Most games are pretty up front. You can check out the cashshop the moment you first log into the game.
Which is to say, they won't tell you until after you download the game and start playing. And even then, it takes a while to understand just how strong the things in the item mall are or aren't. And even if you know what's in the item mall today, what's there in a month won't necessarily be all that similar--especially if they're relying heavily on random boxes with constantly changing contents.
Yeh. So?
Download is free. Playing the first few min is free. What are you going to lose? Five min?
P2W is a derogatory term. F2P is not, and will never be. F2P models for MMORPGs are meant to appeal to the short term players that hop from game to game. MMORPG players are kind of notorious for "completing" MMORPGs at a massively faster rate than SRPGs. I can tell you (or someone you know) probably got burned or spent too much money on a single game.
F2P is not targetted at the traditional MMORPG gamers.
I wish there were some traditional MMOs being made so traditional MMO gamers could have something to look forward to. I have a feeling all these "sandbox" games coming out are just going to ruin the idea of sandboxes.
Pffft. It's a game. It's being offered for free. I don't see why one needs to ponder about business models and other trivial things. The moment a barrier comes and it's not worth the purchase I just drop the game and move on.
In a single player or co-op game then the F2P mentality of paying whatever you feel like to pay for, might work. However in a competetive game it is completely ridicilous to allow for shortcuts, if you open your wallet.
So don't play competitively. It's quite simple really. Stop acting like playing a game is just an excuse to swing your e-peen around. It's not.
I find this an highly idiotic statement. You can't dismiss something like that so easily. It only shows how ignorant you are.
About F2P. I hate the model. I wish Pay per month would get more popular again ;/
Why are F2P games doing better in the US than elsewhere? I'll tell you why, it's the same reason we're in economic hell: money just seems to burn a hole in our pockets and we spend it poorly. That's my American point of view. I'm not like that personally, but it seems so many people get genuinely scared when they see a F2P game because they fear it's going to open their wallet and force money out.
It's not. You just need self control. Don't blame video games for your poor decisions, that goes for every country in the world, but I've seen Americans complain the most.
As for the subject by the OP, I'll reiterate: DO SOME RESEARCH. Learn what games are cash sinks, and either don't play them or blame yourself. It takes 5 minutes.
Well, Americans are used to making that sort of decision. Same reason you dont have socialized medicine. (Almost) Dont really want to get into that discussion. But I will dip my toes.
Europeans are far more comfortable with the idea that you pay once (tax) and then you dont have to think with your wallet every time you feel a bit under the weather. So we know how much we spent. And we know how much we can spend on fun and food.. Getting sick might keep us from working. But it wont saddle us with crippling medical expenses on top ot that.
Same reason we are lousy tippers.. we simply dont realize that americans in the food industry have such a lousy minimum wage that they dont get any money after taxes if they dont get tips.
Back to games. Sure some of them are shameless cash sinks. But I personally (and I think many others agree) believe that some of the good F2P games would have been far more enjoyable if they had been subscribtuion based.
And it certainly hasnt put Gold Sellers out of business that the games sell you gold themselves.. Getting even more spam in F2P games than I ever did.. But that just might be because the market is growing.
Originally posted by Quizzical I prefer to know a game's business model up front before deciding whether to play it. When a company advertises a game as "free to play", they're trying to hide the business model, as they're never going to truly give away everything for free. Do you think "free to play" will eventually become a derogatory term that marketers avoid for that reason?
Nope, simply because almost everyone already knows what the term means and most are fine with it. Never confuse the general concensus here with reality of the rest of the world.
Almost everyone knows what "free to play" means? I certainly don't. Just about everything gets described as "free to play" these days, even with business models that five years ago would have been called a subscription game or buy to play or some such.
Can you give an example of one of the free to play games where you are confused whether it is subscription or free to play? In the meantime, here's the definition of almost.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Europeans are far more comfortable with the idea that you pay once (tax) and then you dont have to think with your wallet every time you feel a bit under the weather. So we know how much we spent. And we know how much we can spend on fun and food.. Getting sick might keep us from working. But it wont saddle us with crippling medical expenses on top ot that.
