Let us diverge our attention first from the word "free," and pay attention to the word "play."
Let's take an example. I download Atlantica Online. I PLAY it. I didn't pay anything to play it. Thus, it's free to play. You guys are adding other unecessary definition about free and about play. Take it as it is. Free to play. You can play it for free.
By this definition, if you walk into best buy and play a game on their system, then it is f2p.
What F2P actually means to consumers is that you get to play the game, the WHOLE game for free.
Ugh. Why do so many people in mmorpg.com like to use analogies? lol. Analogies are used to make a person understand your point. It's not always effective when used to simulate another situation since it will not be exactly the same.
Anyway, nobody officially dictated that F2P means playing the whole game for free. It's just what you want to believe in. If we just look at the statement as to what it is without adding anything else, free to play is being able to play the game for free. No more, no less. There's no added clause like "free to play everything" or whatever other clause you want to add.
That...actually wasn't an analogy...you just presented the rule that if you can play a game for free, then it is F2P. I countered that rule by bringing up the example of playing a game in a store for free...this clearly doesn't make the game F2P but it fits the premise of your rule. As such, the rule doesn't work very well. No analogy there...
Anyways...all of this debate is essentially about advertising and packaging. And to explain that, here is an actual analogy .
If you go to a grocery store, and you see a sign over jars of olives that says simply FREE, you would think the jar would be free right? Now imagine that you take one and start to walk out of the store, but are accosted by an employee who tells you that you only get half of the jar for free, the rest is extra, limit one per customer. He also tells you that if you wash some dishes for them you can get the whole thing for free.
This is deceptive. Why? Because the ENTIRE JAR (package) of olives was advertised as being free, but in reality only half of it was actually free. This is the same with games. "F2P" advertises the entire package (the whole game) as being free...they never qualify the advertisement to say "Free to try" or "Basic experience free." They also never qualify the package to say it is "MMO:X basic edition" or something like that. They just say "MMO:X, free to play!!!"
Anyway...I've been around long enough to realize that there is a LOT of deceptive advertising so this F2P stuff doesn't really surprise me. Still, the fact that deceptive advertising is common doesn't excuse it as being bad. And to be honest, I am always turned off by a company that tries to "con" me into spending money.
Let us diverge our attention first from the word "free," and pay attention to the word "play."
Let's take an example. I download Atlantica Online. I PLAY it. I didn't pay anything to play it. Thus, it's free to play. You guys are adding other unecessary definition about free and about play. Take it as it is. Free to play. You can play it for free.
By this definition, if you walk into best buy and play a game on their system, then it is f2p.
What F2P actually means to consumers is that you get to play the game, the WHOLE game for free.
Ugh. Why do so many people in mmorpg.com like to use analogies? lol. Analogies are used to make a person understand your point. It's not always effective when used to simulate another situation since it will not be exactly the same.
Anyway, nobody officially dictated that F2P means playing the whole game for free. It's just what you want to believe in. If we just look at the statement as to what it is without adding anything else, free to play is being able to play the game for free. No more, no less. There's no added clause like "free to play everything" or whatever other clause you want to add.
That...actually wasn't an analogy...you just presented the rule that if you can play a game for free, then it is F2P. I countered that rule by bringing up the example of playing a game in a store for free...this clearly doesn't make the game F2P but it fits the premise of your rule. As such, the rule doesn't work very well. No analogy there...
Anyways...all of this debate is essentially about advertising and packaging. And to explain that, here is an actual analogy .
If you go to a grocery store, and you see a sign over jars of olives that says simply FREE, you would think the jar would be free right? Now imagine that you take one and start to walk out of the store, but are accosted by an employee who tells you that you only get half of the jar for free, the rest is extra, limit one per customer. He also tells you that if you wash some dishes for them you can get the whole thing for free.
This is deceptive. Why? Because the ENTIRE JAR (package) of olives was advertised as being free, but in reality only half of it was actually free. This is the same with games. "F2P" advertises the entire package (the whole game) as being free...they never qualify the advertisement to say "Free to try" or "Basic experience free." They also never qualify the package to say it is "MMO:X basic edition" or something like that. They just say "MMO:X, free to play!!!"
Anyway...I've been around long enough to realize that there is a LOT of deceptive advertising so this F2P stuff doesn't really surprise me. Still, the fact that deceptive advertising is common doesn't excuse it as being bad. And to be honest, I am always turned off by a company that tries to "con" me into spending money.
A more appropiate analogy would be to imagine two queues for the same jar. The first queue requires no money to obtain the jar, but the queue is far larger; the other queue is far smaller but requires money in order to obtain the jar.
In such case, it is a clear situation in which you either choose to spend "time" or spend "money" to achieve the same result. This is how many FreeToPlay games work.
However small it is, by going F2P you are still compromising, and that's the price you end up paying even if it doesn't involve cash.
That you don't mind paying the small fare is irrelevant to the discussion, it's still not really free. (and not debating whether there really should be anything for free, that's not realistic)
If you don't give a damn about that stuff to begin with, I don't see where there's a compromise. I have never spent a penny in any game, F2P or P2P cash shop and as far as I'm concerned, never will. I don't feel I'm missing out on anything I care about.
However small it is, by going F2P you are still compromising, and that's the price you end up paying even if it doesn't involve cash.
That you don't mind paying the small fare is irrelevant to the discussion, it's still not really free. (and not debating whether there really should be anything for free, that's not realistic)
If you don't give a damn about that stuff to begin with, I don't see where there's a compromise. I have never spent a penny in any game, F2P or P2P cash shop and as far as I'm concerned, never will. I don't feel I'm missing out on anything I care about.
So where's the compromise?
This, so much this...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
That...actually wasn't an analogy...you just presented the rule that if you can play a game for free, then it is F2P. I countered that rule by bringing up the example of playing a game in a store for free...this clearly doesn't make the game F2P but it fits the premise of your rule. As such, the rule doesn't work very well. No analogy there...
Anyways...all of this debate is essentially about advertising and packaging. And to explain that, here is an actual analogy .
If you go to a grocery store, and you see a sign over jars of olives that says simply FREE, you would think the jar would be free right? Now imagine that you take one and start to walk out of the store, but are accosted by an employee who tells you that you only get half of the jar for free, the rest is extra, limit one per customer. He also tells you that if you wash some dishes for them you can get the whole thing for free.
This is deceptive. Why? Because the ENTIRE JAR (package) of olives was advertised as being free, but in reality only half of it was actually free. This is the same with games. "F2P" advertises the entire package (the whole game) as being free...they never qualify the advertisement to say "Free to try" or "Basic experience free." They also never qualify the package to say it is "MMO:X basic edition" or something like that. They just say "MMO:X, free to play!!!"
Anyway...I've been around long enough to realize that there is a LOT of deceptive advertising so this F2P stuff doesn't really surprise me. Still, the fact that deceptive advertising is common doesn't excuse it as being bad. And to be honest, I am always turned off by a company that tries to "con" me into spending money.
A more appropiate analogy would be to imagine two queues for the same jar. The first queue requires no money to obtain the jar, but the queue is far larger; the other queue is far smaller but requires money in order to obtain the jar.
In such case, it is a clear situation in which you either choose to spend "time" or spend "money" to achieve the same result. This is how many FreeToPlay games work.
And despite any other problems I would have with that situation, what you present would be fine from an advertising standpoint. But that is not how F2P games is advertised...and that is the point of this thread. It's just that the advertising is deceptive.
You don't see a "line" when you decide to download an F2P game...you just download a game that says "free." It doesn't say "It's free but you will have to grind a lot if you don't pay." It may be obvious to you that you need to pay to get certain content or skip certain grinds once you play the game, but not before then.
That's the whole idea behind F2P games...to get you to play the game and become invested in it so you will spend money on something that you probably wouldn't have otherwise.
I dunno, before I would play any of these f2p games I would rather start creating my own game. Much more fun than playing in a game where your reallife money matters.
Nice breakdown, Virus. I would agree that F2P games, the way they are used by most players, are just a form of P2P with an alternative payment method.
"Most" players?
You think "most" players pay in a F2P game?
The most ridiculously successful F2P game on earth (by payer conversion) has 20-30% conversion (Team Fortress 2.) The vast majority of F2P games have far less than that.
...meaning the majority of players actually do play for free.
Although this thread is developing a track record of the biggest nay-sayers not really caring about the fact that in virtually every F2P game (and certainly every well-designed F2P game) you can in fact play for free and have a great time.
It's not really a very good discussion/debate if the other side's argument is so weak and devoid of points that discussion can't even arise. The only discussion point I can see is that these people have unwisely assumed "free to play" meant "everything is free", which is clearly wrong.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I haven't up to this point spent more than $15 dollars a month in micro transactions in any F2P game. But I have spent sub fee and micro transaction money exceeding $15 dollars a month with P2P games.
There is no deception with F2P, and in fact is a far more flexible than P2P. For example, my biggest complaint with City of Heroes was that the new costumes they were releasing were part of booster packs and no longer with the free issues. So, I was paying a sub fee, and for the boosters. Now, that City of Heroes is Freemum, I pay a sub, but I do NOT pay extra for booster costume packs because it is part of my sub.
F2P to me is the wave of the future, and I welcome it.
I have spent more time playing most F2P games then any P2P I have ever bought except those that have sence gone F2P and still spend more time on the other F2P games then what is called a AAA game. See PWI is a good game has all the elements of a AAA titel and never payed one dime why because the only ones that do are the ones that want everything. Played Runes of Magic for over 3 years well on and off after the 1st two but still play it even after my account was hacked and I lost everything on to high lvl characters. Took me a whole what one week to get it back and that was cause these F2p games are no different then sub games well Runes is but its a gear game you can buy it in the AH modded even and not that hard to get the gold if you dont minded running a few instances about 20 times which you do anyway in most MMO's in end game so it was easy to get the gold.
As for the whole F2P thing guess what F2P has been around sence P2P if not longer go do some research theres F2P games that came out in 1996 and before you all need to stop this whine on oh P2P is better then F2P and F2P is Fail thats why theres 400+ F2P games and not even what 20 P2P games anymore. F2P has and will be around for a while and most likely so will B2P as in all those B2P games out now.
P.S. = You don't have to spend money in any F2P title thats up to the player if they want to. have spent alot more on EQ2 Live and even GW1 then any F2P game I have ever played even Lotro I own it all but only spent a total of $80 on it to get all the content everything else can be done from playng and using the earned points. So this whole F2P gripe really is a waste you the ones complaining are mad cause the F2P market has always had more player across all lvls to play with then your P2P titles hands down and I have played most F2P titles till end game and there not as bad as you make them out. Well a Few are but thats if you spend the money not even Runes requires you to spend alot even modding in it can be done for free not using the CS at all doing whats called Junk mods and still run end game.;
Sherman's Gaming
Youtube Content creator for The Elder Scrolls Online
I have spent more time playing most F2P games then any P2P I have ever bought except those that have sence gone F2P and still spend more time on the other F2P games then what is called a AAA game. See PWI is a good game has all the elements of a AAA titel and never payed one dime why because the only ones that do are the ones that want everything. Played Runes of Magic for over 3 years well on and off after the 1st two but still play it even after my account was hacked and I lost everything on to high lvl characters. Took me a whole what one week to get it back and that was cause these F2p games are no different then sub games well Runes is but its a gear game you can buy it in the AH modded even and not that hard to get the gold if you dont minded running a few instances about 20 times which you do anyway in most MMO's in end game so it was easy to get the gold.
As for the whole F2P thing guess what F2P has been around sence P2P if not longer go do some research theres F2P games that came out in 1996 and before you all need to stop this whine on oh P2P is better then F2P and F2P is Fail thats why theres 400+ F2P games and not even what 20 P2P games anymore. F2P has and will be around for a while and most likely so will B2P as in all those B2P games out now.
P.S. = You don't have to spend money in any F2P title thats up to the player if they want to. have spent alot more on EQ2 Live and even GW1 then any F2P game I have ever played even Lotro I own it all but only spent a total of $80 on it to get all the content everything else can be done from playng and using the earned points. So this whole F2P gripe really is a waste you the ones complaining are mad cause the F2P market has always had more player across all lvls to play with then your P2P titles hands down and I have played most F2P titles till end game and there not as bad as you make them out. Well a Few are but thats if you spend the money not even Runes requires you to spend alot even modding in it can be done for free not using the CS at all doing whats called Junk mods and still run end game.;
Sorry once you said PWI was a good game , i couldnt bring myself to read more...
Back in the day. way way back in the day . when Last chaos first opened , i played that game 2-4 hours a night and sometimes as much as 30 hours on week ends . i had 3 of the toop 10 ranked toons in the whole of the game and by far more ingame money than any 10 players.
then about a year in maybe a bit more they opened the cash shop items to trade between players in game. i bought everyones cash shop that wanted to sell it . i ended up a few week later with a money amount that could not be seen on the screen , from my mass inflation of resales
so ive top toons, top gears , top mounts , top funds , and ubber amounts of cash shop , and i never spent a penny of my money .
sadly my account was froze for suspicious trade activity ,
" i dont understand whats so suspicious about a no life game having 2-300 trades a day , while trying to take over the games trade system , and max inflate his/her own bank . to he that puts in the more work , gains the most spoils right?"
and after a 3 week wait the account was returned striped of all funds and gear/items . final word was " it was found you made a trade with a person using illigal gold , the only way to fix this problem is to remove all items from your account."
This bout with F2P taught me it can be done but if the game host doesnt like the fact you did it you wont be doing it long.
Fallen Earth was mentioned - yet, how you are penalized for not being one of the three levels of subscriber was detailed with information from the game's own site.
Perfect World was mentioned - yet, even amongst F2P supporters; PWI is often acknowledged to be a bad apple.
City of Heroes was mentioned - yet, the vast differences between the actual "FREE" player and a "PREMIUM" player have been pointed out in countless threads.
One poster mentioned a few games . . . yet, the majority of posters have said how great F2P games are - without mentioning the actual games. I find that funny, considering the title of the thread.
The myth of free to play. All the great F2P games - never mentioned - no proof offered of their existance. Just a "myth" that one side of the discussion would have us all believe...
Back in the day. way way back in the day . when Last chaos first opened , i played that game 2-4 hours a night and sometimes as much as 30 hours on week ends . i had 3 of the toop 10 ranked toons in the whole of the game and by far more ingame money than any 10 players.
then about a year in maybe a bit more they opened the cash shop items to trade between players in game. i bought everyones cash shop that wanted to sell it . i ended up a few week later with a money amount that could not be seen on the screen , from my mass inflation of resales
so ive top toons, top gears , top mounts , top funds , and ubber amounts of cash shop , and i never spent a penny of my money .
sadly my account was froze for suspicious trade activity ,
" i dont understand whats so suspicious about a no life game having 2-300 trades a day , while trying to take over the games trade system , and max inflate his/her own bank . to he that puts in the more work , gains the most spoils right?"
and after a 3 week wait the account was returned striped of all funds and gear/items . final word was " it was found you made a trade with a person using illigal gold , the only way to fix this problem is to remove all items from your account."
