Howdy, Stranger!

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

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

[Column] General: Do Subscriptions Make a Difference in Community?

124

Comments

  • OzmodanOzmodan Hilliard, OHPosts: 7,183Member Uncommon

    Subscriptions keep the riff raff out.  Anyone saying it does not matter does not play MMO's much.  Players that have to pay to play have a lot more at risk than the normal f2p player, if your account gets banned, it costs to start up a new one.

    And seriously those whining about Wow's community need to get a life.  I do not notice anything different about the people who play Wow verses any other MMO I play.

     

  • laseritlaserit Vancouver, BCPosts: 1,943Member Uncommon

    The quality of the community doesn't have anything to do with P2P-versus-F2P itself, but more to do with the maturity of the game.

     

    Its also more to do with the way people think they can say and do anything they want on the internet because they think they are anonymous.

     

    In general, the more mature a game is, the more mature the community will be. (no... mature don't mean blood and boobies) 

    "If you make an ass out of yourself, there will always be someone to ride you." - Bruce Lee

  • BurntvetBurntvet Baltimore, MDPosts: 2,940Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by laserit

    The quality of the community doesn't have anything to do with P2P-versus-F2P itself, but more to do with the maturity of the game.

     

    Its also more to do with the way people think they can say and do anything they want on the internet because they think they are anonymous.

     

    In general, the more mature a game is, the more mature the community will be. (no... mature don't mean blood and boobies) 

    That may be so, and even if there is no direct line between age and maturity, I'd say there is one between lack of age and lack of maturity. On a general basis, at least.

    And going along with that lack of age, is a lack of access to a CC and more financial resources on a continuing basis.

    As F2P games do not require a CC or sub, the people that can not access those (which are largely younger people), younger, less mature players tend to go to those games on a larger percentage basis.

    And thus the less "mature" behaviors in all the F2P game communities I have ever seen.

     

  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid hell, NJPosts: 6,772Member Uncommon
    Subscriptions control the size of a community, not its quality.

    image
  • GaeluianGaeluian Dousman, WIPosts: 83Member Uncommon
    Free to Play attracts the wrong kind of players.
  • BurntvetBurntvet Baltimore, MDPosts: 2,940Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by rojo6934
    Subscriptions control the size of a community, not its quality.

    Well, considering that you can never get rid of D-bag players in F2P games in any meaningful way because of free accts, and you largely can in P2P games requiring a box purchase, I am going to disagree.

    And even if that is not enough, most P2P games have far superior CS and community enforcement, because there is more "regular" cash flow to pay for those. So the D-bag players in P2P games are dealt with more expeditiously, if not permanently.

     

  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid hell, NJPosts: 6,772Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Burntvet
    Originally posted by rojo6934
    Subscriptions control the size of a community, not its quality.

    Well, considering that you can never get rid of D-bag players in F2P games in any meaningful way because of free accts, and you largely can in P2P games requiring a box purchase, I am going to disagree.

    And even if that is not enough, most P2P games have far superior CS and community enforcement, because there is more "regular" cash flow to pay for those. So the D-bag players in P2P games are dealt with more expeditiously, if not permanently.

     

    i totally agree with you that P2P have better CS for the same reason you said. I have to strongly disagree with the rest of the post.

     

    By saying  that in P2P games you can get rid of D-bags just because of the box purchase and the subscription price you are automatically generalizing that every P2P player is a good person and that every F2P player is a D-bag and has no money (when they clearly just prefer not to subscribe even if they have the money). You cant be more wrong with your assumption.

    D-bags are everywhere (with and without money), and honestly, at least in my experience ive seen more D-bags with money than what ive seen broke.

    image
  • BurntvetBurntvet Baltimore, MDPosts: 2,940Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by rojo6934
    Originally posted by Burntvet
    Originally posted by rojo6934
    Subscriptions control the size of a community, not its quality.

    Well, considering that you can never get rid of D-bag players in F2P games in any meaningful way because of free accts, and you largely can in P2P games requiring a box purchase, I am going to disagree.

    And even if that is not enough, most P2P games have far superior CS and community enforcement, because there is more "regular" cash flow to pay for those. So the D-bag players in P2P games are dealt with more expeditiously, if not permanently.

