest with people from the start and made it clear that the "free experience" they were crafting was really meant to be a demo and that anything more than base functionality would only come via a sub or cash shop, then people wouldn't have unreal expectations.

     
  • the_goldy_gothe_goldy_go Minneapolis, MNPosts: 3Member

    People choose games for two reasons entertainment and cost, I have no doubt there will be many people playing Marvel Heroes for the latter reason but is that the right reason?  

    I am a 42 year father of two near teenage boys and a brat, I mean girl.    Our household income starts with a very crooked number and has six figures on the proper side of the decimal point.    I have a very high speed network in the house and the four gaming machines, I'll just say have 4GB video cards in them.

    I have a VHS copy of the Live Action Amazing Spiderman TV series from the late 70's.  Does that prove my fanboi status?

    Between the subscriptions of my children and my own I spend in excess of $1000 a year on online video games (mainly MMOs) and if I don't spend $3000 on hardware a year something is wrong.  I recently dropped $400 on an expansion without batting an eye.

    In every way shape or form I am the "BEST" target audience for a game like Marvel Heroes.   There is little question I am fanboi and have the disposable income where dropping $100 isn't a big deal and play several other video games.   However I discovered the game isn't targeted at me nor is the in game store it's targeted at more casual player who is willing to drop $5 or $10 once in while.

    Yesterday I was willing to drop $100 or so on three accounts so that we could all play the characters we liked.   Ah what you mean I have to start as a F2P players and after I complete the first story arc I can buy new characters.   Okay I guess I will hold off on spend my money.     Fast forward an hour... Wow a poorly skinned copy of another game with little customization and a yucky UI well I guess that made up my mind, no money for you.

    And that in a nutshell is the problem with F2P/micro-transaction games.   In this case Gazillion clearly did not invest the money to build a quality game, just a cheap knock-off, people like me with the disposable income aren't going to drop the money, thus Gazillion has to make up that money by nickel and dime everyone else.     The game will languish and if anyone has a set of kahunas the game will follow Lego Universe into the big zone of emptiness.    

     

  • crimsonkiriecrimsonkirie Dundee, ILPosts: 8Member

    I find it truly interesting that western free to play games and games with cash shops aim at the casual gamer for cash and that eastern games tend to do the opposite. I've probably played thirty or so MMOs since the launch of Everquest and am by no means an expert on the subject but I do think I have enough retrospect to see over the course of my games that this is the case.

    Honestly, though, I think cash shops are a good thing for developers and by no means do I mean simply cosmetic changes for your characters. At least in games where some of the best if not the best gear is not soulbound. Or the game is exceedingly grindy (which, screw you, I truly enjoy). I can look back at the iris server before revamp and how much I spent on the game, before the cash shop, and know that it was a good thing. I could probably iterate in several pages but I'll hold off for now. I think cash ship items should all be BoE or simply not soul bound and tradable. And only available in the cash shop with few exceptions. Eve online and many other games do this just not with items. But if game time and game changing items like bags, bank tabs, and such are tradable between characters? Free to players with enough time and effort will be able to get them for in game currency. Average gamers will buy what they need for the time and continue forward. Rich players will buy a ton of these items and sell them for currency.

    I don't really see a problem at all. I invested and I know the majority of players that were hardcore into RO at the time, probably at least $600 on top of the subscription fee to buy zeny and items over the course of playing if not more, and much of that was to either people overseas farming or buying stuff from ebay and the like. Though in that particular case the people running the game had very little input into how the game was changed I can see for games like guildwars 2 or even Eve how this would help development of further content, systems, and fun. Although I imagine if WoW put half of the profits from the game back into the game I'm sure we'd have a much bigger product. So perhaps even that point is moot.

    In the end developers are getting money where they rightfully should rather than someone else 'illegally' getting it from some eastern country. No game is safe from people buying something to get what they want faster. In wow you could twink the hell out of your characters (pre-account bound faster leveling options) to level faster. Doing so required vast amounts of money. Money in any game will get you there faster, be it raiding, heroic dungeons, pvp, the gear you want, or the levels you think you need. People will buy it under the table if it isn't offered from the devs. So why not give them a break?

