I shudder to play the way the OP plays after reading his proud claims of having played so many games as F2P. No disrespect mind you must say this in fact I take my hat off at your tenacity and ability to stomach the horrible restrictions of grinds required to play only F2P. It makes me sick to the stomach when I discovered I needed to make 64 of a level one crafter in Neverwinter at 18 hours each summon to make another tier. I wept when I saw what I would have to grind to get some good gear. I am one of those who treasure my free time between books and my Korean dramas the games I play I cannot afford to really milk the F2P like the OP does. I might go slightly mad if I did so I sub if I can or pay a bit for unlocks if there are no sub options. Yes I am the weak whale so shoot me for valuing my time above all else. OP more power to you.
This used to be the only way to play. You clicked and waited or you ground out those mobs to get what you wanted. Maybe F2P is just "Old School" under a new name. :-)
You know, you do have a point there. So many of the old school mmos had tremendous grinds, the F2P market brings that back in a way. Of course, the problem with the F2P market is that many of the games place artificial restrictions to try to get you to spend some cash. Having restrictions on hotbar slots/bars, currency caps, chat restrictions, etc. leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Now if a game was F2P and I could get to level cap and grind things out at a reasonable rate, but then I'd have to purchase DLC packs every so often for new dungeons, new armor skins, new types of mounts, new classes, etc., I'd have a much easier time playing many of the F2P games, and I might even support them with purchases.
GW2 and the B2P works pretty well with the exception of hiding many of the weapon skins in Black Lion's Chests and the keys are so rare that you're basically forced into purchasing keys to open them. I would actually have more respect for the system if they just sold the skins in the gem store, as opposed to making it a pure gamble with the chests.
From a player stand point, why should I even care about which makes more money. I want the one that makes more content and is more fun. Which is 95% leaning towards subscriptions. F2P games have the majority of their resources put into making mounts, pets, and items for their cash shop, not new, buyable expansions and such like subscription games do. Look at F2P games versus P2P, which one has more expansions? There are some F2P games that have been out for 5+ years that have never done an expansion, and only a few content updates....No thanks. I would rather pay less, and get more if you ask me
...............GW2 and the B2P works pretty well with the exception of hiding many of the weapon skins in Black Lion's Chests and the keys are so rare that you're basically forced into purchasing keys to open them. I would actually have more respect for the system if they just sold the skins in the gem store, as opposed to making it a pure gamble with the chests.
It's only my opinion (with no real data to back it up) but I think the B2P business model isn't as successful as what we are lead to believe. Before Wildstar announced their business model, I was willing to bet my lunch money on the fact it would be a B2P model. But it's not. ESO is launching with a Sub and FF14 is still holding on to a successful subscription base.
I would consider this all to be terrible news for gamers. I don't understand why some of you are so happy about this. Game designers will see that the key to making money off of games is not in making a great experience. It will be in putting in little financial obstacles, gambling and ease of use hurdles. All of those things don't make for better gaming. Candy Crush makes more money than everyone does that mean its a good game? No, it just feeds off of stupid human nature. Applaud how f2p is so great while the whole market is stagnant.
Originally posted by funyahns I would consider this all to be terrible news for gamers. I don't understand why some of you are so happy about this. Game designers will see that the key to making money off of games is not in making a great experience. It will be in putting in little financial obstacles, gambling and ease of use hurdles. All of those things don't make for better gaming. Candy Crush makes more money than everyone does that mean its a good game? No, it just feeds off of stupid human nature. Applaud how f2p is so great while the whole market is stagnant.
You don't have to be happy about the reality that something is true in order to be happy that the data says you were correct when you argued that it was true. Too many people on this forum argue that something is true just because they want it to be true, rather than because the facts indicate it actually is.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
Originally posted by funyahns I would consider this all to be terrible news for gamers. I don't understand why some of you are so happy about this. Game designers will see that the key to making money off of games is not in making a great experience. It will be in putting in little financial obstacles, gambling and ease of use hurdles. All of those things don't make for better gaming. Candy Crush makes more money than everyone does that mean its a good game? No, it just feeds off of stupid human nature. Applaud how f2p is so great while the whole market is stagnant.
So? I only care if a game is fun, and would care less what is motivating the devs.
If they put in too many things to make the game not fun, i am not playing it. So far, that has not happen to the specific games i am playing.
