Because they're never, ever "free" in any way shape or form. It's inevitable that the game will be impossible to play after a certain point without cash or that you'll need cash shops items to be able to compete in P2P or any of this sort of stuff.
Ever major "F2P" game of the past few years has done this and then made their cash shop items ridiculously expensive (hi Allods Online, with your £1,000 drop in - AT THE VERY LEAST - to get started in basic end game grouping) because they think they're clever.
How do you feel towards "F2P" models?
This is just flat out wrong. Not subjectively, objectively. "(not) free in any way shape or form"? Tons of games certainly are.
If the game is free to download and free to play, to some degree, for an unlimited amount of time (not a trial), then the game certainly is free in some way, shape or form, isn't it?
Both DDO and Lotro can be downloaded, and with some grinding, you can play to the top level without ever paying a dime. I'm not in love with F2P games, and I believe that they have their faults, but this attitude is just so outdated and no longer accurate. Like em or dislike em, fine, but any gamer who still believes this stuff is true simply doesn't know the current industry.
I dont see the point of these threads anymore, this topic is as old as gandhi. BUUUT imo keep your opinion to yourself when it comes to the payment plan of any MMO. Sure you prefer one method over the other and thats fine but every game company is out to make a profit, bottom line. I personally don't mind a lifelong demo with minor restrictions (usually no gameplay restrictions). It gives me the opportunity to truely feel the game out before I decide to fork over the cash. Imo sub based games are good for hardcore "Im gonna log in and spend enough time to get my moneys worth" gamers while F2P games are good for "Imma take my time and decide wether or not I actually want to commit to this game" type gamers. Ironically you may end up spending way more money in a F2P game than any sub game but it's the simple fact that you can decide when and how to spend your money that's appealing to me.
Most people go through life pretending to be a boss. I go through life pretending I'm not.
I 'dislike' the traditional FTP model as exhibited in a game like ROM. That said, other people have no issie and love to play. To each their own is how I feel, the is no 'wrong' payment model really, except perhaps one that forces the game to be shut down.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The best part is that they clearly don't understand basic economics.
Perhaps it is you who clearly don't understand basic economics. You claim that many players don't understand economics, yet you provides nothing to back up your arguments. Beside, the F2P business model has been proven to be quite succesfull times and times again, Turbine has releases many statistic after both DDO and LOTRO went F2P that have shown a significant increase in revenue. As far as the industry is concerned, F2P wins.
In your post you also use Allods has an exemple. Now to be fair, Allods cash shop is quite outrageous, and it was severely punished at launch for that reason. Many players who were interested are not playing it anymore, and that's it. The thing about F2P MMORPGs (all video games for that matter) is that no one is forcing you to play, but yourself. If you disagree with a game's Cash Shop, don't play it. It's as simple as that. I personally disagree with it, so I'm not playing Allods.
Of course some Cash Shops will be overpriced, it happens, and will continue to happen. Vindictus is a great exemple of that. The Platinum Tokens were heavily overpriced, but the playerbase "protested" and Nexon decided to re-adjust the prices, cutting them down by almost 50% if I recall. Vindictus remains F2P though and your success is not reliant on Cash Shop. Putting a price tag on items in an MMORPG is no easy task. Each MMORPG is "unique", in that it has no real direct competition but titles that still differs with each others. In a real-life situation, if you look at the Grocery Stores for exemple, there's plenty of them, it creates a huge competitive market, to the point where the stores only makes a profit of $0.01 per product if I remember. But there's only one "Vindictus" on the market, there's no other game similar to it, and even if there was, for it's players it's the only one. So how do you price your items? You try to tag them at a price that would give you a good amount of profit to keep your servers running, your developers working, and the content rolling to prevent competition from gaining an advantage over your MMO. MMOs don't compete in terms of pricing, but in terms of Content, just like any other form of entertainment (movies, music, etc). If the prices are too high, the community will make it clear, and it's up to the Company to decide wether to re-adjust them or not. If they just to, great for the playerbase. If they don't, well time to move on to another game.
Perhaps it is you who clearly don't understand basic economics. You claim that many players don't understand economics, yet you provides nothing to back up your arguments. Beside, the F2P business model has been proven to be quite succesfull times and times again, Turbine has releases many statistic after both DDO and LOTRO went F2P that have shown a significant increase in revenue. As far as the industry is concerned, F2P wins.
In your post you also use Allods has an exemple. Now to be fair, Allods cash shop is quite outrageous, and it was severely punished at launch for that reason. Many players who were interested are not playing it anymore, and that's it. The thing about F2P MMORPGs (all video games for that matter) is that no one is forcing you to play, but yourself. If you disagree with a game's Cash Shop, don't play it. It's as simple as that. I personally disagree with it, so I'm not playing Allods.
See, I don't really think DDO and LotRO count as "F2P" games. At the very least, they're closer to Guild Wars than they are to your average F2P MMO. I'm not denying the business model worked for them (and I'm certainly not surprised it did) because they offer a reasonable pay model. Outright buying content? Absolutely fine. Anyway, they were evolved from a P2P model game (therefore none of these ridiculous imbalances you see in current F2P games) so they had to work out another way to make players pay.
The fact that DDO and LotRO were both dying (therefore low subscribers and low income) and were boosted by going F2P (more subscribers and more income) isn't really surprising, either. A good portion won't pay if they DEFINITELY have to pay, but if there's a chance of F2P? They'll buy it and be happy with it.
I used Allods as an example of a game killing itself in the womb with a stupid, overpriced and inflated cash shop. It's the perfect example of the failed F2P cash model. You'll never see Richard Aihoshi address this on the front page, of course, he's too busy jizzing over how LotRO and DDO made money from going F2P or posting about this great new F2P game coming out that isn't exactly the same as every other one for some minor reason.
Okay, look, this is the real problem behind so-called "Pay to Win" or "F2P' games as they're called (Free to Play being as we all know it a big misnomer, they're certainly for the most part NOT free at all).
Incoming wall of text alert (Credits go to Strayfe for most of this):
Let me point out the problem with the F2P model. It's not microtransactions in and of themselves. Lets do a little comparison.
