I have provided you andeveryone else with multiple links, references, and objective statistics that support the arguments that I have made. Clicking on those two links right there will lead people to prior posts of mine in this thread with multiple links and objective evidence even referencing game statistics with plenty of valid points on this threads very topic.
For you to claim otherwise is the rejection of truth that anyone can see is the case by clicking on any of the links in my previous posts. You are at this point very simply lying to promote the protection of your opinions.
This is precisely the sort of aimless harassment I'm talking about.
It's harassing because it's a steady stream of irrelevant points predominantly targeted at me.
It's aimless because it consistently fails to address points I've made (with the occasional straw man), and often fails to even make its own points successfully. The lack of evidence is the result of this aimlessness. (You may as well cite evidence of the price of cattle in Texas if you're not citing evidence that actually shows I've said something false.)
My argument is largely based on the broader reality.
It points out that F2P dominates revenue and will do so to a greater degree over time.
It points out that prices and products are created by a combination of supply and demand, not simply "what do Consumers demand?" (because when you ask them what they want, as the OP's article did, the sky is the limit -- they want everything and they don't want to pay for it.) And so internet popularity polls of each business model are irrelevant compared with which models are actually making more money.
You posted a 2012 article which was basically Creative Assembly drumming up hype for their B2P game Total War Battles (because when you're B2P you worry more about hype than gameplay, which might explain the game's resulting 3.8 rating.)
This is the general level of incompetence of the articles you're linking to. (Although in some cases like the LoL article they're just like "you're giving away too much for free", and I wonder if you actually read your own article to realize it wasn't actually saying "don't use LoL's F2P business model" and instead "don't give so much away free.")
So since all of your posts are still consistently irrelevant (and even the off-topic posts you're trying to make are wrong), it's back to leaving all your posts blocked. Remember: if you don't want to be blocked, start saying things that resemble the truth.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I have provided you andeveryone else with multiple links, references, and objective statistics that support the arguments that I have made. Clicking on those two links right there will lead people to prior posts of mine in this thread with multiple links and objective evidence even referencing game statistics with plenty of valid points on this threads very topic.
For you to claim otherwise is the rejection of truth that anyone can see is the case by clicking on any of the links in my previous posts. You are at this point very simply lying to promote the protection of your opinions.
This is precisely the sort of aimless harassment I'm talking about.
It's harassing because it's a steady stream of irrelevant points predominantly targeted at me.
It's aimless because it consistently fails to address points I've made (with the occasional straw man), and often fails to even make its own points successfully. The lack of evidence is the result of this aimlessness. (You may as well cite evidence of the price of cattle in Texas if you're not citing evidence that actually shows I've said something false.)
My argument is largely based on the broader reality.
It points out that F2P dominates revenue and will do so to a greater degree over time.
It points out that prices and products are created by a combination of supply and demand, not simply "what do Consumers demand?" (because when you ask them what they want, as the OP's article did, the sky is the limit -- they want everything and they don't want to pay for it.) And so internet popularity polls of each business model are irrelevant compared with which models are actually making more money.
You posted a 2012 article which was basically Creative Assembly drumming up hype for their B2P game Total War Battles (because when you're B2P you worry more about hype than gameplay, which might explain the game's resulting 3.8 rating.)
This is the general level of incompetence of the articles you're linking to. (Although in some cases like the LoL article they're just like "you're giving away too much for free", and I wonder if you actually read your own article to realize it wasn't actually saying "don't use LoL's F2P business model" and instead "don't give so much away free.")
So since all of your posts are still consistently irrelevant (and even the off-topic posts you're trying to make are wrong), it's back to leaving all your posts blocked. Remember: if you don't want to be blocked, start saying things that resemble the truth.
Ok lets break this down then.
Your first argument being harassment, to which I have to simply state no, correcting an argument made or offering a counterpoint is not harassment.
Secondly, the idea that it is "aimless" is contradicted by the very point that my subject and content directly has to do with what trends, statements, and data has come of F2P and otherwise.
All the sources right there are entirely valid in their statements, and lets even take the ones that you chose to nitpick.
