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!

Is there an excessive sense of entitlement in F2P games?

LittleBootLittleBoot roystonPosts: 326Member

I keep reading threads and comments whereby F2P players feel aggrieved that they are not receiving enough free content.  

In what other walk of life and with what other product would this be an acceptable stance to take?  Many mmo's cost many millions to develop and that money has to be recouped somehow (and they need to turn a profit for their funders or they would not exist in the first place).  Where, do you suggest,  should this money be recovered from? 

My view is simply this, a F2P player who makes no financial contribution to a game is in no position to complain about the free content they may or may not be receiving.  

A player who pays a subscription, as with all other walks of life, should experience a discernibly improved experience over a player who pays nothing.  

Now don't get me wrong, if a monetization model allows a game to sell aesthetic items only, then great.  But if it does not then a free player should quit complaining and move on. 

As it stands the free content received by F2P players is paid for by a few whales who use the cash shop.  Free players should be thankful that there are items in the cash shop other players are prepared to buy or there would be no game and no content for them to experience at all. 

They are my thoughts on the subject, what do you think? 

 

 

«13456712

Comments

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

    I can't agree more. The people who strictly want cosmetics to be sold are the ones who aren't going to spend a dime anyways.

    Not all systems are created equal however, and I do feel some nickel and dime you a bit more than others.

    image
  • iridescenceiridescence Elliot Lake, ONPosts: 1,486Member

    If a game is really offering a free trial which is doing everything it can to force and annoy you into subbing it's not really a free to play game. I'm not saying that's wrong but it is misleading advertising. I actually prefer sub games but if you're going to brag about your game being F2P you should at least offer a decent experience for the free players.

    Star Wars and LOTRO for example could be still called sub games with extremely difficult and annoying free options. They are not "free to play" in the same way Rift or something is.

     

  • LittleBootLittleBoot roystonPosts: 326Member
    Originally posted by iridescence

    If a game is really offering a free trial which is doing everything it can to force and annoy you into subbing it's not really a free to play game. I'm not saying that's wrong but it is misleading advertising. I actually prefer sub games but if you're going to brag about your game being F2P you should at least offer a decent experience for the free players.

    Star Wars and LOTRO for example could be still called sub games with extremely difficult and annoying free options. They are not "free to play" in the same way Rift or something is.

     

    I agree that an alternative name could be used, such as free trial or some such crap, but I did not intend to argue over semantics.  The fact is people who play content for free are not in a position to complain about it.  

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member

    I think there's an excessive sense of entitlement from people who don't like F2P as a monetization model. Not sure if it's real or feigned though.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • Flyte27Flyte27 Greenwich, CTPosts: 2,839Member Uncommon
    I guess it depends on the free to play model that is being used.  As much as I dislike Sony I think their free to play model is OK.  Basically you can play Everquest for free and pay for additional features or you can pay monthly and have access to everything.  It's a model I can live with.  I just don't like when companies sell a lot of in game items for real money.  Look at WoW for instance.  They are thinking of selling max level characters to people soon.  The main experience in an RPG is leveling, gaining new skills, and becoming more powerful.  What is the point of letting people buy a character for real money?  This whole idea of selling virtual items in general seems a bit money grubbing.  Companies used to sell a whole product and you got everything or nothing.  Everyone was equal who played the game.  Now there is one person who brought the super speed unicorn or another who brought the super katana of power, etc.  A game should be able to stand on it's own without needing to sell lots of virtual items.  If it can't perhaps it should fail and die.  Perhaps a lot of these free to play games should be dead paying the way for a new style of play, but are sticking around because of free to play.  Generally I don't feel entitled to anything if I don't pay any money.
  • MukeMuke BredaPosts: 2,172Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by LittleBoot

    I keep reading threads and comments whereby F2P players feel aggrieved that they are not receiving enough free content.  

    In what other walk of life and with what other product would this be an acceptable stance to take?  Many mmo's cost many millions to develop and that money has to be recouped somehow (and they need to turn a profit for their funders or they would not exist in the first place).  Where, do you suggest,  should this money be recovered from? 

    My view is simply this, a F2P player who makes no financial contribution to a game is in no position to complain about the free content they may or may not be receiving.  

    A player who pays a subscription, as with all other walks of life, should experience a discernibly improved experience over a player who pays nothing.  

    Now don't get me wrong, if a monetization model allows a game to sell aesthetic items only, then great.  But if it does not then a free player should quit complaining and move on. 

    As it stands the free content received by F2P players is paid for by a few whales who use the cash shop.  Free players should be thankful that there are items in the cash shop other players are prepared to buy or there would be no game and no content for them to experience at all. 

