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.
How on Earth is it wrong? Action games have certain mechanics and features. Adventure games have certain mechanics and features. FPS games. RTS games. Etc, etc, etc. There is a reason people talk about game genres (movie genres, song genres, book genres)... because, um... that is how it is done.
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.
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.
Er...did you just imply that game reviewers are a clear and true barometer of game quality?
Your second sentence is true of every single payment model except Completely Free Games, so it's not really relevant to the discussion.
Your third sentence is exactly what P2P and especially B2P companies love -- a customer who will only scrutinize the outside sheen of the product and not be able to judge the true worth. That makes their job easier: they don't have to please you, they only have to please the reviewers and have big advertising budgets*.
* Some conspiratorially argue that this is one and the same as pleasing the reviewers. Personally I think it's more that they're just random dudes with opinions and some writing skill (making their reviews a very dubious barometer of whether I'm going to like a game or not; opinions and assholes, after all.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
So all those days I played games with a PnP + dice with my friends were not RPG's ?
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...
So all those days I played games with a PnP + dice with my friends were not RPG's ?
I'm not sure that you read what I said, if you are asking this.
PnP RPG... I have a character sheet representing my character. I direct him to take certain actions. I roll dice to see if they succeed. I'm directing the character.
It is not a case that I'm outside with friends, no character sheets - no dice - etc, and we're swinging sticks around pretending we're Robin Hood, King Arthur, or the like.
How on Earth is it wrong? Action games have certain mechanics and features. Adventure games have certain mechanics and features. FPS games. RTS games. Etc, etc, etc. There is a reason people talk about game genres (movie genres, song genres, book genres)... because, um... that is how it is done.
By your definition Elder scrolls is not an RPG.
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...
Okay my PERSONAL view on lineage2 too... I like the free2play model.
But f2p differs from f2p.
There are f2p games like perfectworld entertainment ones where you need to buy cash shop items to enchant your gear or similar, there are even f2p/freemium games like LoTRO where you can only play questchains/content when you buy them.
Which should be advertised like that in beforehand so you (the user) can decide if you want it or not.
What I know is that ncsoft never lied in all my years of being user of their games. (GW and also for a period of time AION).
So if they say it's free I will believe them until someone/something proves me wrong.
And I hope that cash shop will only include items like double exp buff for a week (month) or whatever and cool looking mounts or weird weaponskins to reskin your weapons with. So items that are cool for the ones with money but you dont need them to be better in game just to reach endgame faster or look cooler which is NOT REALLY NEEDED.
I disagree that F2P is clearly the better model. Obviously it is going to be subjective.
It's definitely subjective if you see the underlying motivating factors (ie what it takes for devs to make money off a pay model,) and choose the model which runs on fun perception (rather than actual fun.)
The main argument from your side of the fence that holds merit is that (a) very few F2P MMORPGs have well-designed item shops, and (b) the ones that do tend to not have the best gameplay.
So "yes that's why F2P is better -- in theory" is actually a pretty reasonable counterargument to my points.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
How on Earth is it wrong? Action games have certain mechanics and features. Adventure games have certain mechanics and features. FPS games. RTS games. Etc, etc, etc. There is a reason people talk about game genres (movie genres, song genres, book genres)... because, um... that is how it is done.
By your definition Elder scrolls is not an RPG.
Having RPG elements does not make a game a RPG.
A bicycle has wheels. A car has wheels. A car is not a bicycle.
How on Earth is it wrong? Action games have certain mechanics and features. Adventure games have certain mechanics and features. FPS games. RTS games. Etc, etc, etc. There is a reason people talk about game genres (movie genres, song genres, book genres)... because, um... that is how it is done.
By your definition Elder scrolls is not an RPG.
Having RPG elements does not make a game a RPG.
A bicycle has wheels. A car has wheels. A car is not a bicycle.
Evolution of transportation....
Evolution of PRG's.....
~see the pattern~
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...
How on Earth is it wrong? Action games have certain mechanics and features. Adventure games have certain mechanics and features. FPS games. RTS games. Etc, etc, etc. There is a reason people talk about game genres (movie genres, song genres, book genres)... because, um... that is how it is done.
By your definition Elder scrolls is not an RPG.
Having RPG elements does not make a game a RPG.
A bicycle has wheels. A car has wheels. A car is not a bicycle.
Evolution of transportation....
Evolution of PRG's.....
~see the pattern~
The bicycle is still a bicycle. It never becomes a car.
Games can evolve. RPGs can evolve. If they evolve to the point that they are no longer a RPG, then they are something new.
Transportation may have evolved - so there was the additional option of a car; much like the bicycle provided an option over the horse (and the car over the horse as well) - but the horse is still a horse, the bicycle is still a bicycle, and the car is still a car.
If you're the one determing whether or not an attack hit - instead of the character - then you're no longer playing the character, are you?
The bicycle is still a bicycle. It never becomes a car.
Games can evolve. RPGs can evolve. If they evolve to the point that they are no longer a RPG, then they are something new.
