Howdy, Stranger!

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

Is F2P what we want? Seriously?

1234568

Comments

  • CeridithCeridith Member UncommonPosts: 2,980

    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by waynejr2


    Originally posted by vesavius

    I wish folks would understand how buying in game rewards, even just vanity ones, changes  the core nature of what defines a game.

    I know it's an abstract concept and one that dosent appeal to notions of instant gratification or the laziness of users, but it's one that more people should try to understand because it effects everything. It requires seeing a bigger picture outside of the personal bubble though, and that isnt a strength in many.

    The relabelling of games into the vague grey realm of 'entertainment products', and everything that means, should actually worry gamers everywhere.

     

    But then I am a gamer, not a shopper, and I buy these games to play them, not to use a virtual mall to buy pretend product for real cash, so I guess I will never get it.

     There are also people who have many hours to devote to playing games.  They have an ingame advantage.  So how do we come up  with one system that addresses the imbalances of real world cash, game play time and other factors so that all are the same.  If we address one we have to address them all. Otherwise it's just another case of attacking one style or preference to another style of play.

     

    There is no sound reason why things have to be fair. We are talking about digital ENTERTAINMENT here. If it is fun, do people really care about if someone can buy their way into epic items, or that others would spend their entire life to get ahead?

    Judging by the size of the player base, i would say people don't care.

    Would you care if you joined a chess tournament and other players were able to pay $10 more to get an extra queen on the board?

  • ComanComan Member UncommonPosts: 2,171

    Originally posted by Ceridith

    Would you care if you joined a chess tournament and other players were able to pay $10 more to get an extra queen on the board?

    Yet people join poker games where people can buy extra chips in the middle of a tournement. 

  • CeridithCeridith Member UncommonPosts: 2,980

    Originally posted by Coman

    Originally posted by Ceridith


    Would you care if you joined a chess tournament and other players were able to pay $10 more to get an extra queen on the board?

    Yet people join poker games where people can buy extra chips in the middle of a tournement. 

    Apples to oranges. Poker tournaments are gambling, and chips are expended/won based on performance. You can also only buy back in after you've lost, not during a game, if I'm not mistaken.

    Chess, along with many other games, are about starting on an even playing field, and progressing based on personal performance. A lot of people feel MMOs should play this way.

    Granted a lot of people want to be able to pay to achieve, that's not necessarily wrong either. However, trying to say that P2P and/or non-RMT games are inferior is nonsense. No matter how much you may rationalize the existence of RMT in an MMO, there are others who can equally rationalize counter, and you ca both be right. It comes down to personal preference.

    I doubt that the entire industry will go F2P. If it does, there will be a considerable number of people who would just stop playing MMOs altogether, myself included. It would make far more sense if more MMOs simply offered parallel gameplay options with separate servers, where if you want F2P with an item mall, you can play that version, or if you want a more level playing field, a P2P subsction version where there was absolutely no RMT and everything was available through gameplay.

  • ZzadZzad Member UncommonPosts: 1,401

    Prefer the BTP (buy to play) formula like Guild Wars 2  :)

    I don´t like the FTP model with those annoying cash shops they sells tons of potions to keep going...

    I rather pay a subscription to a game that deserves it   ;)

  • TimukasTimukas Member UncommonPosts: 699

    I definitely do not like f2p games. They are all garbage or dying games. I prefer to pay monthly sub and get whole content for that.

  • waynejr2waynejr2 Member EpicPosts: 7,768

    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by waynejr2

    Originally posted by vesavius

    I wish folks would understand how buying in game rewards, even just vanity ones, changes  the core nature of what defines a game.

    I know it's an abstract concept and one that dosent appeal to notions of instant gratification or the laziness of users, but it's one that more people should try to understand because it effects everything. It requires seeing a bigger picture outside of the personal bubble though, and that isnt a strength in many.

    The relabelling of games into the vague grey realm of 'entertainment products', and everything that means, should actually worry gamers everywhere.

     

    But then I am a gamer, not a shopper, and I buy these games to play them, not to use a virtual mall to buy pretend product for real cash, so I guess I will never get it.

     There are also people who have many hours to devote to playing games.  They have an ingame advantage.  So how do we come up  with one system that addresses the imbalances of real world cash, game play time and other factors so that all are the same.  If we address one we have to address them all. Otherwise it's just another case of attacking one style or preference to another style of play.

