I haven't played one F2P that does that either...so where do you get your BS from?
Oh, I don't know... running up to a NPC in LoTRO or DDO that clearly has a quest indicator over their head, only to tell me I "have to purchase the content first". That never happened when either was a P2P MMO. They either had a quest for you, or they didn't.
Seeing messages pop up in the middle of the screen of various other F2P MMOs advertising "specials" going on in their cash shops for charms, xp pots, etc, while I'm out fighting mobs or doing quests. Trying to chat with other players in a channel only to find I can't because I have to purchase megaphones "conveniently" sold in their cash shop. There are a number of examples I've run into across the various F2P MMOs I've tried where the game is trying to get me to pull out the credit card numerous times per session.
EyesWideOpen points out the little button/window popping up every time you "earn" Turbine points, which is a clear hint to "spend said points" in their shop.
Those kinds of things pull me out of the game and are nothing but an annoying distraction... like commercial breaks during an "edited for television" movie. Again, that's why I prefer DVDs over TV. And it's why I prefer P2P MMOs over F2P.
In regards to the thread topic, my reasons have nothing to do with Richard Aioshi's "opinion" that I'm "miscomprehending", nor that I'm "in denial" or whatever other lame-ass theory he's spun in the past to rationalize (to himself) why others don't love F2P as much as he does.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
The way I figure it, there are four forms of F2P. Maybe more, but these are reasonably clear.
1. Shareware... Open the game, everything is free. Beg for money and sell fluff stuff.
2. Crippleware... Open the game, everything is free except when you figure out that your character is gimped unless you use the cash shop or pay a subscription. (this is sort of like #4 but not nearly as severe)
3. A la carte... Open the game, nowhere near everything is free but you can get to max level without paying. You just cant run a large number of dungeons or goto zones that you have to pay extra to get in.
4. Pay to Win. Open the game, everything is free except for the stuff to make you uber. If you want to be uber you pay. You might not even be able to make it to endgame without it.
For me, I think there is a difference between a small Indie that could never afford the advertising to go P2P and a scam artist that doesn't tell you upfront that there's no way to play without paying.
If you have a moment...
Would I be better off advertising my game as "Shareware" or "Unlimited Free Trial" rather than "Free to Play" ??? That's what I'm thinking about doing because I don' need the headache of being associated with scammers.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
If you stop and figure it up F2P can/will cost you more than if you subscripe. Currently I am playing two games that once and still can be subscription. One I can't really say a whole lot on the difference from subscribing and not(other than the obivious.) However, the other I have played enough to learn and stilll learning the dissadvantages to F2P. In adding it up I would be spending more for just a couple of the pleasures and uses in the game than I would for paying for three months of gameplay with full access.
Point is F2P allows you to expierence the game with certain limits (some harsher than others) and then if you really want to continue playing it it would be in the best interest of you pocketbook/wallet to purchase and pay to play it.
I have seen many saying and questioning some of the games going F2P. I think probably in time we will see more F2P versions come out rather the the trials. Why ? Because more people will join in to try a game that has interested them but either they are leary of the trial or the time on a trail does not give you much knowledge/time of the game. For really casual players a trial can be useless. However, F2P will allow them and anyone else the time they would need with some inconviences to give the game a real try. My opinion is this is a really tactfully advertising plan that is probably going to boost some of the struggling games up to level ground (maybe). For some won't really matter.
Even when we talk about GW2, which is B2P, not P2P and not F2P, we had those saying "It can't be, it will surely have a cash shop pay to win!" arguing agains others saying "It's only a cash shop cosmetic/fluff stuff, it doesn't make you pay to have a difference and advantages against other players!".
Later things calmed down a bit, probably because most people saw how GW1 had it's cash shop only for the same things the even P2P games have, and the GW2 was said to have the same things.
And now that the new "transmutation system" appears, the talk is back, even when actually this new system only makes players use the gear they like in look with the stats of the best gear they have, in order to use the favourite looking one forever. It's still cosmetic, but there's now the money envolved and the arguing started like a bomb. Still, they haven't said that the T-stones would be availabe to sell among players with gold or not, but the answer to that will surely bring more arguing to the forums
And it's with the payment system of GW2 that we see those influeced by their previous experiences with F2P and P2P having wrong conclusions because they don't search for info first. When the talk was about "Buy to Play", people said the game wont have updates and it would be a fail, so it would turn into a P2P or F2P with "pay to win" cash sop. Than they had the news about it having a cash shop and starting arguing about "pay to win", without having the notion of it beeing the same as GW1 cash shop (only cosmetic/fluff, not "pay to win"). Then they said that cosmetic/fluff stuff is gameplay too and having those in Cash shop is taking the fun from the game (even though most P2Ps have the same thing -.-"). It's impossible to stop it. When money is envolved, the emotions about previous bad experiences, whatever model it may be, really makes players get have wrong opinions without searching for info first. And I admit, I had that happening to me too.
I agree that people need to be thinking readers,however there is some VERY important things missing when comes to internet discussion.What is missing is the persons demeamour,facial expression,tone of voice,without really being face to face with a person,you really are just guessing as to what their true intentions/thoughts are.Not everyone is very good at conveying themselves,i admit i am often one of those,but in real life i am very good at explaining things.
One thing this article misses is actual talk about f2p ..lol,i thought the discussion was how both relate to each other,see...maybe i am not understanding the posters actual thoughts or what his intentions of the post actually are.
I can offer my opinion on how they relate to each other ,since i am sure that is what the topic is about.When i discuss anything i almost always look at it from both sides then draw my conclusions.Example i look at F2P i have several opinions and i know the pay model and free model well,not only have i played many of these games,i have spent money on them.
My conclusion on the F2P model is that it does offer a few benefits,they are far outweighed by the negatives.
F2P offers for those with no money or CC the ability to play an MMO with others,the problem is that without the actual money spenders ,there is no game,therefore they again have no game and nobody to play with.So in reality it makes the F2P option a non factor,it is still all about the money,no matter how you slice it.