Transportation may have evolved - so there was the additional option of a car; much like the bicycle provided an option over the horse (and the car over the horse as well) - but the horse is still a horse, the bicycle is still a bicycle, and the car is still a car.
If you're the one determing whether or not an attack hit - instead of the character - then you're no longer playing the character, are you?
It's not nearly as cut-and-dried as this. A combat system in and of itself does not define or exclude a game as an RPG. Take The elder scrolls series for example. While your twitch skill and actions do determine whether you hit or not, it does not determine the overall damage you will deliver, or the mitigation of what your hitting defends against that hit. All of this is handled on the backend based on RPG based systems.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I disagree that F2P is clearly the better model. Obviously it is going to be subjective.
It's definitely subjective if you see the underlying motivating factors (ie what it takes for devs to make money off a pay model,) and choose the model which runs on fun perception (rather than actual fun.)
The main argument from your side of the fence that holds merit is that (a) very few F2P MMORPGs have well-designed item shops, and (b) the ones that do tend to not have the best gameplay.
So "yes that's why F2P is better -- in theory" is actually a pretty reasonable counterargument to my points.
Fun itself is subjective though. What I find to be fun, the next guy might not. What he finds to be fun, I might not.
Fun is obviously perceived. It is not concrete.
The better terminology, imo, for the argument would be the "promise of fun" in this regard.
B2P makes the promise of fun.
P2P makes the promise of continued fun.
F2P makes the promise of more fun being available.
With the B2P game, you buy it based on that promise. If you feel that promise was broken, you're likely not to buy into that promise from the company the next time. So they'll try to keep the promise - unless it's an outright moneygrab scam.
With the P2P game, you buy it based on that promise. Once again, if you feel that promise was broken - you're going to react like the B2P game. Above and beyond that, though - they've promised continued fun if you subscribe. So if you had fun, you're going to subscribe for the next month. Here, there is the issue of the promise not being broken - but the player just realizing they tired of the game - they part on good terms . . . or . . . the promise could again be broken, and the reaction would be the same as the initial one from the B2P example.
With the F2P game, there is no initial purchase. There is no initial buyer's remorse.
No doubt that is a key difference between a B2P game and a P2P game where you have to either buy the game or you get the game free with your first month's sub - with those, you're out of pocket. That being said though, there are demos, betas, and trials. You have a means to avoid some of that possible buyer's remorse. But back to the F2P game, you can walk away without spending a dime.
Yet, it is not a promise of fun. It is not a promise of continued fun. It is a promise of more fun being available. You may be having fun playing for free - but there is more fun to be had if you spend a little money - but it is possible to have fun faster if you spend a little money. It is the promise of more fun being available than what you are having - if you spend a little money.
Still, I mentioned demos, betas, and trials. Are not those promises of more fun being available? Are those not the case of them being interactive advertisements for the games in the hopes that you will buy the game?
Most definitely....but they're honest about that fact. They're upfront about that fact. Nobody's running around complaining that demos, betas, and trials are a bad thing. That honesty is better for the player.
For the developer - well, what's best is whatever they can do to maintain some form of revenue stream that earns them a profit the longest.
It is cheaper to put out a F2P game than a B2P game. It is cheaper to put out a B2P game than a P2P game. Generally speaking - obviously there have been games that did not fit this mold.
Say I wanted to make a game. P2P is not going to be an option for me. I simply do not have the resources for that. Could I make a B2P game? Sure - perhaps an XNA Indie. It would be tough for me to get a game on Sream. Perhaps I could sell it directly from my site? Maybe I could do an iOS, Android, or Windows 7 Phone game? I could do one of those $5-10 bargain game things. Or . . . I could make a F2P game, put in an item shop - expand the game as my revenue increases.
The bicycle is still a bicycle. It never becomes a car.
Games can evolve. RPGs can evolve. If they evolve to the point that they are no longer a RPG, then they are something new.
Transportation may have evolved - so there was the additional option of a car; much like the bicycle provided an option over the horse (and the car over the horse as well) - but the horse is still a horse, the bicycle is still a bicycle, and the car is still a car.
If you're the one determing whether or not an attack hit - instead of the character - then you're no longer playing the character, are you?
It's not nearly as cut-and-dried as this. A combat system in and of itself does not define or exclude a game as an RPG. Take The elder scrolls series for example. While your twitch skill and actions do determine whether you hit or not, it does not determine the overall damage you will deliver, or the mitigation of what your hitting defends against that hit. All of this is handled on the backend based on RPG based systems.
For me, it is that cut and dry. If I determine the hit instead of the character or the game system, then I'm no longer playing the character. I've seen discussions about hybrid systems - I've even suggested them - those combinations of twitch and character. You direct the character's actions in a more action orientated manner, but the character could still miss - even if you think you should have hit. Hell, it's what DDO uses - a combination system. Yet since the actual hit depends on the character and the system, it is still a RPG. If it's all me...then in my opinion, it is not - because the system has been removed.
It is odd that people continue to mention Elder Scrolls, as if ignoring the development of arena. It was a fantasy FPS that added RPG elements. Compare that to The Bard's Tale, Pool of Radiance, Baldur's Gate, etc...
Some might call it a Action RPG - an Adventure game, etc. Different people have different definitions of what a RPG is. For me, if you're determining hit instead of the system - it's an action game, an adventure game, a FPS, etc, etc, etc.
I disagree that F2P is clearly the better model. Obviously it is going to be subjective.
It's definitely subjective if you see the underlying motivating factors (ie what it takes for devs to make money off a pay model,) and choose the model which runs on fun perception (rather than actual fun.)
The main argument from your side of the fence that holds merit is that (a) very few F2P MMORPGs have well-designed item shops, and (b) the ones that do tend to not have the best gameplay.
So "yes that's why F2P is better -- in theory" is actually a pretty reasonable counterargument to my points.
Fun itself is subjective though. What I find to be fun, the next guy might not. What he finds to be fun, I might not.
Fun is obviously perceived. It is not concrete.
The better terminology, imo, for the argument would be the "promise of fun" in this regard.
B2P makes the promise of fun.
P2P makes the promise of continued fun.
F2P makes the promise of more fun being available.
With the B2P game, you buy it based on that promise. If you feel that promise was broken, you're likely not to buy into that promise from the company the next time. So they'll try to keep the promise - unless it's an outright moneygrab scam.
With the P2P game, you buy it based on that promise. Once again, if you feel that promise was broken - you're going to react like the B2P game. Above and beyond that, though - they've promised continued fun if you subscribe. So if you had fun, you're going to subscribe for the next month. Here, there is the issue of the promise not being broken - but the player just realizing they tired of the game - they part on good terms . . . or . . . the promise could again be broken, and the reaction would be the same as the initial one from the B2P example.
With the F2P game, there is no initial purchase. There is no initial buyer's remorse.
No doubt that is a key difference between a B2P game and a P2P game where you have to either buy the game or you get the game free with your first month's sub - with those, you're out of pocket. That being said though, there are demos, betas, and trials. You have a means to avoid some of that possible buyer's remorse. But back to the F2P game, you can walk away without spending a dime.
Yet, it is not a promise of fun. It is not a promise of continued fun. It is a promise of more fun being available. You may be having fun playing for free - but there is more fun to be had if you spend a little money - but it is possible to have fun faster if you spend a little money. It is the promise of more fun being available than what you are having - if you spend a little money.
Still, I mentioned demos, betas, and trials. Are not those promises of more fun being available? Are those not the case of them being interactive advertisements for the games in the hopes that you will buy the game?
Most definitely....but they're honest about that fact. They're upfront about that fact. Nobody's running around complaining that demos, betas, and trials are a bad thing. That honesty is better for the player.
For the developer - well, what's best is whatever they can do to maintain some form of revenue stream that earns them a profit the longest.
It is cheaper to put out a F2P game than a B2P game. It is cheaper to put out a B2P game than a P2P game. Generally speaking - obviously there have been games that did not fit this mold.
Say I wanted to make a game. P2P is not going to be an option for me. I simply do not have the resources for that. Could I make a B2P game? Sure - perhaps an XNA Indie. It would be tough for me to get a game on Sream. Perhaps I could sell it directly from my site? Maybe I could do an iOS, Android, or Windows 7 Phone game? I could do one of those $5-10 bargain game things. Or . . . I could make a F2P game, put in an item shop - expand the game as my revenue increases.
Again, gaining fun by paying is a trait shared by all 3 payment methods and is inconsequential to the discussion.
Demos, betas, trials, and F2P gameplay are not "promises" of fun. They either are fun or aren't fun. "Promises" would be things you can't experience but the game hints at. "Promise" is a screenshot. It's a scrap of information hinting at gameplay and forcing you to guess whether you'd enjoy it.
You may discover some promises during these forms of gameplay, but the gameplay you're experiencing isn't a promise -- it's gameplay. You will either like it, or not.
I feel that overall F2P games offer more of a comprehensive experience of what the game is all about, than trials or demos (betas are beefier, so they're really not very different from F2P.)
In that regard, F2P games are more honest about the transaction -- you know as much about the game as you want to before you're obligated to pay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Again, gaining fun by paying is a trait shared by all 3 payment methods and is inconsequential to the discussion.
Demos, betas, trials, and F2P gameplay are not "promises" of fun. They either are fun or aren't fun. "Promises" would be things you can't experience but the game hints at. "Promise" is a screenshot. It's a scrap of information hinting at gameplay and forcing you to guess whether you'd enjoy it.
You may discover some promises during these forms of gameplay, but the gameplay you're experiencing isn't a promise -- it's gameplay. You will either like it, or not.
I feel that overall F2P games offer more of a comprehensive experience of what the game is all about, than trials or demos (betas are beefier, so they're really not very different from F2P.)
In that regard, F2P games are more honest about the transaction -- you know as much about the game as you want to before you're obligated to pay.
But it is not inconsequential to the discussion. How could it be?
"gaining fun by paying is a trait shared by all 3 payment methods"
B2P - buy (paying)
P2P - pay (paying)
F2P - free (not paying)
It is at the very core of the majority of discussions on the F2P model and where the discussion of lying, deceiving, and dishonesty comes into play.
The B2P model tells you that you are going to be paying. The P2P model tells you that you are going to be paying. The F2P model tells you that you are not going to be paying.
So if gaining fun by paying is a common trait, then one of the three models is a lying.
I did not say that demos, trials, betas, nor F2P were "promises" of fun. I said they were "promises of more fun" to be had.
Again, B2P promises there will be fun. Like you said (and like I said), you will either experience fun or you will not. P2P promises there will be continued fun. Like you said (and like I said), you will either experience fun or you will not.
Demos, trials, betas, and F2P games offer a "promise of more fun" - if you're having fun now, you can have more fun...but it's going to cost.
Obviously from a strictly financial point of view, the F2P game offers you a better chance to experience the game without having spent anything like you would have with B2P or P2P.
You say that the F2P game offers you the better chance to see what the game is like. I disagree though. I do so based off of some of the Freemium games out there. You experience a limited version of the game. You can buy yourself up to normal, but what you are experiencing is not actually the game. Either you're looking at limited chat, slower gains, higher costs, etc. It is not a case that the free is base and Premium/VIP members get faster than base, cheaper than base. You're literally handicapped as free.
Again, going back to what I said earlier in this post and my paragraph above I simply cannot consider it being honest.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
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.
I have to disagree with you there. F2P = free to play, not free to play the whole game just like a paying costumer would. That is something someone could read into it, but it's not what it says. F2P games will make it more and more appealing to pay for certain things, be it bank slots, booster this or that, a mount and what not, by making the game more and more tedious without you paying for anything. You can do it, it might get a bit hard, but you can do it.
It looks like you're talking about Freemium games like Lotro where you have to pay to unlock content. Many F2P games are not like that at all. Many are entirely possible to play through without paying a dime, whether you'll want to is another matter.
You are correct, free to play is the future of MMOS, but your concerns are too far past the basic premise.
Free to play.
You own your account, you don't need to subscribe, nor rent your access to your account, you own it, it's free. Anytime you want to log into the game, you can...free.....and play.
Beyond that, well that's up to each individual developer to entice you to stay. Each individual company is also going to want to make a profit, so there will be ways they will have to entice you to support the game.
You say that the F2P game offers you the better chance to see what the game is like. I disagree though. I do so based off of some of the Freemium games out there. You experience a limited version of the game. You can buy yourself up to normal, but what you are experiencing is not actually the game. Either you're looking at limited chat, slower gains, higher costs, etc. It is not a case that the free is base and Premium/VIP members get faster than base, cheaper than base. You're literally handicapped as free.
You're talking about limited versions of the exact same features.
In WOW you cannot guess how fun WotLK's zones will be.
In a F2P you can guess exactly what +10 bag slots will do, exactly what +20% XP will do, and exactly what improved chat will do. You've experienced these features, and paying is only incrementing them in easily understood ways. Only a few features like class unlocks are total unknown guesses.
So yes, you usually do have a much better idea of how paying will increase fun.
In a well-designed F2P system like League of Legends, you basically know exactly how everything will play, except you'll only have a limited amount of info on whatever champions you haven't bought yet (you still get to play against them, but until you play them personally you won't know exactly how fun they are.) A well-designed MMORPG F2P system with class unlocks is basically identical to this; some playstyles are free, others cost money, but the core gameplay is completely understood and you play alongside free classes so you get at least a little sense of how fun they might be.
Admittedly things like +10 bag slots (and to a much lesser degree, +20% xp) are actually not ideal F2P design because they're pretty much outright gameplay advantages. The best F2P systems offer playstyles and content for sale, they don't deprive gameplay of it's usual challenge by letting you pay through it.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If someone wants to pay for +20% exp, bless his heart and pockets, I'm perfectly fine with that, if that allows me to play for free. That's not much of an advantage, it's just a small speed-up. I'm okay with that.
What are developers supposed to do? Make a game free to play with no Cash Shop? How would they make any money? Humans in general do not do things for free. A man's gotta eat, as they say. The Online Gaming industry is a business like any other, the sooner you realize this, the sooner you can start adequately functioning in society. Which, based on this thread, I am assuming you currently do not.
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, [..]
i stopped right there. *scratchhead
well i just drop the game if it cannot deliver fun for its free part.
the game cost me nothing , AoC for example is loads of content to play before you hit a wall (i guess)
i guess for some people the fun in games is to be top notch and everything below that is plain lame.
Right now, F2P is making a comeback after the rise of P2P. There was a time that P2P delivered, but now that no longer is the case. The MMORPG's that use the P2P model actually have shifted their money making to micro transactions not subs, so even the P2P games have micro transactions now.
If I had a choice of playing a P2P with micro transactions versus a F2P with micro transactions, I am choosing F2P. But fun determines what I play ultiamately.
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?
By horizontal progression, I mean that you still get rewards for doing things (progression) but these rewards don't make you directly more powerful. Instead, they open up options. GW1 is a good example of this. You can get max level in that game in maybe 2 days...it really doesn't mean much. After getting max level however, the progression becomes about unlocking skills. And since you can only have 8 skills at once, unlocking more does not make you directly more powerful...it just gives you more options.
Also...about twitch. Like it or not, twitch plays a large part in almost every major MMORPG. Especially with certain classes (rogue). Unless a game is completely turn based, there will be an element of twitch. Some folks here think twitch is a dirty word, but I think that's kind of ridiculous.
WoW is twitch, Rift is twitch, WAR is twitch. Especially in PvP.
IMO, PvP in MMORPGs should largely be about:
1. Teamwork
2. Tactics
3. Player skill (twitch and decision making)
4. Character build choices (what skills you chose, character talents, gear choices, etc)
I don't like the idea that "time/money invested" is a deciding factor in PvP, and I don't think it's necessary to have that in order for the game to remain an MMORPG. You can still have progression without having it completely compromise any competitiveness in PvP.
Most of the F2P games I've played in the past year, I've never felt like I had to pay to compete. Sometimes I'd feel like I wanted access to some content and I would pay. And during EQ 2's double exp week after their hack, I splurged on some Experience Potions to try to get the most out of it. But In general your generally pretty competitive without spending much, and even when your buying content packs and such, it's cheaper than a subscription so long as you aren't going crazy on experience potions or such.
You say that the F2P game offers you the better chance to see what the game is like. I disagree though. I do so based off of some of the Freemium games out there. You experience a limited version of the game. You can buy yourself up to normal, but what you are experiencing is not actually the game. Either you're looking at limited chat, slower gains, higher costs, etc. It is not a case that the free is base and Premium/VIP members get faster than base, cheaper than base. You're literally handicapped as free.
You're talking about limited versions of the exact same features.
In WOW you cannot guess how fun WotLK's zones will be.
In a F2P you can guess exactly what +10 bag slots will do, exactly what +20% XP will do, and exactly what improved chat will do. You've experienced these features, and paying is only incrementing them in easily understood ways. Only a few features like class unlocks are total unknown guesses.
So yes, you usually do have a much better idea of how paying will increase fun.
In a well-designed F2P system like League of Legends, you basically know exactly how everything will play, except you'll only have a limited amount of info on whatever champions you haven't bought yet (you still get to play against them, but until you play them personally you won't know exactly how fun they are.) A well-designed MMORPG F2P system with class unlocks is basically identical to this; some playstyles are free, others cost money, but the core gameplay is completely understood and you play alongside free classes so you get at least a little sense of how fun they might be.
Admittedly things like +10 bag slots (and to a much lesser degree, +20% xp) are actually not ideal F2P design because they're pretty much outright gameplay advantages. The best F2P systems offer playstyles and content for sale, they don't deprive gameplay of it's usual challenge by letting you pay through it.
The formula's not quite that simple. I was going with the Fallen Earth matrix in particular for that example (it was the most recent matrix I had looked at).
It's not a case of guessing exactly what not having -25% XP gain would be. You're penalized in 7 areas. That formula is a little more complex. You know that you're being penalized. If you subscribe, you're not. You don't actually know that it is better - because you do not know what it is.
Um, excuse me if I'm wrong here - but LoL is not a MMORPG. What bearing does that have on a discussion of F2P MMORPGs? It would be like me saying that Bejeweled 2 is free to play at PopCap...
You "best" F2P system sounds like a modified version of the B2P + DLC model. You're eliminating the initial buying part, but additional classes, races, and content that did not "ship" with the game could be purchased.
I haven't seen a F2P MMORPG that does that. They have the items in their shops which you call not ideal design.
I've said in a few threads, that I see two models as "best" - yes, best is in my opinion. They reflect my PnP RPG nature.
B2P + DLC: this is akin to buying the core book - then buying the expansion books and additional adventure modules.
P2P w/o paid expansions: this would be akin to buying a subscription to those books, you buy the core book - and then as part of your subscription; you receive the expansion books and adventure modules as they come out.
The first option suits players that want to pick and choose which additional "books" they get - while the second option suits players that want all the "books" that come out.
While there may have been free "lite" or "starter" versions of the core rules put out, to get the most out of it - you had to buy the full blown "core" rules. I see this much like a demo or trial.
There are examples of both of these - EVE and GW/GW2 to an extent.
What is the F2P MMORPG that has your model?
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Comments
How on Earth is it wrong? Action games have certain mechanics and features. Adventure games have certain mechanics and features. FPS games. RTS games. Etc, etc, etc. There is a reason people talk about game genres (movie genres, song genres, book genres)... because, um... that is how it is done.
Er...did you just imply that game reviewers are a clear and true barometer of game quality?
Your second sentence is true of every single payment model except Completely Free Games, so it's not really relevant to the discussion.
Your third sentence is exactly what P2P and especially B2P companies love -- a customer who will only scrutinize the outside sheen of the product and not be able to judge the true worth. That makes their job easier: they don't have to please you, they only have to please the reviewers and have big advertising budgets*.
* Some conspiratorially argue that this is one and the same as pleasing the reviewers. Personally I think it's more that they're just random dudes with opinions and some writing skill (making their reviews a very dubious barometer of whether I'm going to like a game or not; opinions and assholes, after all.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
So all those days I played games with a PnP + dice with my friends were not RPG's ?
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...
I'm not sure that you read what I said, if you are asking this.
PnP RPG... I have a character sheet representing my character. I direct him to take certain actions. I roll dice to see if they succeed. I'm directing the character.
It is not a case that I'm outside with friends, no character sheets - no dice - etc, and we're swinging sticks around pretending we're Robin Hood, King Arthur, or the like.
By your definition Elder scrolls is not an RPG.
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...
Okay my PERSONAL view on lineage2 too... I like the free2play model.
But f2p differs from f2p.
There are f2p games like perfectworld entertainment ones where you need to buy cash shop items to enchant your gear or similar, there are even f2p/freemium games like LoTRO where you can only play questchains/content when you buy them.
Which should be advertised like that in beforehand so you (the user) can decide if you want it or not.
What I know is that ncsoft never lied in all my years of being user of their games. (GW and also for a period of time AION).
So if they say it's free I will believe them until someone/something proves me wrong.
And I hope that cash shop will only include items like double exp buff for a week (month) or whatever and cool looking mounts or weird weaponskins to reskin your weapons with. So items that are cool for the ones with money but you dont need them to be better in game just to reach endgame faster or look cooler which is NOT REALLY NEEDED.
It's definitely subjective if you see the underlying motivating factors (ie what it takes for devs to make money off a pay model,) and choose the model which runs on fun perception (rather than actual fun.)
The main argument from your side of the fence that holds merit is that (a) very few F2P MMORPGs have well-designed item shops, and (b) the ones that do tend to not have the best gameplay.
So "yes that's why F2P is better -- in theory" is actually a pretty reasonable counterargument to my points.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Having RPG elements does not make a game a RPG.
A bicycle has wheels. A car has wheels. A car is not a bicycle.
Evolution of transportation....
Evolution of PRG's.....
~see the pattern~
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...
The bicycle is still a bicycle. It never becomes a car.
Games can evolve. RPGs can evolve. If they evolve to the point that they are no longer a RPG, then they are something new.
Transportation may have evolved - so there was the additional option of a car; much like the bicycle provided an option over the horse (and the car over the horse as well) - but the horse is still a horse, the bicycle is still a bicycle, and the car is still a car.
If you're the one determing whether or not an attack hit - instead of the character - then you're no longer playing the character, are you?
It's not nearly as cut-and-dried as this. A combat system in and of itself does not define or exclude a game as an RPG. Take The elder scrolls series for example. While your twitch skill and actions do determine whether you hit or not, it does not determine the overall damage you will deliver, or the mitigation of what your hitting defends against that hit. All of this is handled on the backend based on RPG based systems.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Fun itself is subjective though. What I find to be fun, the next guy might not. What he finds to be fun, I might not.
Fun is obviously perceived. It is not concrete.
The better terminology, imo, for the argument would be the "promise of fun" in this regard.
B2P makes the promise of fun.
P2P makes the promise of continued fun.
F2P makes the promise of more fun being available.
With the B2P game, you buy it based on that promise. If you feel that promise was broken, you're likely not to buy into that promise from the company the next time. So they'll try to keep the promise - unless it's an outright moneygrab scam.
With the P2P game, you buy it based on that promise. Once again, if you feel that promise was broken - you're going to react like the B2P game. Above and beyond that, though - they've promised continued fun if you subscribe. So if you had fun, you're going to subscribe for the next month. Here, there is the issue of the promise not being broken - but the player just realizing they tired of the game - they part on good terms . . . or . . . the promise could again be broken, and the reaction would be the same as the initial one from the B2P example.
With the F2P game, there is no initial purchase. There is no initial buyer's remorse.
No doubt that is a key difference between a B2P game and a P2P game where you have to either buy the game or you get the game free with your first month's sub - with those, you're out of pocket. That being said though, there are demos, betas, and trials. You have a means to avoid some of that possible buyer's remorse. But back to the F2P game, you can walk away without spending a dime.
Yet, it is not a promise of fun. It is not a promise of continued fun. It is a promise of more fun being available. You may be having fun playing for free - but there is more fun to be had if you spend a little money - but it is possible to have fun faster if you spend a little money. It is the promise of more fun being available than what you are having - if you spend a little money.
Still, I mentioned demos, betas, and trials. Are not those promises of more fun being available? Are those not the case of them being interactive advertisements for the games in the hopes that you will buy the game?
Most definitely....but they're honest about that fact. They're upfront about that fact. Nobody's running around complaining that demos, betas, and trials are a bad thing. That honesty is better for the player.
For the developer - well, what's best is whatever they can do to maintain some form of revenue stream that earns them a profit the longest.
It is cheaper to put out a F2P game than a B2P game. It is cheaper to put out a B2P game than a P2P game. Generally speaking - obviously there have been games that did not fit this mold.
Say I wanted to make a game. P2P is not going to be an option for me. I simply do not have the resources for that. Could I make a B2P game? Sure - perhaps an XNA Indie. It would be tough for me to get a game on Sream. Perhaps I could sell it directly from my site? Maybe I could do an iOS, Android, or Windows 7 Phone game? I could do one of those $5-10 bargain game things. Or . . . I could make a F2P game, put in an item shop - expand the game as my revenue increases.
For me, it is that cut and dry. If I determine the hit instead of the character or the game system, then I'm no longer playing the character. I've seen discussions about hybrid systems - I've even suggested them - those combinations of twitch and character. You direct the character's actions in a more action orientated manner, but the character could still miss - even if you think you should have hit. Hell, it's what DDO uses - a combination system. Yet since the actual hit depends on the character and the system, it is still a RPG. If it's all me...then in my opinion, it is not - because the system has been removed.
It is odd that people continue to mention Elder Scrolls, as if ignoring the development of arena. It was a fantasy FPS that added RPG elements. Compare that to The Bard's Tale, Pool of Radiance, Baldur's Gate, etc...
Some might call it a Action RPG - an Adventure game, etc. Different people have different definitions of what a RPG is. For me, if you're determining hit instead of the system - it's an action game, an adventure game, a FPS, etc, etc, etc.
Again, gaining fun by paying is a trait shared by all 3 payment methods and is inconsequential to the discussion.
Demos, betas, trials, and F2P gameplay are not "promises" of fun. They either are fun or aren't fun. "Promises" would be things you can't experience but the game hints at. "Promise" is a screenshot. It's a scrap of information hinting at gameplay and forcing you to guess whether you'd enjoy it.
You may discover some promises during these forms of gameplay, but the gameplay you're experiencing isn't a promise -- it's gameplay. You will either like it, or not.
I feel that overall F2P games offer more of a comprehensive experience of what the game is all about, than trials or demos (betas are beefier, so they're really not very different from F2P.)
In that regard, F2P games are more honest about the transaction -- you know as much about the game as you want to before you're obligated to pay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
But it is not inconsequential to the discussion. How could it be?
"gaining fun by paying is a trait shared by all 3 payment methods"
B2P - buy (paying)
P2P - pay (paying)
F2P - free (not paying)
It is at the very core of the majority of discussions on the F2P model and where the discussion of lying, deceiving, and dishonesty comes into play.
The B2P model tells you that you are going to be paying. The P2P model tells you that you are going to be paying. The F2P model tells you that you are not going to be paying.
So if gaining fun by paying is a common trait, then one of the three models is a lying.
I did not say that demos, trials, betas, nor F2P were "promises" of fun. I said they were "promises of more fun" to be had.
Again, B2P promises there will be fun. Like you said (and like I said), you will either experience fun or you will not. P2P promises there will be continued fun. Like you said (and like I said), you will either experience fun or you will not.
Demos, trials, betas, and F2P games offer a "promise of more fun" - if you're having fun now, you can have more fun...but it's going to cost.
Obviously from a strictly financial point of view, the F2P game offers you a better chance to experience the game without having spent anything like you would have with B2P or P2P.
You say that the F2P game offers you the better chance to see what the game is like. I disagree though. I do so based off of some of the Freemium games out there. You experience a limited version of the game. You can buy yourself up to normal, but what you are experiencing is not actually the game. Either you're looking at limited chat, slower gains, higher costs, etc. It is not a case that the free is base and Premium/VIP members get faster than base, cheaper than base. You're literally handicapped as free.
Again, going back to what I said earlier in this post and my paragraph above I simply cannot consider it being honest.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
I have to disagree with you there. F2P = free to play, not free to play the whole game just like a paying costumer would. That is something someone could read into it, but it's not what it says. F2P games will make it more and more appealing to pay for certain things, be it bank slots, booster this or that, a mount and what not, by making the game more and more tedious without you paying for anything. You can do it, it might get a bit hard, but you can do it.
It looks like you're talking about Freemium games like Lotro where you have to pay to unlock content. Many F2P games are not like that at all. Many are entirely possible to play through without paying a dime, whether you'll want to is another matter.
You are correct, free to play is the future of MMOS, but your concerns are too far past the basic premise.
Free to play.
You own your account, you don't need to subscribe, nor rent your access to your account, you own it, it's free. Anytime you want to log into the game, you can...free.....and play.
Beyond that, well that's up to each individual developer to entice you to stay. Each individual company is also going to want to make a profit, so there will be ways they will have to entice you to support the game.
You're talking about limited versions of the exact same features.
In WOW you cannot guess how fun WotLK's zones will be.
In a F2P you can guess exactly what +10 bag slots will do, exactly what +20% XP will do, and exactly what improved chat will do. You've experienced these features, and paying is only incrementing them in easily understood ways. Only a few features like class unlocks are total unknown guesses.
So yes, you usually do have a much better idea of how paying will increase fun.
In a well-designed F2P system like League of Legends, you basically know exactly how everything will play, except you'll only have a limited amount of info on whatever champions you haven't bought yet (you still get to play against them, but until you play them personally you won't know exactly how fun they are.) A well-designed MMORPG F2P system with class unlocks is basically identical to this; some playstyles are free, others cost money, but the core gameplay is completely understood and you play alongside free classes so you get at least a little sense of how fun they might be.
Admittedly things like +10 bag slots (and to a much lesser degree, +20% xp) are actually not ideal F2P design because they're pretty much outright gameplay advantages. The best F2P systems offer playstyles and content for sale, they don't deprive gameplay of it's usual challenge by letting you pay through it.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If someone wants to pay for +20% exp, bless his heart and pockets, I'm perfectly fine with that, if that allows me to play for free. That's not much of an advantage, it's just a small speed-up. I'm okay with that.
What are developers supposed to do? Make a game free to play with no Cash Shop? How would they make any money? Humans in general do not do things for free. A man's gotta eat, as they say. The Online Gaming industry is a business like any other, the sooner you realize this, the sooner you can start adequately functioning in society. Which, based on this thread, I am assuming you currently do not.
i stopped right there. *scratchhead
well i just drop the game if it cannot deliver fun for its free part.
the game cost me nothing , AoC for example is loads of content to play before you hit a wall (i guess)
i guess for some people the fun in games is to be top notch and everything below that is plain lame.
Its a personal 'in-your-head'-problem.
The game STILL costs nothing to play. *shrug*
Gaming has always been about fun.
Right now, F2P is making a comeback after the rise of P2P. There was a time that P2P delivered, but now that no longer is the case. The MMORPG's that use the P2P model actually have shifted their money making to micro transactions not subs, so even the P2P games have micro transactions now.
If I had a choice of playing a P2P with micro transactions versus a F2P with micro transactions, I am choosing F2P. But fun determines what I play ultiamately.
By horizontal progression, I mean that you still get rewards for doing things (progression) but these rewards don't make you directly more powerful. Instead, they open up options. GW1 is a good example of this. You can get max level in that game in maybe 2 days...it really doesn't mean much. After getting max level however, the progression becomes about unlocking skills. And since you can only have 8 skills at once, unlocking more does not make you directly more powerful...it just gives you more options.
Also...about twitch. Like it or not, twitch plays a large part in almost every major MMORPG. Especially with certain classes (rogue). Unless a game is completely turn based, there will be an element of twitch. Some folks here think twitch is a dirty word, but I think that's kind of ridiculous.
WoW is twitch, Rift is twitch, WAR is twitch. Especially in PvP.
IMO, PvP in MMORPGs should largely be about:
1. Teamwork
2. Tactics
3. Player skill (twitch and decision making)
4. Character build choices (what skills you chose, character talents, gear choices, etc)
I don't like the idea that "time/money invested" is a deciding factor in PvP, and I don't think it's necessary to have that in order for the game to remain an MMORPG. You can still have progression without having it completely compromise any competitiveness in PvP.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Most of the F2P games I've played in the past year, I've never felt like I had to pay to compete. Sometimes I'd feel like I wanted access to some content and I would pay. And during EQ 2's double exp week after their hack, I splurged on some Experience Potions to try to get the most out of it. But In general your generally pretty competitive without spending much, and even when your buying content packs and such, it's cheaper than a subscription so long as you aren't going crazy on experience potions or such.
https://www.therepopulation.com - Sci Fi Sandbox.
The formula's not quite that simple. I was going with the Fallen Earth matrix in particular for that example (it was the most recent matrix I had looked at).
http://www.gamersfirst.com/fallenearth/sites/www.gamersfirst.com.fallenearth/files/popup_matrix.png
It's not a case of guessing exactly what not having -25% XP gain would be. You're penalized in 7 areas. That formula is a little more complex. You know that you're being penalized. If you subscribe, you're not. You don't actually know that it is better - because you do not know what it is.
Um, excuse me if I'm wrong here - but LoL is not a MMORPG. What bearing does that have on a discussion of F2P MMORPGs? It would be like me saying that Bejeweled 2 is free to play at PopCap...
You "best" F2P system sounds like a modified version of the B2P + DLC model. You're eliminating the initial buying part, but additional classes, races, and content that did not "ship" with the game could be purchased.
I haven't seen a F2P MMORPG that does that. They have the items in their shops which you call not ideal design.
I've said in a few threads, that I see two models as "best" - yes, best is in my opinion. They reflect my PnP RPG nature.
B2P + DLC: this is akin to buying the core book - then buying the expansion books and additional adventure modules.
P2P w/o paid expansions: this would be akin to buying a subscription to those books, you buy the core book - and then as part of your subscription; you receive the expansion books and adventure modules as they come out.
The first option suits players that want to pick and choose which additional "books" they get - while the second option suits players that want all the "books" that come out.
While there may have been free "lite" or "starter" versions of the core rules put out, to get the most out of it - you had to buy the full blown "core" rules. I see this much like a demo or trial.
There are examples of both of these - EVE and GW/GW2 to an extent.
What is the F2P MMORPG that has your model?
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%