Over the hill and last gasp games are turning to F2P to extend their product cycle.
Subpar games are on the rise and quality has left the building.
The cost of a paid subscription is significant to a small percentage of gamers and a large percentage of game information sites.
If I saw $15.00 laying on the side of the street.. I would hit my auto door locks and step on the gas.
Truth in advertising legislation will eventually zero in on “Free to play” games, where significant disclaimers will be the result. This will certainly take the shine off that paint, because free is a failed business model and a lie..
Case in point.
Remember when pharmaceutical advertising hit TV.. It started with take our pill.. it’s new, yellow, different.
Today it’s more like.. Take our pill.. it’s new, yellow, different.
Possible side effects may include: suicidal thoughts, swollen eyeballs, bleeding from the rectum, dizziness, anxiety, and/or an urge to fly. Consult your physician before leaping from buildings.
Most of the "F2P" games ARE NOT free-to-play. They are Pay-to-Win games.
The only real free-to-play that I know of is GW and LoL, because they don't sell anything that gives you an advatage in game.
Take DDO for example, there's no way you can get into areas you didn't paid for. In AoEOnline, you cannot use a lot of items you didn't paid for. The "F2P" tag is just a lure/bait to get you to play the game until you find out that you are totally gimped without spending a dime.
So no, I do not buy into these evil MMO companies who advertize their games as F2P when they are not.
For the P2P supportors need to understand, an MMO needs hundreds of thousand to millions of players to be sucessful. The hundreds or so people who are anti-F2P arn't enough to keep them running. There are a lot more people who are for F2Ps then who are totally against it. It's fine to like P2P model but to completely be against F2P makes no sense. That sounds like people who tip their waiters/waitresses 20 bucks on a 30 dollar bill no matter how decent the service was.
Most of the "F2P" games ARE NOT free-to-play. They are Pay-to-Win games.
The only real free-to-play that I know of is GW and LoL, because they don't sell anything that gives you an advatage in game.
Take DDO for example, there's no way you can get into areas you didn't paid for. In AoEOnline, you cannot use a lot of items you didn't paid for. The "F2P" tag is just a lure/bait to get you to play the game until you find out that you are totally gimped without spending a dime.
So no, I do not buy into these evil MMO companies who advertize their games as F2P when they are not.
AOEOnline is the perfect example of a pay to win game. People who pay for it are fools for supporting a company like that and hurting the F2P model in the prossess.
Most of the "F2P" games ARE NOT free-to-play. They are Pay-to-Win games.
The only real free-to-play that I know of is GW and LoL, because they don't sell anything that gives you an advatage in game.
Take DDO for example, there's no way you can get into areas you didn't paid for. In AoEOnline, you cannot use a lot of items you didn't paid for. The "F2P" tag is just a lure/bait to get you to play the game until you find out that you are totally gimped without spending a dime.
So no, I do not buy into these evil MMO companies who advertize their games as F2P when they are not.
AOEOnline is the perfect example of a pay to win game. People who pay for it are fools for supporting a company like that and hurting the F2P model in the prossess.
I agree that AoEOnline is a pay-to-win and they should advertise it as such. But saying people who paid for what it is are fools are a bit of a stretch.
People who are lured with F2P tags are disappointed and left the game. But to those who knows that AoEOnline is not a free-to-play have paid the game because it's no different from picking up a game from a retail store.
Also if you look closely, even P2P games are Pay-to-Win eventhough if you're already paying the same monthly payment. Take WoW for example. If you don't have any of the expansions, you cannot possibly win. So you have to pay for the expansion on top of your monthly payments.
"Your classic Epic sword is no match with my Cataclysm Epic Sword!"
Please stop calling these games "Free to Play". As the article itself immediately talks about players paying for Micro Transactions. So, it's not free. In fact, by keeping the "subscription" model as well as MT's, it's even worse than a P2P game system. These "free to play" games are merely "Free Trials". Why did we even allow the words "Free To Play" to enter our vocabulary? It's marketing-speak for "pay out the wazoo, suckers!".
People who are lured with F2P tags are disappointed and left the game. But to those who knows that AoEOnline is not a free-to-play have paid the game because it's no different from picking up a game from a retail store.
