When it comes time to hand out awards for "best free to play game" from the industry reviewers, players and critics we saw DDO kick the living crap out of all the f2p games up against it.
DDO is a failed P2P game and it soundly beat the f2p competition.
Come award time again we will see more failed P2P games sweeping the votes over the rest of the F2P crowd.
Take from that what you will, but where there is smoke there is fire.
I could easily make a list of p2p MMOs that get their ass kicked by DDO.
F2P games can have a high quality as P2P games do...
The problem is that F2P games tend to be designed around creating gaps in gameplay that can only be filled by forking over money. Such as making general gameplay overly grindy so they can introduce things you can purchase from their item mall to bypass said grind. It's this alteration in design philosophy that inherently drops the quality of the game.
It seems to me that most of the F2P games are the same game with slightly better or slightly worse graphics. Can they not buy a decent font or use one of the 13 decent fonts incorporated into Windows? Courier would be better than that 80's dot matrix printer font they all seem to use. If I do a side by side of the F2P games and the P2P games I've played, the graphics, fonts and quests for the P2P have all come out on top. In general, there is less of the "grind" feeling for the P2P games too. You get what you pay for, but I don't find the F2P games I've played fun, even for free.
I haven't seen anything coming in the F2P market that would rival or even come close to what I'm hearing about GW2, Rifts or SW:ToR. Even Perpetuum Online from a small, indie developer is way ahead of the F2P games I've played. There was only one F2P game that seemed to have quality or polish - Allods. We all know how Allods turned out. It just makes me think that they are thinly veiled attempts at extorting money from me. I'd like a thickly veiled attempt.
I'm not including Global Agenda, which is Buy 2 Play. It's fun and honestly, looking at the game doesn't make me think it's somehow kindergarten paints on top of cardboard somehow forced into my monitor. That's how I would describe the vast majority of the F2P games I've played.
I'm not including DDO, EQII, or LotR here either. They were P2P games that failed at being P2P games.
* edit *
My opinion is that P2P does generate better than F2P games, but the P2P games don't seem to be as good as the should be for the amount of money they are asking you to pay.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
F2P games can have a high quality as P2P games do...
The problem is that F2P games tend to be designed around creating gaps in gameplay that can only be filled by forking over money...
..like levels 60-80 in WOW?
In a Free 2 Play, while it may be grindy in the last set of levels, you could still do it for free if you choose. With most subscription games, your access to the new levels and new content is completely blocked unless you pay cash. Not just a couple of bucks for the sections of the new content you plan to use, but 30-50 USD for all of it regardless of which parts you want.... each time they have an expansion.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Most f2p games are made else where like korea and china.
Its grind heavy because thats what they like there. Different wants, etc.
Now as you know, the publisher here or everywhere else for these games...Dont alter the game much at all so it is still made for the korean/chinese/whichever players.
To koreans, 1 month grinds for a level is perfectly okay! I mean seriously o.o look at the korean games...and chinese...its normallll! along with the quests of doing random stupid things for elders...those are normal in those games.
Now look at american f2p games like free realms. Last I checked that one levelled fast! and you couldnt play some of the classes without paying but hey o.o anyways...thats the main difference methinks its not 'f2p vs p2p' its culture vs culture.
Edit :
Craptastic launches affect both p2p and f2p. its not 'f2p launches are smoother' well they come out ayear or so or at least a few months after they release in the motherland. p2p games are also released in bad shapes (hello....well this year and last year mmo releases..need i say more?)
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni ( o.o) (")(") **This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
It still baffles me as to why people attach quality standards to payment model.. I always felt like it was the company behind the game that determined how it would come out. But everyone here seems to believe that the subscription model makes or breaks a game, yet we have seen huge flops from each side and major breakthroughs on each side.
The technology used in these P2P's, all the engines being used, have licenses bought by F2P companies now. It's no longer a reserved technology for the biggest giant. Network architecture and server technology is being widespread as well, so even F2P games can support as many players as P2P's..
It still baffles me as to why people attach quality standards to payment model.. I always felt like it was the company behind the game that determined how it would come out. But everyone here seems to believe that the subscription model makes or breaks a game, yet we have seen huge flops from each side and major breakthroughs on each side.
The technology used in these P2P's, all the engines being used, have licenses bought by F2P companies now. It's no longer a reserved technology for the biggest giant. Network architecture and server technology is being widespread as well, so even F2P games can support as many players as P2P's..
The issue with most F2P games hasn't been the number of people they can support. The poster above you mentioned culture, and that's probably a large part of the difference. Perhaps there needs to be a wider range of choices that F2P or P2P when discussing this. F2P Imports, F2P Local and P2P Local, then P2P Imports.
My experience with F2P has been with imports. They've just been bad games (imo). Call it culture, lack of resources, whatever. Doesn't matter. The games have just not been that good. The P2P local games haven't been that great either, but I wasn't turned off in the first 30 seconds by the appearance of the world and the interface. The game play of the F2P imports wasn't enough to overcome the appearance issues. Actually, the game play contributed to the impression that the games weren't that good or were just out and out bad.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
It still baffles me as to why people attach quality standards to payment model.. I always felt like it was the company behind the game that determined how it would come out. But everyone here seems to believe that the subscription model makes or breaks a game, yet we have seen huge flops from each side and major breakthroughs on each side.
The technology used in these P2P's, all the engines being used, have licenses bought by F2P companies now. It's no longer a reserved technology for the biggest giant. Network architecture and server technology is being widespread as well, so even F2P games can support as many players as P2P's..
The issue with most F2P games hasn't been the number of people they can support. The poster above you mentioned culture, and that's probably a large part of the difference. Perhaps there needs to be a wider range of choices that F2P or P2P when discussing this. F2P Imports, F2P Local and P2P Local, then P2P Imports.
My experience with F2P has been with imports. They've just been bad games (imo). Call it culture, lack of resources, whatever. Doesn't matter. The games have just not been that good. The P2P local games haven't been that great either, but I wasn't turned off in the first 30 seconds by the appearance of the world and the interface. The game play of the F2P imports wasn't enough to overcome the appearance issues. Actually, the game play contributed to the impression that the games weren't that good or were just out and out bad.
I have to agree with the culture part, but just like if you were to travel toa country with different standards and practices, you have to take it for what it is and try to understand it. In Asia they enjoy heavy grinding MMORPG's, many gender locked and lack of customization with a tiered armor path and free spread attribute point system.. We know this, as many F2P's especially older ones all follow this scheme. As an american gamer, i understand that if i were to play any of them games I could not really compare them to the games that we are used to seeing and playing here. It is not the same and will not ever be the same, so instead of comparing apples to oranges why not just compare F2P's to F2P's and P2P's to P2P's? Or even region to region.. American made F2P's vs american made P2P's etc.
Hardly... F2P maybe has all the similar content ect... which is fine. You must also understand that with F2P you will not be able to participate in end game without paying money... which is retarded. I would way rather pay monthly for something I know is good than pay at the end of the game to actually have fun playing end game.
GW is the only F2P game that was awesome but the frequency of the expansions was kindof sickening but made sense. Game companies have to make money some how guys. P2P will always be the best games IMO. Some are trash but some are real winners
Except that PvP in GW is actually better than most F2P games despite it only being 8v8 sessions (edit; although it's B2P the trilogy doesn't cost that much so it's pretty much nearly F2P if you don't buy the cosmetic items from the Arenanet online game store). I don't understand how 100 against 100 makes good PvP, if it's the button-mashing type PvP then it's still really bad.
8v8... is describing a small map in a FPS game. Not PvP in a MMO.
As for GW, coming along now - near EoL - yes, the costs are less.
GW Trilogy - $39.99
GW Eye of the North - $19.99 to $29.99 (it's on sale right now)
GW Bonus Mission Pack - $9.99
GW PvP Access Kit - $19.99
Two upgrades $4.99 a pop.
Seven unlock packs at $9.99 a pop.
Four costumes at $6.99 a pop.
Several services ranging from $9.99 to $14.99.
So excluding the services, you would be looking at $197.83...
But in comparison to somebody wanting to get into WoW:
WoW BattleChest - $29.99
WoW Lich King - $29.99
WoW Cataclysm - $39.99
So you would be at $99.97 and be able to play for six months in comparison...
Of course, GW would likely add additional items... so you might be able to squeeze out another month or two when all is said and done.
Don't even pull that, you make it sound like it costs $197.83 just to play GW. Not even close. I've played GW for 3 years, only bought the 3 GW games and the expansion nothing more, and I've had no problem. You make it sound like you have to buy all that to get the full game, which isn't true. those unlock packs are meant for people who just don't want to work for stuff. You can easily unlock everything from those packs by playing the game. The costumes aren't needed, and theres only 4 of them anyway. The "services" you mention are character slots and bank space, which you don't need bc you already have plenty. There's no reason to buy the pvp access kit unless that's all you want. If you buy the game, then you have no need to but the kit bc pvp is included.
So let's see, GW trilogy=39.99
GW Xpac: EotN=19.99 (on sale)
total= around $60.
so $60 total, for as long as you like. (If a new game was to come out, it would be optional)
So then $99.97 for WoW (not to mention all the sub fees).
I think GW still kicks the crap out of WoW if your comparing how much you have to spend to get a full experience.
Not to take away from the thread.... Why buy the " The Trilogy" 39.99 when you can get " The Complete Collection" for the same price or cheaper.
It still baffles me as to why people attach quality standards to payment model.. I always felt like it was the company behind the game that determined how it would come out. But everyone here seems to believe that the subscription model makes or breaks a game, yet we have seen huge flops from each side and major breakthroughs on each side.
The technology used in these P2P's, all the engines being used, have licenses bought by F2P companies now. It's no longer a reserved technology for the biggest giant. Network architecture and server technology is being widespread as well, so even F2P games can support as many players as P2P's..
The issue with most F2P games hasn't been the number of people they can support. The poster above you mentioned culture, and that's probably a large part of the difference. Perhaps there needs to be a wider range of choices that F2P or P2P when discussing this. F2P Imports, F2P Local and P2P Local, then P2P Imports.
My experience with F2P has been with imports. They've just been bad games (imo). Call it culture, lack of resources, whatever. Doesn't matter. The games have just not been that good. The P2P local games haven't been that great either, but I wasn't turned off in the first 30 seconds by the appearance of the world and the interface. The game play of the F2P imports wasn't enough to overcome the appearance issues. Actually, the game play contributed to the impression that the games weren't that good or were just out and out bad.
I have to agree with the culture part, but just like if you were to travel toa country with different standards and practices, you have to take it for what it is and try to understand it. In Asia they enjoy heavy grinding MMORPG's, many gender locked and lack of customization with a tiered armor path and free spread attribute point system.. We know this, as many F2P's especially older ones all follow this scheme. As an american gamer, i understand that if i were to play any of them games I could not really compare them to the games that we are used to seeing and playing here. It is not the same and will not ever be the same, so instead of comparing apples to oranges why not just compare F2P's to F2P's and P2P's to P2P's? Or even region to region.. American made F2P's vs american made P2P's etc.
I'm having a hard time deciding if you are somewhat agreeing with me or not. If so, it's going to make it hard to argue with you.
I think if you want to answer the question of whether F2P or P2P makes higher quality games, comparing games by region is a more fair assessment. Except if I understand correctly, most Eastern games do not have a subscription model at all, they are all cash shop powered, which translates to F2P in the West. Then you have something like Aion, which was what we consider F2P in the East, but is P2P here in the West.
So, we need to know what the OP is talking about. F2P imports? Western F2P games? Do the Facebook games count? One thing I'm reasonably sure of is that Western P2P games seem to take about 3 years beyond the release date to really be a complete game. Western F2P games seem to be relatively complete upon release. P2P imports don't seem to take as long after release to be complete. F2P imports seem to be relatively complete upon release. Make of that what you will. I still believe P2P results in a higher quality game, even if the game itself isn't worth what the publishers want you to pay for it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
It still baffles me as to why people attach quality standards to payment model.. I always felt like it was the company behind the game that determined how it would come out. But everyone here seems to believe that the subscription model makes or breaks a game, yet we have seen huge flops from each side and major breakthroughs on each side.
The technology used in these P2P's, all the engines being used, have licenses bought by F2P companies now. It's no longer a reserved technology for the biggest giant. Network architecture and server technology is being widespread as well, so even F2P games can support as many players as P2P's..
The issue with most F2P games hasn't been the number of people they can support. The poster above you mentioned culture, and that's probably a large part of the difference. Perhaps there needs to be a wider range of choices that F2P or P2P when discussing this. F2P Imports, F2P Local and P2P Local, then P2P Imports.
My experience with F2P has been with imports. They've just been bad games (imo). Call it culture, lack of resources, whatever. Doesn't matter. The games have just not been that good. The P2P local games haven't been that great either, but I wasn't turned off in the first 30 seconds by the appearance of the world and the interface. The game play of the F2P imports wasn't enough to overcome the appearance issues. Actually, the game play contributed to the impression that the games weren't that good or were just out and out bad.
I have to agree with the culture part, but just like if you were to travel toa country with different standards and practices, you have to take it for what it is and try to understand it. In Asia they enjoy heavy grinding MMORPG's, many gender locked and lack of customization with a tiered armor path and free spread attribute point system.. We know this, as many F2P's especially older ones all follow this scheme. As an american gamer, i understand that if i were to play any of them games I could not really compare them to the games that we are used to seeing and playing here. It is not the same and will not ever be the same, so instead of comparing apples to oranges why not just compare F2P's to F2P's and P2P's to P2P's? Or even region to region.. American made F2P's vs american made P2P's etc.
I'm having a hard time deciding if you are somewhat agreeing with me or not. If so, it's going to make it hard to argue with you.
I think if you want to answer the question of whether F2P or P2P makes higher quality games, comparing games by region is a more fair assessment. Except if I understand correctly, most Eastern games do not have a subscription model at all, they are all cash shop powered, which translates to F2P in the West. Then you have something like Aion, which was what we consider F2P in the East, but is P2P here in the West.
So, we need to know what the OP is talking about. F2P imports? Western F2P games? Do the Facebook games count? One thing I'm reasonably sure of is that Western P2P games seem to take about 3 years beyond the release date to really be a complete game. Western F2P games seem to be relatively complete upon release. P2P imports don't seem to take as long after release to be complete. F2P imports seem to be relatively complete upon release. Make of that what you will. I still believe P2P results in a higher quality game, even if the game itself isn't worth what the publishers want you to pay for it.
This.... This is becoming a nightmarish trend for mmorpg's in all categories.. BUT I think this has alot to do with the quality of each subscription model.. While most P2P games usually spend more time in development they do not usually enjoy the ability to build the game up without taking a huge hit on subscription numbers if what they DO push out is unsatisfactory.. This usually means that companies strive harder to push out usually a very impressive first look. Full featured starter zones, large selection of quests and items early on. A pretty but rather empty shell. All that development time for the lower level fluff and stuff usually never pans out when players start crunching though the content. It takes most P2P games at least 6 months to a year to push out an expansion meaning that the core game they designed has to attract and hold gamers attention (and subscriptions) throughout the year to keep money pumping into the development cycle. For the past few years, these P2P games have not been very successful in doing this. Games have shipped incomplete and players crunch through content in mere weeks just to find that there is nothing created for them to do and achieve. Subs drop out and the money that was to be used for creating the expansion to complete the game is nowhere to be found..
The F2P's that I've experienced at launch however proved to be different affairs. F2P's have no obligation or responsibilty to consider a title "released" until it is completed. The F2P industry has turned the term "Beta" into household word. These are usually open to many users, unlike P2P's and in alot of cases do not ever have a certain timeline to ever become finished. What this means is that F2P companies do not have to ever worry about having to sell or market a pretty shell in order to maintain its playerbase. This allows a F2P company to literally throw every and any game they have onto the net with an "open beta" label and depending on player response they can improve and alter things as they see fit. This "open" editing idea pretty much creates an opportunity for anyone to release whatever they want without having to worry about general reviews, retail sales or any other things P2P's have to worry about. This can lead to a lack of motivation and pressure to create something special. The fact that its free is enough for some players to start playing regardless of its quality compared to any P2P game.
I believe we are now witnessing a shift because it takes the initial neccesary push out of the development cycle. It's a known fact, F2P's do not HAVE to be complete when they go into open beta (which is usually open to all players without fear of wipe), while P2P's will in most cases have to be complete to the point of where asking for a retail box to be bought must be justified.
P2P's simply MUST be quality products or they will absolutely suffer.. It takes alot of planning and development to create a product which you plan to market in retail stores as well as ask for a fee each month to play. Companies (Like Square Enix) are starting to learn that people will no longer simply lie down cash for a box and pay a sub if the quality of the game isn't worth the price.
Theres a reason that for every P2P, there are about 10 F2P's and why quality suffers. the development cycles are just not the same at all..
I look at it this way. I see games like AOC, WAR,Lotro, Fallen Earth and Aion all fail as p2p games. So saying p2p means you get better is a myth at best.
I look at it this way. I see games like AOC, WAR,Lotro, Fallen Earth and Aion all fail as p2p games.
Lotro didn't fail...
Turbine saw the numbers DDO was pulling in and wanted to make more cash so they incorporated a tiered payment model into lotro.
Lotro was just fine before the switch. The other games however? AoC, WAR & FE have been dying slowly since release and AION is number 2 outside NA/Euro.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Aion run off some kind of non-subbed CS model or pay-by-the-hour methods over there? You know, the kind that usually spells "death" over here?
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Aion run off some kind of non-subbed CS model or pay-by-the-hour methods over there? You know, the kind that usually spells "death" over here?
I have no idea, All i know is the damn thing has millions of people playing it outside NA/Euro. Here its lame and has dead servers...
I look at it this way. I see games like AOC, WAR,Lotro, Fallen Earth and Aion all fail as p2p games. So saying p2p means you get better is a myth at best.
Take any of that list of P2P games (minus LotR) and move them to a F2P model and they will more or less stomp most, if not all of the F2P games currently in the market in the West. This is a supposition on my part, I can't prove it without seeing it happen, but history would suggest I'm right. P2P does generate a better game and a better game experience. It just doesn't generate a good enough experience to require a huge number of subscriptions. It's possible the P2P game publishers do not fully understand the market they are pushing the games into, and they are just trying to charge too much for what they are delivering.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Aion and many Asian RPGs are played due to the Culture and Attitude.
Korean, Japanese and Chinese Cultures have this "Philosophy" of people believing that they MUST undergo hard work, masochism-like work....in their beliefs they will find their own "inner-self" in other words..
Americans and Europeans who play shooters and first person shooters are there for the clan-based glory or solo glory of becoming powerful. Japanese, Koreans and Chinese are the ones who conjure up the idea that in order to "reach their philosophical heaven" you must play a game for 10 - 12 hours a day, like a fool and overcome all levels and challenges...
So you get these people who play these games and then measure their self-worth based on the number of "Challenges" they have overcome. In the end its the same attitude (US, EU and Asia-Pacific) attitude of "Respect me, for I am elite in some game" attitude...
This is why a lot of Americans and Europeans do not play Aion, Lineage 2 or those "hard core games" a person speaks out on how they are wasting 10 - 12 hours a day playing a game and no one cares, you get banned or are told that you are weak and not worth dealing with.
The P2P model came more from Asian Philosophies because its the easiest way to Siphon money from people. The F2P model is the Americans and European way of siphoning money. Both are equally horrid. The P2P model has you pay from beginning to end. The F2P model has you pay near end-game to end-game at a regular basis as much or more money you would have paid from playing a P2P game from beginning to end.
However, the F2P model has a solution. Enter crafting skills and get your friends together...and run together and you won't ever need to buy things. I took up crafting in one game between 3 characters to bring skills up and everytime I need a more advanced weapon, I make it and then sell others. I care more for making people happy and exploring crafting systems. I then tried end-game and was surprised how well a crafting team can make up for everything a cash shop throws at you.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Aion run off some kind of non-subbed CS model or pay-by-the-hour methods over there? You know, the kind that usually spells "death" over here?
I think some coutries in Asia passed a law forbidding game publishers to offer monthly subscription plans for video games, so they offer pay-as-you-go plans (basically like pre-paid cellphones, with hourly rates). So you'll find only pay-as-you-go plans in some coutries, and both monthly and pay-as-you-go plans in others such as Taiwan.
Meanwhile the market is blooming in Asia with several successes, while the West is dominated by 1 game and very few other minor successes.
1up had an article regarding this, though I think the author forgot to mention some of the major games are pay-as-you-go and not F2P.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Aion run off some kind of non-subbed CS model or pay-by-the-hour methods over there? You know, the kind that usually spells "death" over here?
I think some coutries in Asia passed a law forbidding game publishers to offer monthly subscription plans for video games, so they offer pay-as-you-go plans (basically like pre-paid cellphones, with hourly rates). So you'll find only pay-as-you-go plans in some coutries, and both monthly and pay-as-you-go plans in others such as Taiwan.
Meanwhile the market is blooming in Asia with several successes, while the West is dominated by 1 game and very few other minor successes.
1up had an article regarding this, though I think the author forgot to mention some of the major games are pay-as-you-go and not F2P.
The Eastern pay as you go model works very well for their culture. The gamers (stated in a post above) have the mentality that they are supposed to play for hours and grind away to be good. If they don't do that, then they haven't accomplished anything. They also tend to be together in groups, so the grind goes much faster for them. It works.
So far, there's not a financial model that fits ideally with Western gamers. Buy to Play (Guild Wars, Global Agenda) seems to work well, but publishers don't seem to like that. The subscription model is a publisher's favorite, but gamers don't seem to be happy with what the publishers want to give us for that subscription money. The Free 2 Play (i.e. Cash Shop) doesn't seem to fit real well either, Western gamers either really want the whole game for free, or the Cash Shops themselves just haven't found the right combination of stuff to make enough money to make a great game. Pay 2 Win might actually be a model that works financially, but there are a lot of gamers who despise that system.
Personally, I'd like to see different subscription options. Especially more flexible options for casual gamers. i.e. a pay as you go hourly, or pay as you go daily. I don't know if it would work better or not, but it would be interesting to see a decent game that was released with that sort of pricing model.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
F2P games can have a high quality as P2P games do...
The problem is that F2P games tend to be designed around creating gaps in gameplay that can only be filled by forking over money...
..like levels 60-80 in WOW?
In a Free 2 Play, while it may be grindy in the last set of levels, you could still do it for free if you choose. With most subscription games, your access to the new levels and new content is completely blocked unless you pay cash. Not just a couple of bucks for the sections of the new content you plan to use, but 30-50 USD for all of it regardless of which parts you want.... each time they have an expansion.
Hey, I agree.
I'm in the 'oldschool' crowd that believes that the max content should be open to everyone, even when it's extended. Expansion content should be additional content in parallel to the core game. Extending the max level in a content patch should be a level extension for everyone. New zones should offer new places to explore with new dungeons, but it should completely lock players who don't 'upgrade' out of still participating at max level.
Ultima Online's expansion system was a good example of this. They added new lands, new features, but the core game and 'max level' was still bumped up for everyone, you were just restricted in where you could go based on what expansions you had.
Ok just brushing through Id like to comment on some of the posts here...
To the guy who said that its possible to grind to max level with cash shop is fine. But to compare it to 60-80 in wow is very very wrong.
Now Im not sure about most games today but the korean games I tried (which are long ago I admit) include
Ragnarok Online - Transcend then go from level 98-99 will take 2 months or so. I have a level 80ish Alchemsit
Aion - Getting from level 40+ will take about a few days of grind.
Rose Online - Days of grinding at level 60ish
Flyff - Takes 2 days to level at 80ish unless youre a healer who teams with people who are 20ish levels higher.
Tantra Online - Takes a few days of grouped grinding to level at 70 and at one point it will take a week of grinding to level.
Silk Road - It got slow for me but gave up because I didnt like gameplay
DOMO got slow after a while.
Now I tried a few more recent games which levelled fast because of quest grind and it can go 1 level a day or faster like
SUN online because of quests
Sword of the new world was fast because of quests again and it was generally fun to grind.
Asda Story was fast because of quests as well
Heck even WoW levelled fast because of quests! Usually you only need the exp + when quests run out or when there are no quests.
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni ( o.o) (")(") **This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
When it comes time to hand out awards for "best free to play game" from the industry reviewers, players and critics we saw DDO kick the living crap out of all the f2p games up against it.
DDO is a failed P2P game and it soundly beat the f2p competition.
Come award time again we will see more failed P2P games sweeping the votes over the rest of the F2P crowd.
Take from that what you will, but where there is smoke there is fire.
I could easily make a list of p2p MMOs that get their ass kicked by DDO.
That doesn't really change the fact that DDO was a very underperforming (some say failed) p2p game that turned f2p and was widely viewed as the best f2p game on the market come award time.
Comments
I could easily make a list of p2p MMOs that get their ass kicked by DDO.
F2P games can have a high quality as P2P games do...
The problem is that F2P games tend to be designed around creating gaps in gameplay that can only be filled by forking over money. Such as making general gameplay overly grindy so they can introduce things you can purchase from their item mall to bypass said grind. It's this alteration in design philosophy that inherently drops the quality of the game.
It seems to me that most of the F2P games are the same game with slightly better or slightly worse graphics. Can they not buy a decent font or use one of the 13 decent fonts incorporated into Windows? Courier would be better than that 80's dot matrix printer font they all seem to use. If I do a side by side of the F2P games and the P2P games I've played, the graphics, fonts and quests for the P2P have all come out on top. In general, there is less of the "grind" feeling for the P2P games too. You get what you pay for, but I don't find the F2P games I've played fun, even for free.
I haven't seen anything coming in the F2P market that would rival or even come close to what I'm hearing about GW2, Rifts or SW:ToR. Even Perpetuum Online from a small, indie developer is way ahead of the F2P games I've played. There was only one F2P game that seemed to have quality or polish - Allods. We all know how Allods turned out. It just makes me think that they are thinly veiled attempts at extorting money from me. I'd like a thickly veiled attempt.
I'm not including Global Agenda, which is Buy 2 Play. It's fun and honestly, looking at the game doesn't make me think it's somehow kindergarten paints on top of cardboard somehow forced into my monitor. That's how I would describe the vast majority of the F2P games I've played.
I'm not including DDO, EQII, or LotR here either. They were P2P games that failed at being P2P games.
* edit *
My opinion is that P2P does generate better than F2P games, but the P2P games don't seem to be as good as the should be for the amount of money they are asking you to pay.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
..like levels 60-80 in WOW?
In a Free 2 Play, while it may be grindy in the last set of levels, you could still do it for free if you choose. With most subscription games, your access to the new levels and new content is completely blocked unless you pay cash. Not just a couple of bucks for the sections of the new content you plan to use, but 30-50 USD for all of it regardless of which parts you want.... each time they have an expansion.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I think the main difference here is culture.
Most f2p games are made else where like korea and china.
Its grind heavy because thats what they like there. Different wants, etc.
Now as you know, the publisher here or everywhere else for these games...Dont alter the game much at all so it is still made for the korean/chinese/whichever players.
To koreans, 1 month grinds for a level is perfectly okay! I mean seriously o.o look at the korean games...and chinese...its normallll! along with the quests of doing random stupid things for elders...those are normal in those games.
Now look at american f2p games like free realms. Last I checked that one levelled fast! and you couldnt play some of the classes without paying but hey o.o anyways...thats the main difference methinks its not 'f2p vs p2p' its culture vs culture.
Edit :
Craptastic launches affect both p2p and f2p. its not 'f2p launches are smoother' well they come out ayear or so or at least a few months after they release in the motherland. p2p games are also released in bad shapes (hello....well this year and last year mmo releases..need i say more?)
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni
( o.o)
(")(")
**This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
It still baffles me as to why people attach quality standards to payment model.. I always felt like it was the company behind the game that determined how it would come out. But everyone here seems to believe that the subscription model makes or breaks a game, yet we have seen huge flops from each side and major breakthroughs on each side.
The technology used in these P2P's, all the engines being used, have licenses bought by F2P companies now. It's no longer a reserved technology for the biggest giant. Network architecture and server technology is being widespread as well, so even F2P games can support as many players as P2P's..
The issue with most F2P games hasn't been the number of people they can support. The poster above you mentioned culture, and that's probably a large part of the difference. Perhaps there needs to be a wider range of choices that F2P or P2P when discussing this. F2P Imports, F2P Local and P2P Local, then P2P Imports.
My experience with F2P has been with imports. They've just been bad games (imo). Call it culture, lack of resources, whatever. Doesn't matter. The games have just not been that good. The P2P local games haven't been that great either, but I wasn't turned off in the first 30 seconds by the appearance of the world and the interface. The game play of the F2P imports wasn't enough to overcome the appearance issues. Actually, the game play contributed to the impression that the games weren't that good or were just out and out bad.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I have to agree with the culture part, but just like if you were to travel toa country with different standards and practices, you have to take it for what it is and try to understand it. In Asia they enjoy heavy grinding MMORPG's, many gender locked and lack of customization with a tiered armor path and free spread attribute point system.. We know this, as many F2P's especially older ones all follow this scheme. As an american gamer, i understand that if i were to play any of them games I could not really compare them to the games that we are used to seeing and playing here. It is not the same and will not ever be the same, so instead of comparing apples to oranges why not just compare F2P's to F2P's and P2P's to P2P's? Or even region to region.. American made F2P's vs american made P2P's etc.
"P2P = Better quality? Really?"
Yes, really.
/thread
NEW IDEAS that can refresh the STALE state of MMORPGs
i bought the trilogy over the summer from steam for $19.99, i'd bet it'll be on sale again for that or cheaper the closer we get to christmas.
but to the op, are you comparing the f2p to the worst of the p2p games or something?
I'm having a hard time deciding if you are somewhat agreeing with me or not. If so, it's going to make it hard to argue with you.
I think if you want to answer the question of whether F2P or P2P makes higher quality games, comparing games by region is a more fair assessment. Except if I understand correctly, most Eastern games do not have a subscription model at all, they are all cash shop powered, which translates to F2P in the West. Then you have something like Aion, which was what we consider F2P in the East, but is P2P here in the West.
So, we need to know what the OP is talking about. F2P imports? Western F2P games? Do the Facebook games count? One thing I'm reasonably sure of is that Western P2P games seem to take about 3 years beyond the release date to really be a complete game. Western F2P games seem to be relatively complete upon release. P2P imports don't seem to take as long after release to be complete. F2P imports seem to be relatively complete upon release. Make of that what you will. I still believe P2P results in a higher quality game, even if the game itself isn't worth what the publishers want you to pay for it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
This.... This is becoming a nightmarish trend for mmorpg's in all categories.. BUT I think this has alot to do with the quality of each subscription model.. While most P2P games usually spend more time in development they do not usually enjoy the ability to build the game up without taking a huge hit on subscription numbers if what they DO push out is unsatisfactory.. This usually means that companies strive harder to push out usually a very impressive first look. Full featured starter zones, large selection of quests and items early on. A pretty but rather empty shell. All that development time for the lower level fluff and stuff usually never pans out when players start crunching though the content. It takes most P2P games at least 6 months to a year to push out an expansion meaning that the core game they designed has to attract and hold gamers attention (and subscriptions) throughout the year to keep money pumping into the development cycle. For the past few years, these P2P games have not been very successful in doing this. Games have shipped incomplete and players crunch through content in mere weeks just to find that there is nothing created for them to do and achieve. Subs drop out and the money that was to be used for creating the expansion to complete the game is nowhere to be found..
The F2P's that I've experienced at launch however proved to be different affairs. F2P's have no obligation or responsibilty to consider a title "released" until it is completed. The F2P industry has turned the term "Beta" into household word. These are usually open to many users, unlike P2P's and in alot of cases do not ever have a certain timeline to ever become finished. What this means is that F2P companies do not have to ever worry about having to sell or market a pretty shell in order to maintain its playerbase. This allows a F2P company to literally throw every and any game they have onto the net with an "open beta" label and depending on player response they can improve and alter things as they see fit. This "open" editing idea pretty much creates an opportunity for anyone to release whatever they want without having to worry about general reviews, retail sales or any other things P2P's have to worry about. This can lead to a lack of motivation and pressure to create something special. The fact that its free is enough for some players to start playing regardless of its quality compared to any P2P game.
I believe we are now witnessing a shift because it takes the initial neccesary push out of the development cycle. It's a known fact, F2P's do not HAVE to be complete when they go into open beta (which is usually open to all players without fear of wipe), while P2P's will in most cases have to be complete to the point of where asking for a retail box to be bought must be justified.
P2P's simply MUST be quality products or they will absolutely suffer.. It takes alot of planning and development to create a product which you plan to market in retail stores as well as ask for a fee each month to play. Companies (Like Square Enix) are starting to learn that people will no longer simply lie down cash for a box and pay a sub if the quality of the game isn't worth the price.
Theres a reason that for every P2P, there are about 10 F2P's and why quality suffers. the development cycles are just not the same at all..
I look at it this way. I see games like AOC, WAR,Lotro, Fallen Earth and Aion all fail as p2p games. So saying p2p means you get better is a myth at best.
Lotro didn't fail...
Turbine saw the numbers DDO was pulling in and wanted to make more cash so they incorporated a tiered payment model into lotro.
Lotro was just fine before the switch. The other games however? AoC, WAR & FE have been dying slowly since release and AION is number 2 outside NA/Euro.
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Aion run off some kind of non-subbed CS model or pay-by-the-hour methods over there? You know, the kind that usually spells "death" over here?
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
I have no idea, All i know is the damn thing has millions of people playing it outside NA/Euro. Here its lame and has dead servers...
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
Take any of that list of P2P games (minus LotR) and move them to a F2P model and they will more or less stomp most, if not all of the F2P games currently in the market in the West. This is a supposition on my part, I can't prove it without seeing it happen, but history would suggest I'm right. P2P does generate a better game and a better game experience. It just doesn't generate a good enough experience to require a huge number of subscriptions. It's possible the P2P game publishers do not fully understand the market they are pushing the games into, and they are just trying to charge too much for what they are delivering.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Aion and many Asian RPGs are played due to the Culture and Attitude.
Korean, Japanese and Chinese Cultures have this "Philosophy" of people believing that they MUST undergo hard work, masochism-like work....in their beliefs they will find their own "inner-self" in other words..
Americans and Europeans who play shooters and first person shooters are there for the clan-based glory or solo glory of becoming powerful. Japanese, Koreans and Chinese are the ones who conjure up the idea that in order to "reach their philosophical heaven" you must play a game for 10 - 12 hours a day, like a fool and overcome all levels and challenges...
So you get these people who play these games and then measure their self-worth based on the number of "Challenges" they have overcome. In the end its the same attitude (US, EU and Asia-Pacific) attitude of "Respect me, for I am elite in some game" attitude...
This is why a lot of Americans and Europeans do not play Aion, Lineage 2 or those "hard core games" a person speaks out on how they are wasting 10 - 12 hours a day playing a game and no one cares, you get banned or are told that you are weak and not worth dealing with.
The P2P model came more from Asian Philosophies because its the easiest way to Siphon money from people. The F2P model is the Americans and European way of siphoning money. Both are equally horrid. The P2P model has you pay from beginning to end. The F2P model has you pay near end-game to end-game at a regular basis as much or more money you would have paid from playing a P2P game from beginning to end.
However, the F2P model has a solution. Enter crafting skills and get your friends together...and run together and you won't ever need to buy things. I took up crafting in one game between 3 characters to bring skills up and everytime I need a more advanced weapon, I make it and then sell others. I care more for making people happy and exploring crafting systems. I then tried end-game and was surprised how well a crafting team can make up for everything a cash shop throws at you.
I think some coutries in Asia passed a law forbidding game publishers to offer monthly subscription plans for video games, so they offer pay-as-you-go plans (basically like pre-paid cellphones, with hourly rates). So you'll find only pay-as-you-go plans in some coutries, and both monthly and pay-as-you-go plans in others such as Taiwan.
Meanwhile the market is blooming in Asia with several successes, while the West is dominated by 1 game and very few other minor successes.
1up had an article regarding this, though I think the author forgot to mention some of the major games are pay-as-you-go and not F2P.
The Eastern pay as you go model works very well for their culture. The gamers (stated in a post above) have the mentality that they are supposed to play for hours and grind away to be good. If they don't do that, then they haven't accomplished anything. They also tend to be together in groups, so the grind goes much faster for them. It works.
So far, there's not a financial model that fits ideally with Western gamers. Buy to Play (Guild Wars, Global Agenda) seems to work well, but publishers don't seem to like that. The subscription model is a publisher's favorite, but gamers don't seem to be happy with what the publishers want to give us for that subscription money. The Free 2 Play (i.e. Cash Shop) doesn't seem to fit real well either, Western gamers either really want the whole game for free, or the Cash Shops themselves just haven't found the right combination of stuff to make enough money to make a great game. Pay 2 Win might actually be a model that works financially, but there are a lot of gamers who despise that system.
Personally, I'd like to see different subscription options. Especially more flexible options for casual gamers. i.e. a pay as you go hourly, or pay as you go daily. I don't know if it would work better or not, but it would be interesting to see a decent game that was released with that sort of pricing model.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Hey, I agree.
I'm in the 'oldschool' crowd that believes that the max content should be open to everyone, even when it's extended. Expansion content should be additional content in parallel to the core game. Extending the max level in a content patch should be a level extension for everyone. New zones should offer new places to explore with new dungeons, but it should completely lock players who don't 'upgrade' out of still participating at max level.
Ultima Online's expansion system was a good example of this. They added new lands, new features, but the core game and 'max level' was still bumped up for everyone, you were just restricted in where you could go based on what expansions you had.
Ok just brushing through Id like to comment on some of the posts here...
To the guy who said that its possible to grind to max level with cash shop is fine. But to compare it to 60-80 in wow is very very wrong.
Now Im not sure about most games today but the korean games I tried (which are long ago I admit) include
Ragnarok Online - Transcend then go from level 98-99 will take 2 months or so. I have a level 80ish Alchemsit
Aion - Getting from level 40+ will take about a few days of grind.
Rose Online - Days of grinding at level 60ish
Flyff - Takes 2 days to level at 80ish unless youre a healer who teams with people who are 20ish levels higher.
Tantra Online - Takes a few days of grouped grinding to level at 70 and at one point it will take a week of grinding to level.
Silk Road - It got slow for me but gave up because I didnt like gameplay
DOMO got slow after a while.
Now I tried a few more recent games which levelled fast because of quest grind and it can go 1 level a day or faster like
SUN online because of quests
Sword of the new world was fast because of quests again and it was generally fun to grind.
Asda Story was fast because of quests as well
Heck even WoW levelled fast because of quests! Usually you only need the exp + when quests run out or when there are no quests.
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni
( o.o)
(")(")
**This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
That doesn't really change the fact that DDO was a very underperforming (some say failed) p2p game that turned f2p and was widely viewed as the best f2p game on the market come award time.