Well foremost, the article for Creative Assembly doesn't contradict their actions. They moved to F2P because the race to the bottom basically forced them to. Either they could have whined their way out of the industry at the realization that their content has been devalued, or they adapt. As per your example, they adapted, but that also does not make the change be for the better.
Your other jab, being at the LoL article, doesn't even make sense. It's not "giving too much away for free" that the analyst was saying was bad, they were making the statement that the success of their model is not repeatable because of the volume of users that they can monetize. It's like you read the bold letters and nothing else, seeing as right below the statement "Giving too much away?" they launch into some details and a division of the opinion the analyst shares against the statistics they show and explain on the matter. Seems you outright missed the point of the LoL article since it's summary statement was "So it only works because of the large user base, and if you don't have that user base or don't expect to, you should not adopt their monetization. It should not be a role model for your monetization system."
All of this information linked to above and has been shared people can easily click through and vet for themselves. Some of it comes from two analytic sites and some of it came from Apple and Google, while others are from independent analysts, game developers, and a consultant. If you want to say that the analytics, two of the largest tech companies, and a bunch of professionals are all lacking in truth, then you've dug one serious hole in the ground to hide your head in.
After you snidely and generalistically trying to smear everything instead of address the actual argument,we are left with a long winded complaint from you trying to avoid and dismiss the argument rather than understand the many shared and very real numbers and points that have been made.
You can block me for that if you want, but do not pretend it's for any reason aside from your apparent petty ego.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Back in the day we used to go to video stores and pay a few bucks to rent a video game for a couple of days. When MMORPG's became a big thing, some of us justified the monthly fee by saying "it's like renting 2 video games a month but I get to play it whenever and however much I want!". Then streaming services came along like Netflix and offered massive content on demand for a low price. This put most video stores out of business. It appears that MMORPGs have followed a similar model. Not as many people are willing to pay a monthly fee to play a game now. The younger generation probably doesn't even remember video stores like Blockbuster Video. The times have changed and for better or worse, the video game industry has tried to adjust. Hopefully a more stable business model will emerge soon that provides quality game play at affordable prices. IMO F2P has been one of the worst movements in gaming history. B2P is not bad if it is incorporated like ESO or Guild Wars 2. I may be old, but I would still pay a premium monthly fee for a game that I enjoyed playing. I miss high quality AAA mmorpg's.
UPDATE: Wow, the editor is just eating my posts today.
Anyway this was @cameltosis pointing out "the game" isn't the entire game. Let's say Bob is a free player of TF2. He plays for an hour.
A. Has he played the game? B. Has he paid?
(Answers: Yes, and no. Meaning he played for free. Meaning the game is a free to play game.)
A: I don't know. He's certainly played part of the game, but I don't know if he has access to the whole game.
B: No
For the record, I'm pretty much just playing devils advocate here. I fully understand the real world usage of free2play (meaning free to access, but beyond that its down to the developer as to how much is actually free) but I also understand why the terminology is inaccurate, especially with such a wide variety of approaches to free2play.
I paid more for p2p Everquest for five years than I have all other games combined...I've played f2p games since 2005 and have spent less than $100.....As a consumer the f2p model is much more friendly...People who feel that f2p costs too much money simply dont know how to play them or cant handle their money very well.
I paid more for p2p Everquest for five years than I have all other games combined...I've played f2p games since 2005 and have spent less than $100.....As a consumer the f2p model is much more friendly...People who feel that f2p costs too much money simply dont know how to play them or cant handle their money very well.
As with all things that cost money, it comes down to individual preferences of what you consider "value for money".
For me, F2P games are too low quality to be worth my time when playing for free, but spending money to improve my gaming experience isn't value for money, so I avoid it altogether.
I'd rather pay £5-£40 for a full game on steam. 95% of the time I get my monies worth, the other 5% of the time is generally impulse buys so fault lies with me.
I only spend $ on games that are the future for gaming in general. Games that set the tone and send the msg that what is to come next, what kind of standard we will be receiving in future. That being said it's been almost 5½ years for me since I've spent $ on a new game.
If someone will be opening my wallet it will be by delivering a far superior product than everything else available in the entire gaming market. I stopped playing single player games in 2001 when I got my PC after decade+ of playing almost every single game I could get my hands on before the internet and online gaming came. No reason to be going back to single players, when multiplayer is far better experience for me.