Originally posted by funyahns I would consider this all to be terrible news for gamers. I don't understand why some of you are so happy about this. Game designers will see that the key to making money off of games is not in making a great experience. It will be in putting in little financial obstacles, gambling and ease of use hurdles. All of those things don't make for better gaming. Candy Crush makes more money than everyone does that mean its a good game? No, it just feeds off of stupid human nature. Applaud how f2p is so great while the whole market is stagnant.
So? I only care if a game is fun, and would care less what is motivating the devs.
If they put in too many things to make the game not fun, i am not playing it. So far, that has not happen to the specific games i am playing.
This outlook will not support your idea of "fun" over the long term. If everyone felt as you do, this whole genre would have imploded in on itself years ago. And if you say, "Fine, I'll just find the next thing that comes along, then I have to question just how much of this truly is fun for you or if you are just bored
Originally posted by funyahns I would consider this all to be terrible news for gamers. I don't understand why some of you are so happy about this. Game designers will see that the key to making money off of games is not in making a great experience. It will be in putting in little financial obstacles, gambling and ease of use hurdles. All of those things don't make for better gaming. Candy Crush makes more money than everyone does that mean its a good game? No, it just feeds off of stupid human nature. Applaud how f2p is so great while the whole market is stagnant.
So? I only care if a game is fun, and would care less what is motivating the devs.
If they put in too many things to make the game not fun, i am not playing it. So far, that has not happen to the specific games i am playing.
You should care about dev motivation though. That is going to be a key thing going forward for what is actually going to be put into each individual game. Even if F2P makes more money, that is not necessarily a good thing for us as consumers. I think the most important thing for all gamers is to have fun, why would your motivation be different than mine? I don't play a game for any other reason than to have fun. Sure there may some variation here and there on what would be construed as being fun. I know that if companies are putting little things in to try and nickel and dime me in game it will subtract from the experience.
I am curious about some of the numbers from say SwToR though. Like what is the big money makers for them. I know little about the actual Cartel market, but I have heard that there are some gambling boxes for items. I am curious if that is there big money maker. Using that nasty part of human nature to get people to click spend.
Originally posted by funyahns I would consider this all to be terrible news for gamers. I don't understand why some of you are so happy about this. Game designers will see that the key to making money off of games is not in making a great experience. It will be in putting in little financial obstacles, gambling and ease of use hurdles. All of those things don't make for better gaming. Candy Crush makes more money than everyone does that mean its a good game? No, it just feeds off of stupid human nature. Applaud how f2p is so great while the whole market is stagnant.
So? I only care if a game is fun, and would care less what is motivating the devs.
If they put in too many things to make the game not fun, i am not playing it. So far, that has not happen to the specific games i am playing.
This outlook will not support your idea of "fun" over the long term. If everyone felt as you do, this whole genre would have imploded in on itself years ago. And if you say, "Fine, I'll just find the next thing that comes along, then I have to question just how much of this truly is fun for you or if you are just bored
You guys are putting way too much importance on one person's spending habits. It is true that many people do play for free, but it's also true that many people are paying money as well. If people playing for free was getting progressively worse for developers, rather than making them more money year over year, they wouldn't be doing it. Investors wouldn't invest in F2P games and indie studios wouldn't even consider a F2P aspect to their game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by funyahns I would consider this all to be terrible news for gamers. I don't understand why some of you are so happy about this. Game designers will see that the key to making money off of games is not in making a great experience. It will be in putting in little financial obstacles, gambling and ease of use hurdles. All of those things don't make for better gaming. Candy Crush makes more money than everyone does that mean its a good game? No, it just feeds off of stupid human nature. Applaud how f2p is so great while the whole market is stagnant.
So? I only care if a game is fun, and would care less what is motivating the devs.
If they put in too many things to make the game not fun, i am not playing it. So far, that has not happen to the specific games i am playing.
This outlook will not support your idea of "fun" over the long term. If everyone felt as you do, this whole genre would have imploded in on itself years ago. And if you say, "Fine, I'll just find the next thing that comes along, then I have to question just how much of this truly is fun for you or if you are just bored
You guys are putting way too much importance on one person's spending habits. It is true that many people do play for free, but it's also true that many people are paying money as well. If people playing for free was getting progressively worse for developers, rather than making them more money year over year, they wouldn't be doing it. Investors wouldn't invest in F2P games and indie studios wouldn't even consider a F2P aspect to their game.
But isn't this what we are starting to see?
Wasn't Turbine one of the initiators of this F2P trend showing how they turned around games like LOTRO and DDO and increased their profits? And everyone took notice?
Aren't those games in trouble now? (At least there is a recent thread on LOTRO being in trouble. Don't know how valid it is)
It's not just one person's spending habbits. If it was, Nariusseldon's ideals would have been dismissed a long time ago and he'd have been written off as nothing more than a Forum Troll.
But he has over 16000 posts. Either he is one of the greatest trolls in MMORPG history, or there is something to what he is saying.(Or maybe a combination of the 2)
I think there is some cause for concern TBH.
What other area in the entertainment industry do people expect to be entertained for free? Even TV requires you to watch commercials.
This outlook will not support your idea of "fun" over the long term. If everyone felt as you do, this whole genre would have imploded in on itself years ago. And if you say, "Fine, I'll just find the next thing that comes along, then I have to question just how much of this truly is fun for you or if you are just bored
Ironically, you are in a thread that factually states, people like Nari are the minority.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Originally posted by funyahns I would consider this all to be terrible news for gamers. I don't understand why some of you are so happy about this. Game designers will see that the key to making money off of games is not in making a great experience. It will be in putting in little financial obstacles, gambling and ease of use hurdles. All of those things don't make for better gaming. Candy Crush makes more money than everyone does that mean its a good game? No, it just feeds off of stupid human nature. Applaud how f2p is so great while the whole market is stagnant.
So? I only care if a game is fun, and would care less what is motivating the devs.
If they put in too many things to make the game not fun, i am not playing it. So far, that has not happen to the specific games i am playing.
This outlook will not support your idea of "fun" over the long term. If everyone felt as you do, this whole genre would have imploded in on itself years ago. And if you say, "Fine, I'll just find the next thing that comes along, then I have to question just how much of this truly is fun for you or if you are just bored
Who says i need an outlook to support "fun" over the long term. Today i play some MMOs because they are fun to me. I care less if it would last for a year, or 10. Entertainment changes anyway. I watch more tv (because of many good shows like The Blacklist, Arrow, GoT ...) in the last 2 years than before. Who can says what is the best entertainment for me in the long term.
And devs need to reach an equilibrium with the market. If they don't provide something that is fun to their audience, they don't have a business. Now they don't necessarily cater to me, since i am only one free player. When they stop doing that, i am moving on to other entertainment.
Originally posted by funyahns I would consider this all to be terrible news for gamers. I don't understand why some of you are so happy about this. Game designers will see that the key to making money off of games is not in making a great experience. It will be in putting in little financial obstacles, gambling and ease of use hurdles. All of those things don't make for better gaming. Candy Crush makes more money than everyone does that mean its a good game? No, it just feeds off of stupid human nature. Applaud how f2p is so great while the whole market is stagnant.
So? I only care if a game is fun, and would care less what is motivating the devs.
If they put in too many things to make the game not fun, i am not playing it. So far, that has not happen to the specific games i am playing.
This outlook will not support your idea of "fun" over the long term. If everyone felt as you do, this whole genre would have imploded in on itself years ago. And if you say, "Fine, I'll just find the next thing that comes along, then I have to question just how much of this truly is fun for you or if you are just bored
Who says i need an outlook to support "fun" over the long term. Today i play some MMOs because they are fun to me. I care less if it would last for a year, or 10. Entertainment changes anyway. I watch more tv (because of many good shows like The Blacklist, Arrow, GoT ...) in the last 2 years than before. Who can says what is the best entertainment for me in the long term.
And devs need to reach an equilibrium with the market. If they don't provide something that is fun to their audience, they don't have a business. Now they don't necessarily cater to me, since i am only one free player. When they stop doing that, i am moving on to other entertainment.
Well,
I guess at the end of it all, regardless of anyone's feelings, you aren't the one who put these games out there for "free" so I have to ultimately live with my own opinion no matter what it is, since you aren't doing anything other than what they (Publishers) are telling you to do. All I can do is bow out and say....
Originally posted by funyahns I would consider this all to be terrible news for gamers. I don't understand why some of you are so happy about this. Game designers will see that the key to making money off of games is not in making a great experience. It will be in putting in little financial obstacles, gambling and ease of use hurdles. All of those things don't make for better gaming. Candy Crush makes more money than everyone does that mean its a good game? No, it just feeds off of stupid human nature. Applaud how f2p is so great while the whole market is stagnant.
So? I only care if a game is fun, and would care less what is motivating the devs.
If they put in too many things to make the game not fun, i am not playing it. So far, that has not happen to the specific games i am playing.
This outlook will not support your idea of "fun" over the long term. If everyone felt as you do, this whole genre would have imploded in on itself years ago. And if you say, "Fine, I'll just find the next thing that comes along, then I have to question just how much of this truly is fun for you or if you are just bored
You guys are putting way too much importance on one person's spending habits. It is true that many people do play for free, but it's also true that many people are paying money as well. If people playing for free was getting progressively worse for developers, rather than making them more money year over year, they wouldn't be doing it. Investors wouldn't invest in F2P games and indie studios wouldn't even consider a F2P aspect to their game.
But isn't this what we are starting to see?
Wasn't Turbine one of the initiators of this F2P trend showing how they turned around games like LOTRO and DDO and increased their profits? And everyone took notice?
Aren't those games in trouble now? (At least there is a recent thread on LOTRO being in trouble. Don't know how valid it is)
It's not just one person's spending habbits. If it was, Nariusseldon's ideals would have been dismissed a long time ago and he'd have been written off as nothing more than a Forum Troll.
But he has over 16000 posts. Either he is one of the greatest trolls in MMORPG history, or there is something to what he is saying.(Or maybe a combination of the 2)
I think there is some cause for concern TBH.
What other area in the entertainment industry do people expect to be entertained for free? Even TV requires you to watch commercials.
Until some actual information comes forward to show Turbine is hurting because of the performance of their games, I wouldn't assume it to be true. I especially wouldn't consider a thread on their forums a valid source of information unless it was backed up with information that wasn't just one person's observations.
But even assuming LotRO is in trouble (it's not), it is one game. It would be amazing if one game in the multitude of games running wasn't in trouble. That's not a cause for alarm, that's normal. Every game can't be a top performer. Some of them must fail. Eventually they all must fail. As long as new games are entering the market (there are), then things are working as they should.
Besides, what we see from the information presented, gathered from many developers is that letting people play for free does lead to people spending money. This is money that otherwise would not be collected. The alternative would be to shut the games down because there's no third option. Some sort of P2P model on the high end and then some sort of F2P model on the mid to low end. Most of these games started with a P2P model, got all the money they could and now they are getting more money using some sort of F2P model.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by funyahns I would consider this all to be terrible news for gamers. I don't understand why some of you are so happy about this. Game designers will see that the key to making money off of games is not in making a great experience. It will be in putting in little financial obstacles, gambling and ease of use hurdles. All of those things don't make for better gaming. Candy Crush makes more money than everyone does that mean its a good game? No, it just feeds off of stupid human nature. Applaud how f2p is so great while the whole market is stagnant.
So? I only care if a game is fun, and would care less what is motivating the devs.
If they put in too many things to make the game not fun, i am not playing it. So far, that has not happen to the specific games i am playing.
This outlook will not support your idea of "fun" over the long term. If everyone felt as you do, this whole genre would have imploded in on itself years ago. And if you say, "Fine, I'll just find the next thing that comes along, then I have to question just how much of this truly is fun for you or if you are just bored
Who says i need an outlook to support "fun" over the long term. Today i play some MMOs because they are fun to me. I care less if it would last for a year, or 10. Entertainment changes anyway. I watch more tv (because of many good shows like The Blacklist, Arrow, GoT ...) in the last 2 years than before. Who can says what is the best entertainment for me in the long term.
And devs need to reach an equilibrium with the market. If they don't provide something that is fun to their audience, they don't have a business. Now they don't necessarily cater to me, since i am only one free player. When they stop doing that, i am moving on to other entertainment.
Well,
I guess at the end of it all, regardless of anyone's feelings, you aren't the one who put these games out there for "free" so I have to ultimately live with my own opinion no matter what it is, since you aren't doing anything other than what they (Publishers) are telling you to do. All I can do is bow out and say....
"Have fun"
That is true, but none the less, every free player needs to know and understand that his refusal to pay is lowering the quality of the games they enjoy.
The "free" option is there, and we can't blame anyone for using the offered option, I agree to that, but they should think about the consequences.
Those others would pay anyway. Thus the money from the free player is still missing overall. The point is that the overall market size (in terms of profit) shrinks. This leads to smaller future budgets and less polish/updates to current games than would be possible otherwise.
