These articles are getting insulting. Every one has a sentence or a paragraph taking a shot at people who are opposed, in general, to "F2P" games.
It's really simple: P2P game developers focus on making their games fun to get people to renew their subscriptions. F2P developers focus on making their game as painful as possible for people who don't use the item mall, paid special features, etc.
I'd rather play a game where the focus is on fun and not one where the focus is annoying me.
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.
How is possible for anyone opposed to the f2p (or as I prefer to call many of them, "Pay to Win") concept capable of denying anyone else a chance to try a game?
It's a conversation that generates a lot of heat, clearly, but Richard does himelf no favors when he takes an all too common "If you don't agree with me it's because you don't understand (misconprehend, fail to read, etc) just how right I am!" position with the diatribe he posted.
Likewise, you do yourself no favors by somewhoe suggestion that having a different view and espousing it is somehow detrimental to the consumer's freedom of choice.
When talking about clear communication, I wonder if "Free-2-Play" really works that way. It may be accurate, since you can clearly play the games without spending a single penny, but it also gives the impression there are no costs at all.
It's good there is a column about Free2Play games, as they are a group of games that are often overlooked. But I am turned off by the fact that it often comes down to meta-discussion of the payment model (I know I contribute to that, right now) — it should be about the games, what they are about, where the differences are, or generally, games coverage on a large group of games (see iceberg metaphor) that are just overlooked and NOT about the payment model itself. The model anyway dissolves and we will see more "hybrid" type of models.
If we are discussing the payment model itself, this discussion should step up some more. Bring in transparency: do you dislike the games for some design choices that somehow have to do with free2play? Do you rant about the relatively bad quality the free2play games often have? Do you vent anger, because free2play is used synonymous with asia-grinder games? Are you afraid of hidden costs and pay-walls that tower over the end-game, you consider unethical (because you've made long-time emotional investment)? Is it intransparency on what's free and what is not?
For Richard it means, how do those games operate? Do you consider some choices made in F2P games unethical, or just plain "bad" for reputation of the overall games etc.
I'm just tired of seeing the same type of stuff over and over and it just doesn't seem to move forward, despite having some major western games using the model.
Last, lot least: should we adopt the term "FREEMIUM" over free-2-play? The term seems to be adopted by more people in the industry and it actually comes back to topic: clear communication.
When talking about clear communication, I wonder if "Free-2-Play" really works that way. It may be accurate, since you can clearly play the games without spending a single penny, but it also gives the impression there are no costs at all.
It's good there is a column about Free2Play games, as they are a group of games that are often overlooked. But I am turned off by the fact that it often comes down to meta-discussion of the payment model (I know I contribute to that, right now) it should be about the games, what they are about, where the differences are, or generally, games coverage on a large group of games (see iceberg metaphor) that are just overlooked and NOT about the payment model itself. The model anyway dissolves and we will see more "hybrid" type of models.
If we are discussing the payment model itself, this discussion should step up some more. Bring in transparency: do you dislike the games for some design choices that somehow have to do with free2play? Do you rant about the relatively bad quality the free2play games often have? Do you vent anger, because free2play is used synonymous with asia-grinder games? Are you afraid of hidden costs and pay-walls that tower over the end-game, you consider unethical (because you've made long-time emotional investment)? Is it intransparency on what's free and what is not?
For Richard it means, how do those games operate? Do you consider some choices made in F2P games unethical, or just plain "bad" for reputation of the overall games etc.
I'm just tired of seeing the same type of stuff over and over and it just doesn't seem to move forward, despite having some major western games using the model.
Last, lot least: should we adopt the term "FREEMIUM" over free-2-play? The term seems to be adopted by more people in the industry and it actually comes back to topic: clear communication.
This is a good post.
I totally agree that the payment model of F2A should be made more transparent. That's what is so appealing to me about the P2P over the F2A. One is clear on what one is getting with one's money with P2P, whereas with the F2A, it's not always apparent where the money sinks are. SoE and Turbine are reputable companies *overall*, so they are clear where the costs are. Same with ArenaNet, though GW was B2P.
In that sense, it is partly comprehension on the part of players when they get advertized to, think 'oh wow this sounds great!', go into playing something without doing a little bit of investigation to find out what they're really getting into. I can see that comprehension might lack on the part of extremely impulsive players.
I'm not just talking about the F2A payment model here, this is also true with the buy-the-box-P2P system too. Impulsive players and gambling also come through with the pre-order system and forking out a lot of money on a collector's edition game, only to find out they hate it.