  • the_goldy_gothe_goldy_go Minneapolis, MNPosts: 3Member
    Originally posted by thecapitaine

    I find it embarassingly unsurprising that Gazillion gets a pass on this site for having a cash shop that some people find overpriced while Neverwinter (ie Cryptic and PWE) gets hammered for it.  Especially when NW has the advantage of allowing players to earn in-game currency to pay for items, which MH does not.  Or when no mention is made of how incredibly rare the hero drops seem to be, fueling people's frustration.  Or that this method is in fact an improvement over what Gazillion had planned before, which was to force people to buy tokens with a random chance of dropping the hero that they wanted.  Or that in some cases the costumes themselves cost more than heroes.

     

    From where I stand today I see a HUGE difference between Gazillion's model and Cryptic's model for the cash shop.   When I looked at Cryptic's model in NW regardless of my ability to earn money in game there is no way around the fact at some point to have a top end character I am going to have to spend money.   However when I look at Gazillion's model while it may make things easier to spend a few dollars I don't currently see the absolutely have to no way around it model that the other has.   But that is a perception today, who knows what people will think in two weeks, a month or a quarter.

     

  • Dreamo84Dreamo84 Niagara Falls, NYPosts: 3,437Member Uncommon

    Free to play means it is free to play. Which it is, people argue it's not really free to play, but you can literally play for free.

    What is the problem?

    image
  • Mtibbs1989Mtibbs1989 Fredericksburg, VAPosts: 2,920Member Uncommon

     Whether or not this game is "business" is up to you to choose. For my entertainment and for the longevity that I've been receiving from recent MMO's; I absolutely refuse to pay for such a lack of content. I'm not going to pay for a game that's $60.00 + $14.99 monthly fee unless the game has enough content to last me a significant amount of time. Nor will I bait into paying unfathomable prices for an overpriced cash shop.

      Now, for Marvel Heroes Online. This game sounds good and I've heard many positives and negatives about the game. The fact remains when I look at this game and then I look at Path of Exile (which is a significantly smaller company producing a significantly better title) I'd much rather play Path of Exile because they're not forcing the players into choosing what classes they have to "pay" for in order to enjoy the game. Path of Exile offers all of their content up from free of charge (including their classes) with the added benefit of custom pets skill animations bank tabs and so forth.

     Lets face it, I understand this company needs to make money but when GGG is producing a game like Path of Exile with a significantly better payment system that isn't completely milking my wallet for every dime; I'll much rather pay for their title than this cash grab. I hope that their game survives however I'm not taking the bait with this title and will not shovel out money for them to produce more content just to milk more money out of my wallet.

    EDIT:

     I'm just going to throw this into the ring as well. You're paying for Marvel Super Alliance 1-2 with always online features and there's nothing else to it. The game is a hack and slash title that uses many heroes that people love. However, you'll be spending exponentially more money on this game than the $25.00 title you can pick up at Gamestop. 

     Go ahead Michael Bitton take their bait. That's your choice but I'm not paying for an absurdly priced product and with all respect I hope to the all might god Thor that you learn what you're really paying for in the end.

    image

    Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
  • DahkohtDahkoht Pelham, ALPosts: 290Member

    My main problem with "F2P" is this ,

    It gives the publisher a skewed direction to go with future content in the form of cash grab shinies instead of overall good content.

    Instead of everyone playing said game paying 15/month (or whatever ) , there is a distinct direction to make sure and make more shinies directly for the cash shop instead of overall content for everyone.

    SWTOR is a horrific example of this. By far the worst , but all F2P games do it.

    In old EQ/DAOC/UO/Lineage/early WoW and so on , there was zero incentive to dedicate any dev time on making simply cash grab items. It was all about keeping everyone happy and sub'd.

    I'd much prefer games that go with this model than , ooh what can we whip up to sell in the Cartel shop.

  • Mtibbs1989Mtibbs1989 Fredericksburg, VAPosts: 2,920Member Uncommon
    [mod edit]

     Seriously it's absurd that Michael is "grinding their gears" over people thinking the way they do. I am one of those people who absolutely refuse to pay for the product(s) because I'm voting with my wallet and I still am voting with my wallet until these companies come to their sense. Unfortunately, as long as people like Michael are blindly following whatever these developers state things will only get worse before it gets better.

    image

    Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Sign In or Register to comment.