This bout with F2P taught me it can be done but if the game host doesnt like the fact you did it you wont be doing it long.
Recently, someone in my small gaming group was playing Rift. He got bored of questing and decided to grind in one spot for a time to get exp and money. No more then a week later, his account was banned for botting and Trion refused to give him his account back.
This taught me that paying more for your game doesn't make up for idiotic business practices.
No it is free, I can play every point of content in the game free. Every single point. There is not a single peice of content I need to pay for. None, zero zip.
Venge
There's absolutely nothing in the cash shop (regardless whether you need it or not) that is only available it and not to players who chose not to play?
If so then the game is a rare exception.
The CS offers wardrobe slots, bank slots, a respec, one dog (you can get a dog in game), 2 bikes that are not the fastest or have most capacity (there are dozens of mounts in game). I don't consider any of that content - they are just extras. I have lots of slots, I have a dog, I can craft better mounts.
Venge
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I haven't up to this point spent more than $15 dollars a month in micro transactions in any F2P game. But I have spent sub fee and micro transaction money exceeding $15 dollars a month with P2P games.
There is no deception with F2P, and in fact is a far more flexible than P2P. For example, my biggest complaint with City of Heroes was that the new costumes they were releasing were part of booster packs and no longer with the free issues. So, I was paying a sub fee, and for the boosters. Now, that City of Heroes is Freemum, I pay a sub, but I do NOT pay extra for booster costume packs because it is part of my sub.
F2P to me is the wave of the future, and I welcome it.
The problem i have with F2P is that it can mean anything and nothing. Many companies adopt different standards and methods. In certain games you can play fairly cheaply or for free without being nerfed too much but in others they try too obviously to milk your wallet dry.
On the other hand the P2P system seems to have certain standards (there are exceptions). Either you have only a sub fee or a sub fee and have to purchase the game boxes. ( with the occasional fluf item from a "cash shop", but nothing that truly matters anyway)
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
No it is free, I can play every point of content in the game free. Every single point. There is not a single peice of content I need to pay for. None, zero zip.
Venge
There's absolutely nothing in the cash shop (regardless whether you need it or not) that is only available it and not to players who chose not to play?
If so then the game is a rare exception.
The CS offers wardrobe slots, bank slots, a respec, one dog (you can get a dog in game), 2 bikes that are not the fastest or have most capacity (there are dozens of mounts in game). I don't consider any of that content - they are just extras. I have lots of slots, I have a dog, I can craft better mounts.
Venge
I may stop by and check it out, I did like my time in FE, just a lack of players sort of drove me away.
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
I haven't up to this point spent more than $15 dollars a month in micro transactions in any F2P game. But I have spent sub fee and micro transaction money exceeding $15 dollars a month with P2P games.
There is no deception with F2P, and in fact is a far more flexible than P2P. For example, my biggest complaint with City of Heroes was that the new costumes they were releasing were part of booster packs and no longer with the free issues. So, I was paying a sub fee, and for the boosters. Now, that City of Heroes is Freemum, I pay a sub, but I do NOT pay extra for booster costume packs because it is part of my sub.
F2P to me is the wave of the future, and I welcome it.
The problem i have with F2P is that it can mean anything and nothing. Many companies adopt different standards and methods. In certain games you can play fairly cheaply or for free without being nerfed too much but in others they try too obviously to milk your wallet dry.
On the other hand the P2P system seems to have certain standards (there are exceptions). Either you have only a sub fee or a sub fee and have to purchase the game boxes. ( with the occasional fluf item from a "cash shop", but nothing that truly matters anyway)
This is a very good point, and it's at the root of many arguments in this thread.
F2P is extremely ambiguous. All it really means is that you can download and play "some part" of the game for free. Once that is established, it can be literally anything.
Some F2P games may be completely honest and not abusive at all. While others can be completely deceptive and immoral.
The pro-F2P side of the argument tends to focus on the one or two "good" F2P games they played. Whereas the anti-F2P side of the arguments tends to focus on "bad" F2P games.
It is not a myth, you just do not understand what Free is related to.
F2P game means that there is no payment upfront in order to access the service.
Exactly. They are called Free to "Play", not "the world revolves around you free to get every item in the game" Nobody is forcing you to buy from the cash shops nor is anything in the cash shop required to play the game, its it an optional extra if you choose to use it. its like saying a $20k car is not $20k because to get all the optional packages is an extra $10k. All i can say to people like the OP is to look up the word "play" in a dictionary, never know, you might just learn something.
I haven't up to this point spent more than $15 dollars a month in micro transactions in any F2P game. But I have spent sub fee and micro transaction money exceeding $15 dollars a month with P2P games.
There is no deception with F2P, and in fact is a far more flexible than P2P. For example, my biggest complaint with City of Heroes was that the new costumes they were releasing were part of booster packs and no longer with the free issues. So, I was paying a sub fee, and for the boosters. Now, that City of Heroes is Freemum, I pay a sub, but I do NOT pay extra for booster costume packs because it is part of my sub.
F2P to me is the wave of the future, and I welcome it.
The problem i have with F2P is that it can mean anything and nothing. Many companies adopt different standards and methods. In certain games you can play fairly cheaply or for free without being nerfed too much but in others they try too obviously to milk your wallet dry.
On the other hand the P2P system seems to have certain standards (there are exceptions). Either you have only a sub fee or a sub fee and have to purchase the game boxes. ( with the occasional fluf item from a "cash shop", but nothing that truly matters anyway)
This is a very good point, and it's at the root of many arguments in this thread.
F2P is extremely ambiguous. All it really means is that you can download and play "some part" of the game for free. Once that is established, it can be literally anything.
Some F2P games may be completely honest and not abusive at all. While others can be completely deceptive and immoral.
The pro-F2P side of the argument tends to focus on the one or two "good" F2P games they played. Whereas the anti-F2P side of the arguments tends to focus on "bad" F2P games.
Most people I see who argue on the anti-F2P side focus on only one or two "bad" F2Ps as well. Which some are completely wrong on top of it.
I keep hearing about Free to play games. You download them and you can play them, but are they really free? Mostly they have a cashshop where you buy what you need to enjoy the game, so you pay.. not free. Some like LOTRO's f2p have ways to earn points to get things in the "store" but they also sell those points for cash and make it tedious to actuall earn them in game. I suppose there are games that you can "play" for free, but be competitive? Get to level cap? Through all areas of the game? Without paying.. not really sure if that is true. Seems like a myth to me. Discussion? Because i do think this is the future of mmo's.
And??...So?....
Are you new to gaming or what? Was there a point to this or did you just feel the need to make a post about something that has been posted a million times already?
The pro-F2P side of the argument tends to focus on the one or two "good" F2P games they played. Whereas the anti-F2P side of the arguments tends to focus on "bad" F2P games.
The same goes for pro/anti P2P, B2P, etc.
It gets into that breakdown of some of the commonly accepted "notes" of the models.
B2P - you buy the box. you do not pay a sub.
P2P - you pay a sub. you may or may not have to buy the box.
F2P - you do not buy the box. you do not pay a sub.
Those are the *core* - the meat of the terms. All three of them might have paid expansions or free expansions. All three of them might have DLC. All three of them might have a cash shop.
All three are pricing models for a business. Outside of additional revenue from cash shops, paid expansions, DLC, and outside things such as merchandising - they genereate reveue in the following manner:
B2P generates revenue from box sales.
P2P generates revenue from subscriptions (and possible box sales).
F2P generates revenue from...from...hrmmm.
In order for F2P to be profitable, their revenues must surpass their expenditures. So perhaps they cut down on their costs so that the revenue from their cash shops turn a profit. Or perhaps they add additional limiters to the game and increase the likelihood of purchases being made form the cash shop while not cutting back on the costs of the game.
An issue that arises in many of the discussions comes about from calling a game F2P when it is not. No, this is not the typical argument - we've had plenty of that. I'm talking about the hybrid games. Just because a person is playing for free, does not mean the game is F2P.
City of Heroes - is F2P, B2P, and P2P. It has a hybrid pricing model. You can play as a completely free player and accept the limitations that come with that - you're playing F2P. You can make a single purchase from the store, then continue to play for free after that while accepting the limitations that come with that (fewer than a strict free player) - you can make additional purchases to buy your way out of other limitations, etc - you're playing B2P. Or you can subscribe - you're playing P2P.
Fallen Earth is similar. You can play for free, accepting the limitations. Or you can subscribe - but with choices - three choices - a tiered subscription model.
Some "F2P" games are extended trials - very limited - in the hopes that you enjoy the game and buy it. Those extended trials are just that - a trial - a playable demo - a form of advertising. But since they're also about either B2P or P2P (or even both) - again, just because a person is playing for free does not mean it is a F2P game.
You can go online and play Bejeweled for free. There are advertisements. It is an ad supported game. Some third party has paid them money in the hopes that you buy one of their products. In that sense, with a F2P game - you're playing an interactive commercial - an advertisement for the game.
If you choose to play a game for free, all that means is that you are not supporting the game. You are playing the game on somebody else's dime. It is a business. They need to generate revenue. They need to turn a profit on the endeavor. So somebody is paying...even if it is not you. There have been countless discussions on the welfare nature of the free player.
But yes, both sides are going to point to the items that support their side of the argument. Then again, it is not really a two-sided discussion. Much like the definition of F2P is so variable, so too will one find much variety in "both" the pro and anti crowds.
It is not a myth, you just do not understand what Free is related to.
F2P game means that there is no payment upfront in order to access the service.
Exactly. They are called Free to "Play", not "the world revolves around you free to get every item in the game" Nobody is forcing you to buy from the cash shops nor is anything in the cash shop required to play the game, its it an optional extra if you choose to use it. its like saying a $20k car is not $20k because to get all the optional packages is an extra $10k. All i can say to people like the OP is to look up the word "play" in a dictionary, never know, you might just learn something.
Haha. That's what I said too in one of my earlier posts. Focus on the word "play." But it seems that the other side always keep adding clauses that aren't even in the "free to play" statement.
Anyway, someone posted that "free to play" is ambiguous and someone from the other side agreed. I will agree too. It is not deception, or at least it's not lying. These are marketing claims that use proper wording to make the product look even better.
Marketer's can claim 0% fat, for example, if the fat content is 0.4%. They aren't lying because technically, we need to round it down to 0. A lot of other marketing claims are like that. Whether it is right or wrong is based on the personal opinion of different people.
So there. Yes it's part of a marketing gimmick. I guess that summarizes everything.
Haha. That's what I said too in one of my earlier posts. Focus on the word "play." But it seems that the other side always keep adding clauses that aren't even in the "free to play" statement.
Anyway, someone posted that "free to play" is ambiguous and someone from the other side agreed. I will agree too. It is not deception, or at least it's not lying. These are marketing claims that use proper wording to make the product look even better.
Marketer's can claim 0% fat, for example, if the fat content is 0.4%. They aren't lying because technically, we need to round it down to 0. A lot of other marketing claims are like that. Whether it is right or wrong is based on the personal opinion of different people.
So there. Yes it's part of a marketing gimmick. I guess that summarizes everything.
Comments
That...actually wasn't an analogy...you just presented the rule that if you can play a game for free, then it is F2P. I countered that rule by bringing up the example of playing a game in a store for free...this clearly doesn't make the game F2P but it fits the premise of your rule. As such, the rule doesn't work very well. No analogy there...
Anyways...all of this debate is essentially about advertising and packaging. And to explain that, here is an actual analogy
.
If you go to a grocery store, and you see a sign over jars of olives that says simply FREE, you would think the jar would be free right? Now imagine that you take one and start to walk out of the store, but are accosted by an employee who tells you that you only get half of the jar for free, the rest is extra, limit one per customer. He also tells you that if you wash some dishes for them you can get the whole thing for free.
This is deceptive. Why? Because the ENTIRE JAR (package) of olives was advertised as being free, but in reality only half of it was actually free. This is the same with games. "F2P" advertises the entire package (the whole game) as being free...they never qualify the advertisement to say "Free to try" or "Basic experience free." They also never qualify the package to say it is "MMO:X basic edition" or something like that. They just say "MMO:X, free to play!!!"
Anyway...I've been around long enough to realize that there is a LOT of deceptive advertising so this F2P stuff doesn't really surprise me. Still, the fact that deceptive advertising is common doesn't excuse it as being bad. And to be honest, I am always turned off by a company that tries to "con" me into spending money.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
A more appropiate analogy would be to imagine two queues for the same jar. The first queue requires no money to obtain the jar, but the queue is far larger; the other queue is far smaller but requires money in order to obtain the jar.
In such case, it is a clear situation in which you either choose to spend "time" or spend "money" to achieve the same result. This is how many FreeToPlay games work.
If you don't give a damn about that stuff to begin with, I don't see where there's a compromise. I have never spent a penny in any game, F2P or P2P cash shop and as far as I'm concerned, never will. I don't feel I'm missing out on anything I care about.
So where's the compromise?
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
This, so much this...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
And despite any other problems I would have with that situation, what you present would be fine from an advertising standpoint. But that is not how F2P games is advertised...and that is the point of this thread. It's just that the advertising is deceptive.
You don't see a "line" when you decide to download an F2P game...you just download a game that says "free." It doesn't say "It's free but you will have to grind a lot if you don't pay." It may be obvious to you that you need to pay to get certain content or skip certain grinds once you play the game, but not before then.
That's the whole idea behind F2P games...to get you to play the game and become invested in it so you will spend money on something that you probably wouldn't have otherwise.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I dunno, before I would play any of these f2p games I would rather start creating my own game. Much more fun than playing in a game where your reallife money matters.
"Most" players?
You think "most" players pay in a F2P game?
The most ridiculously successful F2P game on earth (by payer conversion) has 20-30% conversion (Team Fortress 2.) The vast majority of F2P games have far less than that.
...meaning the majority of players actually do play for free.
Although this thread is developing a track record of the biggest nay-sayers not really caring about the fact that in virtually every F2P game (and certainly every well-designed F2P game) you can in fact play for free and have a great time.