And how did that work out for them? Greece, Spain, Cyrus ...
Europeans are far more comfortable with the idea that you pay once (tax) and then you dont have to think with your wallet every time you feel a bit under the weather. So we know how much we spent. And we know how much we can spend on fun and food.. Getting sick might keep us from working. But it wont saddle us with crippling medical expenses on top ot that.
And how did that work out for them? Greece, Spain, Cyrus ...
Germany, England, Norway, Sweden, Denmark...
I don't think you have an argument here. It works better for some worse for others ue to factors that have nothing to di with the topic at hand.
nm
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Europeans are far more comfortable with the idea that you pay once (tax) and then you dont have to think with your wallet every time you feel a bit under the weather. So we know how much we spent. And we know how much we can spend on fun and food.. Getting sick might keep us from working. But it wont saddle us with crippling medical expenses on top ot that.
And how did that work out for them? Greece, Spain, Cyrus ...
Germany, England, Norway, Sweden, Denmark...
I don't think you have an argument here. It works better for some worse for others ue to factors that have nothing to di with the topic at hand.
Isn't the debt crisis dragging everyone in the Eurozone down?
Europeans are far more comfortable with the idea that you pay once (tax) and then you dont have to think with your wallet every time you feel a bit under the weather. So we know how much we spent. And we know how much we can spend on fun and food.. Getting sick might keep us from working. But it wont saddle us with crippling medical expenses on top ot that.
And how did that work out for them? Greece, Spain, Cyrus ...
Germany, England, Norway, Sweden, Denmark...
I don't think you have an argument here. It works better for some worse for others ue to factors that have nothing to di with the topic at hand.
Isn't the debt crisis dragging everyone in the Eurozone down?
Actually in the states it is against the law for a hospital to refuse treatment whether the person can pay or not.
A kind of back door public health care.
Most of the developed countries have some form of public health care. 32 of 33 nations I believe it was.
The debt crisis has nothing to do with medical (quite a bit to do with having the government take care of you though from birth to death) and is quite varied depending on the country.
And completely off topic.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by Quizzical I prefer to know a game's business model up front before deciding whether to play it. When a company advertises a game as "free to play", they're trying to hide the business model, as they're never going to truly give away everything for free. Do you think "free to play" will eventually become a derogatory term that marketers avoid for that reason?
I don't think anyone really suffers the illusion that such games are completely free. At this point, I also suspect the vast majority of people are leery of *bad* f2p models. Everyone seems to approach upcoming f2p titles using particular frames of reference, such as "I hope this game's f2p model more closely resembles Game A rather than Game B." Many people have experienced some pretty terrible f2p models where they feel obligated to dish out hundreds of dollars just to be competitive; likewise, many people have experienced solid f2p models where they feel like they get to do virtually everything they want in the game for free. So at this point, I'd say players should look to see exactly *what kind* of f2p model the upcoming game they have their eyes on has.
As for whether f2p will become a universally derogatory term, no. No more than "buy one get one free" is, or "50% off" some marked up price. Many people understand the gimmicks behind price mark ups in retail, but it's still insanely effective. The term "free to play" itself, barring some sort of gaming catastrophe, will forever sound appealing to players.
Of course there are players who are as adamantly against all things f2p as Chevy fans are against Ford, or liberals against conservatives, or sports fanatics against their rivals. But that's just that: simple fandom.
Another whiney thread. 'I want to P2P but not F2P because I want to feel like I am paying for something'. Another complaining thread by people who nothing know about business.
F2P games are out there BECUASE they are making money. P2P aren't because they need a specific amount of people to pay in order to make money. It is really that simple.
Originally posted by Quizzical I prefer to know a game's business model up front before deciding whether to play it. When a company advertises a game as "free to play", they're trying to hide the business model, as they're never going to truly give away everything for free. Do you think "free to play" will eventually become a derogatory term that marketers avoid for that reason?
I disagree that they're trying to hide the business model. I find that notion to be quite odd.