I feel in a way that we're in a bit of a 'Far West' period of gaming, where quality isn't regulated, and things like gambling with real money are in place. I wonder if this industry will ever be regulated as more and more people pick up the genre as a hobby. In some ways, I hope not in the sense that it really is our responsibility to figure things out, which is partly why I think this argument between F2A and P2P is a bit silly, really.
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.
mis- prefix
Definition of MIS-
1
a : badly : wrongly <misjudge> b : unfavorably <misesteem> c : in a suspicious manner <misdoubt>
2
: bad : wrong <misdeed>
3
: opposite or lack of <mistrust>
4
: not <misknow>
[*] mis·com·pre·hen·sion
Well, now we know what "mis" means. Now if there was only an official word in the lexicon called miscomprehension somewhere. Perhaps sticking to words that exist within a dictionary with a definition would help people comprehend what you are saying. Edit: I found this online: Miscomprehend: To get a wrong idea of or about; to misunderstand. The word he uses is miscomprehension, not miscomprehend.
LOL.
I have to admit, I find that funny. While some people are angry about the article or with the OP, I had to laugh when I read this post.
Fun with words; ah, the English language and the fun that can be had, at least for those that seriously studied English in college. I also have to admit that in the past I have found myself having fun with language, sometimes purposefully trashing it, and, I am at it again. However, I do not think the OP had this in mind.
As to the thrust of the OP's statements, I now wonder if they were sincere or flame bait, either way, many comments have been generated.
By the way, what does reading comprehension and the OP's feelings regarding F2P have in common?
When I read the words "Reading Comprehension" in the title, my first thoughts were, someone has advice that can improve or reveal poor skills? No one is perfect, however, some of us are worse off than others, for example, I have a poor memory, which directly impacts understanding and learning.
Intel Core i7 7700K, MB is Gigabyte Z270X-UD5 SSD x2, 4TB WD Black HHD, 32GB RAM, MSI GTX 980 Ti Lightning LE video card
Flesch-Kincade readability stats put your article at 10.9th grade level.. I'd load up MonoConc and do a register comparison with the previous article metioned but I don't think that's what you mean. Snarky post for the week made... damn you internet evilz
Lots of words combined in a way that makes it hard to comprehend this writers meaning.
Topic is on free to play I guess - Not even getting into all the problems with free to play games, there is a simple point.
No game is free, the money to run a game has to come from somewhere or rather someone (the players).
In my opinion, the hype we are in now, where alot of people think free to play is actually free, will fade. Free to play games will not die, but rather find a natural level within the lower quality game genre. Simply because hardcore players (who will finance a free to play game), will find better games and also be spread out across many games.
Free to play where you have to pay for anything is NOT free to play.
Only fools think that its possible to actually put out a game with no means of generating income.. No income=no game because there is no pay for development or maint of said game. FTP simply means there is no monthly fee. I'm sure the gaming Politicaly Correct Terms crowd have a problem with this but its a weak argumant...and impossible to do on the terms so often stated.
A lot of commercial P2P games function under Commercial or Third Party Anti-Cheat software. Any hacker truly knows that Nprotect/Gameguard is by far the easiest venue to hack a game. A lot of MMORPGs do not work under linux due to external anti-cheats failing...
However, a lot of the F2P games out there can function under Linux or Wine + Linux. I know I am coming across as weird as I use both Windows and Linux...but
Explaining Linux in one paragraph:
"Linux is based off unix, and attracts people due to its security. Its not an ease-of-use OS like Windows, but its one about choice. Using one Linux build is a FAILURE of Linux. Linux are like Legos. You put things together and make an OS that you want with the things you want to work and the performance is actually superior in many areas. Once you break 60 FPS on Linux, Windows loses its gaming advantage. The attraction and support are amazing but its learning curve is high"
I wrote this paragraph because F2P has really shows me a lot of customization on the Linux side of things...and even performance improvement over windows in some games like CPU calculations and scheduling.
I agree with everyone that F2P really is a POOR WAY of naming a subdivision of MMORPGs. Though I call MMORPGs TAGs (Turn-Based Adventure Games) due to how most play, but F2P and P2P are both Conditional Games...P2P is about monthly fees, F2P is about having your spirit challenged and destroyed by people who buy things through in-game stores to get an advantage and make you believe that unless you spend the same amount of money on the same items, you wont have a chance or spend 2 - 10x the time to get anywhere...So both are CONDITIONAL.
I am hoping Guild Wars II shows some "Quality" in gaming. While GWI was a favorite of mine, it was far from perfect. I did applaud the fact I was able to play the game on Linux with max visual quality...and competetive framerate. The same is true about WoW.
I find people are willing to spend more money on the things they love to spend them on only if they can keep from spending money on things they dont want to spend on, like programs and OSes etc....