It's not really a very good discussion/debate if the other side's argument is so weak and devoid of points that discussion can't even arise. The only discussion point I can see is that these people have unwisely assumed "free to play" meant "everything is free", which is clearly wrong.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I haven't up to this point spent more than $15 dollars a month in micro transactions in any F2P game. But I have spent sub fee and micro transaction money exceeding $15 dollars a month with P2P games.
There is no deception with F2P, and in fact is a far more flexible than P2P. For example, my biggest complaint with City of Heroes was that the new costumes they were releasing were part of booster packs and no longer with the free issues. So, I was paying a sub fee, and for the boosters. Now, that City of Heroes is Freemum, I pay a sub, but I do NOT pay extra for booster costume packs because it is part of my sub.
F2P to me is the wave of the future, and I welcome it.
I have spent more time playing most F2P games then any P2P I have ever bought except those that have sence gone F2P and still spend more time on the other F2P games then what is called a AAA game. See PWI is a good game has all the elements of a AAA titel and never payed one dime why because the only ones that do are the ones that want everything. Played Runes of Magic for over 3 years well on and off after the 1st two but still play it even after my account was hacked and I lost everything on to high lvl characters. Took me a whole what one week to get it back and that was cause these F2p games are no different then sub games well Runes is but its a gear game you can buy it in the AH modded even and not that hard to get the gold if you dont minded running a few instances about 20 times which you do anyway in most MMO's in end game so it was easy to get the gold.
As for the whole F2P thing guess what F2P has been around sence P2P if not longer go do some research theres F2P games that came out in 1996 and before you all need to stop this whine on oh P2P is better then F2P and F2P is Fail thats why theres 400+ F2P games and not even what 20 P2P games anymore. F2P has and will be around for a while and most likely so will B2P as in all those B2P games out now.
P.S. = You don't have to spend money in any F2P title thats up to the player if they want to. have spent alot more on EQ2 Live and even GW1 then any F2P game I have ever played even Lotro I own it all but only spent a total of $80 on it to get all the content everything else can be done from playng and using the earned points. So this whole F2P gripe really is a waste you the ones complaining are mad cause the F2P market has always had more player across all lvls to play with then your P2P titles hands down and I have played most F2P titles till end game and there not as bad as you make them out. Well a Few are but thats if you spend the money not even Runes requires you to spend alot even modding in it can be done for free not using the CS at all doing whats called Junk mods and still run end game.;
Sherman's Gaming
Youtube Content creator for The Elder Scrolls Online
Channel:http://https//www.youtube.com/channel/UCrgYNgpFTRAl4XWz31o2emw
Sorry once you said PWI was a good game , i couldnt bring myself to read more...
Back in the day. way way back in the day . when Last chaos first opened , i played that game 2-4 hours a night and sometimes as much as 30 hours on week ends . i had 3 of the toop 10 ranked toons in the whole of the game and by far more ingame money than any 10 players.
then about a year in maybe a bit more they opened the cash shop items to trade between players in game. i bought everyones cash shop that wanted to sell it . i ended up a few week later with a money amount that could not be seen on the screen , from my mass inflation of resales
so ive top toons, top gears , top mounts , top funds , and ubber amounts of cash shop , and i never spent a penny of my money .
sadly my account was froze for suspicious trade activity ,
" i dont understand whats so suspicious about a no life game having 2-300 trades a day , while trying to take over the games trade system , and max inflate his/her own bank . to he that puts in the more work , gains the most spoils right?"
and after a 3 week wait the account was returned striped of all funds and gear/items . final word was " it was found you made a trade with a person using illigal gold , the only way to fix this problem is to remove all items from your account."
This bout with F2P taught me it can be done but if the game host doesnt like the fact you did it you wont be doing it long.
Fallen Earth was mentioned - yet, how you are penalized for not being one of the three levels of subscriber was detailed with information from the game's own site.
Perfect World was mentioned - yet, even amongst F2P supporters; PWI is often acknowledged to be a bad apple.
City of Heroes was mentioned - yet, the vast differences between the actual "FREE" player and a "PREMIUM" player have been pointed out in countless threads.
One poster mentioned a few games . . . yet, the majority of posters have said how great F2P games are - without mentioning the actual games. I find that funny, considering the title of the thread.
The myth of free to play. All the great F2P games - never mentioned - no proof offered of their existance. Just a "myth" that one side of the discussion would have us all believe...
F2P games are actually two games: the free game and the paid game. The free game will always be free to play but it might not be worth to play.
Recently, someone in my small gaming group was playing Rift. He got bored of questing and decided to grind in one spot for a time to get exp and money. No more then a week later, his account was banned for botting and Trion refused to give him his account back.
This taught me that paying more for your game doesn't make up for idiotic business practices.
The CS offers wardrobe slots, bank slots, a respec, one dog (you can get a dog in game), 2 bikes that are not the fastest or have most capacity (there are dozens of mounts in game). I don't consider any of that content - they are just extras. I have lots of slots, I have a dog, I can craft better mounts.
Venge
The problem i have with F2P is that it can mean anything and nothing. Many companies adopt different standards and methods. In certain games you can play fairly cheaply or for free without being nerfed too much but in others they try too obviously to milk your wallet dry.
On the other hand the P2P system seems to have certain standards (there are exceptions). Either you have only a sub fee or a sub fee and have to purchase the game boxes. ( with the occasional fluf item from a "cash shop", but nothing that truly matters anyway)
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.
I may stop by and check it out, I did like my time in FE, just a lack of players sort of drove me away.
"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
This is a very good point, and it's at the root of many arguments in this thread.
F2P is extremely ambiguous. All it really means is that you can download and play "some part" of the game for free. Once that is established, it can be literally anything.
Some F2P games may be completely honest and not abusive at all. While others can be completely deceptive and immoral.
The pro-F2P side of the argument tends to focus on the one or two "good" F2P games they played. Whereas the anti-F2P side of the arguments tends to focus on "bad" F2P games.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Exactly. They are called Free to "Play", not "the world revolves around you free to get every item in the game" Nobody is forcing you to buy from the cash shops nor is anything in the cash shop required to play the game, its it an optional extra if you choose to use it. its like saying a $20k car is not $20k because to get all the optional packages is an extra $10k. All i can say to people like the OP is to look up the word "play" in a dictionary, never know, you might just learn something.
Most people I see who argue on the anti-F2P side focus on only one or two "bad" F2Ps as well. Which some are completely wrong on top of it.
And??...So?....
Are you new to gaming or what? Was there a point to this or did you just feel the need to make a post about something that has been posted a million times already?
The same goes for pro/anti P2P, B2P, etc.
It gets into that breakdown of some of the commonly accepted "notes" of the models.
B2P - you buy the box. you do not pay a sub.
P2P - you pay a sub. you may or may not have to buy the box.
F2P - you do not buy the box. you do not pay a sub.
Those are the *core* - the meat of the terms. All three of them might have paid expansions or free expansions. All three of them might have DLC. All three of them might have a cash shop.
All three are pricing models for a business. Outside of additional revenue from cash shops, paid expansions, DLC, and outside things such as merchandising - they genereate reveue in the following manner:
B2P generates revenue from box sales.
P2P generates revenue from subscriptions (and possible box sales).
F2P generates revenue from...from...hrmmm.
In order for F2P to be profitable, their revenues must surpass their expenditures. So perhaps they cut down on their costs so that the revenue from their cash shops turn a profit. Or perhaps they add additional limiters to the game and increase the likelihood of purchases being made form the cash shop while not cutting back on the costs of the game.
An issue that arises in many of the discussions comes about from calling a game F2P when it is not. No, this is not the typical argument - we've had plenty of that. I'm talking about the hybrid games. Just because a person is playing for free, does not mean the game is F2P.
City of Heroes - is F2P, B2P, and P2P. It has a hybrid pricing model. You can play as a completely free player and accept the limitations that come with that - you're playing F2P. You can make a single purchase from the store, then continue to play for free after that while accepting the limitations that come with that (fewer than a strict free player) - you can make additional purchases to buy your way out of other limitations, etc - you're playing B2P. Or you can subscribe - you're playing P2P.
Fallen Earth is similar. You can play for free, accepting the limitations. Or you can subscribe - but with choices - three choices - a tiered subscription model.
Some "F2P" games are extended trials - very limited - in the hopes that you enjoy the game and buy it. Those extended trials are just that - a trial - a playable demo - a form of advertising. But since they're also about either B2P or P2P (or even both) - again, just because a person is playing for free does not mean it is a F2P game.
You can go online and play Bejeweled for free. There are advertisements. It is an ad supported game. Some third party has paid them money in the hopes that you buy one of their products. In that sense, with a F2P game - you're playing an interactive commercial - an advertisement for the game.
If you choose to play a game for free, all that means is that you are not supporting the game. You are playing the game on somebody else's dime. It is a business. They need to generate revenue. They need to turn a profit on the endeavor. So somebody is paying...even if it is not you. There have been countless discussions on the welfare nature of the free player.
But yes, both sides are going to point to the items that support their side of the argument. Then again, it is not really a two-sided discussion. Much like the definition of F2P is so variable, so too will one find much variety in "both" the pro and anti crowds.
...as well as the root of many invalid arguments.
Haha. That's what I said too in one of my earlier posts. Focus on the word "play." But it seems that the other side always keep adding clauses that aren't even in the "free to play" statement.
Anyway, someone posted that "free to play" is ambiguous and someone from the other side agreed. I will agree too. It is not deception, or at least it's not lying. These are marketing claims that use proper wording to make the product look even better.
Marketer's can claim 0% fat, for example, if the fat content is 0.4%. They aren't lying because technically, we need to round it down to 0. A lot of other marketing claims are like that. Whether it is right or wrong is based on the personal opinion of different people.
So there. Yes it's part of a marketing gimmick. I guess that summarizes everything.
Are you familiar with articles and discussions such as: http://articles.mplans.com/consumer-protection-laws-and-deceptive-marketing/
Marketing deception...in some cases, can be litigated.