     

    There is no sound reason why things have to be fair. We are talking about digital ENTERTAINMENT here. If it is fun, do people really care about if someone can buy their way into epic items, or that others would spend their entire life to get ahead?

    Judging by the size of the player base, i would say people don't care.

     Then pay to win is a fair thing.

    http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog190810A.html  

    Epic Music:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1

    https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1

    Kyleran:  "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."

    John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."

    FreddyNoNose:  "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."

    LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"




  • quentin405quentin405 Member Posts: 468

     I will say that most of the F2P games that are made from scratch to be f2p (i.e. Perfect world games) are ... generic and unplayable to any REAL mmo vet..

     

    But another example Lotro store is awesome and I am totally for it. No gamebreaking pay to win items.  But plenty of things that someone who has money to spend on a hobby can buy and enjoy his gametime more then before, is a very good thing.  Im not saying I support pay to win shops but a store with tons of fluff items and mounts and things are a good addition.. It allows players to have more fun and the devs and publishers to employ more people and make more patches for the games we love to play...

     

    Just my 2 cents :P

    image

  • morritzmorritz Member Posts: 28

    Originally posted by waynejr2

    Originally posted by vesavius

    I wish folks would understand how buying in game rewards, even just vanity ones, changes  the core nature of what defines a game.

    I know it's an abstract concept and one that dosent appeal to notions of instant gratification or the laziness of users, but it's one that more people should try to understand because it effects everything. It requires seeing a bigger picture outside of the personal bubble though, and that isnt a strength in many.

    The relabelling of games into the vague grey realm of 'entertainment products', and everything that means, should actually worry gamers everywhere.

     

    But then I am a gamer, not a shopper, and I buy these games to play them, not to use a virtual mall to buy pretend product for real cash, so I guess I will never get it.

     There are also people who have many hours to devote to playing games.  They have an ingame advantage.  So how do we come up  with one system that addresses the imbalances of real world cash, game play time and other factors so that all are the same.  If we address one we have to address them all. Otherwise it's just another case of attacking one style or preference to another style of play.

    This is actually easily addressed, though you have to know from the start that you'll never make everyone happy.

    If everything that is attainable by spending massive amounts of time in game is also attainable by cash, then you have your balance.

    If you want to earn it, then play the game.  If you're time is limitted but you still want to be able to experience as much as you can, fork over the cash.  When two people meet in PvP, they won't even know how the other person got their gear, but the person who played and earned it will likely have the advatage of real experience.

  • joeballsjoeballs Member UncommonPosts: 163

    Originally posted by Mimzel

    Having developers code in hindrances that make you have to use the Cash Shop to get any real enjoyment out of our games. Is that really what MMO's are moving into?

    Who asked for this? It sure as hell wasnt me! 

    Personally, I think the f2p/cash shop games are either:


    1. dated and have lost a lot of their subscribers.

    2. not a very good game so they're looking to make up for lost money/dev time.

    3. targeted towards a younger audience.

    What I'm looking for in an mmo is a game whose company thinks their game is worth a monthly subscription and that it's targeting an audience who can afford it (i.e. adult).


     


    The problem is that the genre is stagnant. For each mmo that comes out, you feel like you're playing the same game only with a different skin. You can't charge monthly for that.


     


    Create something new and exciting, that's based on exploration, survival, and socializing, and I'll gladly pay a monthly fee.

  • DatcydeDatcyde Member UncommonPosts: 564

    Originally posted by Mimzel

    Having developers code in hindrances that make you have to use the Cash Shop to get any real enjoyment out of our games. Is that really what MMO's are moving into?

    Who asked for this? It sure as hell wasnt me! 

     The reason cash shop might be better for certain mmos is because people actualy pay more then 14.99 a month well most people it's actually not free for those simple minded people they go play and those kids that use momy and daddies credit cards its good for them they dont care.

    It's just like blizzard making wow all carebearish with no pvp loss and final fantasy making games like FFXIV and making ridiculous sequels like XIII-2 people just go along for the rideand dont think and still pay ..................break the continuity.

  • King_KumquatKing_Kumquat Member Posts: 492

    This has became a redundant argument again. If not quite cyclical the King deems. Look, F2P is B2P in chunks.

    And it's fine that way. You save a little cash and can cut the fat from a title. Nothing wrong with no fatties.