     

    i totally agree with you that P2P have better CS for the same reason you said. I have to strongly disagree with the rest of the post.

     

    By saying  that in P2P games you can get rid of D-bags just because of the box purchase and the subscription price you are automatically generalizing that every P2P player is a good person and that every F2P player is a D-bag and has no money (when they clearly just prefer not to subscribe even if they have the money). You cant be more wrong with your assumption.

    D-bags are everywhere (with and without money), and honestly, at least in my experience ive seen more D-bags with money than what ive seen broke.

    If that is what what you read, I suggest reading it again.

    I said you can largely get rid of D-bag players in P2P games, because every time they get an acct ban, they have to buy a new client. Rarely have I seen any D-bag player come back from being banned more than once in a P2P game (professional gold farmers excepted). That is an observed/observable fact.

    In F2P games, the banned player can be back in 2 minutes with a fresh acct, for free. And that is even on the off chance that they get banned in the first place, because of the crappy CS in F2P games. That is also an observable fact.

    And I did not say that every F2P player is a D-bag, because they are broke or otherwise, but since more people play/try F2P games, there are more D-bag players in F2P games, as there are more players in general with the low barrier to entry. And those players that are undesirable (the bots, spammers, gold farmers, script kiddies) can not be gotten rid of with a simple ban, so the D-bag players that are there, tend to stay there. Also due the low barrier to entry.

    And yes, there are D-bag players in all MMOs, but in P2P games there are many fewer of them, and they can be more effectively dealt with.

    You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts.

     

     

  • syntax42syntax42 Columbus, OHPosts: 1,305Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by rojo6934
    Originally posted by Burntvet
    Originally posted by rojo6934
    Subscriptions control the size of a community, not its quality.

    Well, considering that you can never get rid of D-bag players in F2P games in any meaningful way because of free accts, and you largely can in P2P games requiring a box purchase, I am going to disagree.

    And even if that is not enough, most P2P games have far superior CS and community enforcement, because there is more "regular" cash flow to pay for those. So the D-bag players in P2P games are dealt with more expeditiously, if not permanently.

     

    i totally agree with you that P2P have better CS for the same reason you said. I have to strongly disagree with the rest of the post.

     

    By saying  that in P2P games you can get rid of D-bags just because of the box purchase and the subscription price you are automatically generalizing that every P2P player is a good person and that every F2P player is a D-bag and has no money (when they clearly just prefer not to subscribe even if they have the money). You cant be more wrong with your assumption.

    D-bags are everywhere (with and without money), and honestly, at least in my experience ive seen more D-bags with money than what ive seen broke.

    Who is generalizing?  I only see generalizations coming from you, rojo.  

     

    Not counting the first 30 days of a game, most of the P2P games I have played have far FEWER (not zero) trolls and other disruptive players.  In a F2P game, however, more people don't seem to care if they get banned because they simply make a new account for free.  That $50 monetary investment and $15/month makes a pretty significant difference in the quality of players, if you're looking for a MMO for the long-haul instead of just being a content locust.

  • NephaeriusNephaerius Baltimore, MDPosts: 1,539Member Uncommon
    I can't believe anyone could possibly believe the answer to this is anything other than a resounding NO.  You need look no further than WoW, EvE, Darkfall, etc. to find havens of douchebaggery and asshattery that easily rival any F2P title. Look at FFXIV for gil seller problems galore.  Oh yeah, but subs reduce gold selling and botting......  Shocker, ass hats have credit cards and can pay subscriptions too.  Welcome to the world there will be a percentage of douchebags everywhere you go.  Odds are it follows some kind of normal distribution regardless of setting.

    Steam: Neph

  • NephaeriusNephaerius Baltimore, MDPosts: 1,539Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by syntax42
    Originally posted by rojo6934
    Originally posted by Burntvet
    Originally posted by rojo6934
    Subscriptions control the size of a community, not its quality.

    Well, considering that you can never get rid of D-bag players in F2P games in any meaningful way because of free accts, and you largely can in P2P games requiring a box purchase, I am going to disagree.

    And even if that is not enough, most P2P games have far superior CS and community enforcement, because there is more "regular" cash flow to pay for those. So the D-bag players in P2P games are dealt with more expeditiously, if not permanently.