F2P becuase of it's loose setup usually allows a decent game to have a larger population,this is what 99% of players look for,example EQ2 Extended,it brought many vets back just becuase the server is more populated.
Here is the big negative on F2p,the cost if you want all the content you would normally have in a P2P model is staggering,if you want the whole game be prepared to pay absolutely ridiculous prices,this is becuase they are trying to get the money spenders to make up for the freeloaders.Another huge flaw of the F2p. model is community,it is completely ripped apart,it brings out the immature chat 24/7.Cheating or botting or rmt are all non factors,becuase in a F2P model nobody really cares weather they are banned/caught nor do they care who they argue with or tell off.
When i weight all the options the F2P model is definitely not as good as the pay model,where i do condone it,is when a developer needs to keep a struggling game alive,in otherwords the pay model is just not working.However in saying i think it can work in certain situations,i believe they are still creating an unfair atmosphere for paying players,they need to rethink their ideas and realize who is actually keeping their game afloat...the money spenders.So when comes to reading comprehension i believe just as big a factor is basic understanding without even hearing or reading anything from others,there is no real rocket science here,most of us know the ins and outs of the f2p model.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I agree that people need to be thinking readers,however there is some VERY important things missing when comes to internet discussion.What is missing is the persons demeamour,facial expression,tone of voice,without really being face to face with a person,you really are just guessing as to what their true intentions/thoughts are.Not everyone is very good at conveying themselves,i admit i am often one of those,but in real life i am very good at explaining things.
One thing this article misses is actual talk about f2p ..lol,i thought the discussion was how both relate to each other,see...maybe i am not understanding the posters actual thoughts or what his intentions of the post actually are.
I can offer my opinion on how they relate to each other ,since i am sure that is what the topic is about.When i discuss anything i almost always look at it from both sides then draw my conclusions.Example i look at F2P i have several opinions and i know the pay model and free model well,not only have i played many of these games,i have spent money on them.
My conclusion on the F2P model is that it does offer a few benefits,they are far outweighed by the negatives.
F2P offers for those with no money or CC the ability to play an MMO with others,the problem is that without the actual money spenders ,there is no game,therefore they again have no game and nobody to play with.So in reality it makes the F2P option a non factor,it is still all about the money,no matter how you slice it.
F2P becuase of it's loose setup usually allows a decent game to have a larger population,this is what 99% of players look for,example EQ2 Extended,it brought many vets back just becuase the server is more populated.
Here is the big negative on F2p,the cost if you want all the content you would normally have in a P2P model is staggering,if you want the whole game be prepared to pay absolutely ridiculous prices,this is becuase they are trying to get the money spenders to make up for the freeloaders.Another huge flaw of the F2p. model is community,it is completely ripped apart,it brings out the immature chat 24/7.Cheating or botting or rmt are all non factors,becuase in a F2P model nobody really cares weather they are banned/caught nor do they care who they argue with or tell off.
When i weight all the options the F2P model is definitely not as good as the pay model,where i do condone it,is when a developer needs to keep a struggling game alive,in otherwords the pay model is just not working.However in saying i think it can work in certain situations,i believe they are still creating an unfair atmosphere for paying players,they need to rethink their ideas and realize who is actually keeping their game afloat...the money spenders.So when comes to reading comprehension i believe just as big a factor is basic understanding without even hearing or reading anything from others,there is no real rocket science here,most of us know the ins and outs of the f2p model.
Excellently put.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
The way I figure it, there are four forms of F2P. Maybe more, but these are reasonably clear.
1. Shareware... Open the game, everything is free. Beg for money and sell fluff stuff.
Style usually associated with M.U.D.S. and RealmCrafter/RPGMaker games. The term "shareware" kinda got a bad rap years back, so noone uses it much any more. Now it's just "trial" software.
2. Crippleware... Open the game, everything is free except when you figure out that your character is gimped unless you use the cash shop or pay a subscription. (this is sort of like #4 but not nearly as severe)
This style would be along the lines of Anarchy Online. Everything in the original game areas plus the first expansion pack totally free, over 3/4 of the game almost. While the only players really "gimped" would be the free player PvP'ers, everyone has the option of subscribing after buying the remaining expansions. This is the only actual mmo I would call a true "hybrid" paymanet model right now. And while it also has a "cash shop", it sells only fluff items such as different skinned vehicles and social clothingAnd, Hybrid sounds much better than crippleware, as the game itself really isn't crippled for the majority of players (PvE'ers).
3. A la carte... Open the game, nowhere near everything is free but you can get to max level without paying. You just cant run a large number of dungeons or goto zones that you have to pay extra to get in.
Ah, the DDO/LotRO model. This would more appropriately be titled under the "Unlimited Trial" model. Although with "cash shops" containing game altering items such as +stat tomes, is dangerously close to the "Pay to Win" model.
4. Pay to Win. Open the game, everything is free except for the stuff to make you uber. If you want to be uber you pay. You might not even be able to make it to endgame without it.
Mostly associated with "asian grinder" mmos, although not always the case. Many do survive off just fluff items, while others such as Runes of Magic are truly "Pay to Win". Generally fall under the title of "Cash Shop" mmos.
For me, I think there is a difference between a small Indie that could never afford the advertising to go P2P and a scam artist that doesn't tell you upfront that there's no way to play without paying.
If you have a moment...
Would I be better off advertising my game as "Shareware" or "Unlimited Free Trial" rather than "Free to Play" ??? That's what I'm thinking about doing because I don' need the headache of being associated with scammers.
I would recommend the "unlimited trial" label at the very least, rather than calling something "free to play" when it's truly not ( and i'm not going to argue semantics with those who say "But you can play the whole game! You just have to work ten times harder than those who pay!" monkeys ( lookin' at you, DDO and LotRO fanbois).
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.- -And on the 8th day, man created God.-
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
The issue here isnt one of understanding. It is one of tolerance.
There are many issues that just dont facilitate reasonable discussions. Examples are Religion, Politcs, etc. The reality is that people dont sit down and have reasonable discussions about them, they pick a side, and attack anyone that does not agree with them. Sad, but true.
