Howdy, Stranger!

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

'The market has spoken very loudly that [F2P] is the model they like'

1910121415

Comments

  • TalinTalin Member Posts: 824

    The market doesn't want F2P, they just like getting things for free.

    The fundamental problem with F2P is that it isn't actually free, nor is the implementaion of the paywall consistent by any means.

    P2P was always simple; you paid a flat fee purchase followed by a clearly defined sub amount. There might have been a small number of premium services like transfers, but nothing that had any impact on gameplay. Expansions were the only other potential investment.

    B2P was even easier, it is all of the same points with no monthly investment. This is how every non-MMO game's purchase structure has been for decades now.

    F2P cannot be defined in any consistent manner, except to say that you don't pay anything to start playing, but you may need to pay at some point to reasonably progress/enjoy the game. Why anyone thinks this is a consumer-friendly business model is beyond me.

  • QuirhidQuirhid Member UncommonPosts: 6,230
    Originally posted by itgrowls

    Arenanet might have been highly disappointing post launch with the way they managed their GW2 title but there's one thing they were not wrong about, and that's exactly where your sub money is going. It's fluff and it's rarely used for anything constructive.

    It's not used for maintenance because that's cheap now, it's not used for support because there's other ways of paying for that, and it's not used for new content until it's time to mass develope an expansion so where does it go.

    Where have you been? They spent a ton of resources on improving/mending their game/graphics engine. Sure the end-result is not all that visible, but it is anything but fluff.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • WarleyWarley Member UncommonPosts: 507
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by Arclan

     


    Originally posted by Sephiroso
    actually those mmos went f2p BECAUSE they were garbage and f2p was the only way the developers could continue to keep the game running because they clearly failed to make a decent enough game to warrant people spending a subscription on it.

     

     

    they didn't go f2p simply because they thought they would make even more money with f2p, it was literally the only way to keep the game running. a p2p game going f2p is like a last resort deal. there may be 1 or 2 exceptions to this rule, but that is the norm.


     

     

    Yes, exactly. Better to get a few dollars from players before they conclude the game sucks. News of DDO and LOTR's suckage is very public. But a lot of people do not do their homework and will download a free game as long as it has a cool brand (like LOTR or D&D). And maybe they don't feel guilty about spending $5 in the cash shop.

     News of LOTRO enjoyability and stability is very public. 

    Or, they simply have the loudest fans. I played the game. It was immensely shallow at launch, and still shallow a few years later. It's easy to tell why it didn't grow like WoW. It was a poor man's version.

  • GrunchGrunch Member Posts: 493
    Originally posted by Loktofeit

    Title is quote from an EA exec on the free to play model.

     

    Full article: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-04-02-ea-mobile-boss-freemium-haters-a-vocal-minority

    ROFLMOAOIOIOI!!!

     

    The only reason F2P or B2Win works for EA is because they kill their mmorpgs. They are a horrible company that does not understand how to make a good game. The best MMO's currently under their belt are games like UO and DAoC which were created without the help of EA LOL. Somewhere some EA exec saw the $$ that Blizzard was making with WoW and ever since they have failed time after time to cash in on the mmo market.

     

    I would much rather play a monthly sub mmo then a F2P(B2W) mmo.

    "I'm sorry but your mmo has been diagnosed with EA and only has X number of days to live."

  • VesaviusVesavius Member RarePosts: 7,883
    Originally posted by Damedius
    Originally posted by Vesavius
    Originally posted by bcbully

    Sub is just fine.

     

    B2P is evil. Anything with a 60$ upfront fee is evil. 

     

    Free is to intrusive.

     

    I agree with all this BC.

    Free client, 1-2 week full access trial, then sub (with no cash shop) is my ideal.

    Your a freebie seeker. The worst kind of customer possible.

    No company in their right mind would care what you think. In fact most companies wouldn't want you anywhere near their products. They want customers who have money and are willing to spend it. 

    Avoiding freebie seekers is marketing 101.

     

    You have no idea what I am.

    I want to pay a sub. How does that define 'freebie'?

    Engage brain before mouth next time.

  • iixviiiixiixviiiix Member RarePosts: 1,914

    Only thing i don't like about F2P games are they natural gamble

    Gamble everywhere in a F2P game.

    I love if they just tell the right price ,

    i don't want to gamble my money for some ramdom things.