    Will develop an original MMORPG title for money.
  • FoomerangFoomerang Member UncommonPosts: 5,619

    Im waiting for the $2.99/month mmos to surface with no cash shops and free game DL. That would be amazing.

  • DatcydeDatcyde Member UncommonPosts: 564

    Originally posted by King_Kumquat

    This has became a redundant argument again. If not quite cyclical the King deems. Look, F2P is B2P in chunks.

    And it's fine that way. You save a little cash and can cut the fat from a title. Nothing wrong with no fatties.

      The problem is the the drop rate is effect by the FTP model and it just becomes a grind.

  • IhmoteppIhmotepp Member Posts: 14,495

    Originally posted by morritz

    Originally posted by waynejr2


    Originally posted by vesavius

    I wish folks would understand how buying in game rewards, even just vanity ones, changes  the core nature of what defines a game.

    I know it's an abstract concept and one that dosent appeal to notions of instant gratification or the laziness of users, but it's one that more people should try to understand because it effects everything. It requires seeing a bigger picture outside of the personal bubble though, and that isnt a strength in many.

    The relabelling of games into the vague grey realm of 'entertainment products', and everything that means, should actually worry gamers everywhere.

     

    But then I am a gamer, not a shopper, and I buy these games to play them, not to use a virtual mall to buy pretend product for real cash, so I guess I will never get it.

     There are also people who have many hours to devote to playing games.  They have an ingame advantage.  So how do we come up  with one system that addresses the imbalances of real world cash, game play time and other factors so that all are the same.  If we address one we have to address them all. Otherwise it's just another case of attacking one style or preference to another style of play.

    This is actually easily addressed, though you have to know from the start that you'll never make everyone happy.

    If everything that is attainable by spending massive amounts of time in game is also attainable by cash, then you have your balance.

    If you want to earn it, then play the game.  If you're time is limitted but you still want to be able to experience as much as you can, fork over the cash.  When two people meet in PvP, they won't even know how the other person got their gear, but the person who played and earned it will likely have the advatage of real experience.

     

    I don't enjoy games that have real life cash inside the game world.

    I enjoy games that do not have real life cash inside the game world.

    Because, I want it to be a game, that is not like the real world, and for me, putting real life cash inside the game world ruins that experience. 

    It's not about a "balance".

    It's about what I enjoy playing, which is a game with no real world cash insde the game world.

    I don't mind that other people enjoy games with real life cash in the game world.

    But I do not enjoy those kinds of games.

    I would hope people that do enjoy those games don't mind if I do not.

    I also prefer a barrier to entry, of at least 14.99 a month.

    It is an incentive not to act like a jerkwad to the point you get banned, lose your character (that you paid to level up) and have to start over.

    Free? Who cares, just be a  jerkwad, and make new accounts.

    image

  • daltaniousdaltanious Member UncommonPosts: 2,381

    Originally posted by MrDoogan

    I personally like the F2P format... it lets you try the game out and see if it is something you want to invest in, then you can invest as much or as little as you want to play. The hardcore types are going to be willing to pay for all the bells and whistles, and the casual players can pay for only the things they want. How is this a bad thing?

    I personally hate f2p, because is destroyer of quality (not that p2p is guarantee for anything :-)). And not only. Tied in past many ... at the end of the month have spent more for crippled game than would for full game. And if want to try .. use trial. But im ok with f2p as long as they do not plan to ruin Wow or Rift. Rest actually I'm not sure if is qualified at all for p2p.

  • IhmoteppIhmotepp Member Posts: 14,495

    Originally posted by Foomerang

    Im waiting for the $2.99/month mmos to surface with no cash shops and free game DL. That would be amazing.

     

    Would you buy more shoe strings if they were only 10 cents?

    Sometimes a lower price does not encourage more purchases, depending on the product.

    I'm not sure anyone not willing to pay 14.99 a month, is willing to pay 2.99 a month.

    Or at least, not a significant amount of players to make the price reduction worthwhile.

    image

  • King_KumquatKing_Kumquat Member Posts: 492

    Originally posted by Datcyde

    Originally posted by King_Kumquat

    This has became a redundant argument again. If not quite cyclical the King deems. Look, F2P is B2P in chunks.

    And it's fine that way. You save a little cash and can cut the fat from a title. Nothing wrong with no fatties.