F2P/P2P has this similar position in the gameing arena. Both sides will tell you how EVIL the other is, and how all opposition should be burned alive for heresy. Anyone that tries to inject a little reason into this conflict is attacked by both sides...
Richard is pro choice, but is making the F2P pitch because it is both the underdog, and the basis for his column. You can clearly see the venom in the posts that do not agree, not because he has said anything particularly wrong... but because they want to discredit anyone that might bring an oppinion different than theirs.
The reality is that his articles are basically 'meh' (no offence intended Richard). The only reason that they are here (and that he gets paid for them) is that they are a hotbutton topic, and anytime he says anything on the subject, hordes of posters show up to declare him the next great Satan...
I play both P2P and F2P games. Fact is there are presious few games in either group that are great games.
Most P2P games have some sort of item shop to....change servers,sex,appearance etc are never included as part of the sub. It is more and more common to be able to buy various goodies to. Some people have time and prefer to grind it out. Others ( who may work more hours or have other rl issues may welcome the ability to get a boost so they can keep up. Great for both and no skin off my nose...I play for me and could care less what other people do, short of cheating
People whine that F2P isn't free. GOLLY! whoudathunk ! There has to be some sort of revenue producer or the game will never be made ( no investors ) and would never last if it were made ( no $$ to pay dev cost, staff, server/eq cost, insurance cost etc.
I take each game I try for content. If its good, I play...if its great, I stay a long time.
It has become more and more fashionable to bash F2P ( and Richard) and games like WOW ( nope, never played it ). Initialy there were a core group of bashers which has grown as bashing has become the 'in' thing.
The above is also true of PVP...GASP! I play Aion and there are alot of folks bashing the changes that make it harder to find an area with lower level,gear, skilled players. This makes me chuckle. There are several new areas dedicated to PVP but the kicker is the people you are able to PVP with are generaly better geared,skilled and are also within a few levels of each other. I thought this was great...real PVP.....there is a true challenge now.
I've read this article twice now to make sure I fully understood what the writer was trying to say. It appears to be an exercise of condescension to those people in the community that have opposing opinions about the Free to Play MMORPG payment model.
Are you new to Aihoshi's column? This is pretty much all he does. He's only got one thing to say, so he tries to come up with new ways to say it.
But in some games, you do get an awful lot of content under that free to play label. Anarchy Online's free portion qualifies as far more than a free trial. You get everything not expansion related, if I remember right. Which is 200 levels out of 220, again, if I remember right. Is that really just free to try?
It's been years since I've played Anarchy Online, so this may have changed, but doesn't AO require you to start subscribing if you want access to more than the original game? Getting to play parts of a game for an unlimited amount of time before deciding if you want to subscribe or not is an unlimited free trial in my book. For that reason I consider AO a P2P game with a very extensive free trial, and it bugs me a little when people point it out as a "true F2P" game. Granted, if most F2P games had a business model like AO, I'd probably be more willing to try them out, but all other "free" MMOs I've tried have had game-play mechanics that are designed to annoy players to the point where they either start paying or stop playing.
The issue here isnt one of understanding. It is one of tolerance.
There are many issues that just dont facilitate reasonable discussions. Examples are Religion, Politcs, etc. The reality is that people dont sit down and have reasonable discussions about them, they pick a side, and attack anyone that does not agree with them. Sad, but true.
F2P/P2P has this similar position in the gameing arena. Both sides will tell you how EVIL the other is, and how all opposition should be burned alive for heresy. Anyone that tries to inject a little reason into this conflict is attacked by both sides...
Richard is pro choice, but is making the F2P pitch because it is both the underdog, and the basis for his column. You can clearly see the venom in the posts that do not agree, not because he has said anything particularly wrong... but because they want to discredit anyone that might bring an oppinion different than theirs.
The reality is that his articles are basically 'meh' (no offence intended Richard). The only reason that they are here (and that he gets paid for them) is that they are a hotbutton topic, and anytime he says anything on the subject, hordes of posters show up to declare him the next great Satan...
Yes, there is far too much extremism in the whole debate, but that argument only goes so far.
And I have nothing against F2P - hell, I'm beta-ing two of them right now, and just finished up with a third. It's a valid business model in concept, even if the implementations vary widely. The whole MMO scene would benefit hugely if people would quite drowning out discussions with their off-topic arguments and flames.
But Richard's column is another matter. With precious few exceptions, his columns are a collection of strawman arguments, deliberate (or if not, this speaks quite poorly of his own reading comprehension) misunderstandings of F2P criticisms, and attempts to tar every opponent with the blackest possible brush. Every article (interspersed between the flames) there are plenty of replies with valid arguments and polite suggestions, and I have yet to see them addressed in any future articles. And for that matter, for such a prolific proponent of the business model, Richard has yet to bother showcasing any game that addresses any of the complaints. At a certain point, it boils down to "Put up or shut-up", and he has yet to do the former.
He's a paid flamebaiter, and your last paragraph is quite likely correct - this site doesn't differentiate between page hits from supporters or haters, and his articles generate plenty of the latter.
A Modest Proposal for MMORPGs: That the means of progression would not be mutually exclusive from the means of enjoyment.
I've read this article twice now to make sure I fully understood what the writer was trying to say. It appears to be an exercise of condescension to those people in the community that have opposing opinions about the Free to Play MMORPG payment model.
Are you new to Aihoshi's column? This is pretty much all he does. He's only got one thing to say, so he tries to come up with new ways to say it.
Actually, yes. I am fairly new to actually reading anything on this site. The date joined suggests I've been around for 4 years, but I have actually only been around a of month or so. I think I signed up for a beta or something and never came back.
It's too bad that this type of article is typical (if this is indeed the case). It just feeds the "us vs. them" mentality that is so common on these forum. Obviously if the site accepts column writers like this, it has zero interest in upholding any kind of civility throughout. Flame baiting and trolling is against the user conduct rules on this site, is it not?