    They are my thoughts on the subject, what do you think? 

     

     

    I advertize to you "GET A FREE CAR FROM MY SHOP WHEN YOU SHOW UP, ABSOUTELY FREE NO CHARGE!" and when you show up I get you all worked up, as the moment nears I will let you sit in it -without the keys- and say: "if you want to drive it you have to pay me $50.000 first."

     

     

    same thing. Would you be happy?

     

     

     

     

     

    "going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Redlands, CAPosts: 3,675Member
    Originally posted by lizardbones

    I think there's an excessive sense of entitlement from people who don't like F2P as a monetization model. Not sure if it's real or feigned though.

    Oh, I agree.  I don't think that F2P players, by and large, are entitlement happy.  They are simply playing a game that exists on the market.  They are not demanding that P2P games become F2P, they are relatively happy with what they have.

    It's largely the P2P players who bitch and whine about the F2P model and the old-school gamers who have a massive entitlement complex and demand that someone make them a game that they want to play, regardless of it's ability to make a profit.

    Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
    Relatively 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 more
    Now Playing: None
    Hope: None

  • HorusraHorusra maryland, MDPosts: 2,583Member Uncommon
    Your example would be closer if they gave you the car and then you whined it did not have a.c. like the ones people buy.
  • GjonGjon Burien, WAPosts: 18Member

    Some free to play models are simply better than others for consumers. Rift vs. SWTOR for example. 

    The shady models remind me of this commercial- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiAvHPPc8M8

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Muke
    Originally posted by LittleBoot I keep reading threads and comments whereby F2P players feel aggrieved that they are not receiving enough free content.   In what other walk of life and with what other product would this be an acceptable stance to take?  Many mmo's cost many millions to develop and that money has to be recouped somehow (and they need to turn a profit for their funders or they would not exist in the first place).  Where, do you suggest,  should this money be recovered from?  My view is simply this, a F2P player who makes no financial contribution to a game is in no position to complain about the free content they may or may not be receiving.   A player who pays a subscription, as with all other walks of life, should experience a discernibly improved experience over a player who pays nothing.   Now don't get me wrong, if a monetization model allows a game to sell aesthetic items only, then great.  But if it does not then a free player should quit complaining and move on.  As it stands the free content received by F2P players is paid for by a few whales who use the cash shop.  Free players should be thankful that there are items in the cash shop other players are prepared to buy or there would be no game and no content for them to experience at all.  They are my thoughts on the subject, what do you think?     
    I advertize to you "GET A FREE CAR FROM MY SHOP WHEN YOU SHOW UP, ABSOUTELY FREE NO CHARGE!" and when you show up I get you all worked up, as the moment nears I will let you sit in it -without the keys- and say: "if you want to drive it you have to pay me $50.000 first."

     

     

    same thing. Would you be happy?

     




    Except for it not being the same thing, sure.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • XAPKenXAPKen Northwest, INPosts: 4,927Member Uncommon

    I think Freemium (free with optional sub) games are at a great disadvantage to full free to play games, driven solely by item shop purchases.  Many seem to end up looking like crippled free trials.

     

    If it's an unlimited duration free trial, then I think they should call it that.  Not that I expect that they will.

     

    F2P is turning into a weasel word.  It means whatever the speaker wants it to mean.

     


    Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now turned Amateur Game Developer.  I don't Forum PVP.  If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident.  Realm Lords 2 on MMORPG.com
  • FinalFikusFinalFikus Chicago, ILPosts: 906Member

    If you advertise it as free to play, it better be free to play.

    If you think your customers should know what it really means, I doubt your customers care.

    My point is this is a result of marketing and gamers doing what they do. Why is anyone surprised?

    "If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"

  • FugglyFuggly Newport News, VAPosts: 141Member
    ever played LoL.......................

    image

  • iridescenceiridescence Elliot Lake, ONPosts: 1,486Member
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by lizardbones

    I think there's an excessive sense of entitlement from people who don't like F2P as a monetization model. Not sure if it's real or feigned though.

    Oh, I agree.  I don't think that F2P players, by and large, are entitlement happy.  They are simply playing a game that exists on the market.  They are not demanding that P2P games become F2P, they are relatively happy with what they have.

    Then why does every sub game that comes out bring snarky comments like "OMG DON'T U GUIZ KNOW SUB IZ DEAD!!!?" Will you at least concede that there are some obnoxious people on both sides of the "debate"?

    It's largely the P2P players who bitch and whine about the F2P model and the old-school gamers who have a massive entitlement complex and demand that someone make them a game that they want to play, regardless of it's ability to make a profit.