     

    They need more honest.

    I will pay if it's suitable price

    but gamble ? Sorry , i don't think i'm a gambler.

     

    Bost % gear enchant success rate ? NO

    Bost % drop rate ? NO

    Ramdom Gamble item ? NO

     

    I will quit if isee them in a F2P game or i will never spend money on that game.

    It fine if they give them a price and sell them , but no gamble.

    I love to pay money for game content

    But i not into gamble ,

    and if i want to gamble , i will go to a casino ,

    at lest in casino , when i win , i can have some money back.

    F2P game gamble only waste money lol

  • VolkonVolkon Member UncommonPosts: 3,748
    Originally posted by Vesavius

     

    You have no idea what I am.

    I want to pay a sub. How does that define 'freebie'?

    Engage brain before mouth next time.

     

    What if you were given the power to determine how much of a sub you wanted to pay per month? You know, you buy the box then can optionally pay whatever amount you want per month. If you choose not to pay you still get access to all the new content that will be released and won't fall behind at all. It's up to you.

     

    That's ANets model with GW2. Buy the box, cash shop is there with fully cosmetic or convenience items (no hint of P2W at all). You can spend at much or as little extra as you wish and you'll never miss out on any aspect of the game. Easily the best model I've personally seen. I've probably paid about the same as I would have with a sub, and I'm getting things by choice instead of paying for the right to access a game I already bought.

     

    That's the problem I have with subs... you buy the game, but if you want to play the game you bought you have to pay extra every month. In this day and age it's stunning people think that's actually a good idea.

    Oderint, dum metuant.

  • WarleyWarley Member UncommonPosts: 507
    Originally posted by Volkon
    Originally posted by Vesavius

     

    You have no idea what I am.

    I want to pay a sub. How does that define 'freebie'?

    Engage brain before mouth next time.

     What if you were given the power to determine how much of a sub you wanted to pay per month? You know, you buy the box then can optionally pay whatever amount you want per month. If you choose not to pay you still get access to all the new content that will be released and won't fall behind at all. It's up to you.

     That's ANets model with GW2. Buy the box, cash shop is there with fully cosmetic or convenience items (no hint of P2W at all). You can spend at much or as little extra as you wish and you'll never miss out on any aspect of the game. Easily the best model I've personally seen. I've probably paid about the same as I would have with a sub, and I'm getting things by choice instead of paying for the right to access a game I already bought.

     That's the problem I have with subs... you buy the game, but if you want to play the game you bought you have to pay extra every month. In this day and age it's stunning people think that's actually a good idea.

    Guild Wars 2 has no where near the amount of content that WoW, EQ, AC1, UO, EQ2, or even LoTRO or DDO have. It just does not compare. Subs are meant to pay for upkeep and the development of additional content. WoW, at one time, was abusing the subscriptions by not producing content, but the rest of the games I mentioned either release or had released content in a somewhat timely fashion that didn't require you to pay additional money.

    Guild Wars 1/2 are both designed specifically to reduce maintenance cost so they -naturally- don't have as much depth as most MMO's.

  • worldalphaworldalpha Member Posts: 403
    Another sub vs B2P vs F2P thread.  Maybe they should make this a sticky thread so the argument can rage on for years to come! :)

    Thanks,
    Mike
    Working on Social Strategy MMORTS (now Launched!) http://www.worldalpha.com

  • VolkonVolkon Member UncommonPosts: 3,748
    Originally posted by Warley

    Guild Wars 2 has no where near the amount of content that WoW, EQ, AC1, UO, EQ2, or even LoTRO or DDO have. It just does not compare. Subs are meant to pay for upkeep and the development of additional content. WoW, at one time, was abusing the subscriptions by not producing content, but the rest of the games I mentioned either release or had released content in a somewhat timely fashion that didn't require you to pay additional money.

    Guild Wars 1/2 are both designed specifically to reduce maintenance cost so they -naturally- don't have as much depth as most MMO's.

     

    Total content, no. Viable content at end game? GW2 easily exceeds WoW in that regards (I haven't played the others so can't say). WoW endgame is nothing more than the latest raid, period. All prior content is obsoleted. Huge differences. GW2 is also releasing content in varying degrees monthly without a subscription, so the myth that you need subs for new content is totally busted. The cosmetic cash shop plus box sales are more than covering their expences.