Ok so I read every word in this article and to be honest I think you wrote almost this exact same article before. That is sad on two counts. First is that this is an idea that was just used by Jon (who you give credit to) and as such is not an original piece on here, and second you already wrote much of it before. So I guess my question is, what was the point of it?
We all know you are 100% baffled by the fact that so many of us don't like F2P the way you do, and you also think it will essentially be the only form of MMO in a few years, so repeating that gains nothing. We also know you feel those of us who don't like F2P don't fully read your articles (the same way you ignore all the facts that we pose contrary to your points) so once again repeating it gains nothing.
I'm just confused on the purpose of having this article or taking the time to write it (again).
We get it. You love F2P. You are confused by those of us who don't like F2P and as such always insist we are not actually reading your articles or that we are just out to spread misinformation since we do not agree with you. Seriously, we get it.
Actually you missed his point entirely. If you reread the article you will find that even he admits to getting blinded by reading the same ideas over and over and he even said not to take his word for gospel. Now before I am accused of being a F2P fanboy let me be clear that I am in no way a fan of F2P games(case in point I find the name in and of itself to be misleading, because there usually is nothing free about it).
What I do find interesting is how we major in the minors in order to back up our pet issues. His article was about our inability to read and comprehend what we are reading, but you felt it was an occasion to take a jab on his F2P position even though that was not what his article was even about. That is what he is talking about.
"Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game."-Guybrush Threepwood "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me."-Hunter S. Thompson
I've read this article twice now to make sure I fully understood what the writer was trying to say. It appears to be an exercise of condescension to those people in the community that have opposing opinions about the Free to Play MMORPG payment model.
Are you new to Aihoshi's column? This is pretty much all he does. He's only got one thing to say, so he tries to come up with new ways to say it.
Actually, yes. I am fairly new to actually reading anything on this site. The date joined suggests I've been around for 4 years, but I have actually only been around a of month or so. I think I signed up for a beta or something and never came back.
It's too bad that this type of article is typical (if this is indeed the case). It just feeds the "us vs. them" mentality that is so common on these forum. Obviously if the site accepts column writers like this, it has zero interest in upholding any kind of civility throughout. Flame baiting and trolling is against the user conduct rules on this site, is it not?
I think you should have read what he said before reading the comments, because F2P has nothing to do with what he said. He is merely expressing his opinion on how we comment on things without actually reading and comprehending what the author is even discussing. The very fact that this discussion has de-evolved into a F2P war demonstrates his point.
"Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game."-Guybrush Threepwood "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me."-Hunter S. Thompson
I think you should have read what he said before reading the comments, because F2P has nothing to do with what he said. He is merely expressing his opinion on how we comment on things without actually reading and comprehending what the author is even discussing. The very fact that this discussion has de-evolved into a F2P war demonstrates his point.
I did read what he said. I read it twice. I think I was like the third person to comment. Perhaps you should read the comments before you start commenting on the thread.
And just so you know, F2P has a lot to do with this article. "F2P" is even in the title of this thread. Please read his article again since it seems you missed something.
Here is what I said:
I've read this article twice now to make sure I fully understood what the writer was trying to say. It appears to be an exercise of condescension to those people in the community that have opposing opinions about the Free to Play MMORPG payment model.
He first comments on the "miscomprehension" (not a word as far as I know) of the Free to Play model by saying that people get overly emotionally negative. The people that think different than he does about a free to play model are apparently unable to control their negativity to the point of spreading misinformation. He then goes on to say that because of this spread of misinformation, readers basically fall into a trap where they are unable to pick out legitimate reasons why they dislike the payment model.
He goes on to say that many people in North America are only looking at the tip of the iceburg of the Free to Play model. He is basically saying in that paragraph that people are being willfully ignorant. He then attributes it to a higher amount of media coverage and advertising, implying that the opposition to Free to Play models are easily swayed and form their opinion based on popularity instead of facts.
The following paragraph is the icing on the cake. He uses Jon Wood's article to prove his point that people can't comprehend what they are reading. He then expects the reader to take a leap. He expects the reader to fall into his trap. If you don't agree with his position on the Free to Play model, then it is because you are not comprehending the argument. After all, look at all the comments that didn't comprehend Jon Wood.
For the record, I think the Free to Play model is fine.
That's great. So why is it you anti-F2P crusaders refuse to let the consumer determine exactly what it is they're willing to pay for? What makes you think you should be the final arbiter as to what is considered not only economically viable, but enjoyable for other gamers? Is it not a principle of capitalism that success depends on effectively supplying a market's demand? If what is being offered through the F2P model is so worthless, why do people continue to play these games? Let me guess: people are sheep? That's the standard response, isn't it? Or perhaps the truth is that the goose-stepping gestapo F2P-haters simply loath the fact that anyone is able find any kind enjoyment without paying the premium that they themselves find attached to their digital addiction of choice. I mean, if I feel *I* have to pay to have a good time, everybody else better damn well pay too.
Thankfully, the market reacts to profits, not unsubstantiated, reactionary venom originating from those who feel that anything fun must start with a dollar sign to even be considered. Unfortunately, you're tilting at windmills. F2P is here to stay, get used to it.
The part in green of your quote is completely INAPPROPRIATE. Don't liken people who have an opinion about a game payment method to nazis. Let's put things in just a little bit of perspective.
I do agree that there is an issue at stake with comprehending facts and the like, but part of it is based on the misnomer 'free-to-play'. For the most part, these games do try to force you to pay at some point. As I always call them 'free-to-access', I think it reflects better the reality. I'm sure there are some that are playable without spending money, but how fun is it? Not everyone seems to be able to stomach the restrictions of playing free entails. If that's the case, is it truly correct to call them 'free-to-play' if most players do spend money on the game at some point?
I've tried about 7 or so F2A games so far. I read up on what the game is about, what the cash shop is like, what players feel about the game, what's in development. I know there are tons, especially ones that are Asian, that I haven't tried, with respect to the tip of the iceberg comment. The problem comes from whether those games that form the rest of the iceberg are truly worth it and whether they would make sense to someone who is Western culturally speaking. My saying to someone from China that EVE is the best online game ever might make no sense to him/her just the same as them saying to me that Atlantica Online is the best online game ever. I took one look at Atlantica Online and knew it just wasn't for me.