Wow, it amazes me how some people are incapable of reading charts before declaring proof of anything. That chart clearly shows microtransactions sales. It is easy to extrapolate that wow makes significantly more money than listed because that is only their microtransaction revenue, you still have to add all of their subscription revenue which is substantial. It could very well place them at the top of the income chart, but we don't know since it isn't listed. If you also read further in the chart you see that the F2P user count is dropping, while subscription is stable. F2P requires massive amounts of extra players to account for those who choose to not pay, while everyone in subscription pays something. If F2P user counts are dropping, that is a bad sign for the F2P market even if yearly income went up.
As Nassim Taleb would say, "consider the graveyard."
These only show the successes...but what about the failures? For every one of these games making money hand over fist, how many have closed down or are about to close down?
I have no doubt cash stores (and this is really about cash stores, as we even admit that many of these games listed have a recurring subscription or tiered sub attached, as well as a cash store) can pay off big for a few games. But this in itself doesn't show the viability of financing a game from ONLY the cash store, any more than a retired couple winning big at Vegas show the casino as a viable retirement funding strategy.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Those others would pay anyway. Thus the money from the free player is still missing overall. The point is that the overall market size (in terms of profit) shrinks. This leads to smaller future budgets and less polish/updates to current games than would be possible otherwise.
I think the reality is many people wont' pay no matter what.
I believe in capatlism. Those game studio change their game to freemium because they think it'll drive them more money.
You'd think with so many people posting predictions on the future we'd be better at doing it. Even throwing totally blind the sheer number of attempts made should at least give you pretty good odds..... We sure are putting that infinite number of monkeys thing to the test.
Those others would pay anyway. Thus the money from the free player is still missing overall. The point is that the overall market size (in terms of profit) shrinks. This leads to smaller future budgets and less polish/updates to current games than would be possible otherwise.
I think the reality is many people wont' pay no matter what.
I believe in capatlism. Those game studio change their game to freemium because they think it'll drive them more money.
Wasn't talking about the model or the studios changing anything. F2P is great and needs the "free".
It was about specific people who find a game, enjoy it, stick to it, but milk the free option without thinking about the consequences. Was just food for thought for them.
Doesn't matter in the end. People will do what they do.
Comments
You know, you do have a point there. So many of the old school mmos had tremendous grinds, the F2P market brings that back in a way. Of course, the problem with the F2P market is that many of the games place artificial restrictions to try to get you to spend some cash. Having restrictions on hotbar slots/bars, currency caps, chat restrictions, etc. leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Now if a game was F2P and I could get to level cap and grind things out at a reasonable rate, but then I'd have to purchase DLC packs every so often for new dungeons, new armor skins, new types of mounts, new classes, etc., I'd have a much easier time playing many of the F2P games, and I might even support them with purchases.
GW2 and the B2P works pretty well with the exception of hiding many of the weapon skins in Black Lion's Chests and the keys are so rare that you're basically forced into purchasing keys to open them. I would actually have more respect for the system if they just sold the skins in the gem store, as opposed to making it a pure gamble with the chests.
It's only my opinion (with no real data to back it up) but I think the B2P business model isn't as successful as what we are lead to believe. Before Wildstar announced their business model, I was willing to bet my lunch money on the fact it would be a B2P model. But it's not. ESO is launching with a Sub and FF14 is still holding on to a successful subscription base.
You don't have to be happy about the reality that something is true in order to be happy that the data says you were correct when you argued that it was true. Too many people on this forum argue that something is true just because they want it to be true, rather than because the facts indicate it actually is.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
So? I only care if a game is fun, and would care less what is motivating the devs.
If they put in too many things to make the game not fun, i am not playing it. So far, that has not happen to the specific games i am playing.
This outlook will not support your idea of "fun" over the long term. If everyone felt as you do, this whole genre would have imploded in on itself years ago. And if you say, "Fine, I'll just find the next thing that comes along, then I have to question just how much of this truly is fun for you or if you are just bored
You should care about dev motivation though. That is going to be a key thing going forward for what is actually going to be put into each individual game. Even if F2P makes more money, that is not necessarily a good thing for us as consumers. I think the most important thing for all gamers is to have fun, why would your motivation be different than mine? I don't play a game for any other reason than to have fun. Sure there may some variation here and there on what would be construed as being fun. I know that if companies are putting little things in to try and nickel and dime me in game it will subtract from the experience.
I am curious about some of the numbers from say SwToR though. Like what is the big money makers for them. I know little about the actual Cartel market, but I have heard that there are some gambling boxes for items. I am curious if that is there big money maker. Using that nasty part of human nature to get people to click spend.
You guys are putting way too much importance on one person's spending habits. It is true that many people do play for free, but it's also true that many people are paying money as well. If people playing for free was getting progressively worse for developers, rather than making them more money year over year, they wouldn't be doing it. Investors wouldn't invest in F2P games and indie studios wouldn't even consider a F2P aspect to their game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
But isn't this what we are starting to see?
Wasn't Turbine one of the initiators of this F2P trend showing how they turned around games like LOTRO and DDO and increased their profits? And everyone took notice?
Aren't those games in trouble now? (At least there is a recent thread on LOTRO being in trouble. Don't know how valid it is)
It's not just one person's spending habbits. If it was, Nariusseldon's ideals would have been dismissed a long time ago and he'd have been written off as nothing more than a Forum Troll.
But he has over 16000 posts. Either he is one of the greatest trolls in MMORPG history, or there is something to what he is saying.(Or maybe a combination of the 2)
I think there is some cause for concern TBH.
What other area in the entertainment industry do people expect to be entertained for free? Even TV requires you to watch commercials.
Ironically, you are in a thread that factually states, people like Nari are the minority.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Who says i need an outlook to support "fun" over the long term. Today i play some MMOs because they are fun to me. I care less if it would last for a year, or 10. Entertainment changes anyway. I watch more tv (because of many good shows like The Blacklist, Arrow, GoT ...) in the last 2 years than before. Who can says what is the best entertainment for me in the long term.
And devs need to reach an equilibrium with the market. If they don't provide something that is fun to their audience, they don't have a business. Now they don't necessarily cater to me, since i am only one free player. When they stop doing that, i am moving on to other entertainment.
Well,
I guess at the end of it all, regardless of anyone's feelings, you aren't the one who put these games out there for "free" so I have to ultimately live with my own opinion no matter what it is, since you aren't doing anything other than what they (Publishers) are telling you to do. All I can do is bow out and say....
"Have fun"
Until some actual information comes forward to show Turbine is hurting because of the performance of their games, I wouldn't assume it to be true. I especially wouldn't consider a thread on their forums a valid source of information unless it was backed up with information that wasn't just one person's observations.
But even assuming LotRO is in trouble (it's not), it is one game. It would be amazing if one game in the multitude of games running wasn't in trouble. That's not a cause for alarm, that's normal. Every game can't be a top performer. Some of them must fail. Eventually they all must fail. As long as new games are entering the market (there are), then things are working as they should.
Besides, what we see from the information presented, gathered from many developers is that letting people play for free does lead to people spending money. This is money that otherwise would not be collected. The alternative would be to shut the games down because there's no third option. Some sort of P2P model on the high end and then some sort of F2P model on the mid to low end. Most of these games started with a P2P model, got all the money they could and now they are getting more money using some sort of F2P model.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
That is true, but none the less, every free player needs to know and understand that his refusal to pay is lowering the quality of the games they enjoy.
The "free" option is there, and we can't blame anyone for using the offered option, I agree to that, but they should think about the consequences.
I don't felt the game's quality is being lowered.
The main problem is the only reason those people can play for free is "someone else is paying the bill".
So the people actually pay the bill, may need to pay much more than the 15$ a month.
Those others would pay anyway. Thus the money from the free player is still missing overall. The point is that the overall market size (in terms of profit) shrinks. This leads to smaller future budgets and less polish/updates to current games than would be possible otherwise.
As Nassim Taleb would say, "consider the graveyard."
These only show the successes...but what about the failures? For every one of these games making money hand over fist, how many have closed down or are about to close down?
I have no doubt cash stores (and this is really about cash stores, as we even admit that many of these games listed have a recurring subscription or tiered sub attached, as well as a cash store) can pay off big for a few games. But this in itself doesn't show the viability of financing a game from ONLY the cash store, any more than a retired couple winning big at Vegas show the casino as a viable retirement funding strategy.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Oh come on, don't ruin my planned retirement funding strategy now. Not fair!
I think the reality is many people wont' pay no matter what.
I believe in capatlism. Those game studio change their game to freemium because they think it'll drive them more money.
Wasn't talking about the model or the studios changing anything. F2P is great and needs the "free".
It was about specific people who find a game, enjoy it, stick to it, but milk the free option without thinking about the consequences. Was just food for thought for them.
Doesn't matter in the end. People will do what they do.