     

    They're still hiring, btw, over half a year after release. No servers closing or being merged, no layoffs. That should say something as to the efficacy of their model.

    Oderint, dum metuant.

  • Raithe-NorRaithe-Nor Member Posts: 315
    Originally posted by Warley

    Subs are meant to pay for upkeep and the development of additional content.

    Originally, subscriptions were a small pittance compared to telecommunication rates and were mostly used to pay GMs, pay for the game provider's telecommunication charges, and upkeep on servers.  Of course, it's also nice if your business has at least some small amount of profit as well.

    So no, development does not have to be included in the price.  The design of an MMO (once again, Massively Multiplayer) was intended to allow people to entertain each other.

    WoW, at one time, was abusing the subscriptions by not producing content...

    WoW (in general) only releases expansion packs that you must pay for ON TOP OF your subscription price.  I have no idea how you became so confused.

    Guild Wars 1/2 are both designed specifically to reduce maintenance cost so they -naturally- don't have as much depth as most MMO's.

    GW2 has far more content development than most of the games listed had at launch.  Once again, you are thoroughly confused.  On top of a larger map, GW2 has hundreds of "events" that chain into each other and can be quite entertaining.  Plus it has WvW and plain jane PvP, both of which existed at the start.

     

  • QuirhidQuirhid Member UncommonPosts: 6,230
    Originally posted by Volkon
    Originally posted by Vesavius

    That's the problem I have with subs... you buy the game, but if you want to play the game you bought you have to pay extra every month. In this day and age it's stunning people think that's actually a good idea.

    Its because some people think they get more by paying more. Whatever they use to justify their views; quality, community, necessity, etc. its all pretty much bullshit. They're only trying to defend their precious (likely first) MMO that may have used whatever to pay for it years ago. They are so engrained in this thought that they don't see how the market and the industry has changed.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • SysFailSysFail Member Posts: 375
    If i thought i could get free stuff i'd shout loudly too, but i'm happy to pay for a product if it gives me entertainment or nourishment.
  • Raithe-NorRaithe-Nor Member Posts: 315
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Its because some people think they get more by paying more. Whatever they use to justify their views; quality, community, necessity, etc. its all pretty much bullshit. They're only trying to defend the MMO to which they have been imprinted* to may have used years ago. They are so engrained in this thought that they don't see how the market and the industry has changed.

    It sounds to me like you are the one engrained in "bullshit" (your word).  Either F2P is providing more revenue (meaning players are paying MORE) or it's failing to meet the subscription standard.

    The truth is that F2P in the past has provided more revenue because it allowed psychologically impaired people to pay hundreds of dollars per month on the game of their obsession.  The problem with this approach is that it generally leaves psychologically impaired people as your sole source of income, and it is subject to competition from companies that provide essentially the same services of RMT advancement without the hefty pricetag.

    As I've said before, F2P has just been a way to make a business out of failure (at least in the past).  Strategies that allow you to turn failure into business are usually short-lived.

  • udonudon Member UncommonPosts: 1,803
    Originally posted by Raithe-Nor
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Its because some people think they get more by paying more. Whatever they use to justify their views; quality, community, necessity, etc. its all pretty much bullshit. They're only trying to defend the MMO to which they have been imprinted* to may have used years ago. They are so engrained in this thought that they don't see how the market and the industry has changed.

    It sounds to me like you are the one engrained in "bullshit" (your word).  Either F2P is providing more revenue (meaning players are paying MORE) or it's failing to meet the subscription standard.

    The truth is that F2P in the past has provided more revenue because it allowed psychologically impaired people to pay hundreds of dollars per month on the game of their obsession.  The problem with this approach is that it generally leaves psychologically impaired people as your sole source of income, and it is subject to competition from companies that provide essentially the same services of RMT advancement without the hefty pricetag.

    As I've said before, F2P has just been a way to make a business out of failure (at least in the past).  Strategies that allow you to turn failure into business are usually short-lived.

    You seem to be missing or ignoring the whole idea that a F2P game has many more people paying on average less than a Subscription game does.  I have one subscription game that I raid in (EQ2) and it works fine for me.  I play that game enough hours each week to easily justify the cost of the subsciption.  Than I also have a number of other games that I come and go from that if they where subsciption only I would not play because I can't justify the cost of the monthly fee's.  I do spend money in those games but it's only when I am playing them, I can just walk away whenever the mood hits me to try something different and don't spend a dime until I come back.