It's up to each player to decide for him/herself what is the best model and game to go with. One payment model isn't necessarily better than the other, other than perhaps flat-out scams.
I do agree that there is an issue at stake with comprehending facts and the like, but part of it is based on the misnomer 'free-to-play'. For the most part, these games do try to force you to pay at some point. As I always call them 'free-to-access', I think it reflects better the reality. I'm sure there are some that are playable without spending money, but how fun is it? Not everyone seems to be able to stomach the restrictions of playing free entails. If that's the case, is it truly correct to call them 'free-to-play' if most players do spend money on the game at some point?
I've tried about 7 or so F2A games so far. I read up on what the game is about, what the cash shop is like, what players feel about the game, what's in development. I know there are tons, especially ones that are Asian, that I haven't tried, with respect to the tip of the iceberg comment. The problem comes from whether those games that form the rest of the iceberg are truly worth it and whether they would make sense to someone who is Western culturally speaking. My saying to someone from China that EVE is the best online game ever might make no sense to him/her just the same as them saying to me that Atlantica Online is the best online game ever. I took one look at Atlantica Online and knew it just wasn't for me.
It's up to each player to decide for him/herself what is the best model and game to go with. One payment model isn't necessarily better than the other, other than perhaps flat-out scams.
Good post. I also think the focus in the article is wrong. I never got the impression that the flame wars that happen every time a P2P vs F2P discussion comes up is due to lack of comprehension of the terms. It's more that the terms themselves are severely misleading. All MMOs made to make a profit need funding somehow. Usually through one, or more of the following:
Subscriptions (optional or mandatory)
Box sales or account activation fees
Cash shops (with varying degrees of incentive to use them)
Ads
Other microtransactions.
P2P games always have mandatory subscriptions. F2P games do not have mandatory subscriptions or account activation fees. That's pretty much accepted, and those that favor P2P business models tend to feel a mandatory subscription fee makes up for having to deal with the rest, while those that favor F2P want to pay based on how much they are playing and what they are doing in the game (which theoretically means they can play for free).
The problem, in my opinion, comes from drawing a line, saying these games are free to play. These games are not, and trying to argue for and against why you should pay. All publishers are free to mix and match the various ways to fund their digital services. Most try to find the breaking point where adding more things to charge players for, or higher fees causes paying customers to leave and a drop in profits. This is true for both P2P and F2P games, but it tends to strike a nerve with people when done with a game marketed as "Free". It just seems dishonest.
To sum up: Lack of reading comprehension is not, in my opinion, the main issue. It's giving all MMOs a F2P or P2P label instead of providing the details about how each game is funded.
IMO, the F2P genre is much like nuclear power. In the right hands it can be an amazing tool for publishers and developers to gain some great advertisement. However, in the wrong hands (such as EA), the concept is warped and twisted into a marketing ploy (much like drug dealers might use). They release a product under the guise of F2P, intended on luring people in, so they become addicted to the product, and will eventually spend more then the game is actually worth.
Another problem with the F2P market, is the fact that those willing to spend a small fortune in a game, are usually given advantages over those who don't. Prime example: (yet again EA) When Battlefield heroes 1rst started its closed beta session, there were video interviews with the creators, where they stated the game was going to focus on a fair fun-filled experience. That a match-making system would ensure on players of the same skill level would face off against eachother, and the cash shop would only sell items used to customize the appearence of your character, and not sell advantages/bonuses. However after a few months, everyone clearly saw EA for its true colors. Much like a politician, they broke all of their promises. Matchmaking failed horribly because of both the join friend function people were exploiting, and the server rentals that allowed people to control the way games are set up (aka 1 side full newb vrs other side of full pro). Weapons with bonuses appeared in the cash shop, pretty much ensuring, the "geeks with the most money" had the advantage. Not to mention the hackers that have ruined the game, and gone completely unpunished by the EA.
Simply put, if your gonna make a F2P game, and want it to be great. It needs to have a decent amount of "free" content, and ensure a certain level of equality between those with excessive money and those without. Basically do the opposite of anything EA does.
1 last thing, its not a lack of reading comprehension, that is the problem. Its the misleading, false advertising, and other dubious tactics being used by some publishers, who try to squeeze every penny they can out of a game they release as F2P. Just look at what EA has done to Phenomic after the release of Battleforge F2P. To cut costs they made Phenomic remove the report player function from the game and replaced it with the already existing website "submit a ticket to EA" function (takes about 10mins per report and tickets either never get answered or closed without being resolved). Then they laid off a large portion of Phenomic staff, so they could be replaced by unpaid interns.
So the problem isn't the F2P genre, or lack of reading comprehension on the customers part. It's companies like EA, that will do anything to increase their annual profits by pennies.
Comments
Oh, I don't know... running up to a NPC in LoTRO or DDO that clearly has a quest indicator over their head, only to tell me I "have to purchase the content first". That never happened when either was a P2P MMO. They either had a quest for you, or they didn't.
Seeing messages pop up in the middle of the screen of various other F2P MMOs advertising "specials" going on in their cash shops for charms, xp pots, etc, while I'm out fighting mobs or doing quests. Trying to chat with other players in a channel only to find I can't because I have to purchase megaphones "conveniently" sold in their cash shop. There are a number of examples I've run into across the various F2P MMOs I've tried where the game is trying to get me to pull out the credit card numerous times per session.
EyesWideOpen points out the little button/window popping up every time you "earn" Turbine points, which is a clear hint to "spend said points" in their shop.
Those kinds of things pull me out of the game and are nothing but an annoying distraction... like commercial breaks during an "edited for television" movie. Again, that's why I prefer DVDs over TV. And it's why I prefer P2P MMOs over F2P.