     

    i totally agree with you that P2P have better CS for the same reason you said. I have to strongly disagree with the rest of the post.

     

    By saying  that in P2P games you can get rid of D-bags just because of the box purchase and the subscription price you are automatically generalizing that every P2P player is a good person and that every F2P player is a D-bag and has no money (when they clearly just prefer not to subscribe even if they have the money). You cant be more wrong with your assumption.

    D-bags are everywhere (with and without money), and honestly, at least in my experience ive seen more D-bags with money than what ive seen broke.

    Who is generalizing?  I only see generalizations coming from you, rojo.  

     

    Not counting the first 30 days of a game, most of the P2P games I have played have far FEWER (not zero) trolls and other disruptive players.  In a F2P game, however, more people don't seem to care if they get banned because they simply make a new account for free.  That $50 monetary investment and $15/month makes a pretty significant difference in the quality of players, if you're looking for a MMO for the long-haul instead of just being a content locust.

     

     Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.  Oh yeah, and confirmation bias, self fufilling prophecy, etc etc. 

    Steam: Neph

  • DistopiaDistopia Baltimore, MDPosts: 16,905Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Nephaerius
    I can't believe anyone could possibly believe the answer to this is anything other than a resounding NO.  You need look no further than WoW, EvE, Darkfall, etc. to find havens of douchebaggery and asshattery that easily rival any F2P title. Look at FFXIV for gil seller problems galore.  Oh yeah, but subs reduce gold selling and botting......  Shocker, ass hats have credit cards and can pay subscriptions too.  Welcome to the world there will be a percentage of douchebags everywhere you go.  Odds are it follows some kind of normal distribution regardless of setting.

    I think people look at the E-hardasses a little differently than the general chat spamming ,annoyingly obnoxious types you see come and go in F2P titles. When money is on the line people do tend to care a bit more when it comes to losing access.

    Still the main reason F2P titles seem so much worse in some cases, is because they simply have more players coming and going. This is pretty much self-explanatory and obvious.

     

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson

    It is a sign of a defeated man, to attack at ones character in the face of logic and reason- Me

  • NephaeriusNephaerius Baltimore, MDPosts: 1,539Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by Nephaerius
    I can't believe anyone could possibly believe the answer to this is anything other than a resounding NO.  You need look no further than WoW, EvE, Darkfall, etc. to find havens of douchebaggery and asshattery that easily rival any F2P title. Look at FFXIV for gil seller problems galore.  Oh yeah, but subs reduce gold selling and botting......  Shocker, ass hats have credit cards and can pay subscriptions too.  Welcome to the world there will be a percentage of douchebags everywhere you go.  Odds are it follows some kind of normal distribution regardless of setting.

    I think people look at the E-hardasses a little differently than the general chat spamming ,annoyingly obnoxious types you see come and go in F2P titles. When money is on the line people do tend to care a bit more when it comes to losing access.

    Still the main reason F2P titles seem so much worse in some cases, is because they simply have more players coming and going. This is pretty much self-explanatory and obvious.

     

     

     Prove that F2P titles have it worse.  No one has yet to do so.  In my experience they're really not.  Sub/F2P/B2P it's all the same.  The more people that play the more jerks you have but the % remains the same.  This thread has a bunch of people that are fans of the subscription model claiming that's the case (F2P being worse) and that's it.  There's no evidence to support that claim at all that's not anecdotal and anecdotal evidence is just that - anecdotal. 

    It's worth mentioning that the counterpoint has no evidence either.  Facts are the communities are probably damn similar.  I could make the argument that sub communities might actually be worse because since they have more vested fans (based on your argument of money expenditure) they tend to be more hostile towards those with anything negative to say about their game.

    It's really easy to just make things up without any facts or legitimate evidence to back them up.

     
     OT: there's a great research study to be done here.

    Steam: Neph

  • slickbizzleslickbizzle Matthews, NCPosts: 464Member

    I think the F2P games I've tried have far better communities than Sub games.  Maybe I've been lucky. 

