The Turbine version of "free to play" is not meant to provide completely free entertainment. Its meant to provide a tiered way of particpating in their games.
If you want to dedicate all your time to one game, then you may want to subscribe to DDO or LOTRO. If you wanted to play DDO simply because some friends do you may do a non-sub game with a few strategic purposes.
Turbine's main goal is not to provide a free service but to change the granularity of paying to play from a binary yes/no $15 a month or no game for you to a range of choices so that everyone (including Turbine) may benefit from a broader participation.
Turbine makes no-bones about attemtping to make money.
The Turbine money making model is a step forward in multiple ways.
1) It allows people to play their games according to a varying and customizable array of options. This includes games outside of Turbines catalog. You can play DDO or LOTRO and not pay at all and also play WoW on a sub. Or you could play LOTRO exclusively. Eitehr way. Or you could pay somethign around $8 a month on both DDO and LOTRO but not sub to either one. In other words its flexibile.
2) it increases the total number of people playing and therefore makes grouping easier and the MMO experience in general more favorable.
3) Its gets rid of the big lie MMO companies have been selling for quite some time. Namely that your sub is for maintain servers etc. The Guild Wars Devs were the first to seriously publicaly repudiate this, but the Turbine model shows just how much BS this was to begin with. There are tons of people using ther server resources, yet DDO is making more money than ever in subs. I am completely ignoring revenue from the DDO store. DDO doubled its subs. The whole subs = maintainence thing is BS and always has been. Oh hold on subs = content? What? Turbine sells you the content with a one time fee. Hold on what was that sub for? Turbine sells you EXACTLY what that sub is for. And every single part of the sub can be purchased separately. If you do not like 50% of the content they release you are not forced to subsidize the crappy content. Just don't sub and pay for the content you DO like.
MMO companies have been lying about what you are purchasing for quite some time. Turbine's model is more honest. Now you may not want a "pay to win" store. I don't either. But Turbine is not yet crossing that line.
Think about it for a second. If a piece of content released by Turbine does not sell well, then in order to make more money they need to actually make good content updates. On an individual basis.
I remember SandLol PvP in WoW. The fact I was paying a sub for that piece of crap content update. The fact that I subdized raid content that I hated. It was galling.
If things like raid content are actually valuable features. Then this Turbine model will actually prove whether that is or is not the case.
Isn't that obviously superior to the stupid forum warfare between raiders and non-raiders that went on in WoW before Burning Crusade was released?
You just say put up or shut up; that raid sold well or no one bought that raid content. End of issue. But in a game like WoW with subsidized content you get bullshit social manipulation.
Cash shop games make more money than subscription games because they exploit achiever addiction better.
That's the reality underneath all the dishonest hype.
As i don't have those addictions it doesn't effect me except...
F2P inevitably make games trend towards solo grinders with sudden levelling walls and a pay to win PvP endgame (with optional fluff mounts) because that is the best way to exploit achiever addiction.
This reality is temporarily muddlied at the moment because the cash shop games are having to compete with the old-style western subscription games but the underlying psychology behind how cash shops make money will increasingly drive the design.
It might be possible to have a decent cash shop game based on the micro-expansion idea i.e things like having twelve playable races but only one is free, but that remains to be seen. I think that's more likely to work as subscription plus.
On the other hand there is a problem with the subscription model over time because game companies have fixed costs which go up every year e.g wages, but there is a certain stickiness to the maximum price of a subscription. I think this stickiness is the amount people feel is reasonable to pay *even when they're not playing much*. When i played EQ i often didn't play much for weeks on end because of work commitments but i carried on subbing anyway because the sub was an okay price when i was only playing 6 hours a week. Obviously it was a complete steal when i was playing 30-40 hours a week but i think the stickiness of the upper limit on subscription price comes from what players feel is reasonable when they're only playing a few hours. Cash shops are a way out of this for game companies but will eventually inevitably lead to the games being designed around maximizing cash shop revenue.