In regards to the thread topic, my reasons have nothing to do with Richard Aioshi's "opinion" that I'm "miscomprehending", nor that I'm "in denial" or whatever other lame-ass theory he's spun in the past to rationalize (to himself) why others don't love F2P as much as he does.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
The way I figure it, there are four forms of F2P. Maybe more, but these are reasonably clear.
1. Shareware... Open the game, everything is free. Beg for money and sell fluff stuff.
2. Crippleware... Open the game, everything is free except when you figure out that your character is gimped unless you use the cash shop or pay a subscription. (this is sort of like #4 but not nearly as severe)
3. A la carte... Open the game, nowhere near everything is free but you can get to max level without paying. You just cant run a large number of dungeons or goto zones that you have to pay extra to get in.
4. Pay to Win. Open the game, everything is free except for the stuff to make you uber. If you want to be uber you pay. You might not even be able to make it to endgame without it.
For me, I think there is a difference between a small Indie that could never afford the advertising to go P2P and a scam artist that doesn't tell you upfront that there's no way to play without paying.
If you have a moment...
Would I be better off advertising my game as "Shareware" or "Unlimited Free Trial" rather than "Free to Play" ??? That's what I'm thinking about doing because I don' need the headache of being associated with scammers.
I do not like Chocolate Chip Pancakes, yet they insist.
If you stop and figure it up F2P can/will cost you more than if you subscripe. Currently I am playing two games that once and still can be subscription. One I can't really say a whole lot on the difference from subscribing and not(other than the obivious.) However, the other I have played enough to learn and stilll learning the dissadvantages to F2P. In adding it up I would be spending more for just a couple of the pleasures and uses in the game than I would for paying for three months of gameplay with full access.
Point is F2P allows you to expierence the game with certain limits (some harsher than others) and then if you really want to continue playing it it would be in the best interest of you pocketbook/wallet to purchase and pay to play it.
I have seen many saying and questioning some of the games going F2P. I think probably in time we will see more F2P versions come out rather the the trials. Why ? Because more people will join in to try a game that has interested them but either they are leary of the trial or the time on a trail does not give you much knowledge/time of the game. For really casual players a trial can be useless. However, F2P will allow them and anyone else the time they would need with some inconviences to give the game a real try. My opinion is this is a really tactfully advertising plan that is probably going to boost some of the struggling games up to level ground (maybe). For some won't really matter.
Gikku
I just LMAO!
Even when we talk about GW2, which is B2P, not P2P and not F2P, we had those saying "It can't be, it will surely have a cash shop pay to win!" arguing agains others saying "It's only a cash shop cosmetic/fluff stuff, it doesn't make you pay to have a difference and advantages against other players!".
Later things calmed down a bit, probably because most people saw how GW1 had it's cash shop only for the same things the even P2P games have, and the GW2 was said to have the same things.
And now that the new "transmutation system" appears, the talk is back, even when actually this new system only makes players use the gear they like in look with the stats of the best gear they have, in order to use the favourite looking one forever. It's still cosmetic, but there's now the money envolved and the arguing started like a bomb. Still, they haven't said that the T-stones would be availabe to sell among players with gold or not, but the answer to that will surely bring more arguing to the forums
And it's with the payment system of GW2 that we see those influeced by their previous experiences with F2P and P2P having wrong conclusions because they don't search for info first. When the talk was about "Buy to Play", people said the game wont have updates and it would be a fail, so it would turn into a P2P or F2P with "pay to win" cash sop. Than they had the news about it having a cash shop and starting arguing about "pay to win", without having the notion of it beeing the same as GW1 cash shop (only cosmetic/fluff, not "pay to win"). Then they said that cosmetic/fluff stuff is gameplay too and having those in Cash shop is taking the fun from the game (even though most P2Ps have the same thing -.-"). It's impossible to stop it. When money is envolved, the emotions about previous bad experiences, whatever model it may be, really makes players get have wrong opinions without searching for info first. And I admit, I had that happening to me too.
I agree that people need to be thinking readers,however there is some VERY important things missing when comes to internet discussion.What is missing is the persons demeamour,facial expression,tone of voice,without really being face to face with a person,you really are just guessing as to what their true intentions/thoughts are.Not everyone is very good at conveying themselves,i admit i am often one of those,but in real life i am very good at explaining things.
One thing this article misses is actual talk about f2p ..lol,i thought the discussion was how both relate to each other,see...maybe i am not understanding the posters actual thoughts or what his intentions of the post actually are.
I can offer my opinion on how they relate to each other ,since i am sure that is what the topic is about.When i discuss anything i almost always look at it from both sides then draw my conclusions.Example i look at F2P i have several opinions and i know the pay model and free model well,not only have i played many of these games,i have spent money on them.
My conclusion on the F2P model is that it does offer a few benefits,they are far outweighed by the negatives.
F2P offers for those with no money or CC the ability to play an MMO with others,the problem is that without the actual money spenders ,there is no game,therefore they again have no game and nobody to play with.So in reality it makes the F2P option a non factor,it is still all about the money,no matter how you slice it.
F2P becuase of it's loose setup usually allows a decent game to have a larger population,this is what 99% of players look for,example EQ2 Extended,it brought many vets back just becuase the server is more populated.
Here is the big negative on F2p,the cost if you want all the content you would normally have in a P2P model is staggering,if you want the whole game be prepared to pay absolutely ridiculous prices,this is becuase they are trying to get the money spenders to make up for the freeloaders.Another huge flaw of the F2p. model is community,it is completely ripped apart,it brings out the immature chat 24/7.Cheating or botting or rmt are all non factors,becuase in a F2P model nobody really cares weather they are banned/caught nor do they care who they argue with or tell off.
When i weight all the options the F2P model is definitely not as good as the pay model,where i do condone it,is when a developer needs to keep a struggling game alive,in otherwords the pay model is just not working.However in saying i think it can work in certain situations,i believe they are still creating an unfair atmosphere for paying players,they need to rethink their ideas and realize who is actually keeping their game afloat...the money spenders.So when comes to reading comprehension i believe just as big a factor is basic understanding without even hearing or reading anything from others,there is no real rocket science here,most of us know the ins and outs of the f2p model.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Excellently put.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.-
-And on the 8th day, man created God.-
@ Eyes,
Thank-you kindly. Owe you one.
is this guy still talking crap?