Anyone can choose to exit the F2P market, but its players like me who created it by not deeming the B2P or P2P products out there worthy compared to what other options I have for F2P. Now, I just hope we will get these next gen games shipped, that are not afraid to ask $25-35 monthly subs on start, since we have bizillion of low quality, mediocre and simply bad products out there that failed to open my wallet as F2P/B2P or P2P.
My wallet is very fat for not spending through these last 6 years, so whoever will want to open it they know what they need to do. The technology and tools are available, but the product is lacking and partially that's because there are a lot of forgiving and less demanding, easily entertained as well as new people in this market consistently, but I also know as time goes by more vets like me will be out there who will do the same.
Now, here are some small examples of what this product would consist/offer:
1) Persistent, open, virtual, breathing world where I can create my stories, and simply immerse myself in a totally unique experience, something that has been done before, and actually 13+ years ago in MMO's like UO or SWG even EVE.
2) Strong security and game designs that make botting/hacking/exploiting very difficult as well as support thats ready to take quick and swift actions to deter any cheating. Very important for persistent world.
3) That allows players to have so many "end game" features that it will feel like there is no such thing as endgame. This can be only done if sandbox elements are in place, not themeparks on rails that require further new rides consistently. The more tools players have to do different tasks in the world the more different end game experiences they will be experiencing.
It's actually quite simple. Throw in there 25-40 different professions, with some hidden and unlockable. Make players have unique characters and prevent them having multiple characters so most don't do everything themselves. Also make it so those who put the most effort, time and dedication as well as skills to be the best in their professions. Make simple a world where players have freedom to do what they please and feel the risk that comes with it. Make it players to feel that the things that they do matter and are of some importance, which only happens when our actions directly change the experience of others in the same world.
Anything with 50+ mil and preferably 100 budget makes only your potential market take you more seriously and get drawn to your product on launch. After all you are making one of the most feature rich and complex game experience, which should warrant a box fee (which would help deter players buy multiple boxes for multiple chrs or promote better/honest behavior when ban can cost you a box fee on top of everything lost). In sandbox worlds it is not immersive if one player has 5+ characters, and a monthly fee that starts high and lowers as more are drawn to your product to keep further updates and features, making the game from great to truly amazing in the long run.
Lol. He isn't harassing you, he makes a lot of good points that you happen to disagree with and do not like. Big difference.
Got to have a much thicker skin if you want to play in this playground.
Read my later post. It steps through one of his posts regarding how irrelevant his points were.
Afterwards you'll understand that not a single valid point was raised that actually manages to disagree with what I've posted.
Then repeat that for every post he makes replying to me (which is a lot, and I'm certainly the person he replies to most) and you start to understand that it actually is harassment. He's not posting because he has valid points to make, or because I've said things which are actually wrong. He's posting to harass.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
A: I don't know. He's certainly played part of the game, but I don't know if he has access to the whole game.
B: No
For the record, I'm pretty much just playing devils advocate here. I fully understand the real world usage of free2play (meaning free to access, but beyond that its down to the developer as to how much is actually free) but I also understand why the terminology is inaccurate, especially with such a wide variety of approaches to free2play.
"He's certainly played part of the game"
What has he done to the game? He's played it.
So we can drop your earlier devil's advocate post then right? He's played the game. For free. It's a free to play game. Playing devil's advocate isn't always a healthy exercise by the way. It can generate support for the wrong opinions. When things are clearly wrong (like implying free to play games can't be played for free) it's better for society just to agree on the bald-faced truth (to which no contradicting evidence has been raised) and move on to topics which are more nuanced and interesting.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Please tell us how you can get all the cards in Hearthstone by spending less than 100$. Not everyone values their time so little that they will be fine playing an inferior version of a game since it's "free" without noticing they are basically being used to shorten queue times for paying players.
Who cares whether you can get all the cards in Hearthstone? You can get a lot of cards by simply playing a lot.
Valuing your own time doesn't make a game magically stop being free. It only stops being free when you choose to pay -- and that's yourchoice, not the game forcing you. If a game isn't fun when played free, players will leave and it won't make much money (nobody's saying badly-designed F2P games don't exist; they do exist. They also generally make a lot less money.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Please tell us how you can get all the cards in Hearthstone by spending less than 100$. Not everyone values their time so little that they will be fine playing an inferior version of a game since it's "free" without noticing they are basically being used to shorten queue times for paying players.