      The problem is the the drop rate is effect by the FTP model and it just becomes a grind.

    Eh?

    I've not seen that to be the case in any game from Scions of Fate to LotRO. Sounds like hyperbole and a scare thought against the F2P model. 

    The King dubs that a poor argument.


    Will develop an original MMORPG title for money.
  • Z3R01Z3R01 Member UncommonPosts: 2,415

    I want buy to play with optional DLC and expansions.

    Kinda like guildwars.

    I enjoy many mmos and i hate that i have to pay 10-15 bucks a months for all of them even if i only spend 5 hours in a game a month.

    Playing:

    Waiting on:

  • OzimandeusOzimandeus Member UncommonPosts: 84

    I think on balance Free to Play games like Guild Wars, Lord of the Rings Online and Dungeons and Dragons online. Are in fact better for the player. P2P is likely to be better for the shareholders of the companies. Games which ignore the fact that players may want to have bonuses with real money changing hands lead to gold sellers and inevitable problems with security. Games which embrace the ability to pay for in game bonuses are less plagued by the curse of the gold farmer.

    As a gamer who enjoys playing lots of games I don't want to 'have-to' pay a subby or even a fee up front, if however I enjoy the game I may invest in 'VIP' servces such as you see in LOTRO and DDO, or in expansions to content and functional items such as in Guild Wars.

    P2P games like WoW and Rift may seem to have the market 'cornered' but thats just wishful thinking - the marketplace in the far east dwarf's WoW's 'huge' subscriber base by 10's of millions.

    I think we are at last reaching some form of maturity within the MMO scence, where 'pop' games such as WoW and Rift who angle their games in an unorignal world, a forumlaric methodology and quite shallow lore will inevtably succeed because the game playing public en-masse is quite a lazy beast and doesn't like to be challenged too much with anythig too complex or lore centric.

    Games on the F2P frontier however can really innovate (and have too to keep people playing and paying for items in the item mall) and create games which attract a more refined taste, sadly this often means they shine brightly but not for long.

    Bottom line is, there is room for every taste.. gone are the days of  'one game to rule them all'.. but F2P is where innovation and orignality sell the games, where P2P is stale, stagnant, forularic rubbish for the most part.

     

  • thinktank001thinktank001 Member UncommonPosts: 2,144

    Originally posted by osawtell

    I think on balance Free to Play games like Guild Wars, Lord of the Rings Online and Dungeons and Dragons online. Are in fact better for the player. P2P is likely to be better for the shareholders of the companies. Games which ignore the fact that players may want to have bonuses with real money changing hands lead to gold sellers and inevitable problems with security. Games which embrace the ability to pay for in game bonuses are less plagued by the curse of the gold farmer.

    As a gamer who enjoys playing lots of games I don't want to 'have-to' pay a subby or even a fee up front, if however I enjoy the game I may invest in 'VIP' servces such as you see in LOTRO and DDO, or in expansions to content and functional items such as in Guild Wars.

    P2P games like WoW and Rift may seem to have the market 'cornered' but thats just wishful thinking - the marketplace in the far east dwarf's WoW's 'huge' subscriber base by 10's of millions.

    I think we are at last reaching some form of maturity within the MMO scence, where 'pop' games such as WoW and Rift who angle their games in an unorignal world, a forumlaric methodology and quite shallow lore will inevtably succeed because the game playing public en-masse is quite a lazy beast and doesn't like to be challenged too much with anythig too complex or lore centric.

    Games on the F2P frontier however can really innovate (and have too to keep people playing and paying for items in the item mall) and create games which attract a more refined taste, sadly this often means they shine brightly but not for long.

    Bottom line is, there is room for every taste.. gone are the days of  'one game to rule them all'.. but F2P is where innovation and orignality sell the games, where P2P is stale, stagnant, forularic rubbish for the most part.

     

     

    I hate to burst your bubble, but P2W does not have anything to do with originality or innovation.   All P2W is taking the same game mechanics and setting them up so that they can be easily monetized.   I guess you could argue it is the exact opposite of originality, since game mechanics need to setup easily so that players can see the advantage of paying for that bonus.

  • OkhamsRazorOkhamsRazor Member Posts: 1,047

    Originally posted by Timukas

    I definitely do not like f2p games. They are all garbage or dying games. I prefer to pay monthly sub and get whole content for that.

     This statement actually pertty much proves you don't have a clue what your talking about . Its just a generalisation  . In some cases it may be true but certainly not in all . For expample Lord of the Rings had a strong player base when it went free to play . Since then its increased its income by a factor of 3 . So it made financial sence to change over to it after DDO increased its revenues . While it may not be to your taste its certainly not garbage . Again if you take a look at Forsaken World released as a free to play game it offers pretty strong gameplay when compared with a current pay to play game such as Aion . How many mmos are really worth a monthly fee . At present I can only think of three . WoW , Rift and EvE . In fact theres less decent pay to play games than there are decent free to play ones . When it comes to dying games I personally think it would have been better if the likes of Tabula Rasa had survived in a f2play form .  You also don't seam to understanding of the freemium model that Lotro has . You can still pay a monthly sub and get the full content . In some ways what free to play amounts to in such games is a really long and absorbing free trial that is not time limited . I don't suppose you have anything against demos or free trials do you ?

  • I think F2P can work, but I don't like it in the current incarnation.  I am of the belief that a game that is highly loot / trade based would do real well if player to player real money transactions were supported and "taxed" by the dev.  That's a game I'd certainly hop on board with, assuming it was well made.

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 5,807


    Originally posted by Adamantine
    F2P puts capitalism into my game, thats what I dont like.
    I want every player to have equal chances. The only difference should be their skill, including their social skills, and the time they have for playing.

    That's my thoughts exactly. I deal with socioeconomic classes in real life. I really do not wish to deal with it in my free time. It's the principle of the models.

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR

  • motersmoters Member UncommonPosts: 73

    I do not like f2p or pay to win personally but the compnays will do what suites them the best and what makes them more money its always about money.

  • kinkyJalepenokinkyJalepeno Member UncommonPosts: 1,043

    Originally posted by vesavius

    To have this discussion you have to define what you mean by 'F2P'.

     

    Do you mean;

     

    A)  the failed AAA games that have resorted to a 'Freemium' model because they cannot attract subs?

    Or

     B)  true (so called) 'F2P' games that we see advertised all over that are designed from the ground up to promote cash shop use in the most insidious ways?

     

    This is worth underlining because the industry, including this site, is deliberatly confusing the two and a lot of players who don't know better thinks F2P is cool because they play LotR or whatever

     

    (To be clear, I am a fan of neither to say the least, I like to play for my in game rewards because I am a gamer and not a shopper, but many players use A to demonstrate the strengths of both models when in reality they are very different animals and should be talked about as seperate cases)

     

    If you are talking about B then obviously I don't want 'games' like these within 1000 yards of my PC. They are exploitative, dishonest, and destroy the very essence of what makes a game a game. They are for the stupid and gullible that percieve a sub of £2.50 a week as 'too expensive' but will then spend that in multiples as their addiction driven impulse buys dictate.

     

     

    Independent websites need to start talking about this whole subject more honestly and stop waving around the Freemium games as poster children of the F2P 'movement', because they are not the same thing at all and making out that they are is dishonest (making me wonder who are the paymasters behind the pro F2P shilling I see all over the net).

    Folks should start asking themselves where the balanced 'official' critical discussion about this core issue is taking place, because right now I am not seeing it.

    People need to grasp that the AAA MMORPGs that use a Freemium model would never have been made with the core mechanics and philosophy they were under the F2P model.

     You sir, win this thread by a country mile.

    I'm sick of seeing AAA titles dieing a death because the devs fucked up/released a sub par game and people left.  Only for it to go F2P and be rescued when the "Freebie gang" take up residence.  I'd prefer it if the game died like it would have done back in the day.  Might teach devs they have one chance to release something worthy.

    Now devs have been given more room to release shit.  I can just hear them say "we need more polish and depth", "naaaa lets not, we can rake in the box sales then when people leave we can go F2P and get the Freebie Gang's money" Mwhahahaha

    I also have a problem with the games (as this man above said) that are built and released with F2P in mind.  They are a pox on the internet.  Spreading like a cash hungry disease across social networking sites to pull in the kiddies and dopey adults.  I have yet to see even one F2P game I would play beyond a few days.  I have tried a few so I have no problem voicing my opinion.  Its born of trying this pish out..

    Peace..

Sign In or Register to comment.