Richard, thing is, people don't fail to read or understand your columns: they just fail to agree with you.
The issue here isnt one of understanding. It is one of tolerance.
There are many issues that just dont facilitate reasonable discussions. Examples are Religion, Politcs, etc. The reality is that people dont sit down and have reasonable discussions about them, they pick a side, and attack anyone that does not agree with them. Sad, but true.
F2P/P2P has this similar position in the gameing arena. Both sides will tell you how EVIL the other is, and how all opposition should be burned alive for heresy. Anyone that tries to inject a little reason into this conflict is attacked by both sides...
Richard is pro choice, but is making the F2P pitch because it is both the underdog, and the basis for his column. You can clearly see the venom in the posts that do not agree, not because he has said anything particularly wrong... but because they want to discredit anyone that might bring an oppinion different than theirs.
The reality is that his articles are basically 'meh' (no offence intended Richard). The only reason that they are here (and that he gets paid for them) is that they are a hotbutton topic, and anytime he says anything on the subject, hordes of posters show up to declare him the next great Satan...
I play both P2P and F2P games. Fact is there are presious few games in either group that are great games.
Most P2P games have some sort of item shop to....change servers,sex,appearance etc are never included as part of the sub. It is more and more common to be able to buy various goodies to. Some people have time and prefer to grind it out. Others ( who may work more hours or have other rl issues may welcome the ability to get a boost so they can keep up. Great for both and no skin off my nose...I play for me and could care less what other people do, short of cheating
People whine that F2P isn't free. GOLLY! whoudathunk ! There has to be some sort of revenue producer or the game will never be made ( no investors ) and would never last if it were made ( no $$ to pay dev cost, staff, server/eq cost, insurance cost etc.
I take each game I try for content. If its good, I play...if its great, I stay a long time.
It has become more and more fashionable to bash F2P ( and Richard) and games like WOW ( nope, never played it ). Initialy there were a core group of bashers which has grown as bashing has become the 'in' thing.
The above is also true of PVP...GASP! I play Aion and there are alot of folks bashing the changes that make it harder to find an area with lower level,gear, skilled players. This makes me chuckle. There are several new areas dedicated to PVP but the kicker is the people you are able to PVP with are generaly better geared,skilled and are also within a few levels of each other. I thought this was great...real PVP.....there is a true challenge now.
Are you new to Aihoshi's column? This is pretty much all he does. He's only got one thing to say, so he tries to come up with new ways to say it.
It's been years since I've played Anarchy Online, so this may have changed, but doesn't AO require you to start subscribing if you want access to more than the original game? Getting to play parts of a game for an unlimited amount of time before deciding if you want to subscribe or not is an unlimited free trial in my book. For that reason I consider AO a P2P game with a very extensive free trial, and it bugs me a little when people point it out as a "true F2P" game. Granted, if most F2P games had a business model like AO, I'd probably be more willing to try them out, but all other "free" MMOs I've tried have had game-play mechanics that are designed to annoy players to the point where they either start paying or stop playing.
Yes, there is far too much extremism in the whole debate, but that argument only goes so far.
And I have nothing against F2P - hell, I'm beta-ing two of them right now, and just finished up with a third. It's a valid business model in concept, even if the implementations vary widely. The whole MMO scene would benefit hugely if people would quite drowning out discussions with their off-topic arguments and flames.
But Richard's column is another matter. With precious few exceptions, his columns are a collection of strawman arguments, deliberate (or if not, this speaks quite poorly of his own reading comprehension) misunderstandings of F2P criticisms, and attempts to tar every opponent with the blackest possible brush. Every article (interspersed between the flames) there are plenty of replies with valid arguments and polite suggestions, and I have yet to see them addressed in any future articles. And for that matter, for such a prolific proponent of the business model, Richard has yet to bother showcasing any game that addresses any of the complaints. At a certain point, it boils down to "Put up or shut-up", and he has yet to do the former.
He's a paid flamebaiter, and your last paragraph is quite likely correct - this site doesn't differentiate between page hits from supporters or haters, and his articles generate plenty of the latter.
A Modest Proposal for MMORPGs:
That the means of progression would not be mutually exclusive from the means of enjoyment.
Actually, yes. I am fairly new to actually reading anything on this site. The date joined suggests I've been around for 4 years, but I have actually only been around a of month or so. I think I signed up for a beta or something and never came back.
It's too bad that this type of article is typical (if this is indeed the case). It just feeds the "us vs. them" mentality that is so common on these forum. Obviously if the site accepts column writers like this, it has zero interest in upholding any kind of civility throughout. Flame baiting and trolling is against the user conduct rules on this site, is it not?
Actually you missed his point entirely. If you reread the article you will find that even he admits to getting blinded by reading the same ideas over and over and he even said not to take his word for gospel. Now before I am accused of being a F2P fanboy let me be clear that I am in no way a fan of F2P games(case in point I find the name in and of itself to be misleading, because there usually is nothing free about it).
What I do find interesting is how we major in the minors in order to back up our pet issues. His article was about our inability to read and comprehend what we are reading, but you felt it was an occasion to take a jab on his F2P position even though that was not what his article was even about. That is what he is talking about.
"Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game."-Guybrush Threepwood
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me."-Hunter S. Thompson
I think you should have read what he said before reading the comments, because F2P has nothing to do with what he said. He is merely expressing his opinion on how we comment on things without actually reading and comprehending what the author is even discussing. The very fact that this discussion has de-evolved into a F2P war demonstrates his point.
"Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game."-Guybrush Threepwood
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me."-Hunter S. Thompson
I did read what he said. I read it twice. I think I was like the third person to comment. Perhaps you should read the comments before you start commenting on the thread.
And just so you know, F2P has a lot to do with this article. "F2P" is even in the title of this thread. Please read his article again since it seems you missed something.