I don't know what the solution is but if the reason for subscription stickiness is the one i mention above then maybe a variation on the subscription model where there is no cash shop but you buy game time in 30 hours blocks?
(The reason this might work is say a person plays a game between 30 and 120 hours a month and the maximum they'll pay is 50 cents an hour then the max sub they'll pay is $15 even though on average they'd pay more.)
Welcome to the forums Gameophobic try not to be so paragrapthphobic, makes you hard to read.
“Since when do people have to conform to your desires or ways of seeing things?”:
The site mentioned by the OP wants F2P to take over all gaming, that’s forcing people to conform to their desires I think. Because people have an opinion you do not share does not make them your oppressor. I do not hate F2P, again you will meet people in life that do not share you point of view they are not ‘haters’. You are ascribing an emotional value to us that we do not have, hatred is a word ridiculously overused these days lets try to use words that are relevant.
As to your analogy about free and paid for news, “no-one complains about free news” well they do. You do know that newspaper circulation is declining and some newspapers have gone under? Meanwhile internet news is regarded as making people have a superficial grasp of current affairs. In other words it lacks content and substance just like its F2p counterpart.
Also F2P movement is stupid,If it wants all games to be cash shop game.
Also any free to play game with Box sale or sub is just money grab ripoff it is almost impossible to create a game with fair cash shop with out revenue source coming in.No game should get 100% revenue from a cash shop because it force the game to make gamers use the cash shop or else they make no money and games are not charities
I firm believer in paying for boxes and expansion or having some sort monthly hybrid payment plan that company is not depending on the cash shop to make money.That way they are not force to make design decision that encourage you to use the cash shop.
The ideal games set up is either
Buy to play:Original game and expansions and if the game needs a cash at all maybe a small cash shop that sells stuff like pets, costume gear,vanity mounts,server changes,name changes,etc
or
Free to play with sub:You download the game free of charge,You play for free but some content is limited,To get the full content and all the features you have to pay for the sub and most of the stuff need from cash shop is cover in your sub fee
Pure cash shop cause shady designs which slow down leveling or create some sort of item dependence on purpose which forces people use to cash shop.I am saying this a person who supports F2P games has played over 60 f2p games has max level characters in F2P games.Both B2P and Free to play with a sub are plans that depend on selling gamers content. Pure Cash shop games don't carry about content they just care if you buy item
I seem to enjoy F2P games only when I have very limited time to game...as in say the last 2 months...I must say that the F2P Im playing now isnt horrible at all...the cash shop doesnt interest me in the slightest and I have not felt like I was less cool or gonna be ganked because I didnt spend money in the game...will that last? probably not...but this isnt a life long committment I'm making either...its just something to kill time...so F2P as a movement doesnt bother me...as long as they have a few really good sub games around somewhere for me to marry into when more free time opens up
there has to be a limit to the ammount of money people can spend on cash shop.
to prevent companies from designing the game in a way that people want to spend more than 15 bucks per month
if there was such a limitation, then people with 30 bucks wouldnt get twice the benefits... because the game's cash shop would be designed so whatever is sold can only be advantageous to the limit of 15$ per month, per character....
that way, people can still spend the same as they would in a subscription model, except that are not penalized indirectly by the players who spent more than 15 bucks....
and yeah, since its free, some people wouldnt pay anything...
F2P should be limited to 0 $ to 15 $ per character/account on whatever is offered. That way, they get revenue, without selling the soul of the game.
the first smart company to advertise their game as offering a "protective barrier" for the "PAY TO WIN" prejudice on F2P games would win.
Except no company wants to stop being unethical with their cash shop items offering over thousand bucks worth of power and advantages....
All they need is a slogan "F2P, with 15 bucks CAP FOR EVERYONE IF you want to buy anything from the cash shop"
They like caps to make everyone fair and balanced, right? WHY NOT IMPLEMENT A FUCKING CAP ON YOUR FUCKING CASH SHOPS?
LOTRO, DDO, and EQ2 are getting all thrown around this thread. It should be stated that these are not truly F2P games. These games provide options, and also have "Standard" subscriptions. I think its important to note, for the purposes of this thread, that successful future business models will include more options, not just F2P. Different ways to buy into the game. Whether that is a lifetime sub, B2P, whatever.
Games, in the future, should provide options based on the interest level of the user. Maybe a person only wants to play an hour or two a week. Why not a pay by the hour rate for those with less interest? The point is, to allow a plan that allows anybody to jump into your game and set their own starting/continuing costs.
Ultimately, F2P does not fit this mold 100%. It is simply one option of many possibilities. Is it the business model of the future? Aboslutely not. It is only one choice of many. Games that employ the best entry model into their games will succeed, that is not always F2P. Just look at the other responses in this thread. These are paying gamers >>
I'm just glad to hear that I'm not the only one that wants more options for the players, based on what players are willing to put up with, and pay for. I'm thrilled that (right or wrong) the people behind the movement are willing to mobilize and try to influence the industry...
As soon as a "New" AAA f2p title launches + the fact that it is indeed a quality game. I will /sign-off on your little movement... trouble is, I don't ever see that happening. It costs money to create a quality game. A quality game requires a continuous revenue source to keep the lights on, pay thier employees, stockholders, etc.
Now, on the other side of the pond, this model works. They are used to this pay model. I don't know how much its acceptance is related to cultural differences + conditioning. But I do know that most of the older mmo crowd can see that in the end, f2p costs more than a fixed sub model. But I guess if it's your parents money, what difference does it make?
Every (and I don't mean most) f2p game I have ever tried has not rated above a 6 to me. And I have tried a few, even going in with an open mind hoping to find a quality game to play.
People praise the f2p model....it allows the lesser off the ability to play, but only allows the really wealthy to succeed.
The p2p model, creates a barrier of entry to those too poor, those without a means to pay but have the money (say some dude in iran) or those who are too young to get a cc (18+ anyway right?) and without their parents blessings. But when you play, every single person is on the same level playing field.
"Because of the way they market, their first concern is getting large amounts of cash from a small minority of gamers. Gamers who irrationally spend more money than the average well-budgeted gamer may spend on a game, therefore, the Devs do not have to build a solid game to attract a large group of rational spending people."
Gist of it is, most F2P games are designed around a small group of people, less than 10% of the total playerbase, spending large amounts of money 100s to 1,000s of dollars a month on a game. Therefore, these are the TRUE customers for F2P game companies, and the ones they will cater to. As someone mentioned before, all they need to do is exploit those with achievement addictions. This is not theory or hypothetical arm chair discussion, this is how it works.
But here's the important part:
What they don't need to do to make a profit is to design a game with lots of content and innovative concepts.
"Because of the way they market, their first concern is getting large amounts of cash from a small minority of gamers. Gamers who irrationally spend more money than the average well-budgeted gamer may spend on a game, therefore, the Devs do not have to build a solid game to attract a large group of rational spending people."
Gist of it is, most F2P games are designed around a small group of people, less than 10% of the total playerbase, spending large amounts of money 100s to 1,000s of dollars a month on a game. Therefore, these are the TRUE customers for F2P game companies, and the ones they will cater to. As someone mentioned before, all they need to do is exploit those with achievement addictions. This is not theory or hypothetical arm chair discussion, this is how it works.
But here's the important part:
What they don't need to do to make a profit is to design a game with lots of content and innovative concepts.
Exactly, there is no design motive to create new content that really blows away the player. F2P expansions are usually nothing more than update patches with some new material, and their update patches are nothing more than item mall updates.
F2P is infact gaming communism. The few rich players playing support all the free loaders. and the government, in this case the development company, has not real motive to design great expansions and really develop the game, untill there is in game "riots" over it.
Now ‘Interesting’ has a point here, a monthly cap on how much you can spend in the cash shop would do two things. Firstly you would not get those players who feel they have been ripped of after sinking too much money in the MMO. We have had loads of posts on this site from people in that very boat. Secondly it would help to ensure a level playing field, not ensure one, but it would help.
The point made about type of new content is very true in F2P. You get new dresses and xp potions, but not new lands and quests. They concentrate on individual player items not large content upgrades. A hybrid revenue model which included a box (or just a download, these days retail boxes cost a fortune) once a year for the big content upgrade could work.
I see a future for both P2P and hybrid revenue models, but unless F2p is willing to change I can’t see how they can get out of the cycle of low investment and poor content.
The logic behind pay 2 win models is kinda flawed. You're paying for something you never own, in fact you are renting it not knowing it. For me thats a big difference. I know my monthly fee is used for paying the devs, servers, support and stuff like that but by paying for things like a horse I payed for something I'll never ever known so for me thats a huge difference in terms of mindset.
Your itemshop cap idea would never work because P2W don't know when to stop, these games are designed to crap as much money as possible all patches, expansions are made in that way.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play." "Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
in F2P:MapleStory FTW, only cosmetic things, name changes, player-made stores and 2x exp and 2x drop, that doesnt mean pay2win, you pay and you get a little help or look coller than others for helping the server survive. If you guys think that every F2P is Pay 2 Win then you've got a serious problem
After Runes of Magic, which is a game you HAVE to pay up unless you don't want to do about 75% of the content or have a great chance of being ripped off. Frogster removed the ability for players to trade cash shop points for in game gold and vice versa.
They boned me, so I left. F2P tends to be more grindy, boring, and poorly constructed. (Runes of Magic for example) Do note that F2Ps can make more money than P2Ps. Can you guess why? Because they bone you out of your money. They add in gambling items. In Runes of Magic you could by these gems that would increase the power of your items, but they had a good chance of failing, and if you wanted decent gear, you had to get these gems.
I don't think it's fair for them to do that. I paid money, I expect something out of it. With P2Ps, I know what I'm getting, and I know that it will be of a higher tier than almost all F2P's. I guess it would slightly depend on the P2P MMO, but most are just better in general.
Comments
The Turbine version of "free to play" is not meant to provide completely free entertainment. Its meant to provide a tiered way of particpating in their games.
If you want to dedicate all your time to one game, then you may want to subscribe to DDO or LOTRO. If you wanted to play DDO simply because some friends do you may do a non-sub game with a few strategic purposes.
Turbine's main goal is not to provide a free service but to change the granularity of paying to play from a binary yes/no $15 a month or no game for you to a range of choices so that everyone (including Turbine) may benefit from a broader participation.
Turbine makes no-bones about attemtping to make money.
The Turbine money making model is a step forward in multiple ways.
1) It allows people to play their games according to a varying and customizable array of options. This includes games outside of Turbines catalog. You can play DDO or LOTRO and not pay at all and also play WoW on a sub. Or you could play LOTRO exclusively. Eitehr way. Or you could pay somethign around $8 a month on both DDO and LOTRO but not sub to either one. In other words its flexibile.
2) it increases the total number of people playing and therefore makes grouping easier and the MMO experience in general more favorable.
3) Its gets rid of the big lie MMO companies have been selling for quite some time. Namely that your sub is for maintain servers etc. The Guild Wars Devs were the first to seriously publicaly repudiate this, but the Turbine model shows just how much BS this was to begin with. There are tons of people using ther server resources, yet DDO is making more money than ever in subs. I am completely ignoring revenue from the DDO store. DDO doubled its subs. The whole subs = maintainence thing is BS and always has been. Oh hold on subs = content? What? Turbine sells you the content with a one time fee. Hold on what was that sub for? Turbine sells you EXACTLY what that sub is for. And every single part of the sub can be purchased separately. If you do not like 50% of the content they release you are not forced to subsidize the crappy content. Just don't sub and pay for the content you DO like.
MMO companies have been lying about what you are purchasing for quite some time. Turbine's model is more honest. Now you may not want a "pay to win" store. I don't either. But Turbine is not yet crossing that line.
Think about it for a second. If a piece of content released by Turbine does not sell well, then in order to make more money they need to actually make good content updates. On an individual basis.
I remember SandLol PvP in WoW. The fact I was paying a sub for that piece of crap content update. The fact that I subdized raid content that I hated. It was galling.
If things like raid content are actually valuable features. Then this Turbine model will actually prove whether that is or is not the case.
Isn't that obviously superior to the stupid forum warfare between raiders and non-raiders that went on in WoW before Burning Crusade was released?
You just say put up or shut up; that raid sold well or no one bought that raid content. End of issue. But in a game like WoW with subsidized content you get bullshit social manipulation.
Cash shop games make more money than subscription games because they exploit achiever addiction better.
That's the reality underneath all the dishonest hype.
As i don't have those addictions it doesn't effect me except...
F2P inevitably make games trend towards solo grinders with sudden levelling walls and a pay to win PvP endgame (with optional fluff mounts) because that is the best way to exploit achiever addiction.
This reality is temporarily muddlied at the moment because the cash shop games are having to compete with the old-style western subscription games but the underlying psychology behind how cash shops make money will increasingly drive the design.
It might be possible to have a decent cash shop game based on the micro-expansion idea i.e things like having twelve playable races but only one is free, but that remains to be seen. I think that's more likely to work as subscription plus.
On the other hand there is a problem with the subscription model over time because game companies have fixed costs which go up every year e.g wages, but there is a certain stickiness to the maximum price of a subscription. I think this stickiness is the amount people feel is reasonable to pay *even when they're not playing much*. When i played EQ i often didn't play much for weeks on end because of work commitments but i carried on subbing anyway because the sub was an okay price when i was only playing 6 hours a week. Obviously it was a complete steal when i was playing 30-40 hours a week but i think the stickiness of the upper limit on subscription price comes from what players feel is reasonable when they're only playing a few hours. Cash shops are a way out of this for game companies but will eventually inevitably lead to the games being designed around maximizing cash shop revenue.
I don't know what the solution is but if the reason for subscription stickiness is the one i mention above then maybe a variation on the subscription model where there is no cash shop but you buy game time in 30 hours blocks?
(The reason this might work is say a person plays a game between 30 and 120 hours a month and the maximum they'll pay is 50 cents an hour then the max sub they'll pay is $15 even though on average they'd pay more.)
Welcome to the forums Gameophobic try not to be so paragrapthphobic, makes you hard to read.
“Since when do people have to conform to your desires or ways of seeing things?”:
The site mentioned by the OP wants F2P to take over all gaming, that’s forcing people to conform to their desires I think. Because people have an opinion you do not share does not make them your oppressor. I do not hate F2P, again you will meet people in life that do not share you point of view they are not ‘haters’. You are ascribing an emotional value to us that we do not have, hatred is a word ridiculously overused these days lets try to use words that are relevant.
As to your analogy about free and paid for news, “no-one complains about free news” well they do. You do know that newspaper circulation is declining and some newspapers have gone under? Meanwhile internet news is regarded as making people have a superficial grasp of current affairs. In other words it lacks content and substance just like its F2p counterpart.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/8537519.stm
Also F2P movement is stupid,If it wants all games to be cash shop game.
Also any free to play game with Box sale or sub is just money grab ripoff it is almost impossible to create a game with fair cash shop with out revenue source coming in.No game should get 100% revenue from a cash shop because it force the game to make gamers use the cash shop or else they make no money and games are not charities
I firm believer in paying for boxes and expansion or having some sort monthly hybrid payment plan that company is not depending on the cash shop to make money.That way they are not force to make design decision that encourage you to use the cash shop.
The ideal games set up is either
Buy to play:Original game and expansions and if the game needs a cash at all maybe a small cash shop that sells stuff like pets, costume gear,vanity mounts,server changes,name changes,etc
or
Free to play with sub:You download the game free of charge,You play for free but some content is limited,To get the full content and all the features you have to pay for the sub and most of the stuff need from cash shop is cover in your sub fee
Pure cash shop cause shady designs which slow down leveling or create some sort of item dependence on purpose which forces people use to cash shop.I am saying this a person who supports F2P games has played over 60 f2p games has max level characters in F2P games.Both B2P and Free to play with a sub are plans that depend on selling gamers content. Pure Cash shop games don't carry about content they just care if you buy item
I agree with the Gameophobic post...
I seem to enjoy F2P games only when I have very limited time to game...as in say the last 2 months...I must say that the F2P Im playing now isnt horrible at all...the cash shop doesnt interest me in the slightest and I have not felt like I was less cool or gonna be ganked because I didnt spend money in the game...will that last? probably not...but this isnt a life long committment I'm making either...its just something to kill time...so F2P as a movement doesnt bother me...as long as they have a few really good sub games around somewhere for me to marry into when more free time opens up
I AM like the wind!
there has to be a limit to the ammount of money people can spend on cash shop.
to prevent companies from designing the game in a way that people want to spend more than 15 bucks per month
if there was such a limitation, then people with 30 bucks wouldnt get twice the benefits... because the game's cash shop would be designed so whatever is sold can only be advantageous to the limit of 15$ per month, per character....
that way, people can still spend the same as they would in a subscription model, except that are not penalized indirectly by the players who spent more than 15 bucks....
and yeah, since its free, some people wouldnt pay anything...
F2P should be limited to 0 $ to 15 $ per character/account on whatever is offered. That way, they get revenue, without selling the soul of the game.
the first smart company to advertise their game as offering a "protective barrier" for the "PAY TO WIN" prejudice on F2P games would win.
Except no company wants to stop being unethical with their cash shop items offering over thousand bucks worth of power and advantages....
All they need is a slogan "F2P, with 15 bucks CAP FOR EVERYONE IF you want to buy anything from the cash shop"
They like caps to make everyone fair and balanced, right? WHY NOT IMPLEMENT A FUCKING CAP ON YOUR FUCKING CASH SHOPS?
LOTRO, DDO, and EQ2 are getting all thrown around this thread. It should be stated that these are not truly F2P games. These games provide options, and also have "Standard" subscriptions. I think its important to note, for the purposes of this thread, that successful future business models will include more options, not just F2P. Different ways to buy into the game. Whether that is a lifetime sub, B2P, whatever.
Games, in the future, should provide options based on the interest level of the user. Maybe a person only wants to play an hour or two a week. Why not a pay by the hour rate for those with less interest? The point is, to allow a plan that allows anybody to jump into your game and set their own starting/continuing costs.
Ultimately, F2P does not fit this mold 100%. It is simply one option of many possibilities. Is it the business model of the future? Aboslutely not. It is only one choice of many. Games that employ the best entry model into their games will succeed, that is not always F2P. Just look at the other responses in this thread. These are paying gamers >>
Hear, hear Spikers!
I'm just glad to hear that I'm not the only one that wants more options for the players, based on what players are willing to put up with, and pay for. I'm thrilled that (right or wrong) the people behind the movement are willing to mobilize and try to influence the industry...
Options, options, options, dammit! =-)
As soon as a "New" AAA f2p title launches + the fact that it is indeed a quality game. I will /sign-off on your little movement... trouble is, I don't ever see that happening. It costs money to create a quality game. A quality game requires a continuous revenue source to keep the lights on, pay thier employees, stockholders, etc.
Now, on the other side of the pond, this model works. They are used to this pay model. I don't know how much its acceptance is related to cultural differences + conditioning. But I do know that most of the older mmo crowd can see that in the end, f2p costs more than a fixed sub model. But I guess if it's your parents money, what difference does it make?
Every (and I don't mean most) f2p game I have ever tried has not rated above a 6 to me. And I have tried a few, even going in with an open mind hoping to find a quality game to play.
Hasn't happened yet!
My opinion... I will leave it at that.
Anyone ever think the two payment models though?
People praise the f2p model....it allows the lesser off the ability to play, but only allows the really wealthy to succeed.
The p2p model, creates a barrier of entry to those too poor, those without a means to pay but have the money (say some dude in iran) or those who are too young to get a cc (18+ anyway right?) and without their parents blessings. But when you play, every single person is on the same level playing field.
The obvious quality diffrence aside that is.
Why F2P is bad for MMOs. I'll explain briefly.
"Because of the way they market, their first concern is getting large amounts of cash from a small minority of gamers. Gamers who irrationally spend more money than the average well-budgeted gamer may spend on a game, therefore, the Devs do not have to build a solid game to attract a large group of rational spending people."
Gist of it is, most F2P games are designed around a small group of people, less than 10% of the total playerbase, spending large amounts of money 100s to 1,000s of dollars a month on a game. Therefore, these are the TRUE customers for F2P game companies, and the ones they will cater to. As someone mentioned before, all they need to do is exploit those with achievement addictions. This is not theory or hypothetical arm chair discussion, this is how it works.
But here's the important part:
What they don't need to do to make a profit is to design a game with lots of content and innovative concepts.
Exactly, there is no design motive to create new content that really blows away the player. F2P expansions are usually nothing more than update patches with some new material, and their update patches are nothing more than item mall updates.
F2P is infact gaming communism. The few rich players playing support all the free loaders. and the government, in this case the development company, has not real motive to design great expansions and really develop the game, untill there is in game "riots" over it.
F2P model is more along the lines of capitalism, in countries of great social gaps, like Brazil and Jamaica.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/Cloudsol/
Now ‘Interesting’ has a point here, a monthly cap on how much you can spend in the cash shop would do two things. Firstly you would not get those players who feel they have been ripped of after sinking too much money in the MMO. We have had loads of posts on this site from people in that very boat. Secondly it would help to ensure a level playing field, not ensure one, but it would help.
The point made about type of new content is very true in F2P. You get new dresses and xp potions, but not new lands and quests. They concentrate on individual player items not large content upgrades. A hybrid revenue model which included a box (or just a download, these days retail boxes cost a fortune) once a year for the big content upgrade could work.
I see a future for both P2P and hybrid revenue models, but unless F2p is willing to change I can’t see how they can get out of the cycle of low investment and poor content.
lol someone is taking incentives from the azn grinder devs.
go die in a fire!
I wonder who thought about the cash shop investment cap before me.
It seems like the future to me.
You get the best of F2P, and prevent the worst of it.
The logic behind pay 2 win models is kinda flawed. You're paying for something you never own, in fact you are renting it not knowing it. For me thats a big difference. I know my monthly fee is used for paying the devs, servers, support and stuff like that but by paying for things like a horse I payed for something I'll never ever known so for me thats a huge difference in terms of mindset.
Your itemshop cap idea would never work because P2W don't know when to stop, these games are designed to crap as much money as possible all patches, expansions are made in that way.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play."
"Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
It is the only way it can work.
Any news on any of these, you would like to share,what about this one ?
Up for great justice.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/Cloudsol/
in F2P:MapleStory FTW, only cosmetic things, name changes, player-made stores and 2x exp and 2x drop, that doesnt mean pay2win, you pay and you get a little help or look coller than others for helping the server survive. If you guys think that every F2P is Pay 2 Win then you've got a serious problem
DuckRoll
F2P. I will never again.
After Runes of Magic, which is a game you HAVE to pay up unless you don't want to do about 75% of the content or have a great chance of being ripped off. Frogster removed the ability for players to trade cash shop points for in game gold and vice versa.
They boned me, so I left. F2P tends to be more grindy, boring, and poorly constructed. (Runes of Magic for example) Do note that F2Ps can make more money than P2Ps. Can you guess why? Because they bone you out of your money. They add in gambling items. In Runes of Magic you could by these gems that would increase the power of your items, but they had a good chance of failing, and if you wanted decent gear, you had to get these gems.
I don't think it's fair for them to do that. I paid money, I expect something out of it. With P2Ps, I know what I'm getting, and I know that it will be of a higher tier than almost all F2P's. I guess it would slightly depend on the P2P MMO, but most are just better in general.