     

    Telling a company what sort of games we want isn't an entitlement complex. It's just feedback. I know they won't make me the type of game I want if it's not financially viable but it doesn't stop me from talking about it online in hopes that maybe with the combination of my efforts and many others they'll think that a market exists for the kind of game I want.

     

    Same about the F2P model. If I don't like a game's payment model I may give public feedback about it. They're not going to change it just because I say something but if enough people complain they might. I don't think it's as simple as "F2P is bad!" there are good and and implementations of it but a sub model is less risky and easy to F up for the player.

     

     

  • ZorgoZorgo Deepintheheartof, TXPosts: 2,226Member
    Originally posted by Muke
    Originally posted by LittleBoot

    I keep reading threads and comments whereby F2P players feel aggrieved that they are not receiving enough free content.  

    In what other walk of life and with what other product would this be an acceptable stance to take?  Many mmo's cost many millions to develop and that money has to be recouped somehow (and they need to turn a profit for their funders or they would not exist in the first place).  Where, do you suggest,  should this money be recovered from? 

    My view is simply this, a F2P player who makes no financial contribution to a game is in no position to complain about the free content they may or may not be receiving.  

    A player who pays a subscription, as with all other walks of life, should experience a discernibly improved experience over a player who pays nothing.  

    Now don't get me wrong, if a monetization model allows a game to sell aesthetic items only, then great.  But if it does not then a free player should quit complaining and move on. 

    As it stands the free content received by F2P players is paid for by a few whales who use the cash shop.  Free players should be thankful that there are items in the cash shop other players are prepared to buy or there would be no game and no content for them to experience at all. 

    They are my thoughts on the subject, what do you think? 

     

     

    I advertize to you "GET A FREE CAR FROM MY SHOP WHEN YOU SHOW UP, ABSOUTELY FREE NO CHARGE!" and when you show up I get you all worked up, as the moment nears I will let you sit in it -without the keys- and say: "if you want to drive it you have to pay me $50.000 first."

     same thing. Would you be happy?

     

    I guess I was unhappy when I was 7 years old and learned that the Boba Fett was only free if you bought umpteen million cereal boxes and sent the proof of purchase in.

    After that I pretty much figured out that when it's marketing - FREE* always comes with an asterisk. 

    Now when I see 'FREE', I always ask myself - 'free if I do what for them?'

    I'll give you an old piece of advice - 'buyer beware'.  Don't ever put your faith in advertising or you will forever be 'unhappy'.

    Now I guess there might be some teens out there who still get pulled in by this scam which has existed since the beginning of time - but for me, the answer is:

    No. I would not be unhappy. I am a smart enough consumer to know there is a catch up front. 

  • DamonVileDamonVile Vancouver, BCPosts: 4,818Member
    There's an excessive amount of entitlement from forum posters in general. It doesn't really matter what side of the fence they sit on. Too many ppl expect things to be done their way, and that developers owe them something.
  • XAPKenXAPKen Northwest, INPosts: 4,927Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by DamonVile
     Too many ppl expect things to be done their way, and that developers owe them something.

     

    I read work years back talking about the McDonaldization of Society.  Essentially it's an advertising trend that backfired.  "You deserve our quality product" turned into "you deserve everything your way".  Now people walk around expecting corporations to meet their every needs.  When this doesn't happen, they don't understand why.

     

    But you have to meet my needs, I'm special !!!

     

    *grin*

     


    Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now turned Amateur Game Developer.  I don't Forum PVP.  If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident.  Realm Lords 2 on MMORPG.com
  • FinalFikusFinalFikus Chicago, ILPosts: 906Member
    Originally posted by Zorgo
    Originally posted by Muke
    Originally posted by LittleBoot

    I keep reading threads and comments whereby F2P players feel aggrieved that they are not receiving enough free content.  

    In what other walk of life and with what other product would this be an acceptable stance to take?  Many mmo's cost many millions to develop and that money has to be recouped somehow (and they need to turn a profit for their funders or they would not exist in the first place).  Where, do you suggest,  should this money be recovered from? 

    My view is simply this, a F2P player who makes no financial contribution to a game is in no position to complain about the free content they may or may not be receiving.  

    A player who pays a subscription, as with all other walks of life, should experience a discernibly improved experience over a player who pays nothing.  

    Now don't get me wrong, if a monetization model allows a game to sell aesthetic items only, then great.  But if it does not then a free player should quit complaining and move on. 

    As it stands the free content received by F2P players is paid for by a few whales who use the cash shop.  Free players should be thankful that there are items in the cash shop other players are prepared to buy or there would be no game and no content for them to experience at all. 

    They are my thoughts on the subject, what do you think? 

     

     

    I advertize to you "GET A FREE CAR FROM MY SHOP WHEN YOU SHOW UP, ABSOUTELY FREE NO CHARGE!" and when you show up I get you all worked up, as the moment nears I will let you sit in it -without the keys- and say: "if you want to drive it you have to pay me $50.000 first."

     same thing. Would you be happy?

     

    I guess I was unhappy when I was 7 years old and learned that the Boba Fett was only free if you bought umpteen million cereal boxes and sent the proof of purchase in.

    After that I pretty much figured out that when it's marketing - FREE* always comes with an asterisk. 

    Now when I see 'FREE', I always ask myself - 'free if I do what for them?'

    I'll give you an old piece of advice - 'buyer beware'.  Don't ever put your faith in advertising or you will forever be 'unhappy'.

    Now I guess there might be some teens out there who still get pulled in by this scam which has existed since the beginning of time - but for me, the answer is:

    No. I would not be unhappy. I am a smart enough consumer to know there is a catch up front. 

    These are gamers. They are doing what they do. They're not entitled cheapskates or naïve to marketing.

    They're whatever they need to be.

    Game makers are entitled to nothing either.

    "If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"

  • whilanwhilan Everett, WAPosts: 3,172Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by Muke

    Originally posted by LittleBoot I keep reading threads and comments whereby F2P players feel aggrieved that they are not receiving enough free content.   In what other walk of life and with what other product would this be an acceptable stance to take?  Many mmo's cost many millions to develop and that money has to be recouped somehow (and they need to turn a profit for their funders or they would not exist in the first place).  Where, do you suggest,  should this money be recovered from?  My view is simply this, a F2P player who makes no financial contribution to a game is in no position to complain about the free content they may or may not be receiving.   A player who pays a subscription, as with all other walks of life, should experience a discernibly improved experience over a player who pays nothing.   Now don't get me wrong, if a monetization model allows a game to sell aesthetic items only, then great.  But if it does not then a free player should quit complaining and move on.  As it stands the free content received by F2P players is paid for by a few whales who use the cash shop.  Free players should be thankful that there are items in the cash shop other players are prepared to buy or there would be no game and no content for them to experience at all.  They are my thoughts on the subject, what do you think?     
    I advertize to you "GET A FREE CAR FROM MY SHOP WHEN YOU SHOW UP, ABSOUTELY FREE NO CHARGE!" and when you show up I get you all worked up, as the moment nears I will let you sit in it -without the keys- and say: "if you want to drive it you have to pay me $50.000 first."

     

     

     

    same thing. Would you be happy?

     



    Except for it not being the same thing, sure.

     

    I agree, this analogy would work far better (ie make more sense) if it was worded this way, and i'll put in brackets how this relates back to free to play games

    Car dealership says I'll give you a car for free [the client]

    You can drive it around as much as you want [play the game]

    You only need to put fuel into it [pay your internet connection]

    Here are the stipulations on it though

    You can't drive it everywhere, you are restricted to this part of the world [you can only visit certain zones and can't do things like pvp or raids]

    Some features on the car like power windows (they are manual for now) and the trunk is smaller [certain pieces of equipment and bag space] are restricted.

    You can however pay me a few hundred bucks to unlock these if you want but it's not needed to drive the car, and i may even let you if you drive it enough unlock these through general use [sometimes getting enough money can be converted to virtual money to buy these unlocks, ala GW2/SWTOR]

    So basically there are few missing features, and you can't go everywhere in the world with it, but you got a car for free, again I'll state this, you, got, a, car, for, free. Granted it may break down at some point [game shuts down], but you can always get another one from me [different F2P game], you'll of course have to buy all these features again like you did last time.

    His idea that you can only sit in it only works if you couldn't move your character, but every free to play game i've played lets me do dungeons, lets me kill creatures, lets me quests, lets me sell stuff (to merchants) so the analogy is far too limited and doesn't properly represent what is actually going on. Naturally mine makes it sound much better then one would want it to and fails to portray how limiting these things appear to said person. But then they aren't really as limiting as some think they are.

    Btw good luck on this actually happening with any car dealership (as it won't)

    TL/DR: You got a car for free and can drive it for free, just some things are limited, and this is how F2P games work.

    PS. I agree with you lizard, just expanding on that thought.

    Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.

    Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.

    image

  • FinalFikusFinalFikus Chicago, ILPosts: 906Member
    Originally posted by ZombieKen
    Originally posted by DamonVile
     Too many ppl expect things to be done their way, and that developers owe them something.

     

    I read work years back talking about the McDonaldization of Society.  Essentially it's an advertising trend that backfired.  "You deserve our quality product" turned into "you deserve everything your way".  Now people walk around expecting corporations to meet their every needs.  When this doesn't happen, they don't understand why.

     

    But you have to meet my needs, I'm special !!!

     

    *grin*

     

    And then someone figures out a way and wealth and jobs are created. Netflix is a good example.

    "If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"

  • KarahandrasKarahandras Sible HedinghamPosts: 1,676Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by DamonVile
    There's an excessive amount of entitlement from forum posters in general. It doesn't really matter what side of the fence they sit on. Too many ppl expect things to be done their way, and that developers owe them something.

    image especially in the games forums and especially in buy to play beta  games forums(at least from my experience).

  • LittleBootLittleBoot roystonPosts: 326Member
    We seem to be getting into the realms of what constitutes a F2P.  My point basically was, if you are getting something for free and you know other people are paying for it (usually via cash shop) your opinion basically counts for sweet FA. 
  • Dreamo84Dreamo84 Niagara Falls, NYPosts: 3,437Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Flyte27
    I guess it depends on the free to play model that is being used.  As much as I dislike Sony I think their free to play model is OK.  Basically you can play Everquest for free and pay for additional features or you can pay monthly and have access to everything.  It's a model I can live with.  I just don't like when companies sell a lot of in game items for real money.  Look at WoW for instance.  They are thinking of selling max level characters to people soon.  The main experience in an RPG is leveling, gaining new skills, and becoming more powerful.  What is the point of letting people buy a character for real money?  This whole idea of selling virtual items in general seems a bit money grubbing.  Companies used to sell a whole product and you got everything or nothing.  Everyone was equal who played the game.  Now there is one person who brought the super speed unicorn or another who brought the super katana of power, etc.  A game should be able to stand on it's own without needing to sell lots of virtual items.  If it can't perhaps it should fail and die.  Perhaps a lot of these free to play games should be dead paying the way for a new style of play, but are sticking around because of free to play.  Generally I don't feel entitled to anything if I don't pay any money.

    First of all, it's not a max level character. Max level will be 100 with next expansion so it will be a character 10 levels below max.

    Secondly, for a game as old as WoW it does make sense. At this point in that games life the population is extremely top heavy and most people just don't want to be bothered going through the same leveling experience many have done 10 times already. Nobody has to use it, but for that guy who has 5 lvl 100s already an extra $30 or whatever it costs and wants to roll a Paladin now, why not just let him get a big head start? Does it really affect your experience at all?

    image
  • sketocafesketocafe StoupaPosts: 802Member Uncommon
    If what someone is offering is shit then someone has every right to complain. If you're advertising a game as free to play but fill it full of potholes in an attempt to force players to purchase gravel from you to fill them in then those players can bitch about the potholes. It doesn't matter that games cost millions, because these companies made the decision to advertise them as free. Players didn't ask them to not charge a box price, that was their call. 
  • winterwinter El Paso, TXPosts: 2,276Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Cephus404
    Originally posted by lizardbones

    I think there's an excessive sense of entitlement from people who don't like F2P as a monetization model. Not sure if it's real or feigned though.

    Oh, I agree.  I don't think that F2P players, by and large, are entitlement happy.  They are simply playing a game that exists on the market.  They are not demanding that P2P games become F2P, they are relatively happy with what they have.

    It's largely the P2P players who bitch and whine about the F2P model and the old-school gamers who have a massive entitlement complex and demand that someone make them a game that they want to play, regardless of it's ability to make a profit.

     Seriously? Hell I responded to a post here some months back in which a F2P player was complaining the LoTRO download was too large (basically they were getting too much free) and that Turbine should spend more time and resources to break it into smaller downloadable parts for the F2P players.

      Most (but not all) F2P players have no problem paying way more then $15 a month for 1 movie night or beer or smokes, yet they expect other players to pay for their entertainment or that game design/development be charity work as they will never try a game till its F2P they then frequently QQ about the low quality of said F2P games or how much items in the cash shop cost (check out almost any thread on Neverwinter here for proof)

     

      Make no mistake many F2P players are simply parasites. We're not talking B2P here just the F2P players that never spend a dime on any game they play, and also expect any new game to cater to their playing styles while not spending anything,  because of this many new MMO's are designed as cash shop money grabs first and enjoyable games second. Sure everyone likes free stuff but at some point players should wake up and realize games do take money to make and maintain and if you've played for a month  or 2 or more and had fun maybe you should actually pay something rather then expecting some poor sap of a whale to cover your entertainment bill. Yeah I know not gonna happen as there's always some leeches out there that have the money but will always be leaving the check/tab/bill for others to cover

«13456712
Sign In or Register to comment.