Please tell me why someone needs to play hearthstone or if they do, they need to get all the cards.
Not everyone plays pvp game that getting ALL the virtual stuff is important. If one can play free and have fun, why shouldn't he?
1) Persistent, open, virtual, breathing world where I can create my stories, and simply immerse myself in a totally unique experience, something that has been done before, and actually 13+ years ago in MMO's like UO or SWG even EVE.
and i would just prefer a lobby game without shackled by old, tried and unpopular, virtual world ideas.
That is the beauty of a free market. We are free to have different preferences, and devs are free to decide whom they cater to.
Lol. He isn't harassing you, he makes a lot of good points that you happen to disagree with and do not like. Big difference.
Got to have a much thicker skin if you want to play in this playground.
Read my later post. It steps through one of his posts regarding how irrelevant his points were.
Afterwards you'll understand that not a single valid point was raised that actually manages to disagree with what I've posted.
Then repeat that for every post he makes replying to me (which is a lot, and I'm certainly the person he replies to most) and you start to understand that it actually is harassment. He's not posting because he has valid points to make, or because I've said things which are actually wrong. He's posting to harass.
I apologize if this damages your ego, but anyone that clicks into my comments can see that I respond to a lot of different people, and if you were to count it up I think there are more replies addressed to Nariu than to you at the moment. Only reason we have a current rash of responses to you is because of this right here with you trying so hard to excuse you and your claims from the scrutiny of fact (which is inevitable when you're also this prolific in a thread).
I respond quoting you or another when there is a clear response or correction to be made. Don't spread misinformation, false arguments, or ask questions (basically don't initiate a conversation) if you don't want, well, a conversation.
Everyone can see in my last response too where I took apart how you were trying your hardest to cherry pick and dodge the quite valid points made using actual statistics and reputable sources by trying to dig really hard into nothing to look for an excuse to dismiss it all. Your argument, from the evidence I shared, was simply wrong. It's a very human thing to be wrong so you shouldn't be so wound up about it.
And again, the relevancy of my topics (which were all about the trends in F2P and the nature of the marketplace) directly addresses your claims as well as the OP (which was about the trends in F2P and the marketplace).
So once again, do not mistake your ego for ironclad truth.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
@Axehilt "Whereas if someone is making harassing posts to one or two individuals consistently, and yet simultaneously doesn't make valid points backed by objective evidence, then that's just harassment."
That is very subjective, if I felt something was truly harassment I would point it out to the moderators and let them decide. This forum like any other thrives on different points of view, we should never put that at risk. Lets not turn these forums into Twitter, you know we are better than that.
On the issue of free to play, there seem to be some extremely fluid ideas as to what that means. To me the semantics do not matter, what matters is the direction of travel.
It is clear that F2P games are moving in a direction where less is free and more is paid for. This should not surprise anyone, this is a money raking exercise not a charity event. Free at the point of entry has been maintained. But the revenue model has always been one to give you reasons to move on to paying. The methods used have become more insidious with the likes of casino gameplay, elements of addictive games like Candy crush being brought in did not happen by chance. You don't have to take the bait, but there is increasing pressure to do so and pay.
Do players expect a free to play game to be free from the start to raiding? Do you expect to be able with play to do anything someone can with cash? Well if you do, expect to be disappointed, F2P is founded on the idea of giving players who pay an unfair advantage. If the item did not give such an advantage why would you buy it?
If you are a gaming butterfly this may not matter to you, you are in the game for such short period of time it may even be difficult for you to realise that others have a huge advantage. Maybe that is not something that would bother you anyway. That's why for many, issues about F2P do not bother them, if you don't invest the time in a MMO, why would it?
I find it odd the gamers expect to play games for free, you are never going to get quality without good investment in the game. Relying on whales and dolphins (trying to get as many animals in as possible here ) is hit an miss. That's why "F2P" cash shops now offer monthly subscriptions, not sure any have offered "season passes" yet?
So to me there is some irony here. F2P MMOs are trying to get in more revenue, something they need to do to be better games. And players are arguing against that. I would not play a F2P MMO, though in a few years there may be no choice we may have to, until then get online and enjoy your MMO.
Please tell us how you can get all the cards in Hearthstone by spending less than 100$. Not everyone values their time so little that they will be fine playing an inferior version of a game since it's "free" without noticing they are basically being used to shorten queue times for paying players.
Please tell me why someone needs to play hearthstone or if they do, they need to get all the cards.
Not everyone plays pvp game that getting ALL the virtual stuff is important. If one can play free and have fun, why shouldn't he?
The thing with F2P games is that often there is a 'paygate' for the content, or even just for extended play, and they all seem to have PVP, because that way they can paygate the competitive factors of the game, whereby if you don't buy cash shop items, you can't compete with other players, which is why so many of the F2P games are P2W heavy, its most notable among those games without cosmetic only items in the cash shops. So while its technically possible to play these F2P games without paying anything, its realistically impossible to do so without having such a gimped gaming experience that its not worth playing in the first place.
Phry said:
So while its technically possible to play these F2P games without paying anything, its realistically impossible to do so without having such a gimped gaming experience that its not worth playing in the first place.
....and yet, there are millions of players playing for free and vast majority of F2P playerbase consist of players spending nothing.
Yet, "not worth playing in the first place", right...?
But hey, who gives a damn about making sense on these boards...
There definitely seems to be a large split on financial models and I think there are good arguments on both sides of this. Especially the younger community seems more leaning towards F2P models while the older generations of gamer's appear to lean more towards P2P or B2P models. I can understand both sides really, and I do think improvements can be made. I'm wondering if there can't be a way to create a more multi hybrid model for MMORPG's on the financial front, where players have options and their experience in game reflects that. I know F2P seems to be growing towards this, as we see different levels of character experiences by what and how much you use their cash shops, of expansions that offer greater items/experiences, and so forth. But what if there were a way we could create a system that leverages the players choices between which experience or financial model they chose that actually promoted other's choices and experiences? Lets take a generic theme as an illustration.
Lets say we have a game that is based on medieval times. We could use a financial model that facilitates the social structure of that time; we'd have nobles, we'd have knights, we'd have aristocrats/wealthy folk, and we'd have peasants or lower class citizens. Well a financial model system could be put in place so that we'd have a social structure that would facilitate that make up; We could have some who'd pay a subscription fee, because they want to be from a nobles family and we'd have other who'd pay the one time fee so that they could be from a family of knights, or aristocrats. Others would rather play for free, but be from a peasant family. Now those who pay, they'd certainly get the perks of such social stature of course, life would be easier! But nothing they get in game or the experience of that social structure couldn't be attained by the lower social classes, they'd just have to work for it more. It'd take more time. Some have time, but don't want to pay money after all, while others would pay money so they can get right into the "fun" to them more quickly. Options, choices. All valid, not a P2W system as we've seen already in some instances, but a system that can work for everyone and draw as many players to a game because they have an suitable option for them.
Would something like that be possible do you think?
Phry said:
So while its technically possible to play these F2P games without paying anything, its realistically impossible to do so without having such a gimped gaming experience that its not worth playing in the first place.
....and yet, there are millions of players playing for free and vast majority of F2P playerbase consist of players spending nothing.
Zet, "not worth playing in the first place", right...?
But hey, who gives a damn about making sense on these boards...
Do I have to remind you millions of people voted for Nazis?
You do know that the Nazis were never elected into office, right?
Phry said:
So while its technically possible to play these F2P games without paying anything, its realistically impossible to do so without having such a gimped gaming experience that its not worth playing in the first place.
....and yet, there are millions of players playing for free and vast majority of F2P playerbase consist of players spending nothing.
Zet, "not worth playing in the first place", right...?
But hey, who gives a damn about making sense on these boards...
What's the percentage of children in those millions? Children love to play games and free fits right in with their budget.
For me... There are two camps when it comes to the F2P, those companies that are responsible and ethical and those that are not.
Many of these games target addiction and I equate some to the pusher giving a prospective customer there first few hits of crack.
You do know that the Nazis were never elected into office, right?
I didn't say they were elected into office, I implied millions of people voted for them. "The Nazis registered a large increase in votes in 1933. Despite waging a
campaign of terror against their opponents, the Nazis only tallied 43.9
percent of the vote, well short of a majority"
Just checking
Your percentage is a little off, but 13 1/2 million did vote for them.
Comments
It's harassing because it's a steady stream of irrelevant points predominantly targeted at me.
It's aimless because it consistently fails to address points I've made (with the occasional straw man), and often fails to even make its own points successfully. The lack of evidence is the result of this aimlessness. (You may as well cite evidence of the price of cattle in Texas if you're not citing evidence that actually shows I've said something false.)
My argument is largely based on the broader reality.
- It points out that F2P dominates revenue and will do so to a greater degree over time.
- It points out that prices and products are created by a combination of supply and demand, not simply "what do Consumers demand?" (because when you ask them what they want, as the OP's article did, the sky is the limit -- they want everything and they don't want to pay for it.) And so internet popularity polls of each business model are irrelevant compared with which models are actually making more money.
You posted a 2012 article which was basically Creative Assembly drumming up hype for their B2P game Total War Battles (because when you're B2P you worry more about hype than gameplay, which might explain the game's resulting 3.8 rating.)What's Creative Assembly doing now? Total War Battles: Kingdoms. A free to play game. Released last month.
This is the general level of incompetence of the articles you're linking to. (Although in some cases like the LoL article they're just like "you're giving away too much for free", and I wonder if you actually read your own article to realize it wasn't actually saying "don't use LoL's F2P business model" and instead "don't give so much away free.")
So since all of your posts are still consistently irrelevant (and even the off-topic posts you're trying to make are wrong), it's back to leaving all your posts blocked. Remember: if you don't want to be blocked, start saying things that resemble the truth.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Your first argument being harassment, to which I have to simply state no, correcting an argument made or offering a counterpoint is not harassment.
Secondly, the idea that it is "aimless" is contradicted by the very point that my subject and content directly has to do with what trends, statements, and data has come of F2P and otherwise.
You points were addressed and responded to using actual data, reports, and observations made by both industry professionals and developers (some links shared in a response I made to another).
All the sources right there are entirely valid in their statements, and lets even take the ones that you chose to nitpick.
Well foremost, the article for Creative Assembly doesn't contradict their actions. They moved to F2P because the race to the bottom basically forced them to. Either they could have whined their way out of the industry at the realization that their content has been devalued, or they adapt. As per your example, they adapted, but that also does not make the change be for the better.
Your other jab, being at the LoL article, doesn't even make sense. It's not "giving too much away for free" that the analyst was saying was bad, they were making the statement that the success of their model is not repeatable because of the volume of users that they can monetize. It's like you read the bold letters and nothing else, seeing as right below the statement "Giving too much away?" they launch into some details and a division of the opinion the analyst shares against the statistics they show and explain on the matter. Seems you outright missed the point of the LoL article since it's summary statement was "So it only works because of the large user base, and if you don't have that user base or don't expect to, you should not adopt their monetization. It should not be a role model for your monetization system."
All of this information linked to above and has been shared people can easily click through and vet for themselves. Some of it comes from two analytic sites and some of it came from Apple and Google, while others are from independent analysts, game developers, and a consultant. If you want to say that the analytics, two of the largest tech companies, and a bunch of professionals are all lacking in truth, then you've dug one serious hole in the ground to hide your head in.
After you snidely and generalistically trying to smear everything instead of address the actual argument,we are left with a long winded complaint from you trying to avoid and dismiss the argument rather than understand the many shared and very real numbers and points that have been made.
You can block me for that if you want, but do not pretend it's for any reason aside from your apparent petty ego.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
But yeah ... certainly this place calls for a thick skin, which I am sure is not beyond you.
B: No
For the record, I'm pretty much just playing devils advocate here. I fully understand the real world usage of free2play (meaning free to access, but beyond that its down to the developer as to how much is actually free) but I also understand why the terminology is inaccurate, especially with such a wide variety of approaches to free2play.
For me, F2P games are too low quality to be worth my time when playing for free, but spending money to improve my gaming experience isn't value for money, so I avoid it altogether.
I'd rather pay £5-£40 for a full game on steam. 95% of the time I get my monies worth, the other 5% of the time is generally impulse buys so fault lies with me.
If someone will be opening my wallet it will be by delivering a far superior product than everything else available in the entire gaming market. I stopped playing single player games in 2001 when I got my PC after decade+ of playing almost every single game I could get my hands on before the internet and online gaming came. No reason to be going back to single players, when multiplayer is far better experience for me.
Anyone can choose to exit the F2P market, but its players like me who created it by not deeming the B2P or P2P products out there worthy compared to what other options I have for F2P. Now, I just hope we will get these next gen games shipped, that are not afraid to ask $25-35 monthly subs on start, since we have bizillion of low quality, mediocre and simply bad products out there that failed to open my wallet as F2P/B2P or P2P.
My wallet is very fat for not spending through these last 6 years, so whoever will want to open it they know what they need to do. The technology and tools are available, but the product is lacking and partially that's because there are a lot of forgiving and less demanding, easily entertained as well as new people in this market consistently, but I also know as time goes by more vets like me will be out there who will do the same.
Now, here are some small examples of what this product would consist/offer:
1) Persistent, open, virtual, breathing world where I can create my stories, and simply immerse myself in a totally unique experience, something that has been done before, and actually 13+ years ago in MMO's like UO or SWG even EVE.
2) Strong security and game designs that make botting/hacking/exploiting very difficult as well as support thats ready to take quick and swift actions to deter any cheating. Very important for persistent world.
3) That allows players to have so many "end game" features that it will feel like there is no such thing as endgame. This can be only done if sandbox elements are in place, not themeparks on rails that require further new rides consistently. The more tools players have to do different tasks in the world the more different end game experiences they will be experiencing.
It's actually quite simple. Throw in there 25-40 different professions, with some hidden and unlockable. Make players have unique characters and prevent them having multiple characters so most don't do everything themselves. Also make it so those who put the most effort, time and dedication as well as skills to be the best in their professions. Make simple a world where players have freedom to do what they please and feel the risk that comes with it. Make it players to feel that the things that they do matter and are of some importance, which only happens when our actions directly change the experience of others in the same world.
Anything with 50+ mil and preferably 100 budget makes only your potential market take you more seriously and get drawn to your product on launch. After all you are making one of the most feature rich and complex game experience, which should warrant a box fee (which would help deter players buy multiple boxes for multiple chrs or promote better/honest behavior when ban can cost you a box fee on top of everything lost). In sandbox worlds it is not immersive if one player has 5+ characters, and a monthly fee that starts high and lowers as more are drawn to your product to keep further updates and features, making the game from great to truly amazing in the long run.
Afterwards you'll understand that not a single valid point was raised that actually manages to disagree with what I've posted.
Then repeat that for every post he makes replying to me (which is a lot, and I'm certainly the person he replies to most) and you start to understand that it actually is harassment. He's not posting because he has valid points to make, or because I've said things which are actually wrong. He's posting to harass.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
What has he done to the game? He's played it.
So we can drop your earlier devil's advocate post then right? He's played the game. For free. It's a free to play game. Playing devil's advocate isn't always a healthy exercise by the way. It can generate support for the wrong opinions. When things are clearly wrong (like implying free to play games can't be played for free) it's better for society just to agree on the bald-faced truth (to which no contradicting evidence has been raised) and move on to topics which are more nuanced and interesting.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Valuing your own time doesn't make a game magically stop being free. It only stops being free when you choose to pay -- and that's your choice, not the game forcing you. If a game isn't fun when played free, players will leave and it won't make much money (nobody's saying badly-designed F2P games don't exist; they do exist. They also generally make a lot less money.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Not everyone plays pvp game that getting ALL the virtual stuff is important. If one can play free and have fun, why shouldn't he?
That is the beauty of a free market. We are free to have different preferences, and devs are free to decide whom they cater to.
I respond quoting you or another when there is a clear response or correction to be made. Don't spread misinformation, false arguments, or ask questions (basically don't initiate a conversation) if you don't want, well, a conversation.
Everyone can see in my last response too where I took apart how you were trying your hardest to cherry pick and dodge the quite valid points made using actual statistics and reputable sources by trying to dig really hard into nothing to look for an excuse to dismiss it all. Your argument, from the evidence I shared, was simply wrong. It's a very human thing to be wrong so you shouldn't be so wound up about it.
And again, the relevancy of my topics (which were all about the trends in F2P and the nature of the marketplace) directly addresses your claims as well as the OP (which was about the trends in F2P and the marketplace).
So once again, do not mistake your ego for ironclad truth.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
@Axehilt "Whereas if someone is making harassing posts to one or two individuals consistently, and yet simultaneously doesn't make valid points backed by objective evidence, then that's just harassment."
That is very subjective, if I felt something was truly harassment I would point it out to the moderators and let them decide. This forum like any other thrives on different points of view, we should never put that at risk. Lets not turn these forums into Twitter, you know we are better than that.
On the issue of free to play, there seem to be some extremely fluid ideas as to what that means. To me the semantics do not matter, what matters is the direction of travel.
It is clear that F2P games are moving in a direction where less is free and more is paid for. This should not surprise anyone, this is a money raking exercise not a charity event. Free at the point of entry has been maintained. But the revenue model has always been one to give you reasons to move on to paying. The methods used have become more insidious with the likes of casino gameplay, elements of addictive games like Candy crush being brought in did not happen by chance. You don't have to take the bait, but there is increasing pressure to do so and pay.
Do players expect a free to play game to be free from the start to raiding? Do you expect to be able with play to do anything someone can with cash? Well if you do, expect to be disappointed, F2P is founded on the idea of giving players who pay an unfair advantage. If the item did not give such an advantage why would you buy it?
If you are a gaming butterfly this may not matter to you, you are in the game for such short period of time it may even be difficult for you to realise that others have a huge advantage. Maybe that is not something that would bother you anyway. That's why for many, issues about F2P do not bother them, if you don't invest the time in a MMO, why would it?
I find it odd the gamers expect to play games for free, you are never going to get quality without good investment in the game. Relying on whales and dolphins (trying to get as many animals in as possible here
) is hit an miss. That's why "F2P" cash shops now offer monthly subscriptions, not sure any have offered "season passes" yet?
So to me there is some irony here. F2P MMOs are trying to get in more revenue, something they need to do to be better games. And players are arguing against that. I would not play a F2P MMO, though in a few years there may be no choice we may have to, until then get online and enjoy your MMO.
So while its technically possible to play these F2P games without paying anything, its realistically impossible to do so without having such a gimped gaming experience that its not worth playing in the first place.
But hey, who gives a damn about making sense on these boards...
Lets say we have a game that is based on medieval times. We could use a financial model that facilitates the social structure of that time; we'd have nobles, we'd have knights, we'd have aristocrats/wealthy folk, and we'd have peasants or lower class citizens. Well a financial model system could be put in place so that we'd have a social structure that would facilitate that make up; We could have some who'd pay a subscription fee, because they want to be from a nobles family and we'd have other who'd pay the one time fee so that they could be from a family of knights, or aristocrats. Others would rather play for free, but be from a peasant family. Now those who pay, they'd certainly get the perks of such social stature of course, life would be easier! But nothing they get in game or the experience of that social structure couldn't be attained by the lower social classes, they'd just have to work for it more. It'd take more time. Some have time, but don't want to pay money after all, while others would pay money so they can get right into the "fun" to them more quickly. Options, choices. All valid, not a P2W system as we've seen already in some instances, but a system that can work for everyone and draw as many players to a game because they have an suitable option for them.
Would something like that be possible do you think?
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
For me... There are two camps when it comes to the F2P, those companies that are responsible and ethical and those that are not.
Many of these games target addiction and I equate some to the pusher giving a prospective customer there first few hits of crack.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Your percentage is a little off, but 13 1/2 million did vote for them.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Just more silly rumbling...
http://www.marketingprofs.com/charts/2013/12042/75-of-american-children-under-8-have-access-to-a-smartphone-or-tablet
Let's put my unedited comment back into the conversation:
What's the percentage of children in those millions? Children love to play games and free fits right in with their budget.
For me... There are two camps when it comes to the F2P, those companies that are responsible and ethical and those that are not.
Many of these games target addiction and I equate some to the pusher giving a prospective customer there first few hits of crack.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee