It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I have yet to play a F2P game where I'm happy with the game itself. I know that developers must make money, but when playing F2P games I'm always disappointed when I can see the line I have to cross to continue playing. This isn't a new thing for me though. I remember getting shareware games out of disks and cd-roms, and then later off of the internet and being disappointed at seeing the line I'd have to cross to go from the shareware version to the pay version of a game. This might stem from getting magazines and if I was willing to type in all the text, and then debug the code where I typed things in wrong or where the program itself was wrong I could play games for free waaaaay back in the day. Technically it wasn't free because I bought the magazine, but it felt free. So I voted "sub", but what I'd really want is a game that I want to pay for. The Oatmeal sums it up much better than I can. I have no issues spending a few to several hundred dollars on a PC, up to $60 for a game that I might not even finish, but ask me to spend $5 in a cash shop or $15 a month and I'm all suspicious and angry. The Oatmeal - This is how I feel about buying apps
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Gunthorever since they started this disaster of F2P with stores and all that craziness, I just wish everything would come back in the early 2000. 1 sub, 1 price, no gimmick, bing bang boom.
You won't get your wish and I am eternally grateful that you won't. Sub fees are the biggest scam in the gaming business. I'm all for buy to play games like GW2 but a sub fee pretty much means I won't play a game unless it is the absolute best on the market or they actually have employees creating dynamic content all the time or something along that line. Giving them $15 a month just to play the game I already paid for and will pay for again come expansions and that costs very little to maintain is the biggest scam any company gets away with.
No vote from me. Whatever the game has to offer is what I'm paying for.
If it's subscription it shouldn't be the typical $14.99 a month if it has just released either. All developers should note that they released their game and content is way below other titles that have been out for years. Start out at $6.99 and work your way up when you get to established releases. For F2P I don't care as long as no one can buy a way to kill me in PvP, PvE only games I don't really care if they want to spend their money to support the game. The best model is like that of GW2 and even TSW, buy it and just play.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
All of the very best and most successful MMOs have in FACT been sub based games. For whatever reason, good or bad, sub fees seem to be a requirement to making those AAA long lasting MMOs that most of us desire. That does not mean that every MMO that uses sub fees is good, far from it, but not a single F2P game has ever been a serious contender, aside from GW2s initial hype launch before it collapsed once people played the trash heap.
Of course people would rather things be free rather then having to pay for them. That is human nature, and that is almost everyone. The unthinking people will take that and click "free", while people able to analayze what it means, understand that sub fees means that developers make a good amount of money and can maintain and produce quality content for us. Good for them, good for us. F2P is a cancer on the MMO genre, but a lot of unthinking people do not realize that.
Originally posted by Thessik_Irontail All of the very best and most successful MMOs have in FACT been sub based games. For whatever reason, good or bad, sub fees seem to be a requirement to making those AAA long lasting MMOs that most of us desire. That does not mean that every MMO that uses sub fees is good, far from it, but not a single F2P game has ever been a serious contender, aside from GW2s initial hype launch before it collapsed once people played the trash heap.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it "collapsed". There are still thousands of people who are playing it every day. Also what are the successful MMOs that you are referring to in your first sentence. All of them that I know of other than WoW and Eve have gone F2P, and of those they are still "successful", just under a different payment model.
Originally posted by Kyleran But let's face it, there is no free lunch, someone has to pay for the game, I prefer it the cost to be shared more or less equally amongst the player base and not heavily skewed towards whales vs non-payers.
I completely agree with this.
The issue I see with f2p games or games that rely upon cash shops to make up their money, is that not only can they not rely upon a reasonably steady income but they constantly have to come up with new ways to entice players to pay.
My opinion is that if you are spending time playing it then it's worth your money.
We don't work for free and we expect a decent paycheck from a (hopefully)financially stable company. I don't see why developers should expect less.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by Cephus404
I suspect we're looking for different kinds of games, the good ones that I like don't come out that often and I can often blow through the ones that I do like in a couple of days, a week at the outside and I almost never never re-play a game. It's done, it gets deleted, put away and if I ever do reload it, it might be in 4-5 years if I'm bored. I beat Hitman and Borderlands 2, someone just suggested I play the 2013 remake of Shadow Warrior so that's what I'm going to do. My video game interests run very narrow and there just aren't enough games out there to consume
Actually i miss Shadow Warrior .. so i probably will play that too. I am only in the middle of Hitman.
Now, i wonder .. you must have lots of free time. Do you do anything else? I can hardly find enough time to finish video games. That is also why i prefer short and high quality games. The only game i have for more than a month recently is D3 .. just because the combat is so good.
I honestly have very little free time, but I'm not into games like D3 at all. Like I said, different tastes.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots moreRelatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots moreNow Playing: NoneHope: None
Originally posted by jdizzle2k13 I'm curious about something. What is the difference in costs between maintaining an MMO server and maintaining a server for an FPS or other type of competitive game? If it's that much bigger than I can understand a sub, but I still think good F2P/B2P models can be much more profitable.
Yes. I read somewhere (no I dont' have a link) that years ago when mmo's such as WoW were released it cost a lot to support game servers. Now they are less expensive and yet the norm is still $14.99 a month. They should scale back or go with the other models as you suggested.