     

     

  • QuesaQuesa Sacramento, CAPosts: 1,246Member
    Originally posted by Nephaerius
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by Nephaerius
    I can't believe anyone could possibly believe the answer to this is anything other than a resounding NO.  You need look no further than WoW, EvE, Darkfall, etc. to find havens of douchebaggery and asshattery that easily rival any F2P title. Look at FFXIV for gil seller problems galore.  Oh yeah, but subs reduce gold selling and botting......  Shocker, ass hats have credit cards and can pay subscriptions too.  Welcome to the world there will be a percentage of douchebags everywhere you go.  Odds are it follows some kind of normal distribution regardless of setting.

    I think people look at the E-hardasses a little differently than the general chat spamming ,annoyingly obnoxious types you see come and go in F2P titles. When money is on the line people do tend to care a bit more when it comes to losing access.

    Still the main reason F2P titles seem so much worse in some cases, is because they simply have more players coming and going. This is pretty much self-explanatory and obvious.

     

     

     Prove that F2P titles have it worse.  No one has yet to do so.  In my experience they're really not.  Sub/F2P/B2P it's all the same.  The more people that play the more jerks you have but the % remains the same.  This thread has a bunch of people that are fans of the subscription model claiming that's the case (F2P being worse) and that's it.  There's no evidence to support that claim at all that's not anecdotal and anecdotal evidence is just that - anecdotal. 

    It's worth mentioning that the counterpoint has no evidence either.  Facts are the communities are probably damn similar.  I could probably make the argument that sub communities might actually be worse because since they have more vested fans (based on your argument of money expenditure) they tend to be more hostile towards those with anything negative to say about their game.

    It's really easy to just make things up without any facts or legitimate evidence to back them up.

    *OT: there's the research question for a decent study here in the article.  I'm surprised no one has pursued this avenue of research.

    It's all opinion, of course.  Many find Sub2P games have a better community because they generally require more cooperation.  Many F2P games that I've played and see on the market are more "hit it and quit it" games aimed directly at getting as much out of you as possible until you move on to the next F2P title.

    I find no direct link in the quality and strength of a community between Sub2P and F2P.  It's quite possible that this is due to the Sub2P games do usually have more group oriented content whereas the F2P titles seem to have more solo content.  It could also be that the people who enjoy Sub2P games more than F2P are biased but I believe that bias is solidly anchored in the type of game/content they enjoy.

    I believe it all has a logical tone to it when you suggest Sub2P generally have better communities than F2P simply for the fact that only a rare few have attempted to state F2P has the better of the two yet a good portion of people in this very thread stating Sub2P does so it's a little more than anecdotal.

     

    It's really easy to just make things up without any facts or legitimate evidence to back them up.

    On this same note, it's clear that this is an opinion thread and trying to treat it as some type of official research paper is asinine.  Additionally, it's really easy to try to elevate such a thread to the standards you appear to be trying to do rather than just give your own opinion and leave it at that.  It's all cool to disagree but just because there isn't more evidence presented in an opinion thread doesn't make it any less valid.

  • NephaeriusNephaerius Baltimore, MDPosts: 1,539Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Quesa
    Originally posted by Nephaerius
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by Nephaerius
    I can't believe anyone could possibly believe the answer to this is anything other than a resounding NO.  You need look no further than WoW, EvE, Darkfall, etc. to find havens of douchebaggery and asshattery that easily rival any F2P title. Look at FFXIV for gil seller problems galore.  Oh yeah, but subs reduce gold selling and botting......  Shocker, ass hats have credit cards and can pay subscriptions too.  Welcome to the world there will be a percentage of douchebags everywhere you go.  Odds are it follows some kind of normal distribution regardless of setting.

    I think people look at the E-hardasses a little differently than the general chat spamming ,annoyingly obnoxious types you see come and go in F2P titles. When money is on the line people do tend to care a bit more when it comes to losing access.

    Still the main reason F2P titles seem so much worse in some cases, is because they simply have more players coming and going. This is pretty much self-explanatory and obvious.

     

     

     Prove that F2P titles have it worse.  No one has yet to do so.  In my experience they're really not.  Sub/F2P/B2P it's all the same.  The more people that play the more jerks you have but the % remains the same.  This thread has a bunch of people that are fans of the subscription model claiming that's the case (F2P being worse) and that's it.  There's no evidence to support that claim at all that's not anecdotal and anecdotal evidence is just that - anecdotal. 