    And I'm not sure if it's just me or average but I spend a lot less on F2P games per month than I do on a Subscription.  Part of that is that I play those games less frequently for sure but you can enjoy a F2P game without spending lots of money each month.  TSW is a great example of this.

    I like TSW in small bites, to small to justify a sub but large enough to justify the occasional adventure pack or item purchase.

    The thing I really hate is lock boxes that drop with keys that you have to buy.  You want to charge me $20, $30 whatever for a mount fine but don't hide it in a lockbox with unpublished odds of winning.  My bet is if they did have to publish those odds people would find out that on average those things are costing $100's to buy in some cases.

  • Raithe-NorRaithe-Nor Member Posts: 315
    Originally posted by udon

    You seem to be missing or ignoring the whole idea that a F2P game has many more people paying on average less than a Subscription game does.  I have one subscription game that I raid in (EQ2) and it works fine for me.  I play that game enough hours each week to easily justify the cost of the subsciption.  Than I also have a number of other games that I come and go from that if they where subsciption only I would not play because I can't justify the cost of the monthly fee's...

    If this were the case, then companies could simply lower their subscription costs (or create tiered subscription options / pay-by-day options / etc).  There is a reason why cash shops and F2P go hand-in-hand.

    MMO players are obsessive in general, not pragmatic.  Subscription fees never prevent a person from playing a MMO game that they truly enjoy.  MMOs, even subscription-based ones, are some of the MOST economical forms of entertainment you can purchase in terms of hours entertainment per dollar.  You are merely repeating back rhetoric that has been spouted from MMO marketing departments - people like you (and me) are NOT paying for their company expenses, let alone any of the profit.

  • Zlayer77Zlayer77 Member Posts: 826

    Its very simple EA cant make games that people will pay for period.. Free to play is the only way they can get people to give their games a try.. Also Micro transactions is what the suits want... get little kidds to use mommy and daddys credit card.. The hole artical just made me sick...

    The hole gaming industry is slowly killing itself off.. Once upone a time Games were about having fun, now its more about how much money can we scam the customers out off....

  • QuirhidQuirhid Member UncommonPosts: 6,230
    Originally posted by Raithe-Nor
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Its because some people think they get more by paying more. Whatever they use to justify their views; quality, community, necessity, etc. its all pretty much bullshit. They're only trying to defend the MMO to which they have been imprinted* to may have used years ago. They are so engrained in this thought that they don't see how the market and the industry has changed.

    It sounds to me like you are the one engrained in "bullshit" (your word).  Either F2P is providing more revenue (meaning players are paying MORE) or it's failing to meet the subscription standard.

    The truth is that F2P in the past has provided more revenue because it allowed psychologically impaired people to pay hundreds of dollars per month on the game of their obsession.  The problem with this approach is that it generally leaves psychologically impaired people as your sole source of income, and it is subject to competition from companies that provide essentially the same services of RMT advancement without the hefty pricetag.

    As I've said before, F2P has just been a way to make a business out of failure (at least in the past).  Strategies that allow you to turn failure into business are usually short-lived.

    "Psychologically impaired" is it? See that thing escaping behind the horizon? -Yeah, thats your credibility.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • Raithe-NorRaithe-Nor Member Posts: 315
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    "Psychologically impaired" is it? See that thing escaping behind the horizon? -Yeah, thats your credibility.

    Yes, calling my argument names without providing a contradictory set of ideas definitely defeats my supposition that MMOs are filled with psychologically impaired personalities... not.  I think you actually helped affirm my theory.

    It's simple math.  If I play a F2P game and am spending roughly $4.00 a month on various ammenities and/or adventure packs, when I was paying $14.95 monthly for a subscription - and the company is somehow making MORE money than they were under the subscription-based model, someone or several someones are making up the difference and then some.  If everyone played exactly as I do it would require the company to more than quadruple their clientbase (which in turn would require significantly more investment and expense in infrastructure and support).

    I just debunked that hypothesis.  It's not ME that is funding their venture.  It's people who spend $150 dollars monthly that are making up the difference for about twelve of us.  If you don't see that as being a fundamental component of this converstion, you really don't belong.