Originally posted by Shadanwolf I would pay a subscription for a "perfect" game. problem is.....I cannot name a single one.
Once you find that perfect MMO......
Do me a favor
Quit, because it won't be perfect any longer!
Just like there is no such thing as a free lunch, there will never be a "perfect" MMO.
Subscription based MMOs have ALWAYS been far better in overall experience than any F2P MMO I have ever tried to be a part of!
Originally posted by Amjoco Originally posted by jdizzle2k13 I'm curious about something. What is the difference in costs between maintaining an MMO server and maintaining a server for an FPS or other type of competitive game? If it's that much bigger than I can understand a sub, but I still think good F2P/B2P models can be much more profitable.
Originally posted by Sovrath We don't work for free and we expect a decent paycheck from a (hopefully)financially stable company. I don't see why developers should expect less.
I don't see why they should expect the same amount of revenue from everyone. They only need *someone* to pay ... like the whales.
Plus, all business have risks. Just look at investment banking.
Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by Amjoco Originally posted by jdizzle2k13 I'm curious about something. What is the difference in costs between maintaining an MMO server and maintaining a server for an FPS or other type of competitive game? If it's that much bigger than I can understand a sub, but I still think good F2P/B2P models can be much more profitable.
A console or PC game can have as much content and even more detail when it is developed and it has no server cost and this is what I was alluding to. Running servers now compared to years ago is cheaper. If I buy a game for $59 just like a console game, I should only have to pay to maintain a server. Patches are part of the upkeep of any computer game be it an mmo or a single player console/pc game.
edit: I guess what I'm trying to say is game development may have gone up in price but that is tacked on to the box you purchase. The cost to run a server has gone down so we shouldn't pay as much for a monthly subscription.
Spending it elsewhere on things which imho are not important....
How many MILLIONS of dollars did SWTOR spend on voice actors? That could have been eaily shaved off the price OR than money used to create content.
Lowering the graphics. Most games these days are selling on graphics and how they can make their game look in a 30 second trailer. This isnt just with MMOs either... I understand the need for the highest quality graphics in certain types of games but mmorpg/rpg's not so much. Playing text based games back in the day and Pen and Paper games has benen the most "immersive" I have ever been able to get. Instead of wasting most of a budget on "eye catching graphics" those could be toned down, money saved and tons more content added for far cheaper.
Eye candy is nice, but not very important once it reaches a certain point (reached long ago) and voice acting totally dumbs things down based on cost. The writers could crafty a hell of world, complete with tons of C&C but it would cost far too much to "voice over" all the text so the text (and the depth) is dumbed down to accomadate the costs of voicing everything.
-This is where indies will shine imho. As the tech gets cheaper the AAA will be trying to say 'on top' and thus giving us streamlined games that continue to further become dumbed down. Indies will use the old tech to bring us depth...I hope...
I will go for the subscription model. I'm against micro-transactions in games. Everyone should be on the same level and have equal access to what the game offers. Even if it's "useless" stuff like pets, mounts & cosmetics.
Cash Shops to me is like a stain that doesnt come off. It feels greedy to me. Cash up front. Hopefully the game will be rewarding.
Originally posted by Otakun This polls results are not surprising. MMORPG.com's fanbase always seems to lean more towards sub based opinions. Whereas if you go to a site like OnRPG.com, the base will seem a lot more to lean towards F2P. I personally think subs are a waste of money cause most people are done with them after like 2 months and the game will just go F2P or die anyway.
Well, if you're going to publish a subscription game it has to be good enough to sell the sub. Not many are, and most that are barely are. Making them FtP doesn't make them better products, it only makes them more agreeable for the cost of $0.
Once upon a time....
Is the sub all-inclusive, or is there still a cash shop? Do you need that cash shop to win? Is added content free for subs or does it require purchase?
Is the f2p a p2w model? Will I end up spending more than 15 bucks a month to stay viable? Do you have access to all content or do you have to pay to access new content?
I would take a fantastic f2p over a ho-hum sub.
I'd take a fantastic sub over a ho-hum f2p.
To me, the determining factor is always the quality of the game. If that can happen with a sub, great. If it can happen with a f2p model, great.
Seems to me, that people want to ascribe quality to a payment model here. I.E. if it is a sub game than it is unarguably a 'good' game ..... or ....if a game is f2p it is automatically a 'good' game.
I cry bullocks.
The fun, quality and innovation does not come from any particular added feature. Whether it be its payment model, a death penalty, forced grouping or soloability, etc. - Whether a game is 'good' or not doesn't rely on the type of features implemented ,it depends on if those features are implemented well.
Sorry to split hairs....but, just for a real world example: Did the 'sub' feature in SWtOR on release make it a 'good' game? Was WAR a better game than EQ because it had a sub and EQ has a f2p feature? Or to go further, is EQ a bad game because it has a f2p option? How about LotRO?
See....sometimes, we need to look differently at how we place value, imo.
Originally posted by RebelScum99 Sub game, all day. Haven't come across a free or B2P game that's worth a damn.
This is the exact experience I have had as well.