I am trying to answer the OP’s question: Free to play "really just means "we're not going to tell you how much we intend to make you pay or how you'll be crippled if you don't."
Now you try to change the subject. You were questioning what i was saying, and then ran out of arguments.
OP's question is trivial.
A F2P game ... you can play part of a game for free. This "tell you how much thing" is just irrelevant. I play lots of F2P games. If i want, i can go look at cash shop prices and know exactly what cost what.
But i don't. Do you know why? Simple .. because i don't pay. Prices are irrelevant when you don't pay.
I've always seen a clear difference in both models.
Here's the way I view them.
Sub model - here's the game, pay and play, do whatever you want wherever. I don't care what you do, nothing is off-limits. Game's broken? Let me try to fix that for you, wouldn't want you to stop paying me monthly - would we.
Free model - here's some of the game, want more, pay me. Want to go over there? Pay me. etc. Game's broken? Who cares, you get it for free you ingrate.
Why do you feel that, in the case of a broken game, the paying people in the subscription game would stop paying, but the paying people in the F2P game would continue paying?
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
I completely understand the OP. Marketing hides transparency now a days. It should have never come to this in a game genre IMO, but mmo's are big big money. It would be nice to hear a mmo company now and then justify its cost, regardless if it is well known procedure, or thought to be known by today's gamers.
Free model - here's some of the game, want more, pay me. Want to go over there? Pay me. etc. Game's broken? Who cares, you get it for free you ingrate.
Free model - let's play some of the fun game for free. Want more? NO thank you .. i can always finish the free part and move onto the next game. Game broken? I move onto the next game. Who cares? Devs who wants free players to act as content for paying ones.
I've always seen a clear difference in both models.
Here's the way I view them.
Sub model - here's the game, pay and play, do whatever you want wherever. I don't care what you do, nothing is off-limits. Game's broken? Let me try to fix that for you, wouldn't want you to stop paying me monthly - would we.
Free model - here's some of the game, want more, pay me. Want to go over there? Pay me. etc. Game's broken? Who cares, you get it for free you ingrate.
Why do you feel that, in the case of a broken game, the paying people in the subscription game would stop paying, but the paying people in the F2P game would continue paying?
An odd way of looking at it in my eyes. I am not sure F2P designers would share your view, much as I have had a go at F2P MMO's, I am sure they have pride in what they do and try their best. The idea that if parts of their MMO are broken they would not care is unrealistic.
I think most F2P are pretty clear about the costs of given items, etc. in the game. It isn't like this information is hidden until after you pay. Also, most F2P games you can figure out pretty quickly what you can and can't do without paying. I keep saying this but F2P is here to stay for the foreseeable future.
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?
someone didn't play league of legends so far eh?
there are enough fames that actually ARE free to play.
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
I've always seen a clear difference in both models.
Here's the way I view them.
Sub model - here's the game, pay and play, do whatever you want wherever. I don't care what you do, nothing is off-limits. Game's broken? Let me try to fix that for you, wouldn't want you to stop paying me monthly - would we.
Free model - here's some of the game, want more, pay me. Want to go over there? Pay me. etc. Game's broken? Who cares, you get it for free you ingrate.
Why do you feel that, in the case of a broken game, the paying people in the subscription game would stop paying, but the paying people in the F2P game would continue paying?
That would be answered by the post below.
"Free model - let's play some of the fun game for free. Want more? NO thank you .. i can always finish the free part and move onto the next game. Game broken? I move onto the next game. Who cares? Devs who wants free players to act as content for paying ones."
I don't see how that answers anything as you are still talking about the free players. The question remains, Why do think the paying people in the F2P game would continue paying in a game they consider broken?
According to many, the free players make the game, they make it look populated and give the big spenders someone to show off to. People like N though don't care, games are expendable to them.
You just reinforced why its just as important for it to be fixed in the free to play game - broken content makes it more likely for them to lose content attractive to the paying players (the free players) which means losing revenue.
They would be the same type of poster we see excusing problems with games with the same lines - "what do you expect for free" - it's not a bad game considering it's free etc. With that "free" majority excusing all ills "because it's free" they get 24 hour cheerleaders - driven by guilt? Maybe some. That free moniker will excuse everything by those that won't pay and sadly becomes a selling point in reviews.
There's absolutely no data or research to support such a strange view of player behaviour. This seems more like rationalization than anything else.
Look reviewers, I saw a shoe on the street, that may have been a perfectly good shoe but I kept on going and didn't stop to pick it up - I know it was free but seriously, free isn't a selling point, QUALITY is. People who acquire free things just because they are free we call hoarders.... lol
Insulting fellow players isn't an argument. Let's leave that stuff out of the discussion.
Don't you notice that many of the free to play game companies have multiple MMOS, they are always making new ones.
Most publishers have a stable of MMOs, free or sub. The difference is that for the free to play games, they are often created by different developers, each focusing on their particular title instead of multiple.
Why is that, because they know that they can send people to a new game and get them to start the cycle all over of acquiring goods and not have to expand or fix anything and the free players are all too ready to move on too, they have no investment made - new ideas constantly enticing, new places to discover, new everything at all times. N likes it, they don't invest time in making guides or anything like that, we have discussed this all previously. Their games are expendable when they require a cost and they have all the selection in the world to keep them occupied because this cycle repeats. New game, new spending, game is stale, bugs are known. New Game!! Look over here everyone. I can't be the only one who noticed that cycle happen.