Here is what I said:
I've read this article twice now to make sure I fully understood what the writer was trying to say. It appears to be an exercise of condescension to those people in the community that have opposing opinions about the Free to Play MMORPG payment model.
He first comments on the "miscomprehension" (not a word as far as I know) of the Free to Play model by saying that people get overly emotionally negative. The people that think different than he does about a free to play model are apparently unable to control their negativity to the point of spreading misinformation. He then goes on to say that because of this spread of misinformation, readers basically fall into a trap where they are unable to pick out legitimate reasons why they dislike the payment model.
He goes on to say that many people in North America are only looking at the tip of the iceburg of the Free to Play model. He is basically saying in that paragraph that people are being willfully ignorant. He then attributes it to a higher amount of media coverage and advertising, implying that the opposition to Free to Play models are easily swayed and form their opinion based on popularity instead of facts.
The following paragraph is the icing on the cake. He uses Jon Wood's article to prove his point that people can't comprehend what they are reading. He then expects the reader to take a leap. He expects the reader to fall into his trap. If you don't agree with his position on the Free to Play model, then it is because you are not comprehending the argument. After all, look at all the comments that didn't comprehend Jon Wood.
For the record, I think the Free to Play model is fine.
The part in green of your quote is completely INAPPROPRIATE. Don't liken people who have an opinion about a game payment method to nazis. Let's put things in just a little bit of perspective.
Playing MUDs and MMOs since 1994.
I do agree that there is an issue at stake with comprehending facts and the like, but part of it is based on the misnomer 'free-to-play'. For the most part, these games do try to force you to pay at some point. As I always call them 'free-to-access', I think it reflects better the reality. I'm sure there are some that are playable without spending money, but how fun is it? Not everyone seems to be able to stomach the restrictions of playing free entails. If that's the case, is it truly correct to call them 'free-to-play' if most players do spend money on the game at some point?
I've tried about 7 or so F2A games so far. I read up on what the game is about, what the cash shop is like, what players feel about the game, what's in development. I know there are tons, especially ones that are Asian, that I haven't tried, with respect to the tip of the iceberg comment. The problem comes from whether those games that form the rest of the iceberg are truly worth it and whether they would make sense to someone who is Western culturally speaking. My saying to someone from China that EVE is the best online game ever might make no sense to him/her just the same as them saying to me that Atlantica Online is the best online game ever. I took one look at Atlantica Online and knew it just wasn't for me.
It's up to each player to decide for him/herself what is the best model and game to go with. One payment model isn't necessarily better than the other, other than perhaps flat-out scams.
Playing MUDs and MMOs since 1994.
Good post. I also think the focus in the article is wrong. I never got the impression that the flame wars that happen every time a P2P vs F2P discussion comes up is due to lack of comprehension of the terms. It's more that the terms themselves are severely misleading. All MMOs made to make a profit need funding somehow. Usually through one, or more of the following:
Subscriptions (optional or mandatory)
Box sales or account activation fees
Cash shops (with varying degrees of incentive to use them)
Ads
Other microtransactions.
P2P games always have mandatory subscriptions. F2P games do not have mandatory subscriptions or account activation fees. That's pretty much accepted, and those that favor P2P business models tend to feel a mandatory subscription fee makes up for having to deal with the rest, while those that favor F2P want to pay based on how much they are playing and what they are doing in the game (which theoretically means they can play for free).
The problem, in my opinion, comes from drawing a line, saying these games are free to play. These games are not, and trying to argue for and against why you should pay. All publishers are free to mix and match the various ways to fund their digital services. Most try to find the breaking point where adding more things to charge players for, or higher fees causes paying customers to leave and a drop in profits. This is true for both P2P and F2P games, but it tends to strike a nerve with people when done with a game marketed as "Free". It just seems dishonest.
To sum up: Lack of reading comprehension is not, in my opinion, the main issue. It's giving all MMOs a F2P or P2P label instead of providing the details about how each game is funded.
IMO, the F2P genre is much like nuclear power. In the right hands it can be an amazing tool for publishers and developers to gain some great advertisement. However, in the wrong hands (such as EA), the concept is warped and twisted into a marketing ploy (much like drug dealers might use). They release a product under the guise of F2P, intended on luring people in, so they become addicted to the product, and will eventually spend more then the game is actually worth.
Another problem with the F2P market, is the fact that those willing to spend a small fortune in a game, are usually given advantages over those who don't. Prime example: (yet again EA) When Battlefield heroes 1rst started its closed beta session, there were video interviews with the creators, where they stated the game was going to focus on a fair fun-filled experience. That a match-making system would ensure on players of the same skill level would face off against eachother, and the cash shop would only sell items used to customize the appearence of your character, and not sell advantages/bonuses. However after a few months, everyone clearly saw EA for its true colors. Much like a politician, they broke all of their promises. Matchmaking failed horribly because of both the join friend function people were exploiting, and the server rentals that allowed people to control the way games are set up (aka 1 side full newb vrs other side of full pro). Weapons with bonuses appeared in the cash shop, pretty much ensuring, the "geeks with the most money" had the advantage. Not to mention the hackers that have ruined the game, and gone completely unpunished by the EA.
Simply put, if your gonna make a F2P game, and want it to be great. It needs to have a decent amount of "free" content, and ensure a certain level of equality between those with excessive money and those without. Basically do the opposite of anything EA does.
1 last thing, its not a lack of reading comprehension, that is the problem. Its the misleading, false advertising, and other dubious tactics being used by some publishers, who try to squeeze every penny they can out of a game they release as F2P. Just look at what EA has done to Phenomic after the release of Battleforge F2P. To cut costs they made Phenomic remove the report player function from the game and replaced it with the already existing website "submit a ticket to EA" function (takes about 10mins per report and tickets either never get answered or closed without being resolved). Then they laid off a large portion of Phenomic staff, so they could be replaced by unpaid interns.
So the problem isn't the F2P genre, or lack of reading comprehension on the customers part. It's companies like EA, that will do anything to increase their annual profits by pennies.