Player A is an immature and/or foreign, and/or young, and/or otherwise objectionable player who hops from free game to free game at a whim. He doesn't spend anything in the cash shop, probably plays for a couple weeks to a month at most and is generally a constant asshole. He leaves when he gets bored, or when he finds something better.
Player B is the standard free-to-play gamer. He is genuinely looking for something new and interesting, and knows that many of the subscription games are similar and derivative. Perhaps he's young, but not immature, or poor and can't afford the subscription. For whatever reason, he doesn't use the cash shop, but he is also a generally good guy who plays the game as best as he can without cash items.
Player C is either a standard subscription gamer or a veteran free-to-play gamer. Whatever their background, they can generally afford to and are willing to spend a reasonable sum of money in the cash shop, say $20 a month for some benefits. Say... some extra bag space, maybe a pet or a mount if they really like the game. They're regular players who enjoy playing, and are willing to go the extra mile for a little extra fun.
Player D, whatever else he may be, is made of money. He dual wields paypal accounts and has an epic set of armor fashioned entirely from credit cards. He has memorized his bank account numbers, and sends in a check once a week just in case there's a worldwide financial crash and none of his other payment methods go through. He will spend whatever it takes to gain any advantage in any area in the game, no matter how large or small it may be. $1,000 is nothing to this guy, $5,000 is an acceptable investment and if he really likes the game, $10k before you can blink an eye. This person will sit atop his massive mound of cash shop items, and systematically remind every single person who passes by that he is far superior to them in every way imaginable.
So lets do a little bit of analysis, shall we?
For starters, obviously Player B gets the short end of the stick here. He may enjoy the game, but he is required to suffer through the limitation of being a freebie. A annoys him, as A does everyone. B will make friends with other Bs and possibly with a couple Cs until he runs into a D. B resents D for multiple reasons, his success in the game being based solely on money, his arrogance, the amount of time he dedicates to the game, whatever the reason.
B gets discouraged. Between his limitations as a freebie, the As fouling up the community and the Ds controlling all the content and rankings through their use of the cash shop, B begins to look for other games. Gradually the Ds piss him off to the point where he begins to consider the cash shop the entire problem with the game, and now he dislikes Cs as much as Ds, simply because they both use the cash shop.
Player A doesn't care one way or the other about B, C or D. He knows he'll be gone in a month anyway. This game is fucking terrible and the only reason he's playing it is because he's trying to kill time until "Insert Game In Development" comes out. He will let everyone know exactly how bad he thinks the game is until then, and really serves only to annoy the others.
Player C, in theory, is a good customer for the gaming company. Someone who legitimately likes the game, puts money into the item shop, causes no trouble and has fun with his friends, no matter who they are. As time goes on and C hits 'endgame' , he runs into an increasing number of Ds. He makes a post on the forums, upset that the game is becoming "pay to win", and at the amount of unfair advantages that D has. Unfortuantely, even though C still likes the game and believes it has potential, he is now high enough where the only content he can progress in is flooded by Ds. Frustrated, C again complains on the forums that the Ds (and the cash shop) are ruining the game, but his post and general feelings are ignored because...
Player D controls the game. You know it, I know it, the developers know it. Everyone will try to deny it, but the proof is in the pudding.
In order to have a successful free to play game with microtransactions you need two things, people who play it, and people who spend money on the cash shop. Nobody is going to spend money on a game that has no community and thus little reason to play it, and the game can have a million players, but if nobody has to use the cash shop to enjoy the game to its fullest, the game makes no money and it shuts down.
Unfortunately, both the requirements to run a successful free to play game with microtransactions are met by Players D and A. Like it or not, the game hoppers DO make up the majority of the F2P market. Websites such as OnRPG are evidence of that.
What do B and C bring to the table?
B brings absolutely nothing. Sure he adds to the community, but he doesn't spend any money on the item shop, and he frequently joins C in complaining about D and A. In effect, B is the most trouble with the least reward.
C does spend a small amount (comparatively) on the item shop. But this amount of money, as little as it is in the vast scheme of things gives C a sense of entitlement (and perhaps rightfully so) in believing his concerns as a customer are being heard. Unfortunately, resolving C's concerns would require alienating D.
D controls the game. You hate it, I hate it, we all hate it. Doesn't make it any less true. The developers are not going to do a single thing to jeopardize losing multiple Ds. Taking away advantages that a D has paid for is probably one of the most controversial things you can do, and believe me when I tell you, D's have very big mouths and will rant and rave to every other D if it even looks like that advantage they shelled out five grand for is going to be eliminated or even reduced.
Conversely, Bs and Cs make for the best community in a game. And we wonder why the vast majority of F2P games seem to have such a disconnect in the people department.
TL;DR: They aren't made for people. They're made for money.
Perhaps it is you who clearly don't understand basic economics. You claim that many players don't understand economics, yet you provides nothing to back up your arguments. Beside, the F2P business model has been proven to be quite succesfull times and times again, Turbine has releases many statistic after both DDO and LOTRO went F2P that have shown a significant increase in revenue. As far as the industry is concerned, F2P wins.
In your post you also use Allods has an exemple. Now to be fair, Allods cash shop is quite outrageous, and it was severely punished at launch for that reason. Many players who were interested are not playing it anymore, and that's it. The thing about F2P MMORPGs (all video games for that matter) is that no one is forcing you to play, but yourself. If you disagree with a game's Cash Shop, don't play it. It's as simple as that. I personally disagree with it, so I'm not playing Allods.
See, I don't really think DDO and LotRO count as "F2P" games. At the very least, they're closer to Guild Wars than they are to your average F2P MMO. I'm not denying the business model worked for them (and I'm certainly not surprised it did) because they offer a reasonable pay model. Outright buying content? Absolutely fine. Anyway, they were evolved from a P2P model game (therefore none of these ridiculous imbalances you see in current F2P games) so they had to work out another way to make players pay.
The fact that DDO and LotRO were both dying (therefore low subscribers and low income) and were boosted by going F2P (more subscribers and more income) isn't really surprising, either. A good portion won't pay if they DEFINITELY have to pay, but if there's a chance of F2P? They'll buy it and be happy with it.
I used Allods as an example of a game killing itself in the womb with a stupid, overpriced and inflated cash shop. It's the perfect example of the failed F2P cash model. You'll never see Richard Aihoshi address this on the front page, of course, he's too busy jizzing over how LotRO and DDO made money from going F2P or posting about this great new F2P game coming out that isn't exactly the same as every other one for some minor reason.
DDO and LOTRO, although feels more like a P2P with an Unlimited Free Trial Areas, do allows players to gain access to all content for Free, but you'll have to grind a lot for it. In that regard, they *could* be considered F2P.DDO was definitively dying, but I believe LOTRO was still going strong with over 100k subs if I remember correctly. It's likely that they transfered LOTRO to the F2P model, not because of the decrease in subs, but the potential for a larger revenue/profit.
As for Allods, as I always say, there will always be bad apples everywhere. It certainly failed as a real F2P MMORPG. I do believe that Richard Aihoshi has covered the Allods controversy back when it entered Open Beta/Launched (I'd have to verify this, but I do believe he did), and if it wasn't Richard, it still has been covered by MMORPG.com staff a lot, along with the large userbase who complained about it.
Nonetheless, you can't put all the MMOs in the same basket because of some bad apples. It's perfectly fair to point out that some MMO developers/publishers are downright greedy, but it's not right to deny that the opposite is also true,in that some F2P MMOs does allows players to play the entire game for Free without having to spend anything in the cash shop, when many exemples are available out there (Vindictus, Dungeon Fighter, League Of Legends, etc).
Okay, look, this is the real problem behind so-called "Pay to Win" or "F2P' games as they're called (Free to Play being as we all know it a big misnomer, they're certainly for the most part NOT free at all).
Incoming wall of text alert (Credits go to Strayfe for most of this):
Let me point out the problem with the F2P model. It's not microtransactions in and of themselves. Lets do a little comparison.
Player A is an immature and/or foreign, and/or young, and/or otherwise objectionable player who hops from free game to free game at a whim. He doesn't spend anything in the cash shop, probably plays for a couple weeks to a month at most and is generally a constant asshole. He leaves when he gets bored, or when he finds something better.
Player B is the standard free-to-play gamer. He is genuinely looking for something new and interesting, and knows that many of the subscription games are similar and derivative. Perhaps he's young, but not immature, or poor and can't afford the subscription. For whatever reason, he doesn't use the cash shop, but he is also a generally good guy who plays the game as best as he can without cash items.
Player C is either a standard subscription gamer or a veteran free-to-play gamer. Whatever their background, they can generally afford to and are willing to spend a reasonable sum of money in the cash shop, say $20 a month for some benefits. Say... some extra bag space, maybe a pet or a mount if they really like the game. They're regular players who enjoy playing, and are willing to go the extra mile for a little extra fun.
Player D, whatever else he may be, is made of money. He dual wields paypal accounts and has an epic set of armor fashioned entirely from credit cards. He has memorized his bank account numbers, and sends in a check once a week just in case there's a worldwide financial crash and none of his other payment methods go through. He will spend whatever it takes to gain any advantage in any area in the game, no matter how large or small it may be. $1,000 is nothing to this guy, $5,000 is an acceptable investment and if he really likes the game, $10k before you can blink an eye. This person will sit atop his massive mound of cash shop items, and systematically remind every single person who passes by that he is far superior to them in every way imaginable.
So lets do a little bit of analysis, shall we?
For starters, obviously Player B gets the short end of the stick here. He may enjoy the game, but he is required to suffer through the limitation of being a freebie. A annoys him, as A does everyone. B will make friends with other Bs and possibly with a couple Cs until he runs into a D. B resents D for multiple reasons, his success in the game being based solely on money, his arrogance, the amount of time he dedicates to the game, whatever the reason.
B gets discouraged. Between his limitations as a freebie, the As fouling up the community and the Ds controlling all the content and rankings through their use of the cash shop, B begins to look for other games. Gradually the Ds piss him off to the point where he begins to consider the cash shop the entire problem with the game, and now he dislikes Cs as much as Ds, simply because they both use the cash shop.
Player A doesn't care one way or the other about B, C or D. He knows he'll be gone in a month anyway. This game is fucking terrible and the only reason he's playing it is because he's trying to kill time until "Insert Game In Development" comes out. He will let everyone know exactly how bad he thinks the game is until then, and really serves only to annoy the others.
Player C, in theory, is a good customer for the gaming company. Someone who legitimately likes the game, puts money into the item shop, causes no trouble and has fun with his friends, no matter who they are. As time goes on and C hits 'endgame' , he runs into an increasing number of Ds. He makes a post on the forums, upset that the game is becoming "pay to win", and at the amount of unfair advantages that D has. Unfortuantely, even though C still likes the game and believes it has potential, he is now high enough where the only content he can progress in is flooded by Ds. Frustrated, C again complains on the forums that the Ds (and the cash shop) are ruining the game, but his post and general feelings are ignored because...
Player D controls the game. You know it, I know it, the developers know it. Everyone will try to deny it, but the proof is in the pudding.
In order to have a successful free to play game with microtransactions you need two things, people who play it, and people who spend money on the cash shop. Nobody is going to spend money on a game that has no community and thus little reason to play it, and the game can have a million players, but if nobody has to use the cash shop to enjoy the game to its fullest, the game makes no money and it shuts down.
Unfortunately, both the requirements to run a successful free to play game with microtransactions are met by Players D and A. Like it or not, the game hoppers DO make up the majority of the F2P market. Websites such as OnRPG are evidence of that.
What do B and C bring to the table?
B brings absolutely nothing. Sure he adds to the community, but he doesn't spend any money on the item shop, and he frequently joins C in complaining about D and A. In effect, B is the most trouble with the least reward.
C does spend a small amount (comparatively) on the item shop. But this amount of money, as little as it is in the vast scheme of things gives C a sense of entitlement (and perhaps rightfully so) in believing his concerns as a customer are being heard. Unfortunately, resolving C's concerns would require alienating D.
D controls the game. You hate it, I hate it, we all hate it. Doesn't make it any less true. The developers are not going to do a single thing to jeopardize losing multiple Ds. Taking away advantages that a D has paid for is probably one of the most controversial things you can do, and believe me when I tell you, D's have very big mouths and will rant and rave to every other D if it even looks like that advantage they shelled out five grand for is going to be eliminated or even reduced.
Conversely, Bs and Cs make for the best community in a game. And we wonder why the vast majority of F2P games seem to have such a disconnect in the people department.
TL;DR: They aren't made for people. They're made for money.
In any good F2P game there is only so much money you can spend to upgrade your chracter to the fullest. That being said character D may spend as much money as he wants on gems or whatever that upgrade gear/weapons (obtained in game) but most of the money spent is towards fashionable items, mounts, pots for convinience and other frivolous items. The misconception is that player D has spent all his money on magical god armor that instantly makes him superior in PvP. For most F2P games (worthy of playing) no such advantage exists. It is true that towards end game a player "can" spend lets say about $50 to upgrade his armor/weapon to the fullest in order to effectively compete in PvP however actual CS items that will effect a characters stats and skills are usually limited to gems placable in armor and weapons or buffs that last for a couple of hours. Keep in mind that these CS items are also obtainable in game (through events, dungeons, etc..) it's just a matter of convinience to most players.
So players B and C are perfectly capable of competing with player D while only spending a fourth of what player D spent, if that. Keep in mind that player D is also a rarity, I would look at player D almost as a GM. Players B and C are 98% of the games population while player D is 2%. So most of your PvP run-ins will consist of players B and C anyway.
Imo F2P's are simply just a different type of play style than subs, this is why most sub players don't like F2Ps and vise versa. As I've said before, you may end up spending more money in a F2P game than you would in a sub game but it's the simple fact that you can decide when and how to spend your money that's appealing. But thats just my opinion.
Most people go through life pretending to be a boss. I go through life pretending I'm not.
Imo F2P's are simply just a different type of play style than subs, this is why most sub players don't like F2Ps and vise versa. As I've said before, you may end up spending more money in a F2P game than you would in a sub game but it's the simple fact that you can decide when and how to spend your money that's appealing. But thats just my opinion.
Good opinions like this are valuable though, and add a lot to the discussion. You bring up some very valid points, but the sad thing is a lot of these F2P games fall into the "generate the max amount of revenue for the least amount of effort" class, and in this subset of the F2P space, the majority of the revenue will tend to come from the "big spenders". That being said, there are some good F2P games (such as Lotro), and epicfailbad F2P games (see Farmville)
I think the OP just hasn't stumbled on the few good F2P MMOs available and decided to lump them all and hate them all.
F2P models have many different implementations. You have many options out there. If you don't like a certain scheme, move on and find the next one. If in the end you never found the right F2P game for you then clearly F2P itself is not for you, but you don't get to bash the model itself and proclaim it as a greed in disguise.
And to be fair, P2P isn't any less greedy, if you think about all those $15 subs. The revenue earned from that is much more than what is required to maintain a server and support the devs, as evident with the existing B2P model.
And to be fair, P2P isn't any less greedy, if you think about all those $15 subs. The revenue earned from that is much more than what is required to maintain a server and support the devs, as evident with the existing B2P model.
Quoted for truth. There's another thread on mmorpg.com pointing out the fantastic cash flow the $15 sub generates and perhaps as little as 1% of that goes to actually maintaining the server infrastructure. A big chunk goes to developement of content updates, the rest goes to the investors.
Okay, look, this is the real problem behind so-called "Pay to Win" or "F2P' games as they're called (Free to Play being as we all know it a big misnomer, they're certainly for the most part NOT free at all).
Incoming wall of text alert (Credits go to Strayfe for most of this):
Let me point out the problem with the F2P model. It's not microtransactions in and of themselves. Lets do a little comparison.
Player A is an immature and/or foreign, and/or young, and/or otherwise objectionable player who hops from free game to free game at a whim. He doesn't spend anything in the cash shop, probably plays for a couple weeks to a month at most and is generally a constant asshole. He leaves when he gets bored, or when he finds something better.
Player B is the standard free-to-play gamer. He is genuinely looking for something new and interesting, and knows that many of the subscription games are similar and derivative. Perhaps he's young, but not immature, or poor and can't afford the subscription. For whatever reason, he doesn't use the cash shop, but he is also a generally good guy who plays the game as best as he can without cash items.
Player C is either a standard subscription gamer or a veteran free-to-play gamer. Whatever their background, they can generally afford to and are willing to spend a reasonable sum of money in the cash shop, say $20 a month for some benefits. Say... some extra bag space, maybe a pet or a mount if they really like the game. They're regular players who enjoy playing, and are willing to go the extra mile for a little extra fun.
Player D, whatever else he may be, is made of money. He dual wields paypal accounts and has an epic set of armor fashioned entirely from credit cards. He has memorized his bank account numbers, and sends in a check once a week just in case there's a worldwide financial crash and none of his other payment methods go through. He will spend whatever it takes to gain any advantage in any area in the game, no matter how large or small it may be. $1,000 is nothing to this guy, $5,000 is an acceptable investment and if he really likes the game, $10k before you can blink an eye. This person will sit atop his massive mound of cash shop items, and systematically remind every single person who passes by that he is far superior to them in every way imaginable.
So lets do a little bit of analysis, shall we?
For starters, obviously Player B gets the short end of the stick here. He may enjoy the game, but he is required to suffer through the limitation of being a freebie. A annoys him, as A does everyone. B will make friends with other Bs and possibly with a couple Cs until he runs into a D. B resents D for multiple reasons, his success in the game being based solely on money, his arrogance, the amount of time he dedicates to the game, whatever the reason.
B gets discouraged. Between his limitations as a freebie, the As fouling up the community and the Ds controlling all the content and rankings through their use of the cash shop, B begins to look for other games. Gradually the Ds piss him off to the point where he begins to consider the cash shop the entire problem with the game, and now he dislikes Cs as much as Ds, simply because they both use the cash shop.
Player A doesn't care one way or the other about B, C or D. He knows he'll be gone in a month anyway. This game is fucking terrible and the only reason he's playing it is because he's trying to kill time until "Insert Game In Development" comes out. He will let everyone know exactly how bad he thinks the game is until then, and really serves only to annoy the others.
Player C, in theory, is a good customer for the gaming company. Someone who legitimately likes the game, puts money into the item shop, causes no trouble and has fun with his friends, no matter who they are. As time goes on and C hits 'endgame' , he runs into an increasing number of Ds. He makes a post on the forums, upset that the game is becoming "pay to win", and at the amount of unfair advantages that D has. Unfortuantely, even though C still likes the game and believes it has potential, he is now high enough where the only content he can progress in is flooded by Ds. Frustrated, C again complains on the forums that the Ds (and the cash shop) are ruining the game, but his post and general feelings are ignored because...
Player D controls the game. You know it, I know it, the developers know it. Everyone will try to deny it, but the proof is in the pudding.
In order to have a successful free to play game with microtransactions you need two things, people who play it, and people who spend money on the cash shop. Nobody is going to spend money on a game that has no community and thus little reason to play it, and the game can have a million players, but if nobody has to use the cash shop to enjoy the game to its fullest, the game makes no money and it shuts down.
Unfortunately, both the requirements to run a successful free to play game with microtransactions are met by Players D and A. Like it or not, the game hoppers DO make up the majority of the F2P market. Websites such as OnRPG are evidence of that.
What do B and C bring to the table?
B brings absolutely nothing. Sure he adds to the community, but he doesn't spend any money on the item shop, and he frequently joins C in complaining about D and A. In effect, B is the most trouble with the least reward.
C does spend a small amount (comparatively) on the item shop. But this amount of money, as little as it is in the vast scheme of things gives C a sense of entitlement (and perhaps rightfully so) in believing his concerns as a customer are being heard. Unfortunately, resolving C's concerns would require alienating D.
D controls the game. You hate it, I hate it, we all hate it. Doesn't make it any less true. The developers are not going to do a single thing to jeopardize losing multiple Ds. Taking away advantages that a D has paid for is probably one of the most controversial things you can do, and believe me when I tell you, D's have very big mouths and will rant and rave to every other D if it even looks like that advantage they shelled out five grand for is going to be eliminated or even reduced.
Conversely, Bs and Cs make for the best community in a game. And we wonder why the vast majority of F2P games seem to have such a disconnect in the people department.
TL;DR: They aren't made for people. They're made for money.
This truly hits the nail on the head and Bravo to brnmcc01.
When I play a game, I like to compete with people. When I compete with people, I like the game to feel as fair and even as possible. I don't want to be overpowered, I don't want to be underpowered, I just want things to be balanced! Free to play games with item malls do away with balance.
I'd rather pay my monthly sub and be equal to everybody else. Unfortunately money talks and I expect most MMOs to go the item mall route in the next 5-10 years. (unless you're Blizzard lalwlwlalwlalwal)
Personaly i do not hate anything based on a sub model, when the amjority of all MMO's FTP or PTP MMO's have been lackluster over the last few years.
DDO has a good model in place when you can buy content updates, it kind of forces the devs to come out with quality material if they want to make money. I am looking forward to GW2 w/ a BTP model, and i think it will be apealing to the non-mmo crowd that are used to paying for DLC.
Never the less not even trying a game becouse it is FTP is a bit short sided, you may miss something nice out there.
It's unnatural to have a game that should be technically dead still be making money. If lets say lotro was dying then it should have seen it's sunset. Now with this pay model these games are like dick cheney. just when you think he's done...bam still going! F2P seems like a crash cart but it only postpones the inevitable.
But hey bro...if ya like it don't listen to me love it violently!
DDO and LOTRO, although feels more like a P2P with an Unlimited Free Trial Areas, do allows players to gain access to all content for Free, but you'll have to grind a lot for it. In that regard, they *could* be considered F2P.DDO was definitively dying, but I believe LOTRO was still going strong with over 100k subs if I remember correctly. It's likely that they transfered LOTRO to the F2P model, not because of the decrease in subs, but the potential for a larger revenue/profit.
As for Allods, as I always say, there will always be bad apples everywhere. It certainly failed as a real F2P MMORPG. I do believe that Richard Aihoshi has covered the Allods controversy back when it entered Open Beta/Launched (I'd have to verify this, but I do believe he did), and if it wasn't Richard, it still has been covered by MMORPG.com staff a lot, along with the large userbase who complained about it.
Nonetheless, you can't put all the MMOs in the same basket because of some bad apples. It's perfectly fair to point out that some MMO developers/publishers are downright greedy, but it's not right to deny that the opposite is also true,in that some F2P MMOs does allows players to play the entire game for Free without having to spend anything in the cash shop, when many exemples are available out there (Vindictus, Dungeon Fighter, League Of Legends, etc).
DDO and LotRO are an example of a perfectly fine "content unlocking" method of F2P. I have absolutely no issue with this. Especially since the content is usually very high quality and for a fair price.
The trouble is that DDO and LotRO are examples of -very few- good F2P games. Games like Allods are in the overwhelming majority and if they aren't at launch they certainly will be after a few months.
Do we really count League of Legends as an MMO? Not really read much on the other two, but I'm fairly certain they're Diablo-clones, aren't they? They don't really count as "true" MMOs.
Do we really count League of Legends as an MMO? Not really read much on the other two, but I'm fairly certain they're Diablo-clones, aren't they? They don't really count as "true" MMOs.
I meant F2Ps in general, and not just MMOs my bad.
I've playing the most of F2P games, and I hate that the owner of the game keeps you in play thanks to a mensual fee, and you lose all if you don't pay it. I actually had all the F2P games advantages without paying a cent, there's a new system to get cash in the most of the F2P games, and it's the Offer Pay, you get game cash for making surveys, so you can get easily all the advantages.
How was I trying to avoid the point? I just said that you're not sharing any big secret with us, and you don't need to put F2P in quotes.
I'm not avoiding the point, I just didn't feel any need to discuss a point that's brought up every second day. ... I thought it was far more important to get you to stop abusing quote marks.
Because they're never, ever "free" in any way shape or form. It's inevitable that the game will be impossible to play after a certain point without cash or that you'll need cash shops items to be able to compete in P2P or any of this sort of stuff.
Ever major "F2P" game of the past few years has done this and then made their cash shop items ridiculously expensive (hi Allods Online, with your £1,000 drop in - AT THE VERY LEAST - to get started in basic end game grouping) because they think they're clever.
How do you feel towards "F2P" models?
I don't care either way. I only care if the game is entertaining. If the game expects or requires more money from me than I feel the game is worth or I am willing to spend I simply move on to the next game.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
I just started playing Lord of the Rings Online and I think it's actually pretty good. Dungeons and Dragons online seems to be pretty good too. You can level all the way to max in LOTRO without paying and do a bunch of other things too, but I thought it was pretty nasty that you have to pay for auction house slots in LOTRO atleast, that's about as bad as it got - but they give you free points to start with anyway, so you wouldn't have to pay for anything. In the two afore-mentioned game you don't really have to worry about "pay2win" players because the game is team-based and a PVE game for the most part. I agree that it gets a bit more complex when PVP games are thrown into the mix. But with Lord of the Rings Online the f2p works well, you don't really compete against other players -- no worry of being at a disadvantage -- and I am able to play a game that I would otherwise not play and I am able to make the game more "fun" by throwing a little bit of cash at it when I can. =D
----------------------------- Real as Reality Television!!!
Nothing wrong with F2P model, as long as it isn't pay to win. Getting a base game for free and then buying adventure packs or whatever is a valid way to sell the game.
I personally always just subscribe though because I'm an adult with a good job and subscription fees are chump change to be honest, so I want to maximize content rather than minimize cost. In fact for a spectacular game I'd easily pay $30 or $40+ a month no problem, although I know most people wouldn't. But if a game has any kind of pay to win aspect then I would never touch it with a 100 foot pole even if it were totally free. A total game breaker to me: playing field has to be level and I refuse to be nickled/dimed to get an advantage.
One thing that is annoying though is the subset of the F2P crowd that thinks they should get to play everything for free and never pay a dime for content, and complain about it like it is the job of the developers/publisher to entertain us for free. I have little sympathy for the mooching crowd out there. If you have a computer at all you can certainly affort $10 a month. The homeless in this country walk around with wads bigger than that LOL
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind" 1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN 2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
Comments
This is just flat out wrong. Not subjectively, objectively. "(not) free in any way shape or form"? Tons of games certainly are.
If the game is free to download and free to play, to some degree, for an unlimited amount of time (not a trial), then the game certainly is free in some way, shape or form, isn't it?
Both DDO and Lotro can be downloaded, and with some grinding, you can play to the top level without ever paying a dime. I'm not in love with F2P games, and I believe that they have their faults, but this attitude is just so outdated and no longer accurate. Like em or dislike em, fine, but any gamer who still believes this stuff is true simply doesn't know the current industry.
I dont see the point of these threads anymore, this topic is as old as gandhi. BUUUT imo keep your opinion to yourself when it comes to the payment plan of any MMO. Sure you prefer one method over the other and thats fine but every game company is out to make a profit, bottom line. I personally don't mind a lifelong demo with minor restrictions (usually no gameplay restrictions). It gives me the opportunity to truely feel the game out before I decide to fork over the cash. Imo sub based games are good for hardcore "Im gonna log in and spend enough time to get my moneys worth" gamers while F2P games are good for "Imma take my time and decide wether or not I actually want to commit to this game" type gamers. Ironically you may end up spending way more money in a F2P game than any sub game but it's the simple fact that you can decide when and how to spend your money that's appealing to me.
Most people go through life pretending to be a boss. I go through life pretending I'm not.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Perhaps it is you who clearly don't understand basic economics. You claim that many players don't understand economics, yet you provides nothing to back up your arguments. Beside, the F2P business model has been proven to be quite succesfull times and times again, Turbine has releases many statistic after both DDO and LOTRO went F2P that have shown a significant increase in revenue. As far as the industry is concerned, F2P wins.
In your post you also use Allods has an exemple. Now to be fair, Allods cash shop is quite outrageous, and it was severely punished at launch for that reason. Many players who were interested are not playing it anymore, and that's it. The thing about F2P MMORPGs (all video games for that matter) is that no one is forcing you to play, but yourself. If you disagree with a game's Cash Shop, don't play it. It's as simple as that. I personally disagree with it, so I'm not playing Allods.
Of course some Cash Shops will be overpriced, it happens, and will continue to happen. Vindictus is a great exemple of that. The Platinum Tokens were heavily overpriced, but the playerbase "protested" and Nexon decided to re-adjust the prices, cutting them down by almost 50% if I recall. Vindictus remains F2P though and your success is not reliant on Cash Shop. Putting a price tag on items in an MMORPG is no easy task. Each MMORPG is "unique", in that it has no real direct competition but titles that still differs with each others. In a real-life situation, if you look at the Grocery Stores for exemple, there's plenty of them, it creates a huge competitive market, to the point where the stores only makes a profit of $0.01 per product if I remember. But there's only one "Vindictus" on the market, there's no other game similar to it, and even if there was, for it's players it's the only one. So how do you price your items? You try to tag them at a price that would give you a good amount of profit to keep your servers running, your developers working, and the content rolling to prevent competition from gaining an advantage over your MMO. MMOs don't compete in terms of pricing, but in terms of Content, just like any other form of entertainment (movies, music, etc). If the prices are too high, the community will make it clear, and it's up to the Company to decide wether to re-adjust them or not. If they just to, great for the playerbase. If they don't, well time to move on to another game.
See, I don't really think DDO and LotRO count as "F2P" games. At the very least, they're closer to Guild Wars than they are to your average F2P MMO. I'm not denying the business model worked for them (and I'm certainly not surprised it did) because they offer a reasonable pay model. Outright buying content? Absolutely fine. Anyway, they were evolved from a P2P model game (therefore none of these ridiculous imbalances you see in current F2P games) so they had to work out another way to make players pay.
The fact that DDO and LotRO were both dying (therefore low subscribers and low income) and were boosted by going F2P (more subscribers and more income) isn't really surprising, either. A good portion won't pay if they DEFINITELY have to pay, but if there's a chance of F2P? They'll buy it and be happy with it.
I used Allods as an example of a game killing itself in the womb with a stupid, overpriced and inflated cash shop. It's the perfect example of the failed F2P cash model. You'll never see Richard Aihoshi address this on the front page, of course, he's too busy jizzing over how LotRO and DDO made money from going F2P or posting about this great new F2P game coming out that isn't exactly the same as every other one for some minor reason.
Okay, look, this is the real problem behind so-called "Pay to Win" or "F2P' games as they're called (Free to Play being as we all know it a big misnomer, they're certainly for the most part NOT free at all).
Incoming wall of text alert (Credits go to Strayfe for most of this):
Let me point out the problem with the F2P model. It's not microtransactions in and of themselves. Lets do a little comparison.
Player A is an immature and/or foreign, and/or young, and/or otherwise objectionable player who hops from free game to free game at a whim. He doesn't spend anything in the cash shop, probably plays for a couple weeks to a month at most and is generally a constant asshole. He leaves when he gets bored, or when he finds something better.
Player B is the standard free-to-play gamer. He is genuinely looking for something new and interesting, and knows that many of the subscription games are similar and derivative. Perhaps he's young, but not immature, or poor and can't afford the subscription. For whatever reason, he doesn't use the cash shop, but he is also a generally good guy who plays the game as best as he can without cash items.
Player C is either a standard subscription gamer or a veteran free-to-play gamer. Whatever their background, they can generally afford to and are willing to spend a reasonable sum of money in the cash shop, say $20 a month for some benefits. Say... some extra bag space, maybe a pet or a mount if they really like the game. They're regular players who enjoy playing, and are willing to go the extra mile for a little extra fun.
Player D, whatever else he may be, is made of money. He dual wields paypal accounts and has an epic set of armor fashioned entirely from credit cards. He has memorized his bank account numbers, and sends in a check once a week just in case there's a worldwide financial crash and none of his other payment methods go through. He will spend whatever it takes to gain any advantage in any area in the game, no matter how large or small it may be. $1,000 is nothing to this guy, $5,000 is an acceptable investment and if he really likes the game, $10k before you can blink an eye. This person will sit atop his massive mound of cash shop items, and systematically remind every single person who passes by that he is far superior to them in every way imaginable.
So lets do a little bit of analysis, shall we?
For starters, obviously Player B gets the short end of the stick here. He may enjoy the game, but he is required to suffer through the limitation of being a freebie. A annoys him, as A does everyone. B will make friends with other Bs and possibly with a couple Cs until he runs into a D. B resents D for multiple reasons, his success in the game being based solely on money, his arrogance, the amount of time he dedicates to the game, whatever the reason.
B gets discouraged. Between his limitations as a freebie, the As fouling up the community and the Ds controlling all the content and rankings through their use of the cash shop, B begins to look for other games. Gradually the Ds piss him off to the point where he begins to consider the cash shop the entire problem with the game, and now he dislikes Cs as much as Ds, simply because they both use the cash shop.
Player A doesn't care one way or the other about B, C or D. He knows he'll be gone in a month anyway. This game is fucking terrible and the only reason he's playing it is because he's trying to kill time until "Insert Game In Development" comes out. He will let everyone know exactly how bad he thinks the game is until then, and really serves only to annoy the others.
Player C, in theory, is a good customer for the gaming company. Someone who legitimately likes the game, puts money into the item shop, causes no trouble and has fun with his friends, no matter who they are. As time goes on and C hits 'endgame' , he runs into an increasing number of Ds. He makes a post on the forums, upset that the game is becoming "pay to win", and at the amount of unfair advantages that D has. Unfortuantely, even though C still likes the game and believes it has potential, he is now high enough where the only content he can progress in is flooded by Ds. Frustrated, C again complains on the forums that the Ds (and the cash shop) are ruining the game, but his post and general feelings are ignored because...
Player D controls the game. You know it, I know it, the developers know it. Everyone will try to deny it, but the proof is in the pudding.
In order to have a successful free to play game with microtransactions you need two things, people who play it, and people who spend money on the cash shop. Nobody is going to spend money on a game that has no community and thus little reason to play it, and the game can have a million players, but if nobody has to use the cash shop to enjoy the game to its fullest, the game makes no money and it shuts down.
Unfortunately, both the requirements to run a successful free to play game with microtransactions are met by Players D and A. Like it or not, the game hoppers DO make up the majority of the F2P market. Websites such as OnRPG are evidence of that.
What do B and C bring to the table?
B brings absolutely nothing. Sure he adds to the community, but he doesn't spend any money on the item shop, and he frequently joins C in complaining about D and A. In effect, B is the most trouble with the least reward.
C does spend a small amount (comparatively) on the item shop. But this amount of money, as little as it is in the vast scheme of things gives C a sense of entitlement (and perhaps rightfully so) in believing his concerns as a customer are being heard. Unfortunately, resolving C's concerns would require alienating D.
D controls the game. You hate it, I hate it, we all hate it. Doesn't make it any less true. The developers are not going to do a single thing to jeopardize losing multiple Ds. Taking away advantages that a D has paid for is probably one of the most controversial things you can do, and believe me when I tell you, D's have very big mouths and will rant and rave to every other D if it even looks like that advantage they shelled out five grand for is going to be eliminated or even reduced.
Conversely, Bs and Cs make for the best community in a game. And we wonder why the vast majority of F2P games seem to have such a disconnect in the people department.
TL;DR: They aren't made for people. They're made for money.
DDO and LOTRO, although feels more like a P2P with an Unlimited Free Trial Areas, do allows players to gain access to all content for Free, but you'll have to grind a lot for it. In that regard, they *could* be considered F2P.DDO was definitively dying, but I believe LOTRO was still going strong with over 100k subs if I remember correctly. It's likely that they transfered LOTRO to the F2P model, not because of the decrease in subs, but the potential for a larger revenue/profit.
As for Allods, as I always say, there will always be bad apples everywhere. It certainly failed as a real F2P MMORPG. I do believe that Richard Aihoshi has covered the Allods controversy back when it entered Open Beta/Launched (I'd have to verify this, but I do believe he did), and if it wasn't Richard, it still has been covered by MMORPG.com staff a lot, along with the large userbase who complained about it.
Nonetheless, you can't put all the MMOs in the same basket because of some bad apples. It's perfectly fair to point out that some MMO developers/publishers are downright greedy, but it's not right to deny that the opposite is also true,in that some F2P MMOs does allows players to play the entire game for Free without having to spend anything in the cash shop, when many exemples are available out there (Vindictus, Dungeon Fighter, League Of Legends, etc).
In any good F2P game there is only so much money you can spend to upgrade your chracter to the fullest. That being said character D may spend as much money as he wants on gems or whatever that upgrade gear/weapons (obtained in game) but most of the money spent is towards fashionable items, mounts, pots for convinience and other frivolous items. The misconception is that player D has spent all his money on magical god armor that instantly makes him superior in PvP. For most F2P games (worthy of playing) no such advantage exists. It is true that towards end game a player "can" spend lets say about $50 to upgrade his armor/weapon to the fullest in order to effectively compete in PvP however actual CS items that will effect a characters stats and skills are usually limited to gems placable in armor and weapons or buffs that last for a couple of hours. Keep in mind that these CS items are also obtainable in game (through events, dungeons, etc..) it's just a matter of convinience to most players.
So players B and C are perfectly capable of competing with player D while only spending a fourth of what player D spent, if that. Keep in mind that player D is also a rarity, I would look at player D almost as a GM. Players B and C are 98% of the games population while player D is 2%. So most of your PvP run-ins will consist of players B and C anyway.
Imo F2P's are simply just a different type of play style than subs, this is why most sub players don't like F2Ps and vise versa. As I've said before, you may end up spending more money in a F2P game than you would in a sub game but it's the simple fact that you can decide when and how to spend your money that's appealing. But thats just my opinion.
Most people go through life pretending to be a boss. I go through life pretending I'm not.
I think the OP just hasn't stumbled on the few good F2P MMOs available and decided to lump them all and hate them all.
F2P models have many different implementations. You have many options out there. If you don't like a certain scheme, move on and find the next one. If in the end you never found the right F2P game for you then clearly F2P itself is not for you, but you don't get to bash the model itself and proclaim it as a greed in disguise.
And to be fair, P2P isn't any less greedy, if you think about all those $15 subs. The revenue earned from that is much more than what is required to maintain a server and support the devs, as evident with the existing B2P model.
Quoted for truth. There's another thread on mmorpg.com pointing out the fantastic cash flow the $15 sub generates and perhaps as little as 1% of that goes to actually maintaining the server infrastructure. A big chunk goes to developement of content updates, the rest goes to the investors.
This truly hits the nail on the head and Bravo to brnmcc01.
When I play a game, I like to compete with people. When I compete with people, I like the game to feel as fair and even as possible. I don't want to be overpowered, I don't want to be underpowered, I just want things to be balanced! Free to play games with item malls do away with balance.
I'd rather pay my monthly sub and be equal to everybody else. Unfortunately money talks and I expect most MMOs to go the item mall route in the next 5-10 years. (unless you're Blizzard lalwlwlalwlalwal)
Personaly i do not hate anything based on a sub model, when the amjority of all MMO's FTP or PTP MMO's have been lackluster over the last few years.
DDO has a good model in place when you can buy content updates, it kind of forces the devs to come out with quality material if they want to make money. I am looking forward to GW2 w/ a BTP model, and i think it will be apealing to the non-mmo crowd that are used to paying for DLC.
Never the less not even trying a game becouse it is FTP is a bit short sided, you may miss something nice out there.
Welcome Home
Rev
It's unnatural to have a game that should be technically dead still be making money. If lets say lotro was dying then it should have seen it's sunset. Now with this pay model these games are like dick cheney. just when you think he's done...bam still going! F2P seems like a crash cart but it only postpones the inevitable.
But hey bro...if ya like it don't listen to me love it violently!
DDO and LotRO are an example of a perfectly fine "content unlocking" method of F2P. I have absolutely no issue with this. Especially since the content is usually very high quality and for a fair price.
The trouble is that DDO and LotRO are examples of -very few- good F2P games. Games like Allods are in the overwhelming majority and if they aren't at launch they certainly will be after a few months.
Do we really count League of Legends as an MMO?
Not really read much on the other two, but I'm fairly certain they're Diablo-clones, aren't they? They don't really count as "true" MMOs.
{mod edit}
I meant F2Ps in general, and not just MMOs my bad.
I've playing the most of F2P games, and I hate that the owner of the game keeps you in play thanks to a mensual fee, and you lose all if you don't pay it. I actually had all the F2P games advantages without paying a cent, there's a new system to get cash in the most of the F2P games, and it's the Offer Pay, you get game cash for making surveys, so you can get easily all the advantages.
Good. So not that you hate F2P games, you just don't understand what the term means...
I don't care either way. I only care if the game is entertaining. If the game expects or requires more money from me than I feel the game is worth or I am willing to spend I simply move on to the next game.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
Only greedy gamers with jobs can really enjoy F2P games...cheaters!!!! leave your money in your bank accounts
I just started playing Lord of the Rings Online and I think it's actually pretty good. Dungeons and Dragons online seems to be pretty good too. You can level all the way to max in LOTRO without paying and do a bunch of other things too, but I thought it was pretty nasty that you have to pay for auction house slots in LOTRO atleast, that's about as bad as it got - but they give you free points to start with anyway, so you wouldn't have to pay for anything. In the two afore-mentioned game you don't really have to worry about "pay2win" players because the game is team-based and a PVE game for the most part. I agree that it gets a bit more complex when PVP games are thrown into the mix. But with Lord of the Rings Online the f2p works well, you don't really compete against other players -- no worry of being at a disadvantage -- and I am able to play a game that I would otherwise not play and I am able to make the game more "fun" by throwing a little bit of cash at it when I can. =D
-----------------------------
Real as Reality Television!!!
Nothing wrong with F2P model, as long as it isn't pay to win. Getting a base game for free and then buying adventure packs or whatever is a valid way to sell the game.
I personally always just subscribe though because I'm an adult with a good job and subscription fees are chump change to be honest, so I want to maximize content rather than minimize cost. In fact for a spectacular game I'd easily pay $30 or $40+ a month no problem, although I know most people wouldn't. But if a game has any kind of pay to win aspect then I would never touch it with a 100 foot pole even if it were totally free. A total game breaker to me: playing field has to be level and I refuse to be nickled/dimed to get an advantage.
One thing that is annoying though is the subset of the F2P crowd that thinks they should get to play everything for free and never pay a dime for content, and complain about it like it is the job of the developers/publisher to entertain us for free. I have little sympathy for the mooching crowd out there. If you have a computer at all you can certainly affort $10 a month. The homeless in this country walk around with wads bigger than that LOL
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind"
1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN
2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements