You can probably get away with playing for free in a game like Fiesta.
However, when we're talking about AAA games like EverQuest "Next", you can be nearly certain that you will be required to pay AT LEAST $15.00-$20.00 per month for the game to be playable, e.g., need to purchase ability to send private chat, need to purchase ability to hold more than 5 gold, need to purchase ability to be a ranger, need to purchase ability to craft elite items, need to purchase ability to have housing, need tp purchase the ability to ride a mount etc...
Eventually, this nickel & diming theme will start to piss people off. Then they will just start charging per hour or whatever, which would be fine for me, as I rarely have the time to play anyways.
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 videogames are bad.
Most of everything is bad.
Does this mean there is nothing good?
Why bother discussing the worst of something? Everyone agrees it sucks, so there isn't discussion to be had...
Nobody discusses what is obviously bad. Are there Alganon vs. Champions Online threads popping up all over? No, it's EVE vs. WOW (usually under the guise of sandbox vs. themepark and referring to the two most successful examples of each.)
So it's entirely relevant to discuss the best case F2P games -- in fact, they're all that matters!
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
F2p is well free t play the game at whatever rate you play at is free nothign there is hidden or misleading. You choosing to buy things to enhance the enjoyment of yoru game via content, items, or appeance is up to you as a choice not a mandated thing. Making it that you need to buy thigns to enhance the free portion of the game for more fun or advancement is not going against the f2p method as you could still play for free withn the confines of what was made for free for you to play in.
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.
Your example of fat is innocuous, but replace fat with strychnine and all of a sudden it's less innocuous. I really would not want to use a "rounding" rule when dealing with my food.
Imagine if your pizza contains 0.45% strychnine, but no one was required to let you know because it rounds down to 0%.
Anyway, specifically with food, the FDA determines what can and cannot be rounded and what must be reported as is so there isn't a problem there.
There is no equivalent of the FDA for games though, so marketers can pretty much do whatever they want.
F2P requires money for a game to exist. Cash shop is that answer. My biggest concern is when Cash Shop becomes a large driving force for 'power'. Its really difficult to balance since if a game has a cash shop that is near meaningless, no one will buy and the job can't remain running. Have it to cash shop dependant and suddenly your having a lot less people. Sure idiots will pay a lot for power, but you won't be making as much money. Its a real difficult push and pull fabric for F2P games.
I personally believe a game you enjoy playing, you should be more then willing to spend something towards it.
I think we're all beating a dead horse with our arguing about whether F2P is deceptive or not. I think we all can agree that sometimes it is deceptive, and sometimes it isn't. It depends on how the specific company markets their game.
So anyway...let's discuss another aspect of F2P that bothers me.
P2P and B2P games are designed with the goal of getting the player to buy the game and keep playing it. As such, the developers try to make a game that people really want to play. F2P games on the other hand, are designed with the goal of getting players to buy items in the CS.
F2P games must be designed so that people will WANT to purchase stuff from the CS. Many times CS items are things like exp potions that let you progress through the game faster. Since the devs want you to buy these potions, they HAVE to make the game pretty grindy otherwise no one will want to skip the grind. Same kind of thing with mounts...the devs have to make it so it's a pain to get around so you will buy a mount.
The point is that the devs must create a "need" that their CS items fulfill. And oftentimes this can make the game as a whole worse.
This, moreso than deceptive marketing, is why I hate F2P.
Free to play, is a fantastic concept, if done properly.
The way I always thought the way free to play should be is
-Everyone gets to play ALL CONTENT free.
-Players that spend money in cashshop should only be given the option to buy appearance type items and boosts to things like exp gain, item drops, crafting.
- There should never be armor or weapons in a cash shop, unless it changes appearance only, never stats.
This way there is a balance, players can't just buy the best weapon, sure players that spend more will be able to advance quicker, but they can't buy the way to the end of the game.
just my $0.02
Ah one can only dream. That sounds like a wonderful concept.
Except the thing is most F2P games never really gave up the sub fee thing. I think the entire idea is to hopefully get you far enough along and get you hooked, so that when you run into the inevitable wall somewhere in the game you cant resist subbing.
I really think F2P is a lie. Its a bait and hook. To draw you into either one of two things or both. To get you to sub to the game, and / or to get you to buy from the cash shop. Plus, with the lovely "F2P" model, they can more than justify putting a big fat cash shop into the game that even subscribers have to tolerate.
F2P is generally just a limited (sometimes extremely limited) version of the game that you can sub too. And heck, it can get rather confusing for some people at times who even have subbed to the game to try and figure out what exactly they are supposed to receive upon subbing.
Meanwhile free players are trying to figure out if its better to just buy some "cheap" cash shop stuff and maybe for go subbing. There we go....got what I need. No need to sub now! Except then they hit some barrior in the game or wall. But they've already spent money! Gosh. Guess they better sub now or they just wasted all that money in the cash shop they spent a week ago.
Its just a mess. Now some might laugh at me but please just give me Buy to Play. Let me buy the game, which I feel at least entitles me to something without limitations, and I'll buy content as you release it. No walls, no barriars, no limits. Not on what I originally purchased at all. And the new stuff if its worthy, I'll buy. If not I'll pass and keep playing anyways.
But yes, Id have to agree with the OP. F2P is a lie. Its free bait. To get you to pay money. And probably eventually start subbing. Which brings you back to square one anyways.
The big problem I have with free to play games is:
There is usually a huge gap between people who pay an obscene amount of money and people who pay a reasonable amount of money.
If every contest is going to be won by someone who spent $1,000+ on a "free" game and every ranking beit pvp or pve is also being won by people who spent $1,000+ on it then people who spend $30 per month (more than any of the subscription games) and then find themselves very much unable to compete at that spending level become disillusioned and leave.
I dont like that level of pay to win. Personally I think a lot of the games would do better if there were lowish (say $30) spending limits per month -- at least on some servers -- say they had a server with a $30 per month spending limit that it cost $5 to roll a character on (which you would keep in whatever ingame dollar currency is) -- in essence the server would not have anyone who didnt at least spend a tiny bit on the game and nobody could get the huge advantage that spending a mint gets you in many games.
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.
Did you buy a box?
Are you paying a sub?
Did you pay 60 bucks plus 15 dollars a month to play LotRO?
No.
The software is free, but you have to pay for content eventually.
There isn't any strings attatched to this model. LotRO in particular is a great example of the fact that you can pay only for what you feel is important and progress. I've been playing since about a month after F2P launched and I've spent 60 bucks and that includes content all the way to the end of the Isengard expansion.
Guild Wars is the only other game that allows you to get that much content for a similar price.
I used to play MMOs like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee.
I think we're all beating a dead horse with our arguing about whether F2P is deceptive or not. I think we all can agree that sometimes it is deceptive, and sometimes it isn't. It depends on how the specific company markets their game.
So anyway...let's discuss another aspect of F2P that bothers me.
P2P and B2P games are designed with the goal of getting the player to buy the game and keep playing it. As such, the developers try to make a game that people really want to play. F2P games on the other hand, are designed with the goal of getting players to buy items in the CS.
F2P games must be designed so that people will WANT to purchase stuff from the CS. Many times CS items are things like exp potions that let you progress through the game faster. Since the devs want you to buy these potions, they HAVE to make the game pretty grindy otherwise no one will want to skip the grind. Same kind of thing with mounts...the devs have to make it so it's a pain to get around so you will buy a mount.
The point is that the devs must create a "need" that their CS items fulfill. And oftentimes this can make the game as a whole worse.
This, moreso than deceptive marketing, is why I hate F2P.
This aspect of F2P has been brought up a few times. Yep, obviously the F2P games must be designed in a manner in which you are more likely to purchase items from the cash shop. The cash shop is their only source of revenue (in the strictly F2P game, Freemium games have several sources of income and are not as directly reliant on the cash shop).
In a similar fashion, B2P games are also designed based on the model. In order for them to generate the greatest profit, you need to play the least. The more you play, the more you cost - meanwhile - what you paid is in the past. Generally speaking, that is. In a sense though, it could also be considered a model similar to Social Security. The people that buy the game after you, are paying for you. The people that come after them, are paying for them. Still though, the hope is you leave...because you, yourself - are not generating revenue. That is where we'll often see paid expansions, DLC,and even some form of item shop/web store introduced to a B2P - to generate additional revenue.
And likewise, the P2P games are not far off from the F2P games. F2P games want you to buy from the cash shop. P2P games want you to subscribe. They do not want you to finish in your free month. They want you to play for months and months and months - to be a continued source of revenue. Still, even they will often have paid expansions, DLC, and have introduced item shops/web stores.
I cannot remember who said it, but I thought it was kind of funny and I'd like to add to what they said:
Basically, P2P players pay to grind. F2P players pay to avoid the grind.
The big problem I have with free to play games is:
There is usually a huge gap between people who pay an obscene amount of money and people who pay a reasonable amount of money.
If every contest is going to be won by someone who spent $1,000+ on a "free" game and every ranking beit pvp or pve is also being won by people who spent $1,000+ on it then people who spend $30 per month (more than any of the subscription games) and then find themselves very much unable to compete at that spending level become disillusioned and leave.
I dont like that level of pay to win. Personally I think a lot of the games would do better if there were lowish (say $30) spending limits per month -- at least on some servers -- say they had a server with a $30 per month spending limit that it cost $5 to roll a character on (which you would keep in whatever ingame dollar currency is) -- in essence the server would not have anyone who didnt at least spend a tiny bit on the game and nobody could get the huge advantage that spending a mint gets you in many games.
The curious thing about this comes down to two of the sides involved in the discussion (there most definitely are more than two):
There are those that believe that somebody should not be able to pay to get an advantage. They should put their time in the game like everybody else.
There are those that counter that with the following:
By playing the game longer, you have paid longer, and thus you actually have paid to win.
The person with more time should not have the advantage over the person with less time (basically a variation of the person with more money should not have the advantage over the person with less money).
They value their time far more that how little money they spend (a person making $20-30+ an hour may not view their time nor their money in the same light as somebody making $8 an hour).
I think we're all beating a dead horse with our arguing about whether F2P is deceptive or not. I think we all can agree that sometimes it is deceptive, and sometimes it isn't. It depends on how the specific company markets their game.
So anyway...let's discuss another aspect of F2P that bothers me.
P2P and B2P games are designed with the goal of getting the player to buy the game and keep playing it. As such, the developers try to make a game that people really want to play. F2P games on the other hand, are designed with the goal of getting players to buy items in the CS.
F2P games must be designed so that people will WANT to purchase stuff from the CS. Many times CS items are things like exp potions that let you progress through the game faster. Since the devs want you to buy these potions, they HAVE to make the game pretty grindy otherwise no one will want to skip the grind. Same kind of thing with mounts...the devs have to make it so it's a pain to get around so you will buy a mount.
The point is that the devs must create a "need" that their CS items fulfill. And oftentimes this can make the game as a whole worse.
This, moreso than deceptive marketing, is why I hate F2P.
But it's not "sometimes" deceptive. Every single F2P game you can play for free.
Also you seem to have things mixed up on F2P vs. B2P:
B2P developers make money based on the appearance offun. Trailers, box art, advertising, hype, and the snippet of gameplay the trial offers as a biased glimpse into the gameplay.
F2P developers make money if players are havingfun. Not having fun? You're gone without paying a cent. You can even play for months without paying before making your choice.
P2P is a hybrid.
F2P is clearly the better model from the players' perspective. F2P games which are genuinely fun make absolutely ridiculous amounts of money, and also have the player's best interests in mind. It's win-win for developer and players alike.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The big problem I have with free to play games is: There is usually a huge gap between people who pay an obscene amount of money and people who pay a reasonable amount of money. If every contest is going to be won by someone who spent $1,000+ on a "free" game and every ranking beit pvp or pve is also being won by people who spent $1,000+ on it then people who spend $30 per month (more than any of the subscription games) and then find themselves very much unable to compete at that spending level become disillusioned and leave. I dont like that level of pay to win. Personally I think a lot of the games would do better if there were lowish (say $30) spending limits per month -- at least on some servers -- say they had a server with a $30 per month spending limit that it cost $5 to roll a character on (which you would keep in whatever ingame dollar currency is) -- in essence the server would not have anyone who didnt at least spend a tiny bit on the game and nobody could get the huge advantage that spending a mint gets you in many games.
The curious thing about this comes down to two of the sides involved in the discussion (there most definitely are more than two):
There are those that believe that somebody should not be able to pay to get an advantage. They should put their time in the game like everybody else.
There are those that counter that with the following:
By playing the game longer, you have paid longer, and thus you actually have paid to win.
The person with more time should not have the advantage over the person with less time (basically a variation of the person with more money should not have the advantage over the person with less money).
They value their time far more that how little money they spend (a person making $20-30+ an hour may not view their time nor their money in the same light as somebody making $8 an hour).
What about option D that both pay to win AND grind to win are bad. I'll take skill/tactics to win any day.
It is quite possible to have a P2P or B2P game that has largely skill or tactics based combat. But an F2P game? The entire business model depends on things like P2W.
What about option D that both pay to win AND grind to win are bad. I'll take skill/tactics to win any day.
It is quite possible to have a P2P or B2P game that has largely skill or tactics based combat. But an F2P game? The entire business model depends on things like P2W.
Then to me, it would not be a RPG and I would not be playing it. However, there are people that do not want RPGs - they want action/adventure/twitch gaming. For them, neither the F2P nor P2P models would likely make them happy.
f2p companies are getting people to try their game, because it's free. but naturally the idea behind their game is that it's a business and they need people spending money. Sooooo, after they told you their game is free, they are trying to sell you something. this doesnt make them bad, or liars, it just means that, hey, they'd like their game to make money. Of course, if they put too much awesome buffage, etc into the cash shop, then LESS people will play their game because it's imbalanced towards mr moneypants who just bought 6 hundred bucks worth of ownage pots with gool ol' mum's cretit card.
my personal opinon of the ideal system would be a "f2p" system with 2 caveats:
1) there must be an option to buy your way out of having to use the damn shop (EX: LOTRO and DDO giving you the option to just flat-out sub to their game) (imagine how great atlantica would be if they had a flat 15 a month fee instead of having to rely on ye olde NX lotto boxes)
2) the cash shop sells items like character slots, bag space, auction space -IE things beyond just appearance, but with no imbalancing effects on playing the game (all of which would be nice one-time per character purchases for a f2p player)
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Actually (especially in pvp games where playing 8 hours vs someone playing 3 hours per day could be lethal rapidly) I think another type of server could also be useful.
A time phased server....
Lets say you had a server where it had one set of characters on it from midnight to 3am. One set from 4am to 7am. One set from 8am to 11am. One from 12 noon to 3pm. Another from 4pm to 7pm. And a final one from 8pm to 11pm.
At the end of each period it would reset with the character set from the next time period and then come up at the beginning of the next period.
So the server above would have 6 sets of characters on it and you could play a set for only a specific 3 hour period per day.
This would equalize the time issue generally.
----
As for your statement of fairness unfairness for the $30 cap. Well, I like to be competative and while yes I could spend $1,000 on an mmorpg, I really do NOT want to. It would have to be one insane game. But for every pay to win game out there, there is SOMEONE willing to dump TONS of cash to be the best.
Plus it is just to easy to just ease into spending way too much...
But the best part of a spending cap server is that you could have a wide variety of cash shop items -- and it would BALANCE ITSELF... You could only have X amount of things.... So someone might have the speed increase while someone else would have the armor bonus and you couldnt have both.
I think we're all beating a dead horse with our arguing about whether F2P is deceptive or not. I think we all can agree that sometimes it is deceptive, and sometimes it isn't. It depends on how the specific company markets their game. So anyway...let's discuss another aspect of F2P that bothers me. P2P and B2P games are designed with the goal of getting the player to buy the game and keep playing it. As such, the developers try to make a game that people really want to play. F2P games on the other hand, are designed with the goal of getting players to buy items in the CS. F2P games must be designed so that people will WANT to purchase stuff from the CS. Many times CS items are things like exp potions that let you progress through the game faster. Since the devs want you to buy these potions, they HAVE to make the game pretty grindy otherwise no one will want to skip the grind. Same kind of thing with mounts...the devs have to make it so it's a pain to get around so you will buy a mount. The point is that the devs must create a "need" that their CS items fulfill. And oftentimes this can make the game as a whole worse. This, moreso than deceptive marketing, is why I hate F2P.
But it's not "sometimes" deceptive. Every single F2P game you can play for free.
Also you seem to have things mixed up on F2P vs. B2P:
B2P developers make money based on the appearance offun. Trailers, box art, advertising, hype, and the snippet of gameplay the trial offers as a biased glimpse into the gameplay.
F2P developers make money if players are havingfun. Not having fun? You're gone without paying a cent. You can even play for months without paying before making your choice.
P2P is a hybrid.
F2P is clearly the better model from the players' perspective. F2P games which are genuinely fun make absolutely ridiculous amounts of money, and also have the player's best interests in mind. It's win-win for developer and players alike.
Yes....B2P games only have to have the appearance of being good. If only we had some kind of industry devoted to professionally reviewing these games to let us know which ones are good or bad....oh wait.
As for F2P being "clearly" the better model from the player's perspective...I just don't see it.
With B2P and P2P games, you buy the game and maybe pay a sub fee and the world is your oyster. You can do anything in the game. Once you pay that fee, you are "in" the game. You don't have to worry about real world money anymore...the game is self contained (or at least it should be).
With an F2P game though....the entire game is designed around you spending money. Ohhh 10 item slots not enough? Well you can always buy more! Want a really good weapon to PvP with? $10 please! Grind getting you down? Buy some exp potions, we have a special!
Yes, you can probably play through a lot of the F2P game without spending anything, but you're basically having a poorer play experience than someone who paid.
I don't want to worry about buying the best play experience...I want to just buy the freaking game and have everything t has to offer.
What about option D that both pay to win AND grind to win are bad. I'll take skill/tactics to win any day.
It is quite possible to have a P2P or B2P game that has largely skill or tactics based combat. But an F2P game? The entire business model depends on things like P2W.
Then to me, it would not be a RPG and I would not be playing it. However, there are people that do not want RPGs - they want action/adventure/twitch gaming. For them, neither the F2P nor P2P models would likely make them happy.
Horizontal progression...look into it .
You can still have RPG progression without it giving you such ridiculous power advantage over other players so as to become pay/grind to win.
But it's not "sometimes" deceptive. Every single F2P game you can play for free.
Also you seem to have things mixed up on F2P vs. B2P:
B2P developers make money based on the appearance offun. Trailers, box art, advertising, hype, and the snippet of gameplay the trial offers as a biased glimpse into the gameplay.
F2P developers make money if players are havingfun. Not having fun? You're gone without paying a cent. You can even play for months without paying before making your choice.
P2P is a hybrid.
F2P is clearly the better model from the players' perspective. F2P games which are genuinely fun make absolutely ridiculous amounts of money, and also have the player's best interests in mind. It's win-win for developer and players alike.
I think I've laid out previously in this thread or perhaps another (yep, asleep at the keyboard right now) where I disagree with this - well, not so much a case of disagreeing with this directly; but rather a case of how I have laid out my thoughts on it.
To an extent, the gist of what you're saying would appear to be simple and obvious:
B2P do not get money until you buy the box. F2P do not get any money if you do not spend any. P2P possibly needs you to buy the box and then also needs you to spend additional money.
I disagree with how you outline the F2P model though in comparison to B2P.
F2P... the apperance of fun, then the taste of fun, and the offer of more fun if you buy.
Kind of like a drug dealer. They might give you your first for free - but the intent is to get you hooked. You're going to need to increase how much you buy to maintain - and even more - to get the better high.
I disagree that F2P is clearly the better model. Obviously it is going to be subjective. Some people feel it is P2P, some B2P, some F2P. Even there, the games are not that simply delineated. Any of them could have item shops and/or DLC. B2P and P2P could have paid expansions in addition to free content updates. So there are more than just three models. Even with F2P, there are Freemium models that include aspects of F2P, B2P, and P2P.
My personal preference is for a P2P game without paid expansions, DLC, or an item shop and a full time trial period. I get to try the game for a week without being limited (outside of things that might be abused by farmers) and if I buy the game, I know that I'm paying for the same opportunity for fun as anybody else - it's not a case that I'm paying more or less than the next guy.
What about option D that both pay to win AND grind to win are bad. I'll take skill/tactics to win any day.
It is quite possible to have a P2P or B2P game that has largely skill or tactics based combat. But an F2P game? The entire business model depends on things like P2W.
Then to me, it would not be a RPG and I would not be playing it. However, there are people that do not want RPGs - they want action/adventure/twitch gaming. For them, neither the F2P nor P2P models would likely make them happy.
Horizontal progression...look into it .
You can still have RPG progression without it giving you such ridiculous power advantage over other players so as to become pay/grind to win.
When somebody says skill/tactics in the sense that you did, twitch comes to mind. Player skill - not character skill. Thus the reply I offered. For level-less games that are character skill based (EVE), then the time investment comes into play - since that would have fit into your grind to win scenario - I obviously did not think you meant skills in that sense.
There is a difference between Action/Adventure and RPG. Action/Adventure games can have RPG elements, but it does not make it a RPG.
In a RPG, you do not take actions. You direct a character to take actions. I'm not swinging the sword. The guy I told to swing the sword is swinging it. While I may be more knowledgeable in knowing when my guy should swing that sword, typically on these forums when somebody mentions skill - they're talking about it as if they were the one swinging the sword. Whether they hit or miss is solely dependent on what they do - the character does not matter. In a RPG, the character very much does matter.
Horizontal progression means different things to different people...could you elaborate on what it means to you?
"You can also accelerate and enhance gameplay with items or premium packs from the L2 Store."
"While we will offer some gameplay acceleration or vanity items for purchase in the L2 Store that we hope you'll enjoy, buying them is completely optional."
"Q: Aren't there premium, VIP, or similar account types?
A: No, everyone plays for free, and we consider all of our players VIPs! If you are looking for additional gameplay benefits, some convenience items, vanity items, and premium packs are available for purchase in the L2 Store."
Generally speaking, outside of not being Freemium - it sounds like every other non-Freemium F2P game out there.
You can play for free. You can buy items to accelerate gameplay. You can buy items to enhance gameplay. You can buy benefits and convenience.
There is a difference between Action/Adventure and RPG. Action/Adventure games can have RPG elements, but it does not make it a RPG.
In a RPG, you do not take actions. You direct a character to take actions. I'm not swinging the sword. The guy I told to swing the sword is swinging it. While I may be more knowledgeable in knowing when my guy should swing that sword, typically on these forums when somebody mentions skill - they're talking about it as if they were the one swinging the sword. Whether they hit or miss is solely dependent on what they do - the character does not matter. In a RPG, the character very much does matter.
Horizontal progression means different things to different people...could you elaborate on what it means to you?
So are you defining an RPG by what type of game mechanics it has? That is just so wrong on so many levels.
Velika: City of Wheels: Among the mortal races, the humans were the only one that never built cities or great empires; a curse laid upon them by their creator, Gidd, forced them to wander as nomads for twenty centuries...
Comments
You can probably get away with playing for free in a game like Fiesta.
However, when we're talking about AAA games like EverQuest "Next", you can be nearly certain that you will be required to pay AT LEAST $15.00-$20.00 per month for the game to be playable, e.g., need to purchase ability to send private chat, need to purchase ability to hold more than 5 gold, need to purchase ability to be a ranger, need to purchase ability to craft elite items, need to purchase ability to have housing, need tp purchase the ability to ride a mount etc...
Eventually, this nickel & diming theme will start to piss people off. Then they will just start charging per hour or whatever, which would be fine for me, as I rarely have the time to play anyways.
Most videogames are bad.
Most of everything is bad.
Does this mean there is nothing good?
Why bother discussing the worst of something? Everyone agrees it sucks, so there isn't discussion to be had...
Nobody discusses what is obviously bad. Are there Alganon vs. Champions Online threads popping up all over? No, it's EVE vs. WOW (usually under the guise of sandbox vs. themepark and referring to the two most successful examples of each.)
So it's entirely relevant to discuss the best case F2P games -- in fact, they're all that matters!
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
F2p is well free t play the game at whatever rate you play at is free nothign there is hidden or misleading. You choosing to buy things to enhance the enjoyment of yoru game via content, items, or appeance is up to you as a choice not a mandated thing. Making it that you need to buy thigns to enhance the free portion of the game for more fun or advancement is not going against the f2p method as you could still play for free withn the confines of what was made for free for you to play in.
Your example of fat is innocuous, but replace fat with strychnine and all of a sudden it's less innocuous. I really would not want to use a "rounding" rule when dealing with my food.
Imagine if your pizza contains 0.45% strychnine, but no one was required to let you know because it rounds down to 0%.
Anyway, specifically with food, the FDA determines what can and cannot be rounded and what must be reported as is so there isn't a problem there.
There is no equivalent of the FDA for games though, so marketers can pretty much do whatever they want.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
You can look into the Consumer Protection Laws in your State if in the US.
F2P requires money for a game to exist. Cash shop is that answer. My biggest concern is when Cash Shop becomes a large driving force for 'power'. Its really difficult to balance since if a game has a cash shop that is near meaningless, no one will buy and the job can't remain running. Have it to cash shop dependant and suddenly your having a lot less people. Sure idiots will pay a lot for power, but you won't be making as much money. Its a real difficult push and pull fabric for F2P games.
I personally believe a game you enjoy playing, you should be more then willing to spend something towards it.
I think we're all beating a dead horse with our arguing about whether F2P is deceptive or not. I think we all can agree that sometimes it is deceptive, and sometimes it isn't. It depends on how the specific company markets their game.
So anyway...let's discuss another aspect of F2P that bothers me.
P2P and B2P games are designed with the goal of getting the player to buy the game and keep playing it. As such, the developers try to make a game that people really want to play. F2P games on the other hand, are designed with the goal of getting players to buy items in the CS.
F2P games must be designed so that people will WANT to purchase stuff from the CS. Many times CS items are things like exp potions that let you progress through the game faster. Since the devs want you to buy these potions, they HAVE to make the game pretty grindy otherwise no one will want to skip the grind. Same kind of thing with mounts...the devs have to make it so it's a pain to get around so you will buy a mount.
The point is that the devs must create a "need" that their CS items fulfill. And oftentimes this can make the game as a whole worse.
This, moreso than deceptive marketing, is why I hate F2P.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Ah one can only dream. That sounds like a wonderful concept.
Except the thing is most F2P games never really gave up the sub fee thing. I think the entire idea is to hopefully get you far enough along and get you hooked, so that when you run into the inevitable wall somewhere in the game you cant resist subbing.
I really think F2P is a lie. Its a bait and hook. To draw you into either one of two things or both. To get you to sub to the game, and / or to get you to buy from the cash shop. Plus, with the lovely "F2P" model, they can more than justify putting a big fat cash shop into the game that even subscribers have to tolerate.
F2P is generally just a limited (sometimes extremely limited) version of the game that you can sub too. And heck, it can get rather confusing for some people at times who even have subbed to the game to try and figure out what exactly they are supposed to receive upon subbing.
Meanwhile free players are trying to figure out if its better to just buy some "cheap" cash shop stuff and maybe for go subbing. There we go....got what I need. No need to sub now! Except then they hit some barrior in the game or wall. But they've already spent money! Gosh. Guess they better sub now or they just wasted all that money in the cash shop they spent a week ago.
Its just a mess. Now some might laugh at me but please just give me Buy to Play. Let me buy the game, which I feel at least entitles me to something without limitations, and I'll buy content as you release it. No walls, no barriars, no limits. Not on what I originally purchased at all. And the new stuff if its worthy, I'll buy. If not I'll pass and keep playing anyways.
But yes, Id have to agree with the OP. F2P is a lie. Its free bait. To get you to pay money. And probably eventually start subbing. Which brings you back to square one anyways.
The big problem I have with free to play games is:
There is usually a huge gap between people who pay an obscene amount of money and people who pay a reasonable amount of money.
If every contest is going to be won by someone who spent $1,000+ on a "free" game and every ranking beit pvp or pve is also being won by people who spent $1,000+ on it then people who spend $30 per month (more than any of the subscription games) and then find themselves very much unable to compete at that spending level become disillusioned and leave.
I dont like that level of pay to win. Personally I think a lot of the games would do better if there were lowish (say $30) spending limits per month -- at least on some servers -- say they had a server with a $30 per month spending limit that it cost $5 to roll a character on (which you would keep in whatever ingame dollar currency is) -- in essence the server would not have anyone who didnt at least spend a tiny bit on the game and nobody could get the huge advantage that spending a mint gets you in many games.
Did you buy a box?
Are you paying a sub?
Did you pay 60 bucks plus 15 dollars a month to play LotRO?
No.
The software is free, but you have to pay for content eventually.
There isn't any strings attatched to this model. LotRO in particular is a great example of the fact that you can pay only for what you feel is important and progress. I've been playing since about a month after F2P launched and I've spent 60 bucks and that includes content all the way to the end of the Isengard expansion.
Guild Wars is the only other game that allows you to get that much content for a similar price.
I used to play MMOs like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee.
This aspect of F2P has been brought up a few times. Yep, obviously the F2P games must be designed in a manner in which you are more likely to purchase items from the cash shop. The cash shop is their only source of revenue (in the strictly F2P game, Freemium games have several sources of income and are not as directly reliant on the cash shop).
In a similar fashion, B2P games are also designed based on the model. In order for them to generate the greatest profit, you need to play the least. The more you play, the more you cost - meanwhile - what you paid is in the past. Generally speaking, that is. In a sense though, it could also be considered a model similar to Social Security. The people that buy the game after you, are paying for you. The people that come after them, are paying for them. Still though, the hope is you leave...because you, yourself - are not generating revenue. That is where we'll often see paid expansions, DLC,and even some form of item shop/web store introduced to a B2P - to generate additional revenue.
And likewise, the P2P games are not far off from the F2P games. F2P games want you to buy from the cash shop. P2P games want you to subscribe. They do not want you to finish in your free month. They want you to play for months and months and months - to be a continued source of revenue. Still, even they will often have paid expansions, DLC, and have introduced item shops/web stores.
I cannot remember who said it, but I thought it was kind of funny and I'd like to add to what they said:
Basically, P2P players pay to grind. F2P players pay to avoid the grind.
The curious thing about this comes down to two of the sides involved in the discussion (there most definitely are more than two):
There are those that believe that somebody should not be able to pay to get an advantage. They should put their time in the game like everybody else.
There are those that counter that with the following:
By playing the game longer, you have paid longer, and thus you actually have paid to win.
The person with more time should not have the advantage over the person with less time (basically a variation of the person with more money should not have the advantage over the person with less money).
They value their time far more that how little money they spend (a person making $20-30+ an hour may not view their time nor their money in the same light as somebody making $8 an hour).
But it's not "sometimes" deceptive. Every single F2P game you can play for free.
Also you seem to have things mixed up on F2P vs. B2P:
B2P developers make money based on the appearance of fun. Trailers, box art, advertising, hype, and the snippet of gameplay the trial offers as a biased glimpse into the gameplay.
F2P developers make money if players are having fun. Not having fun? You're gone without paying a cent. You can even play for months without paying before making your choice.
P2P is a hybrid.
F2P is clearly the better model from the players' perspective. F2P games which are genuinely fun make absolutely ridiculous amounts of money, and also have the player's best interests in mind. It's win-win for developer and players alike.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The curious thing about this comes down to two of the sides involved in the discussion (there most definitely are more than two):
There are those that believe that somebody should not be able to pay to get an advantage. They should put their time in the game like everybody else.
There are those that counter that with the following:
By playing the game longer, you have paid longer, and thus you actually have paid to win.
The person with more time should not have the advantage over the person with less time (basically a variation of the person with more money should not have the advantage over the person with less money).
They value their time far more that how little money they spend (a person making $20-30+ an hour may not view their time nor their money in the same light as somebody making $8 an hour).
What about option D that both pay to win AND grind to win are bad. I'll take skill/tactics to win any day.It is quite possible to have a P2P or B2P game that has largely skill or tactics based combat. But an F2P game? The entire business model depends on things like P2W.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Then to me, it would not be a RPG and I would not be playing it. However, there are people that do not want RPGs - they want action/adventure/twitch gaming. For them, neither the F2P nor P2P models would likely make them happy.
it's a hard balance to strike.
f2p companies are getting people to try their game, because it's free. but naturally the idea behind their game is that it's a business and they need people spending money. Sooooo, after they told you their game is free, they are trying to sell you something. this doesnt make them bad, or liars, it just means that, hey, they'd like their game to make money. Of course, if they put too much awesome buffage, etc into the cash shop, then LESS people will play their game because it's imbalanced towards mr moneypants who just bought 6 hundred bucks worth of ownage pots with gool ol' mum's cretit card.
my personal opinon of the ideal system would be a "f2p" system with 2 caveats:
1) there must be an option to buy your way out of having to use the damn shop (EX: LOTRO and DDO giving you the option to just flat-out sub to their game) (imagine how great atlantica would be if they had a flat 15 a month fee instead of having to rely on ye olde NX lotto boxes)
2) the cash shop sells items like character slots, bag space, auction space -IE things beyond just appearance, but with no imbalancing effects on playing the game (all of which would be nice one-time per character purchases for a f2p player)
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Dwight D Eisenhower
My optimism wears heavy boots and is loud.
Henry Rollins
Go play any Aeria game and try to get your hands on a SINGLE rare-ish item from one of their "lucky boxes".
Congratulations, you've just spent the equivalent of a one year sub of your typical p2p MMO.
Actually (especially in pvp games where playing 8 hours vs someone playing 3 hours per day could be lethal rapidly) I think another type of server could also be useful.
A time phased server....
Lets say you had a server where it had one set of characters on it from midnight to 3am. One set from 4am to 7am. One set from 8am to 11am. One from 12 noon to 3pm. Another from 4pm to 7pm. And a final one from 8pm to 11pm.
At the end of each period it would reset with the character set from the next time period and then come up at the beginning of the next period.
So the server above would have 6 sets of characters on it and you could play a set for only a specific 3 hour period per day.
This would equalize the time issue generally.
----
As for your statement of fairness unfairness for the $30 cap. Well, I like to be competative and while yes I could spend $1,000 on an mmorpg, I really do NOT want to. It would have to be one insane game. But for every pay to win game out there, there is SOMEONE willing to dump TONS of cash to be the best.
Plus it is just to easy to just ease into spending way too much...
But the best part of a spending cap server is that you could have a wide variety of cash shop items -- and it would BALANCE ITSELF... You could only have X amount of things.... So someone might have the speed increase while someone else would have the armor bonus and you couldnt have both.
But it's not "sometimes" deceptive. Every single F2P game you can play for free.
Also you seem to have things mixed up on F2P vs. B2P:
B2P developers make money based on the appearance of fun. Trailers, box art, advertising, hype, and the snippet of gameplay the trial offers as a biased glimpse into the gameplay.
F2P developers make money if players are having fun. Not having fun? You're gone without paying a cent. You can even play for months without paying before making your choice.
P2P is a hybrid.
F2P is clearly the better model from the players' perspective. F2P games which are genuinely fun make absolutely ridiculous amounts of money, and also have the player's best interests in mind. It's win-win for developer and players alike.
Yes....B2P games only have to have the appearance of being good. If only we had some kind of industry devoted to professionally reviewing these games to let us know which ones are good or bad....oh wait. As for F2P being "clearly" the better model from the player's perspective...I just don't see it. With B2P and P2P games, you buy the game and maybe pay a sub fee and the world is your oyster. You can do anything in the game. Once you pay that fee, you are "in" the game. You don't have to worry about real world money anymore...the game is self contained (or at least it should be). With an F2P game though....the entire game is designed around you spending money. Ohhh 10 item slots not enough? Well you can always buy more! Want a really good weapon to PvP with? $10 please! Grind getting you down? Buy some exp potions, we have a special! Yes, you can probably play through a lot of the F2P game without spending anything, but you're basically having a poorer play experience than someone who paid. I don't want to worry about buying the best play experience...I want to just buy the freaking game and have everything t has to offer.Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
What about option D that both pay to win AND grind to win are bad. I'll take skill/tactics to win any day.It is quite possible to have a P2P or B2P game that has largely skill or tactics based combat. But an F2P game? The entire business model depends on things like P2W.
Then to me, it would not be a RPG and I would not be playing it. However, there are people that do not want RPGs - they want action/adventure/twitch gaming. For them, neither the F2P nor P2P models would likely make them happy.
Horizontal progression...look into itAre you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I think I've laid out previously in this thread or perhaps another (yep, asleep at the keyboard right now) where I disagree with this - well, not so much a case of disagreeing with this directly; but rather a case of how I have laid out my thoughts on it.
To an extent, the gist of what you're saying would appear to be simple and obvious:
B2P do not get money until you buy the box. F2P do not get any money if you do not spend any. P2P possibly needs you to buy the box and then also needs you to spend additional money.
I disagree with how you outline the F2P model though in comparison to B2P.
F2P... the apperance of fun, then the taste of fun, and the offer of more fun if you buy.
Kind of like a drug dealer. They might give you your first for free - but the intent is to get you hooked. You're going to need to increase how much you buy to maintain - and even more - to get the better high.
I disagree that F2P is clearly the better model. Obviously it is going to be subjective. Some people feel it is P2P, some B2P, some F2P. Even there, the games are not that simply delineated. Any of them could have item shops and/or DLC. B2P and P2P could have paid expansions in addition to free content updates. So there are more than just three models. Even with F2P, there are Freemium models that include aspects of F2P, B2P, and P2P.
My personal preference is for a P2P game without paid expansions, DLC, or an item shop and a full time trial period. I get to try the game for a week without being limited (outside of things that might be abused by farmers) and if I buy the game, I know that I'm paying for the same opportunity for fun as anybody else - it's not a case that I'm paying more or less than the next guy.
When somebody says skill/tactics in the sense that you did, twitch comes to mind. Player skill - not character skill. Thus the reply I offered. For level-less games that are character skill based (EVE), then the time investment comes into play - since that would have fit into your grind to win scenario - I obviously did not think you meant skills in that sense.
There is a difference between Action/Adventure and RPG. Action/Adventure games can have RPG elements, but it does not make it a RPG.
In a RPG, you do not take actions. You direct a character to take actions. I'm not swinging the sword. The guy I told to swing the sword is swinging it. While I may be more knowledgeable in knowing when my guy should swing that sword, typically on these forums when somebody mentions skill - they're talking about it as if they were the one swinging the sword. Whether they hit or miss is solely dependent on what they do - the character does not matter. In a RPG, the character very much does matter.
Horizontal progression means different things to different people...could you elaborate on what it means to you?
breaking the rant chain.
has anyone read this yet . http://www.lineage2.com/gd/play-your-way.html this one honestly looks like its going to be a true F2P.
nothing to lose in reading it
"You can also accelerate and enhance gameplay with items or premium packs from the L2 Store."
"While we will offer some gameplay acceleration or vanity items for purchase in the L2 Store that we hope you'll enjoy, buying them is completely optional."
"Q: Aren't there premium, VIP, or similar account types?
A: No, everyone plays for free, and we consider all of our players VIPs! If you are looking for additional gameplay benefits, some convenience items, vanity items, and premium packs are available for purchase in the L2 Store."
Generally speaking, outside of not being Freemium - it sounds like every other non-Freemium F2P game out there.
You can play for free. You can buy items to accelerate gameplay. You can buy items to enhance gameplay. You can buy benefits and convenience.
So are you defining an RPG by what type of game mechanics it has? That is just so wrong on so many levels.
Velika: City of Wheels: Among the mortal races, the humans were the only one that never built cities or great empires; a curse laid upon them by their creator, Gidd, forced them to wander as nomads for twenty centuries...