That's really wild assumption there, don't you think? If you've got data on churn or retention to support that, I'd love to see it. I mean, by the same argument, one could say that's the case with subscription MMOs, and the retail box numbers for pre-order, pre-purchase, and founders packs would actually support that view.
I wholly believe you have great conviction on your beliefs, but you present them as facts, which presses me to ask if you could share some links that support the claims you're making. None of the conclusions you present seem to fit the business model or player behaviour, so I'd really like to see what you are basing it on.
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
Free to play continues to be a blessing for those of us who have one foot in the grave as far as MMOs are concerned. As a mostly solo player who enjoys chit chatting with others in games but refuses to be forced to perform group content (especially when inconvenienced by a lack of features like a good dungeon finder), I don't feel sufficiently catered to by the industry to pay them much if anything. So I enjoy my free to play experiences. They can't force me to pay them a dime. The most they can do is annoy me with restrictions until I move on.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
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'm not sure I follow... if it's 'Free to Play', can't you just find that out for yourself before paying? I'm almost certain you're the minority when it comes to this perspective of 'Free to Play'. The majority will log in to a 'Free to Play' game, check it out... ask some questions to the community... do some research... and if we don't like it? We just uninstall. No one has a gun to your head saying, "YOU HAVE TO PLAY THIS GAME!" Personally, I've purchased tons of Founder's Packages, donated through Kickstarter and/or Paypal countless times, and made an incomprehensible amount of micro-transaction purchases over my years of gaming. But only once have I ever asked for my money back (...thank you, SWTOR) and why? Because the people behind these games have lives too and in order to maintain their lifestyle, they must also make ends meets. So I am completely fine with having forked out over a thousand dollars to Blizzard over my seven year subscription only to end up leaving the game once I was bored of it just as equally as I am fine with Kickstarter funding a Free to Play game for over a hundred dollars only to find out upon release that it isn't my cup of tea. They did their jobs... it's not their fault I didn't enjoy it.
That'd be like suing McDonald's because their coffee is hot and you're too retarded to use a cup hold...er...
Now I've officially seen everything... a person outright complaining about getting something for free (game client and access to the servers)... laws of evolution... why have you forsaken humanity so!
Originally posted by Dihoru Now I've officially seen everything... a person outright complaining about getting something for free (game client and access to the servers)... laws of evolution... why have you forsaken humanity so!
This reminds me of a funny article I read about the hypocrites who pirate video games...
"What happens when pirates play a game development simulator and then go bankrupt because of piracy?"
Comments
Now you try to change the subject. You were questioning what i was saying, and then ran out of arguments.
OP's question is trivial.
A F2P game ... you can play part of a game for free. This "tell you how much thing" is just irrelevant. I play lots of F2P games. If i want, i can go look at cash shop prices and know exactly what cost what.
But i don't. Do you know why? Simple .. because i don't pay. Prices are irrelevant when you don't pay.
Why do you feel that, in the case of a broken game, the paying people in the subscription game would stop paying, but the paying people in the F2P game would continue paying?
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
Free model - let's play some of the fun game for free. Want more? NO thank you .. i can always finish the free part and move onto the next game. Game broken? I move onto the next game. Who cares? Devs who wants free players to act as content for paying ones.
An odd way of looking at it in my eyes. I am not sure F2P designers would share your view, much as I have had a go at F2P MMO's, I am sure they have pride in what they do and try their best. The idea that if parts of their MMO are broken they would not care is unrealistic.
Thanks,
Mike
Working on Social Strategy MMORTS (now Launched!) http://www.worldalpha.com
someone didn't play league of legends so far eh?
there are enough fames that actually ARE free to play.
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
I wholly believe you have great conviction on your beliefs, but you present them as facts, which presses me to ask if you could share some links that support the claims you're making. None of the conclusions you present seem to fit the business model or player behaviour, so I'd really like to see what you are basing it on.
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
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
I'm not sure I follow... if it's 'Free to Play', can't you just find that out for yourself before paying? I'm almost certain you're the minority when it comes to this perspective of 'Free to Play'. The majority will log in to a 'Free to Play' game, check it out... ask some questions to the community... do some research... and if we don't like it? We just uninstall. No one has a gun to your head saying, "YOU HAVE TO PLAY THIS GAME!" Personally, I've purchased tons of Founder's Packages, donated through Kickstarter and/or Paypal countless times, and made an incomprehensible amount of micro-transaction purchases over my years of gaming. But only once have I ever asked for my money back (...thank you, SWTOR) and why? Because the people behind these games have lives too and in order to maintain their lifestyle, they must also make ends meets. So I am completely fine with having forked out over a thousand dollars to Blizzard over my seven year subscription only to end up leaving the game once I was bored of it just as equally as I am fine with Kickstarter funding a Free to Play game for over a hundred dollars only to find out upon release that it isn't my cup of tea. They did their jobs... it's not their fault I didn't enjoy it.
That'd be like suing McDonald's because their coffee is hot and you're too retarded to use a cup hold...er...
...oh right, that happened.
This reminds me of a funny article I read about the hypocrites who pirate video games...
"What happens when pirates play a game development simulator and then go bankrupt because of piracy?"
http://www.greenheartgames.com/2013/04/29/what-happens-when-pirates-play-a-game-development-simulator-and-then-go-bankrupt-because-of-piracy/