    Most F2P games don't even double their clientbase, and a very large portion of that doubling is paying absolutely nothing at all to spend time with the psychologically impaired fanatics that have destroyed the nature of this gaming genre.

     

  • HorusraHorusra Member EpicPosts: 4,062

    My question is what is the F2P model.  Is it Turbine's way, Anet's way, Chinese F2P games, Aion's, etc?  There seem to be a lot of ways to setup a F2P model, being anything without a subscription?

  • ArclanArclan Member UncommonPosts: 1,550


    Originally posted by Vesavius
    Well, if the OP is going to be able to use an article on mobile gaming as a basis on which to talk about the F2P market as a whole without challenge, then I guess this is relevant as well...It's a piece on how the F2P model is being investigated by the Office of Fair Trading to see "whether these games include 'direct exhortations' to children – a strong encouragement to make a purchase, or to do something that will necessitate making a purchase, or to persuade their parents or other adults to make a purchase for them".http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/apr/12/smartphone-gamesSeems like what 'F2P' really stands for is starting to hit a wider awareness.


    Oh jackpot. Finally the curtain is being pulled back to show "F2P" for what it really is. Someone mentioned stickying this thread. I second that. Best "F2P" thread I've seen. I agree with so many posts here that I couldn't possibly quote them all.

    Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
    In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member RarePosts: 6,539
    Originally posted by Raithe-Nor
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    "Psychologically impaired" is it? See that thing escaping behind the horizon? -Yeah, thats your credibility.

    Yes, calling my argument names without providing a contradictory set of ideas definitely defeats my supposition that MMOs are filled with psychologically impaired personalities... not.  I think you actually helped affirm my theory.

    It's simple math.  If I play a F2P game and am spending roughly $4.00 a month on various ammenities and/or adventure packs, when I was paying $14.95 monthly for a subscription - and the company is somehow making MORE money than they were under the subscription-based model, someone or several someones are making up the difference and then some.  If everyone played exactly as I do it would require the company to more than quadruple their clientbase (which in turn would require significantly more investment and expense in infrastructure and support).

    I just debunked that hypothesis.  It's not ME that is funding their venture.  It's people who spend $150 dollars monthly that are making up the difference for about twelve of us.  If you don't see that as being a fundamental component of this converstion, you really don't belong.

    Most F2P games don't even double their clientbase, and a very large portion of that doubling is paying absolutely nothing at all to spend time with the psychologically impaired fanatics that have destroyed the nature of this gaming genre.

     

    Everythying you stated here is correct.  But:

    You haven't debunked the hypothesis, all you stated is that if everyone spent like you they wouldn't make as much money and it takes someone to spend a lot more to make up the difference.  We allready know that happens.  Some people are spending $150 or more a month, that does not mean they are psychologically impaired.

    All you have established is that some spend more money, we know that, spending more doesn't mean psychologically impaired.  They would only be impaired if it was affecting their quality of life.  Do you have evidence those spending $150 or more per month are having their lives signficantly affected?

    Most f2p games don't double their playerbase?  You may be right but how do you know?  I've never seen any numbers except early on in DDO and LOTRO where it was asserted there was 5x their playerbase.

    So once again, if everyone spent like you they wouldn't make as much money.  The fact that many games have reported they do make as much or more shows that most don't spend like you.

     

    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • CecropiaCecropia Member RarePosts: 3,972
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by Raithe-Nor

    Yes, calling my argument names without providing a contradictory set of ideas definitely defeats my supposition that MMOs are filled with psychologically impaired personalities... not.  I think you actually helped affirm my theory.

    It's simple math.  If I play a F2P game and am spending roughly $4.00 a month on various ammenities and/or adventure packs, when I was paying $14.95 monthly for a subscription - and the company is somehow making MORE money than they were under the subscription-based model, someone or several someones are making up the difference and then some.  If everyone played exactly as I do it would require the company to more than quadruple their clientbase (which in turn would require significantly more investment and expense in infrastructure and support).

    I just debunked that hypothesis.  It's not ME that is funding their venture.  It's people who spend $150 dollars monthly that are making up the difference for about twelve of us.  If you don't see that as being a fundamental component of this converstion, you really don't belong.

    Most F2P games don't even double their clientbase, and a very large portion of that doubling is paying absolutely nothing at all to spend time with the psychologically impaired fanatics that have destroyed the nature of this gaming genre.