That thing about a "Game being impossible to make without having some measure of making money from its players" is false because what is needed is money....Every major version of Linux these days that is popular is Free to download and people PAY NO MONEY in any form for development, the ones that do are those who provide tech support for upper tier services like Enterprise services for servers and junk.
I find that if a Competetive MMORPG was made, it would be cool to Sell the game so players buy the game and expansions (which is normal these days) and instead of having monthly fees...simply schedule a lot of nation-wide tournaments and generate money through advertisements and from players who WANT to take part in those tournaments and conventions...
That would really be sick since it would truly show a game is more about just resting on a server while players grind away....You take around 50,000 players in a convention, each at 20 dollars entry, per day, easilly you generate 1 million dollars, per day...at different locations.
Free to play where you have to pay for anything is NOT free to play.
Only fools think that its possible to actually put out a game with no means of generating income.. No income=no game because there is no pay for development or maint of said game. FTP simply means there is no monthly fee. I'm sure the gaming Politicaly Correct Terms crowd have a problem with this but its a weak argumant...and impossible to do on the terms so often stated.
There are games out there that are 100% ad supported (or subsidized in some other fashion) and the player doesn't pay anything other than dealing with the ads. In that case F2P is exactly what it says.
I agree with Gruug that any game that calls itself F2P but has a real money item shop isn't really free because the game will be severly limited or extremely tedious unless you're willing to fork out cash.
Comments
How is possible for anyone opposed to the f2p (or as I prefer to call many of them, "Pay to Win") concept capable of denying anyone else a chance to try a game?
It's a conversation that generates a lot of heat, clearly, but Richard does himelf no favors when he takes an all too common "If you don't agree with me it's because you don't understand (misconprehend, fail to read, etc) just how right I am!" position with the diatribe he posted.
Likewise, you do yourself no favors by somewhoe suggestion that having a different view and espousing it is somehow detrimental to the consumer's freedom of choice.
You should try them with Guinness, you'll never look at breakfast the same way again.
When talking about clear communication, I wonder if "Free-2-Play" really works that way. It may be accurate, since you can clearly play the games without spending a single penny, but it also gives the impression there are no costs at all.
It's good there is a column about Free2Play games, as they are a group of games that are often overlooked. But I am turned off by the fact that it often comes down to meta-discussion of the payment model (I know I contribute to that, right now) — it should be about the games, what they are about, where the differences are, or generally, games coverage on a large group of games (see iceberg metaphor) that are just overlooked and NOT about the payment model itself. The model anyway dissolves and we will see more "hybrid" type of models.
If we are discussing the payment model itself, this discussion should step up some more. Bring in transparency: do you dislike the games for some design choices that somehow have to do with free2play? Do you rant about the relatively bad quality the free2play games often have? Do you vent anger, because free2play is used synonymous with asia-grinder games? Are you afraid of hidden costs and pay-walls that tower over the end-game, you consider unethical (because you've made long-time emotional investment)? Is it intransparency on what's free and what is not?
For Richard it means, how do those games operate? Do you consider some choices made in F2P games unethical, or just plain "bad" for reputation of the overall games etc.
I'm just tired of seeing the same type of stuff over and over and it just doesn't seem to move forward, despite having some major western games using the model.
Last, lot least: should we adopt the term "FREEMIUM" over free-2-play? The term seems to be adopted by more people in the industry and it actually comes back to topic: clear communication.
This is a good post.
I totally agree that the payment model of F2A should be made more transparent. That's what is so appealing to me about the P2P over the F2A. One is clear on what one is getting with one's money with P2P, whereas with the F2A, it's not always apparent where the money sinks are. SoE and Turbine are reputable companies *overall*, so they are clear where the costs are. Same with ArenaNet, though GW was B2P.
In that sense, it is partly comprehension on the part of players when they get advertized to, think 'oh wow this sounds great!', go into playing something without doing a little bit of investigation to find out what they're really getting into. I can see that comprehension might lack on the part of extremely impulsive players.
I'm not just talking about the F2A payment model here, this is also true with the buy-the-box-P2P system too. Impulsive players and gambling also come through with the pre-order system and forking out a lot of money on a collector's edition game, only to find out they hate it.
I feel in a way that we're in a bit of a 'Far West' period of gaming, where quality isn't regulated, and things like gambling with real money are in place. I wonder if this industry will ever be regulated as more and more people pick up the genre as a hobby. In some ways, I hope not in the sense that it really is our responsibility to figure things out, which is partly why I think this argument between F2A and P2P is a bit silly, really.
Playing MUDs and MMOs since 1994.
LOL.
I have to admit, I find that funny. While some people are angry about the article or with the OP, I had to laugh when I read this post.
Fun with words; ah, the English language and the fun that can be had, at least for those that seriously studied English in college. I also have to admit that in the past I have found myself having fun with language, sometimes purposefully trashing it, and, I am at it again. However, I do not think the OP had this in mind.
As to the thrust of the OP's statements, I now wonder if they were sincere or flame bait, either way, many comments have been generated.
By the way, what does reading comprehension and the OP's feelings regarding F2P have in common?
When I read the words "Reading Comprehension" in the title, my first thoughts were, someone has advice that can improve or reveal poor skills? No one is perfect, however, some of us are worse off than others, for example, I have a poor memory, which directly impacts understanding and learning.
Intel Core i7 7700K, MB is Gigabyte Z270X-UD5
SSD x2, 4TB WD Black HHD, 32GB RAM, MSI GTX 980 Ti Lightning LE video card
Flesch-Kincade readability stats put your article at 10.9th grade level.. I'd load up MonoConc and do a register comparison with the previous article metioned but I don't think that's what you mean. Snarky post for the week made... damn you internet evilz
Lots of words combined in a way that makes it hard to comprehend this writers meaning.
Topic is on free to play I guess - Not even getting into all the problems with free to play games, there is a simple point.
No game is free, the money to run a game has to come from somewhere or rather someone (the players).
In my opinion, the hype we are in now, where alot of people think free to play is actually free, will fade. Free to play games will not die, but rather find a natural level within the lower quality game genre. Simply because hardcore players (who will finance a free to play game), will find better games and also be spread out across many games.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
Only fools think that its possible to actually put out a game with no means of generating income.. No income=no game because there is no pay for development or maint of said game. FTP simply means there is no monthly fee. I'm sure the gaming Politicaly Correct Terms crowd have a problem with this but its a weak argumant...and impossible to do on the terms so often stated.
F2Ps are interesting...Here is why
A lot of commercial P2P games function under Commercial or Third Party Anti-Cheat software. Any hacker truly knows that Nprotect/Gameguard is by far the easiest venue to hack a game. A lot of MMORPGs do not work under linux due to external anti-cheats failing...
However, a lot of the F2P games out there can function under Linux or Wine + Linux. I know I am coming across as weird as I use both Windows and Linux...but
Explaining Linux in one paragraph:
"Linux is based off unix, and attracts people due to its security. Its not an ease-of-use OS like Windows, but its one about choice. Using one Linux build is a FAILURE of Linux. Linux are like Legos. You put things together and make an OS that you want with the things you want to work and the performance is actually superior in many areas. Once you break 60 FPS on Linux, Windows loses its gaming advantage. The attraction and support are amazing but its learning curve is high"
I wrote this paragraph because F2P has really shows me a lot of customization on the Linux side of things...and even performance improvement over windows in some games like CPU calculations and scheduling.
I agree with everyone that F2P really is a POOR WAY of naming a subdivision of MMORPGs. Though I call MMORPGs TAGs (Turn-Based Adventure Games) due to how most play, but F2P and P2P are both Conditional Games...P2P is about monthly fees, F2P is about having your spirit challenged and destroyed by people who buy things through in-game stores to get an advantage and make you believe that unless you spend the same amount of money on the same items, you wont have a chance or spend 2 - 10x the time to get anywhere...So both are CONDITIONAL.
I am hoping Guild Wars II shows some "Quality" in gaming. While GWI was a favorite of mine, it was far from perfect. I did applaud the fact I was able to play the game on Linux with max visual quality...and competetive framerate. The same is true about WoW.
I find people are willing to spend more money on the things they love to spend them on only if they can keep from spending money on things they dont want to spend on, like programs and OSes etc....
That thing about a "Game being impossible to make without having some measure of making money from its players" is false because what is needed is money....Every major version of Linux these days that is popular is Free to download and people PAY NO MONEY in any form for development, the ones that do are those who provide tech support for upper tier services like Enterprise services for servers and junk.
I find that if a Competetive MMORPG was made, it would be cool to Sell the game so players buy the game and expansions (which is normal these days) and instead of having monthly fees...simply schedule a lot of nation-wide tournaments and generate money through advertisements and from players who WANT to take part in those tournaments and conventions...
That would really be sick since it would truly show a game is more about just resting on a server while players grind away....You take around 50,000 players in a convention, each at 20 dollars entry, per day, easilly you generate 1 million dollars, per day...at different locations.
There are games out there that are 100% ad supported (or subsidized in some other fashion) and the player doesn't pay anything other than dealing with the ads. In that case F2P is exactly what it says.
I agree with Gruug that any game that calls itself F2P but has a real money item shop isn't really free because the game will be severly limited or extremely tedious unless you're willing to fork out cash.