Even this isnt true, with a B2P version of AoE you get many more civs to play with. They pay more for less content then a normal AoE game which is fail.
Please stop calling these games "Free to Play". As the article itself immediately talks about players paying for Micro Transactions. So, it's not free. In fact, by keeping the "subscription" model as well as MT's, it's even worse than a P2P game system. These "free to play" games are merely "Free Trials". Why did we even allow the words "Free To Play" to enter our vocabulary? It's marketing-speak for "pay out the wazoo, suckers!".
Having a cash shop doesn't change it from being a Free to Play game, cause it still is Free to Play BUT you have the OPTION to pay for more stuff on top of the Free to Play game. Unlike Pay to Play you are FORCED to pay for the game on top of being FORCED to pay a Subcription. That is the difference. Now, not all F2Ps are good or ran by good companies but so far P2Ps have been just as bad. It's the industries fault, not the payment model.
Even this isnt true, with a B2P version of AoE you get many more civs to play with. They pay more for less content then a normal AoE game which is fail.
Um, you can play all the civs currently available in AoEO. This way you can test drive which civ matches your play style, then you can unlock it. You don't have to spend a dime on a Civ that doesn't match your play style.
On retail AoE titles, I get Civs I don't even play so in a sense, I paid too much. In AoEO, I only pay for the Civ I want to play...which is a good price - $50 (retail) vs $20 (online) - yup it's worth it.
Like I said, the only thing I dont like about AoEO is that it's advertised as a F2P when it's not, more like "Free Trial" really.
For the P2P supportors need to understand, an MMO needs hundreds of thousand to millions of players to be sucessful. The hundreds or so people who are anti-F2P arn't enough to keep them running. There are a lot more people who are for F2Ps then who are totally against it. It's fine to like P2P model but to completely be against F2P makes no sense. That sounds like people who tip their waiters/waitresses 20 bucks on a 30 dollar bill no matter how decent the service was.
hundreds of thousand?
(not including WoW)
As far as I am aware, only RIFT has hundreds of thousand (they are slightly above 200k players), while all other P2P MMOs have below or about 100k. From what i read - in very vague dev blogs - an MMO that sells 500k boxes and retains 50k subs allows to make a profit.
Originally posted by nethaniah
Seriously Farmville? Yeah I think it's great. In a World where half our population is dying of hunger the more fortunate half is spending their time harvesting food that doesn't exist.
Even this isnt true, with a B2P version of AoE you get many more civs to play with. They pay more for less content then a normal AoE game which is fail.
Um, you can play all the civs currently available in AoEO. This way you can test drive which civ matches your play style, then you can unlock it. You don't have to spend a dime on a Civ that doesn't match your play style.
On retail AoE titles, I get Civs I don't even play so in a sense, I paid too much. In AoEO, I only pay for the Civ I want to play...which is a good price - $50 (retail) vs $20 (online) - yup it's worth it.
Like I said, the only thing I dont like about AoEO is that it's advertised as a F2P when it's not, more like "Free Trial" really.
You cannot play all the civs available in AoEO without paying. Look it up.
For the P2P supportors need to understand, an MMO needs hundreds of thousand to millions of players to be sucessful. The hundreds or so people who are anti-F2P arn't enough to keep them running. There are a lot more people who are for F2Ps then who are totally against it. It's fine to like P2P model but to completely be against F2P makes no sense. That sounds like people who tip their waiters/waitresses 20 bucks on a 30 dollar bill no matter how decent the service was.
hundreds of thousand?
(not including WoW)
As far as I am aware, only RIFT has hundreds of thousand (they are slightly above 200k players), while all other P2P MMOs have below or about 100k. From what i read - in very vague dev blogs - an MMO that sells 500k boxes and retains 50k subs allows to make a profit.
For the P2P supportors need to understand, an MMO needs hundreds of thousand to millions of players to be sucessful. The hundreds or so people who are anti-F2P arn't enough to keep them running. There are a lot more people who are for F2Ps then who are totally against it. It's fine to like P2P model but to completely be against F2P makes no sense. That sounds like people who tip their waiters/waitresses 20 bucks on a 30 dollar bill no matter how decent the service was.
hundreds of thousand?
(not including WoW)
As far as I am aware, only RIFT has hundreds of thousand (they are slightly above 200k players), while all other P2P MMOs have below or about 100k. From what i read - in very vague dev blogs - an MMO that sells 500k boxes and retains 50k subs allows to make a profit.
Love it when people are using numbers without sources. Rift is doing well.
A MMORPG needs around 80k subs to be succesful and something the p2w crowd doesn't understand huge numbers != huge payment. P2W are heavily relying on the factor of the bigger idiot -> buy more to make up for others not buying anything and/or buy more to succes" thats what the pay 2 win rip off model is all about.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play." "Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
Too much competition and too much risk now,this is why they are going cheap projects and cash shop.With little invested they can easily pull the plug and lose very little.A 1-2 year project not only is less costly to to devlop content wise but also saves a ton in wages and other costs.
We may only see a well known ip remain as a sub based game,anything new will struggle amongst the MANY competitors in this market.
The one game that really has me interested is Mr.Schilling's game,i have no idea if it will be sub based or cash shop.This game is imo headed over the 100 million investment mark as Curt put up 60 million right away and they brought many other investors on board since then.This game is already 4 years in and no siugn of them stopping design content anytime soon.
If the majority of games are cash shop by the time this one comes out,it might be a real struggle for 38 studios to compete.It migth turn out to be a blessing however,if they have no comeptition in the sub based market by release time,they could get a bunch of us onboard that cannot swallow cash shop gaming.
If there was only one MMORPG left as sub based,i would play that or nothing and i think i am not alone,so good luck to Smedley and any other dev who thinks cash shop is an easy money grab.These choices are not up to the developers alone,this is strictly the foolish spenders that are determining what is slapped in our face.If the people that do spend in the cash shop games never spend more than a normal 15 buck sub fee,then you add in all the freebie players,they might reconsider their tactics.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
If that's so sign me out. Already not playing any mmorpg.
When there will be good quality , not only combat focused ,gear treadmill mmo ,but mmorpg that build 'world' with non-combat fulfilling AAA quality gameplay, and it will be pure p2p. I will start play again and pay premium as well (talking about 25$/month range here).
Even this isnt true, with a B2P version of AoE you get many more civs to play with. They pay more for less content then a normal AoE game which is fail.
Um, you can play all the civs currently available in AoEO. This way you can test drive which civ matches your play style, then you can unlock it. You don't have to spend a dime on a Civ that doesn't match your play style.
On retail AoE titles, I get Civs I don't even play so in a sense, I paid too much. In AoEO, I only pay for the Civ I want to play...which is a good price - $50 (retail) vs $20 (online) - yup it's worth it.
Like I said, the only thing I dont like about AoEO is that it's advertised as a F2P when it's not, more like "Free Trial" really.
You cannot play all the civs available in AoEO without paying. Look it up.
There's only 2 Civs available right now and you can play them both.
This guy must be more passionate about f2p than Jesus was about dying for humanity.
I believe the expression is "He who pays the piper calls the tune" just look at the banner adds 90% F2P.....So in my honest opinion all this praise of F2P is pure self intrest and should be treated with due contempt.
Maybe F2P should be advertised as "Free to download and try, pay to win.". If this is the wave of the future, count me out. The first MMO's I've ever played were f2p, and I understood that CS items were at least somewhat necessary to be successful in-game. Maybe I got my start in the wrong places, because to really get anywhere (end-game and pvp), you had to shell out some serious cash. By "serious", I mean several times more than it would have cost to just buy a boxed game (@$60.00) + a 3-6 monthssubscription (@$15.00/month). It's tough for me to imagine, literally, hundreds of thousands or millions of people with that kind of disposable income. Sure, f2p gives people the option of shopping around, for an MMO, without spending that initial retail box money, but that's the only real benefit that I can see.
In the end, I could get behind f2p games, if more companies would offer reasonably-priced items in their CS's OR they had a CS setup like Grinding Gear Games is supposedly doing with Path of Exile:
Not everyone is going FTP, just look at the stubborn Turbine with Asheron's Call. That game deserves to be FTP to draw more people to it so everyone can try it, it's the kind of game that you need countless hours to learn to be good at and this is the reason why people are afraid to sub and try it, it's to old and it takes to long to figure it out if you never played it.
14 day trial is not long enough to learn the game, I have seen 90% of the new players who try the free trial get upset after the 13th day and decide not to sub after that. It really should be FTP up to level 150 or so. Then charge a flat $6 a month to play after level 150.
How long do you think it will take Star Wars: The Old Republic? Doesn't look like EA/Bioware and LucasArts are following this trend. Out of the game they will be charging for the game, plus the standard $14.99 a month sub. So it might be some what of a trend, but certainly not a wide spread trend.
When we get back from where we are going, we will return to where we were. I know people there!
In the MMORPG world, thereis no such thing as free to play. When these guys make statements that their revinue went up ... how was that free to play?? When big games going down the toilet are suddenly "back in the black" after going free to play, how is that new income "free" to the players.
Ok Ok, we all know free to play doesn't really mean free to play. It means trick into paying more. However as most people are not very smart, I can see why this whole f2p con game works. I for one refuse to play any f2p game (except for a trial maybe). I remember when I was unfamiliar with this con game and started playing Wizzard 101. It wasn't a very mature game, but was a little fun. I played through all the content in a couple hours (except all the mind numbing mini games) and arrived at a blocked street where they wanted 10 bucks for me to continue. Ahhhh I said, I get it now. I cannot imagin how people can be so dumb as to pay to play these "free" games, where most of the creative effort is applied to how to get players to spend more money for less game.
Sorry for being so negative on f2p, but it irks me when a spade is called an ice cream sundae.
Edit: This column is always about the f2p payment model and how good/popular/exciting it is. It is never about a particular f2p game or why that game is good or bad.
So, Bill, I think your idea of having someone write a column on the value/quality/popularity/excitement associated with subscription games would balance things out nicely. Although it has all been said in replies to this colum probably. Soap box columns just bring out the worst from us commentators so ..... well maybe not.
I would not even read this column if the titles weren't so .... extravaganza like. like "Everybody is going F2P". That is obviously BS as "Everybody" is NOT going f2p. Ya just gotta read a column with a title like that just so you can tell them they are wrong.
I could do a column on "All Comments on Forums are biased and falacious" (if I had a spell checker on here).... heh might get some comments going /lol
Comments
Everyone is most assuredly not going F2P.
WTB balance and objectivity.
A couple thoughts which are just my opinion.
Over the hill and last gasp games are turning to F2P to extend their product cycle.
Subpar games are on the rise and quality has left the building.
The cost of a paid subscription is significant to a small percentage of gamers and a large percentage of game information sites.
If I saw $15.00 laying on the side of the street.. I would hit my auto door locks and step on the gas.
Truth in advertising legislation will eventually zero in on “Free to play” games, where significant disclaimers will be the result. This will certainly take the shine off that paint, because free is a failed business model and a lie..
Case in point.
Remember when pharmaceutical advertising hit TV.. It started with take our pill.. it’s new, yellow, different.
Today it’s more like.. Take our pill.. it’s new, yellow, different.
Possible side effects may include: suicidal thoughts, swollen eyeballs, bleeding from the rectum, dizziness, anxiety, and/or an urge to fly. Consult your physician before leaping from buildings.
Most of the "F2P" games ARE NOT free-to-play. They are Pay-to-Win games.
The only real free-to-play that I know of is GW and LoL, because they don't sell anything that gives you an advatage in game.
Take DDO for example, there's no way you can get into areas you didn't paid for. In AoEOnline, you cannot use a lot of items you didn't paid for. The "F2P" tag is just a lure/bait to get you to play the game until you find out that you are totally gimped without spending a dime.
So no, I do not buy into these evil MMO companies who advertize their games as F2P when they are not.
Ready for GW2!!!
For the P2P supportors need to understand, an MMO needs hundreds of thousand to millions of players to be sucessful. The hundreds or so people who are anti-F2P arn't enough to keep them running. There are a lot more people who are for F2Ps then who are totally against it. It's fine to like P2P model but to completely be against F2P makes no sense. That sounds like people who tip their waiters/waitresses 20 bucks on a 30 dollar bill no matter how decent the service was.
AOEOnline is the perfect example of a pay to win game. People who pay for it are fools for supporting a company like that and hurting the F2P model in the prossess.
I agree that AoEOnline is a pay-to-win and they should advertise it as such. But saying people who paid for what it is are fools are a bit of a stretch.
People who are lured with F2P tags are disappointed and left the game. But to those who knows that AoEOnline is not a free-to-play have paid the game because it's no different from picking up a game from a retail store.
Also if you look closely, even P2P games are Pay-to-Win eventhough if you're already paying the same monthly payment. Take WoW for example. If you don't have any of the expansions, you cannot possibly win. So you have to pay for the expansion on top of your monthly payments.
"Your classic Epic sword is no match with my Cataclysm Epic Sword!"
Ridiculous!
Ready for GW2!!!
Please stop calling these games "Free to Play". As the article itself immediately talks about players paying for Micro Transactions. So, it's not free. In fact, by keeping the "subscription" model as well as MT's, it's even worse than a P2P game system. These "free to play" games are merely "Free Trials". Why did we even allow the words "Free To Play" to enter our vocabulary? It's marketing-speak for "pay out the wazoo, suckers!".
Even this isnt true, with a B2P version of AoE you get many more civs to play with. They pay more for less content then a normal AoE game which is fail.
Having a cash shop doesn't change it from being a Free to Play game, cause it still is Free to Play BUT you have the OPTION to pay for more stuff on top of the Free to Play game. Unlike Pay to Play you are FORCED to pay for the game on top of being FORCED to pay a Subcription. That is the difference. Now, not all F2Ps are good or ran by good companies but so far P2Ps have been just as bad. It's the industries fault, not the payment model.
Um, you can play all the civs currently available in AoEO. This way you can test drive which civ matches your play style, then you can unlock it. You don't have to spend a dime on a Civ that doesn't match your play style.
On retail AoE titles, I get Civs I don't even play so in a sense, I paid too much. In AoEO, I only pay for the Civ I want to play...which is a good price - $50 (retail) vs $20 (online) - yup it's worth it.
Like I said, the only thing I dont like about AoEO is that it's advertised as a F2P when it's not, more like "Free Trial" really.
Ready for GW2!!!
hundreds of thousand?
(not including WoW)
As far as I am aware, only RIFT has hundreds of thousand (they are slightly above 200k players), while all other P2P MMOs have below or about 100k. From what i read - in very vague dev blogs - an MMO that sells 500k boxes and retains 50k subs allows to make a profit.
I was more meaning critically examining it from the consumers point of view and what it means to actual games and how they are played.
You cannot play all the civs available in AoEO without paying. Look it up.
"Other P2P MMOs" .. that sounds so believable.
Love it when people are using numbers without sources. Rift is doing well.
A MMORPG needs around 80k subs to be succesful and something the p2w crowd doesn't understand huge numbers != huge payment. P2W are heavily relying on the factor of the bigger idiot -> buy more to make up for others not buying anything and/or buy more to succes" thats what the pay 2 win rip off model is all about.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play."
"Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
Too much competition and too much risk now,this is why they are going cheap projects and cash shop.With little invested they can easily pull the plug and lose very little.A 1-2 year project not only is less costly to to devlop content wise but also saves a ton in wages and other costs.
We may only see a well known ip remain as a sub based game,anything new will struggle amongst the MANY competitors in this market.
The one game that really has me interested is Mr.Schilling's game,i have no idea if it will be sub based or cash shop.This game is imo headed over the 100 million investment mark as Curt put up 60 million right away and they brought many other investors on board since then.This game is already 4 years in and no siugn of them stopping design content anytime soon.
If the majority of games are cash shop by the time this one comes out,it might be a real struggle for 38 studios to compete.It migth turn out to be a blessing however,if they have no comeptition in the sub based market by release time,they could get a bunch of us onboard that cannot swallow cash shop gaming.
If there was only one MMORPG left as sub based,i would play that or nothing and i think i am not alone,so good luck to Smedley and any other dev who thinks cash shop is an easy money grab.These choices are not up to the developers alone,this is strictly the foolish spenders that are determining what is slapped in our face.If the people that do spend in the cash shop games never spend more than a normal 15 buck sub fee,then you add in all the freebie players,they might reconsider their tactics.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
"Everyone goes F2P" huh?
If that's so sign me out. Already not playing any mmorpg.
When there will be good quality , not only combat focused ,gear treadmill mmo ,but mmorpg that build 'world' with non-combat fulfilling AAA quality gameplay, and it will be pure p2p. I will start play again and pay premium as well (talking about 25$/month range here).
Until then sayonara o/
There's only 2 Civs available right now and you can play them both.
Ready for GW2!!!
I believe the expression is "He who pays the piper calls the tune" just look at the banner adds 90% F2P.....So in my honest opinion all this praise of F2P is pure self intrest and should be treated with due contempt.
Maybe F2P should be advertised as "Free to download and try, pay to win.". If this is the wave of the future, count me out. The first MMO's I've ever played were f2p, and I understood that CS items were at least somewhat necessary to be successful in-game. Maybe I got my start in the wrong places, because to really get anywhere (end-game and pvp), you had to shell out some serious cash. By "serious", I mean several times more than it would have cost to just buy a boxed game (@$60.00) + a 3-6 months subscription (@$15.00/month). It's tough for me to imagine, literally, hundreds of thousands or millions of people with that kind of disposable income. Sure, f2p gives people the option of shopping around, for an MMO, without spending that initial retail box money, but that's the only real benefit that I can see.
In the end, I could get behind f2p games, if more companies would offer reasonably-priced items in their CS's OR they had a CS setup like Grinding Gear Games is supposedly doing with Path of Exile:
http://www.pathofexile.com/faq/#q6
Other than that, the p2p and b2p models just have a lot more appeal for me, right now.
Also besids seeing bigger profits from f2p most devs do not want to fight over subscription numbers.
Not everyone is going FTP, just look at the stubborn Turbine with Asheron's Call. That game deserves to be FTP to draw more people to it so everyone can try it, it's the kind of game that you need countless hours to learn to be good at and this is the reason why people are afraid to sub and try it, it's to old and it takes to long to figure it out if you never played it.
14 day trial is not long enough to learn the game, I have seen 90% of the new players who try the free trial get upset after the 13th day and decide not to sub after that. It really should be FTP up to level 150 or so. Then charge a flat $6 a month to play after level 150.
How long do you think it will take Star Wars: The Old Republic? Doesn't look like EA/Bioware and LucasArts are following this trend. Out of the game they will be charging for the game, plus the standard $14.99 a month sub. So it might be some what of a trend, but certainly not a wide spread trend.
When we get back from where we are going, we will return to where we were. I know people there!
F2P seems like a last ditch effort to continue the life of your game unless you build it specifically for F2P to rape at the cash shop.
Sure, F2P will always have it's place in todays economy but the polished, complete games with huge fan bases will most likely stay subscription based.
Before people start applauding every game going free to play maybe they should research what market saturation is first.
In the MMORPG world, thereis no such thing as free to play. When these guys make statements that their revinue went up ... how was that free to play?? When big games going down the toilet are suddenly "back in the black" after going free to play, how is that new income "free" to the players.
Ok Ok, we all know free to play doesn't really mean free to play. It means trick into paying more. However as most people are not very smart, I can see why this whole f2p con game works. I for one refuse to play any f2p game (except for a trial maybe). I remember when I was unfamiliar with this con game and started playing Wizzard 101. It wasn't a very mature game, but was a little fun. I played through all the content in a couple hours (except all the mind numbing mini games) and arrived at a blocked street where they wanted 10 bucks for me to continue. Ahhhh I said, I get it now. I cannot imagin how people can be so dumb as to pay to play these "free" games, where most of the creative effort is applied to how to get players to spend more money for less game.
Sorry for being so negative on f2p, but it irks me when a spade is called an ice cream sundae.
Edit: This column is always about the f2p payment model and how good/popular/exciting it is. It is never about a particular f2p game or why that game is good or bad.
So, Bill, I think your idea of having someone write a column on the value/quality/popularity/excitement associated with subscription games would balance things out nicely. Although it has all been said in replies to this colum probably. Soap box columns just bring out the worst from us commentators so ..... well maybe not.
I would not even read this column if the titles weren't so .... extravaganza like. like "Everybody is going F2P". That is obviously BS as "Everybody" is NOT going f2p. Ya just gotta read a column with a title like that just so you can tell them they are wrong.
I could do a column on "All Comments on Forums are biased and falacious" (if I had a spell checker on here).... heh might get some comments going /lol
If Ya Ain't Dyin, Ya Ain't Tryin