    It's worth mentioning that the counterpoint has no evidence either.  Facts are the communities are probably damn similar.  I could probably make the argument that sub communities might actually be worse because since they have more vested fans (based on your argument of money expenditure) they tend to be more hostile towards those with anything negative to say about their game.

    It's really easy to just make things up without any facts or legitimate evidence to back them up.

    *OT: there's the research question for a decent study here in the article.  I'm surprised no one has pursued this avenue of research.

    It's all opinion, of course.  Many find Sub2P games have a better community because they generally require more cooperation.  Many F2P games that I've played and see on the market are more "hit it and quit it" games aimed directly at getting as much out of you as possible until you move on to the next F2P title.

    I find no direct link in the quality and strength of a community between Sub2P and F2P.  It's quite possible that this is due to the Sub2P games do usually have more group oriented content whereas the F2P titles seem to have more solo content.  It could also be that the people who enjoy Sub2P games more than F2P are biased but I believe that bias is solidly anchored in the type of game/content they enjoy.

    I believe it all has a logical tone to it when you suggest Sub2P generally have better communities than F2P simply for the fact that only a rare few have attempted to state F2P has the better of the two yet a good portion of people in this very thread stating Sub2P does so it's a little more than anecdotal.

     Hopefully I don't come across as too argumentative because I actually agree with what you are saying.  You could be totally right about any of those hypotheses but someone should investigate and look into it because it truly is an interesting question.  I too hear the "tones of logic" in the sub = better community argument.  However, time and time again science has found that what might seem like obvious, logical, and/or common sense simply was not true. 

    Terrible example but easiest one to think of off the top of my head due to being at work: "Sexual abuse is worse for a child than any other kind of abuse."  On the surface this sounds logical because the experience of sexual abuse of a minor strikes anyone as horrific, but it doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny. (For the sake of clarity, I am not advocating that any kind of abuse is ok, simply that just because one form of abuse seems more horrific, largely for cultural reasons, this doesn't mean that it is actually more damaging and serves as an example of a case where what seems like common sense/logic/etc does not hold to be true).

    Edit: Thought of another one!  The world is a more violent place today and or the world gets more violent as time passes.  I hear statements like this all the time, but the fact is the world when examined on a global scale is a less violent place today than ever before.  Another one, being a US Citizen and working in the social welfare system, more minorities receive government assistance than white people.  That's blatantly false but due to portrayals in our culture of minority cultures the argument appears possibly true on the surface.

    Steam: Neph

  • jbombardjbombard SapporoPosts: 530Member Uncommon

    You only need to look to WoW to see that subs don't guarantee a good community.  LotRO has one of the better communities I have every experienced in a game despite the F2P status.

     

    I think larger communities by their very nature are going to have more bad apples.  A few bad apples can start an avalanche of bad behavior.  But it isn't just size of community I think certain kinds of gameplay are more likely to attract certain kinds of players.  Games that require patience and thoughtfulness are going to attract more mature players than games with childish themes, instant gratification, or  lazy gameplay.

  • stalker989stalker989 League City, TXPosts: 30Member
    Originally posted by Adalwulff

    The answer is YES!!!

    I have been playing MMOs since 98' and I've been in many guilds and clans, and without a doubt, the community in subscription MMOs is FAR better.

    People here will split hairs and say things like, "not all players are like that" ....lol

    Experience trumps fiction  :)

    Your statement lacks merit. I have played P2P and F2P MMO's since Lineage came out. I have seen players in P2P communities that are worthless jerks and the same in F2P. There are helpful and unhelpful people in both.

    Facts trump your "experience".

    image
  • azzamasinazzamasin Butler, OHPosts: 3,066Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by stalker989
    Originally posted by Adalwulff

    The answer is YES!!!

    I have been playing MMOs since 98' and I've been in many guilds and clans, and without a doubt, the community in subscription MMOs is FAR better.

    People here will split hairs and say things like, "not all players are like that" ....lol

    Experience trumps fiction  :)

    Your statement lacks merit. I have played P2P and F2P MMO's since Lineage came out. I have seen players in P2P communities that are worthless jerks and the same in F2P. There are helpful and unhelpful people in both.

    Facts trump your "experience".

    Agreed!

     

    I've been playing MMO's exclusively since Asheron's Call closed Beta in Late 1999 and in 14 years of MMO gameplay the only 2 that didn't have a crappy community is Asheron's Call and Dark Age of Camelot.  Which I think is more of a product of the genre being so new, fresh and exciting then the business model.  In fact I know it is because I've tried just about every major Western MMO release since WoW and let me tell you one thing I learned!  The community in games like WoW, AoC, WAR, Rift or SWTOR were just as bad (or if you're a glad half full kind of guy, just as good) as games like Neverwinter, GW2 or any other Western MMO.

     

    Obviously Eastern/Asian P2W grinders are not a topic for discussion and should not be included in the mix because they have zero relevancy to the discussion.

    Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!

    Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!

    Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!

    image

  • furbansfurbans Tinbucktwo, IAPosts: 965Member
    Originally posted by Adalwulff

    The answer is YES!!!

    I have been playing MMOs since 98' and I've been in many guilds and clans, and without a doubt, the community in subscription MMOs is FAR better.

    People here will split hairs and say things like, "not all players are like that" ....lol

    Experience trumps fiction  :)

    Like EVE's community who at their game convention has the community harrassing a player to commit suicide?

    The answer is NO!!!!!

    I've played both F2P and P2P MMOs and the model doesn't do crap for the community.  What makes a difference is the centicity of the game (PvE themepark vs PvP sandbox) and poularity (WoW) are the most deciding factors imo of the type of community you will get.

  • HanthosHanthos Antelope, CAPosts: 226Member Uncommon

    Of all the games I have played, my experience has been to see better communities in subbed games over F2P. There are always going to be malcontents though no matter what the model is.

     

    Your mileage however may vary...

  • EleazarosEleazaros Neverneverland, WAPosts: 206Member

    It's actually a tough call on community but, in general, yes it's better in sub games.

    When you pay up-front for a subscription, you tend to find a community that is also interested enough in that game to pay.  Not "just trying everything out".

    Trials are handy to get a feel for a game but some of the most horrid zones in games are where trials are at and "roots forward" F2P games tend to hold that trial-zone feeling across the bulk of their game world.

    Genre/format also is very important to the game community.  A game like LoTRO is set in a more kindly/friendly world so draws a different type of player than a PvP centric game which will draw a more competitive (often more vicious, rude and petty) type of gamer.

    Each to their own style of gaming but if it's more "mature" attitudes, whether it's free or costs, the genre and focus, as well as those you choose to interact with in the game, will determine if it has a good or poor community - or at least the part you interact with.

  • Eir_SEir_S Argyle, NYPosts: 4,623Member
    I know a lot of people here who like to push the idea that sub communities are superior in order to push their agenda for subs themselves, but the honest truth is that it depends mostly on the game mechanics or plain old dumb luck.  I've played sub games with servers full of A-holes and I've played F2P/B2P games where no one has a bad word to say about each other (usually).  Anyone who says they have a definitive answer on which is better is kidding themselves.
  • Ender4Ender4 milwaukee, WIPosts: 2,253Member

    No it doesn't make a difference. You lose just as many good players as bad by charging and in this market you better pull off an amazing game if you expect anyone to pay a monthly fee.

  • ariasaitchoariasaitcho Rapid City, SDPosts: 112Member

    am i the only person who remembers the HoGG incidents from a while back? remember, the guys who were proud and thought they were badass because they were making the game impossible for other players to play? found exclusively on P2P. as they stated in their videos they didn't care one whit about getting banned because they could just buy a new account. and they told about all the different games that they were in doing the same thing.

    i'm shocked, SHOCKED to discover asshats and pricks have access to money too!

    investment in a game doesn't just happen because you've spent money on it. if that were true then no one would ever leave a P2P game for the next over hyped P2P game. one can invest time in a game and be just as committed to a game that is fun as one that they have to pay a fee to play.

    the biggest factor in community development is: is there a need for a community beyond "end game"? if the answer is no, then the overall community will be poor; regardless of pay model used.

    one last point: not all "whales" are asshats, but a lot of them are. and everyone of those "whales" has one or more sub games that they are also playing.

    there may be a difference, but the difference is negligible.

    image
Sign In or Register to comment.