    Everythying you stated here is correct.  But:

    You haven't debunked the hypothesis, all you stated is that if everyone spent like you they wouldn't make as much money and it takes someone to spend a lot more to make up the difference.  We allready know that happens.  Some people are spending $150 or more a month, that does not mean they are psychologically impaired.

    All you have established is that some spend more money, we know that, spending more doesn't mean psychologically impaired.  They would only be impaired if it was affecting their quality of life.  Do you have evidence those spending $150 or more per month are having their lives signficantly affected?

    Most f2p games don't double their playerbase?  You may be right but how do you know?  I've never seen any numbers except early on in DDO and LOTRO where it was asserted there was 5x their playerbase.

    So once again, if everyone spent like you they wouldn't make as much money.  The fact that many games have reported they do make as much or more shows that most don't spend like you.

    Turbine wasn't shy about letting us all know how great their games were doing right after the switch to "F2P". You can bet your ass we would have heard additional bragging had the games continued to shine 6+ months out of the gate. There's a reason we have had nothing but crickets since.

    "Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member RarePosts: 6,539
    Originally posted by Cecropia
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by Raithe-Nor

    Yes, calling my argument names without providing a contradictory set of ideas definitely defeats my supposition that MMOs are filled with psychologically impaired personalities... not.  I think you actually helped affirm my theory.

    It's simple math.  If I play a F2P game and am spending roughly $4.00 a month on various ammenities and/or adventure packs, when I was paying $14.95 monthly for a subscription - and the company is somehow making MORE money than they were under the subscription-based model, someone or several someones are making up the difference and then some.  If everyone played exactly as I do it would require the company to more than quadruple their clientbase (which in turn would require significantly more investment and expense in infrastructure and support).

    I just debunked that hypothesis.  It's not ME that is funding their venture.  It's people who spend $150 dollars monthly that are making up the difference for about twelve of us.  If you don't see that as being a fundamental component of this converstion, you really don't belong.

    Most F2P games don't even double their clientbase, and a very large portion of that doubling is paying absolutely nothing at all to spend time with the psychologically impaired fanatics that have destroyed the nature of this gaming genre.

    Everythying you stated here is correct.  But:

    You haven't debunked the hypothesis, all you stated is that if everyone spent like you they wouldn't make as much money and it takes someone to spend a lot more to make up the difference.  We allready know that happens.  Some people are spending $150 or more a month, that does not mean they are psychologically impaired.

    All you have established is that some spend more money, we know that, spending more doesn't mean psychologically impaired.  They would only be impaired if it was affecting their quality of life.  Do you have evidence those spending $150 or more per month are having their lives signficantly affected?

    Most f2p games don't double their playerbase?  You may be right but how do you know?  I've never seen any numbers except early on in DDO and LOTRO where it was asserted there was 5x their playerbase.

    So once again, if everyone spent like you they wouldn't make as much money.  The fact that many games have reported they do make as much or more shows that most don't spend like you.

    Turbine wasn't shy about letting us all know how great their games were doing right after the switch to "F2P". You can bet your ass we would have heard additional bragging had the games continued to shine 6+ months out of the gate. There's a reason we have had nothing but crickets since.

    Which could mean there is nothing good going on, or just nothing new to report.

    You could be write.

    But not getting news is not necessarily a sign of something bad.

    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member RarePosts: 6,539
    Originally posted by Arclan

     


    Originally posted by Vesavius
    Well, if the OP is going to be able to use an article on mobile gaming as a basis on which to talk about the F2P market as a whole without challenge, then I guess this is relevant as well...

     

    It's a piece on how the F2P model is being investigated by the Office of Fair Trading to see "whether these games include 'direct exhortations' to children – a strong encouragement to make a purchase, or to do something that will necessitate making a purchase, or to persuade their parents or other adults to make a purchase for them".

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/apr/12/smartphone-games

    Seems like what 'F2P' really stands for is starting to hit a wider awareness.

     

     


     


    Oh jackpot. Finally the curtain is being pulled back to show "F2P" for what it really is. Someone mentioned stickying this thread. I second that. Best "F2P" thread I've seen. I agree with so many posts here that I couldn't possibly quote them all.

     

    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Sign In or Register to comment.