I get that having to download a game to find out the content of it's cash shop to be a bit of a turn off, but I wouldn't consider that "hiding" the cash shop. Just like you won't know if you like say, Skyrim, unless you spend $60 to play the game. They're not hiding the game. The only difference is that for F2Ps, you don't have to spend any money at all to play.
As for whether or not you can't tell if those cash shop items are powerful or not, you can actually can tell very easily if they are or not. Whenever I look at a F2P's Cash Shop, I always look to see if the Cash Shop offers bonuses that I consider "unfair". For example, selling more powerful gear in the Cash Shop or items that gives Stats bonuses. I also look if those same items can be acquired in-game somehow (like purchasing it from another player using in-game currency). If it's possible and I find the game interesting, I'll play, otherwise I'll leave. No money lost. If I have doubts, but the game still interests me, then I'll usually Google to see what other players think of the Cash Shop, that has generally proven to be useful to determine whether I want to play the game or skip it.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Originally posted by Quizzical I prefer to know a game's business model up front before deciding whether to play it. When a company advertises a game as "free to play", they're trying to hide the business model, as they're never going to truly give away everything for free. Do you think "free to play" will eventually become a derogatory term that marketers avoid for that reason?
Free 2 Play takes away a lot of the equality in gaming. It lets more people in, but then seperates them based on wealth or willingness to spend. They have started to learn that they cant take anything away from the base game, otherwise the free players will leave, resulting in an empty game. But you will start to see more and more flashy items that distinguish the haves and have nots.
I mean, it guarantees population. But it isnt always the best idea if you want a balanced product without tiers of consumers based on wealth. So I think there will always be a market for both types. People who want in game achievements to determine your character, and people who either want a free game, or want to play with free players and show off their wealth.
Originally posted by Quizzical I prefer to know a game's business model up front before deciding whether to play it. When a company advertises a game as "free to play", they're trying to hide the business model, as they're never going to truly give away everything for free. Do you think "free to play" will eventually become a derogatory term that marketers avoid for that reason?
Nope, simply because almost everyone already knows what the term means and most are fine with it. Never confuse the general concensus here with reality of the rest of the world.
Almost everyone knows what "free to play" means? I certainly don't. Just about everything gets described as "free to play" these days, even with business models that five years ago would have been called a subscription game or buy to play or some such.
Can you give an example of one of the free to play games where you are confused whether it is subscription or free to play? In the meantime, here's the definition of almost.
Most F2P setups are pretty up front about what kind of experience you'll get "for free" or whatever. I look at F2P as more of a "we're not even going to try and retain you as a customer for more than a few months" kind of game. Which sucks for the players who actually like to invest in an mmo.
P2P aren't because they need a specific amount of people to pay in order to make money. It is really that simple.
elaborate on the quoted part. why do P2P need a specific ammount of people and F2P don't ?
is it because P2P having a fixed rate can only increase revenue by increasing playerbase whereas F2P can do so by increasing prices ?
Pretty easy - many F2P games more people spend money in the CS (even in a very little) while people will try a P2P and leave if is not exactly what they wanted, recently. Notice all the P2P games going F2P and wonder why? SWTOR, TSW and TERA are examples. What game has come out RECENTLY that has STAYED P2P?
Most games are pretty up front. You can check out the cashshop the moment you first log into the game.
Which is to say, they won't tell you until after you download the game and start playing. And even then, it takes a while to understand just how strong the things in the item mall are or aren't. And even if you know what's in the item mall today, what's there in a month won't necessarily be all that similar--especially if they're relying heavily on random boxes with constantly changing contents.
Yeah thats my feelings on it as well, nothing up front but take a few hours to download try it out ! "Ok , we got them in game tease them with some good stuff till about level 10, then throw that you should try the store " basicly the grind takes hold. Meh this model is getting old quick.
"The monster created isn't by the company that makes the game, it's by the fans that make it something it never was"
Originally posted by Quizzical I prefer to know a game's business model up front before deciding whether to play it. When a company advertises a game as "free to play", they're trying to hide the business model, as they're never going to truly give away everything for free. Do you think "free to play" will eventually become a derogatory term that marketers avoid for that reason?
Nope, simply because almost everyone already knows what the term means and most are fine with it. Never confuse the general concensus here with reality of the rest of the world.
Almost everyone knows what "free to play" means? I certainly don't. Just about everything gets described as "free to play" these days, even with business models that five years ago would have been called a subscription game or buy to play or some such.
Can you give an example of one of the free to play games where you are confused whether it is subscription or free to play? In the meantime, here's the definition of almost.
SWTOR and EQ2 :P
I play eq2 for free.No new xpacs you need to pay for will be released anymore.We just today got a whole new zone with dungeons and raid zone in it.All 100% free full game,you just need to know how to make plat and buy krono.I will play forever for free.
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire: Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
On a slightly-related note, here's my method of deciding if a F2P game is worth it (assuming it actually looks interesting and gamplay is fun).
If I can get to nearly a full-game experience by spending less than $15 a month in the cash shop, then I won't complain. SWtOR is a good example of how a F2P game can be setup pretty well, despite the criticism. For roughly $40, you can get account unlocks which remove all restrictions other than the field rez limit. You still advance slower, and you still have to buy weekly passes for warzones or flashpoints or ops (at the end game mainly), but the cost of the occassional xp booster (not required) and passes for whatever end-game stuff you do, namely operations, work out to about half the cost of a subscription.
The only exception is if you are a real hardcore player, and do several ops a week, every week, and are constantly farming hardmodes and stuff. At that point, a subscription is probably worth it.
Comments
Only western F2P games do that and that is because they are NOT F2P games, they are FREEMIUMS where they lock much of the base content.
I have never been crippled in a F2P game before, you have clearly played NONE of them.
Yeh. So?
Download is free. Playing the first few min is free. What are you going to lose? Five min?
I wish there were some traditional MMOs being made so traditional MMO gamers could have something to look forward to. I have a feeling all these "sandbox" games coming out are just going to ruin the idea of sandboxes.
I find this an highly idiotic statement. You can't dismiss something like that so easily. It only shows how ignorant you are.
About F2P. I hate the model. I wish Pay per month would get more popular again ;/
They see me lurkin' they hatin...
Well, Americans are used to making that sort of decision. Same reason you dont have socialized medicine. (Almost) Dont really want to get into that discussion. But I will dip my toes.
Europeans are far more comfortable with the idea that you pay once (tax) and then you dont have to think with your wallet every time you feel a bit under the weather. So we know how much we spent. And we know how much we can spend on fun and food.. Getting sick might keep us from working. But it wont saddle us with crippling medical expenses on top ot that.
Same reason we are lousy tippers.. we simply dont realize that americans in the food industry have such a lousy minimum wage that they dont get any money after taxes if they dont get tips.
Back to games. Sure some of them are shameless cash sinks. But I personally (and I think many others agree) believe that some of the good F2P games would have been far more enjoyable if they had been subscribtuion based.
And it certainly hasnt put Gold Sellers out of business that the games sell you gold themselves.. Getting even more spam in F2P games than I ever did.. But that just might be because the market is growing.
Can you give an example of one of the free to play games where you are confused whether it is subscription or free to play? In the meantime, here's the definition of almost.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
And how did that work out for them? Greece, Spain, Cyrus ...
nm
Isn't the debt crisis dragging everyone in the Eurozone down?
Yes and guess who started it ?
They see me lurkin' they hatin...
Actually in the states it is against the law for a hospital to refuse treatment whether the person can pay or not.
A kind of back door public health care.
Most of the developed countries have some form of public health care. 32 of 33 nations I believe it was.
The debt crisis has nothing to do with medical (quite a bit to do with having the government take care of you though from birth to death) and is quite varied depending on the country.
And completely off topic.
I don't think anyone really suffers the illusion that such games are completely free. At this point, I also suspect the vast majority of people are leery of *bad* f2p models. Everyone seems to approach upcoming f2p titles using particular frames of reference, such as "I hope this game's f2p model more closely resembles Game A rather than Game B." Many people have experienced some pretty terrible f2p models where they feel obligated to dish out hundreds of dollars just to be competitive; likewise, many people have experienced solid f2p models where they feel like they get to do virtually everything they want in the game for free. So at this point, I'd say players should look to see exactly *what kind* of f2p model the upcoming game they have their eyes on has.
As for whether f2p will become a universally derogatory term, no. No more than "buy one get one free" is, or "50% off" some marked up price. Many people understand the gimmicks behind price mark ups in retail, but it's still insanely effective. The term "free to play" itself, barring some sort of gaming catastrophe, will forever sound appealing to players.
Of course there are players who are as adamantly against all things f2p as Chevy fans are against Ford, or liberals against conservatives, or sports fanatics against their rivals. But that's just that: simple fandom.
Another whiney thread. 'I want to P2P but not F2P because I want to feel like I am paying for something'. Another complaining thread by people who nothing know about business.
F2P games are out there BECUASE they are making money. P2P aren't because they need a specific amount of people to pay in order to make money. It is really that simple.
I disagree that they're trying to hide the business model. I find that notion to be quite odd.
I get that having to download a game to find out the content of it's cash shop to be a bit of a turn off, but I wouldn't consider that "hiding" the cash shop. Just like you won't know if you like say, Skyrim, unless you spend $60 to play the game. They're not hiding the game. The only difference is that for F2Ps, you don't have to spend any money at all to play.
As for whether or not you can't tell if those cash shop items are powerful or not, you can actually can tell very easily if they are or not. Whenever I look at a F2P's Cash Shop, I always look to see if the Cash Shop offers bonuses that I consider "unfair". For example, selling more powerful gear in the Cash Shop or items that gives Stats bonuses. I also look if those same items can be acquired in-game somehow (like purchasing it from another player using in-game currency). If it's possible and I find the game interesting, I'll play, otherwise I'll leave. No money lost. If I have doubts, but the game still interests me, then I'll usually Google to see what other players think of the Cash Shop, that has generally proven to be useful to determine whether I want to play the game or skip it.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Free 2 Play takes away a lot of the equality in gaming. It lets more people in, but then seperates them based on wealth or willingness to spend. They have started to learn that they cant take anything away from the base game, otherwise the free players will leave, resulting in an empty game. But you will start to see more and more flashy items that distinguish the haves and have nots.
I mean, it guarantees population. But it isnt always the best idea if you want a balanced product without tiers of consumers based on wealth. So I think there will always be a market for both types. People who want in game achievements to determine your character, and people who either want a free game, or want to play with free players and show off their wealth.
SWTOR and EQ2 :P
You make me like charity
Pretty easy - many F2P games more people spend money in the CS (even in a very little) while people will try a P2P and leave if is not exactly what they wanted, recently. Notice all the P2P games going F2P and wonder why? SWTOR, TSW and TERA are examples. What game has come out RECENTLY that has STAYED P2P?
Yeah thats my feelings on it as well, nothing up front but take a few hours to download try it out ! "Ok , we got them in game tease them with some good stuff till about level 10, then throw that you should try the store " basicly the grind takes hold. Meh this model is getting old quick.
"The monster created isn't by the company that makes the game, it's by the fans that make it something it never was"
I play eq2 for free.No new xpacs you need to pay for will be released anymore.We just today got a whole new zone with dungeons and raid zone in it.All 100% free full game,you just need to know how to make plat and buy krono.I will play forever for free.
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire:
Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
On a slightly-related note, here's my method of deciding if a F2P game is worth it (assuming it actually looks interesting and gamplay is fun).
If I can get to nearly a full-game experience by spending less than $15 a month in the cash shop, then I won't complain. SWtOR is a good example of how a F2P game can be setup pretty well, despite the criticism. For roughly $40, you can get account unlocks which remove all restrictions other than the field rez limit. You still advance slower, and you still have to buy weekly passes for warzones or flashpoints or ops (at the end game mainly), but the cost of the occassional xp booster (not required) and passes for whatever end-game stuff you do, namely operations, work out to about half the cost of a subscription.
The only exception is if you are a real hardcore player, and do several ops a week, every week, and are constantly farming hardmodes and stuff. At that point, a subscription is probably worth it.
You make me like charity