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.
To an extent, I can see what you're saying with that particular form of horizontal progression. Normally, I might nitpick into the terms - but you stated it very well, so I'm not going to get into that. You worded that vey well.
As for twitch, no doubt there is an amount of twitch/reaction speed involved in the common games. Sometimes you have to move. There is how fast you mash your buttons. PvP sees more of the positioning.
There is no dodging though. It is not player aim.
All in all, given that I'm one that is so particular about terms - it is kind of funny that I've been lazy with the twitch statement. I've been using the family name to discuss some of the children... mea culpa.
So while I definitely agree with #1, #2, #4.. #3, to an extent I would agree with that - because no doubt twitch is involved to a degree; but that twitch to me would be in directing the character to act rather than acting directly.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
To an extent, I can see what you're saying with that particular form of horizontal progression. Normally, I might nitpick into the terms - but you stated it very well, so I'm not going to get into that. You worded that vey well.
As for twitch, no doubt there is an amount of twitch/reaction speed involved in the common games. Sometimes you have to move. There is how fast you mash your buttons. PvP sees more of the positioning.
There is no dodging though. It is not player aim.
All in all, given that I'm one that is so particular about terms - it is kind of funny that I've been lazy with the twitch statement. I've been using the family name to discuss some of the children... mea culpa.
So while I definitely agree with #1, #2, #4.. #3, to an extent I would agree with that - because no doubt twitch is involved to a degree; but that twitch to me would be in directing the character to act rather than acting directly.
I see twitch as kind of a continuum. Because really, in every video game you play you are just directing your character. Even in God of War...you are not actually swinging the weapon, you just press A and it happens. So the directing your character definition doesn't really make sense to me.
I see the continuum as this...
On one end there is the "dice rolling" turn based game like the old D&D gold box game. This game is completely character and tactics based. There is aboslutely no twitch at all.
On the other end, there is the completely twitch based game like old school FPS's (newer ones don't count, they have progression). In these games the ONLY thing that matters is your skill as a player, your character contributes nothing to winning.
Most games fall somewhere inbetween these two extremes. And most people have a certain point on the continuum that they believe to be optimal. Personally, I like things a little twitchier than most probably, but I still want your character to have a lot to do with it.
But one interesting thing to note is that you don't need any twitch at all to remove gear and level as the definitive factor of PvP. Look at games like Chess or Civilization. These games have zero twitch, and yet they are entirely based on the player's ability with an even playing field for each player.
I don't see why an MMORPG couldn't be created where it was more about the player's tactical choices in and out of combat that leads to victory rather than gear/level. I mean, really if you made everyone the same level and gave everyone the same quality of gear in WoW, that's what the game would be. Class imbalances aside of course...
Granted WoW has twitch as well as we previously stated, but you get where I'm going.
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?
Er, isn't your Fallen Earth example a subscription and therefore clearly not a F2P model? And even if you somehow consider it's F2P, its' clearly Bad F2P Design.
(Bejeweled 2 is B2P, bud. Meanwhile LoL is flat-out a F2P model which gives free players the entire game, minus some champion-choosing functionality)
My "best F2P system" isn't B2P at all. The game is free to play, you buy content and classes. It's not that far off from DDO, LOTRO, and EQ2 really (which are three of the better F2P systems in the MMORPG side of things.)
Again, developers of B2P games love the fact that people are interested in buying purely on the advertising-flashiness promise of fun, rather than actually experiencing their games (and all features) before buying.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Hello all , I think it comes down to this whether we like it or not companies that make games are doing it for 1 reason to make money . This is the driving force to all developers and games makers .Now f2p is an easy way that they hide the costs of their products and try to get every last dime from us without us releasing that we have been doped .
Now here is how I see this I have no problem handing my hard earned $ to play a game I personly prefer the b2p and the p2p models because I know I am getting he full game and content without all the hidden tricks of the f2p model.
At the end of the day as long as I am getting good value for money I don't reallycomplain for example dc online recently went f2p at the moment they are not getting greedy you can play the game with most the content to level 25 before needing to pay for a secription per month . The problem is slot of f2p games get greedy in their cash stores and I also find f2p games are not as good quality as p2p games but there are aception to the rules.
As long as the makers don't get greedy I enjoy f2p games I think an extended trial period would be better but this quick fix of making games f2p lines developers pockets and is a quick fix to getting people in but it doesn't keep them.
The only that keeps players is good quality games and good communities .
Current games; Star treck online Rift Eve online Firefall
Er, isn't your Fallen Earth example a subscription and therefore clearly not a F2P model? And even if you somehow consider it's F2P, its' clearly Bad F2P Design.
Somebody else brought up FE as a F2P example. I pointed out that it is a Freemium game with penalized F2P (and even the insulting name of "Scavenger" for those that play F2P as opposed to paying for one of the three tiered subscription plans).
(Bejeweled 2 is B2P, bud. Meanwhile LoL is flat-out a F2P model which gives free players the entire game, minus some champion-choosing functionality)
I usually end up playing it while waiting for something to download or if there's a few minutes to kill before a TV show comes on.
As for LoL - um, based on the info at their site - it's not a MMORPG. Thus I'm not sure how it is pertinent to a discussion on the F2P model and MMORPGs.
My "best F2P system" isn't B2P at all. The game is free to play, you buy content and classes. It's not that far off from DDO, LOTRO, and EQ2 really (which are three of the better F2P systems in the MMORPG side of things.)
B2P - you buy the game - you have DLC, expansions, fluff. I stated that your system is B2P without the initial Buy part. So, outside of the initial Buy part involved in the B2P, it is exactly B2P. And I said name the F2P MMORPG that is like that... the one that does not have the poor elements of F2P design you mentioned.
Again, developers of B2P games love the fact that people are interested in buying purely on the advertising-flashiness promise of fun, rather than actually experiencing their games (and all features) before buying.
Again, developers of F2P games love the fact that people are interested in buying purely on the advertising - flashiness promise of MORE OR FASTER fun, rather than actually experiencing their games at normal speed (and all features without limits) from making a standard purchase.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
You stated it yourself. You download them and you play them.
Period.
So, are they free to operate? There is no staff payroll? There is no leasing payment on an office location? There are no datacenter costs? There were no computers used to create the game? There was no software on those computers that did not exist? Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc... so they did not cost anything to develop and they do not cost anything to operate?
Of course not.
They cost money to develop.
They cost money to operate.
The companies developing and operating them are businesses. Not only do they have to cover their expenses - they need to turn a profit.
That means they need a revenue stream.
F2P games generate reveue.
Period.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
As I said f2p is a short term fix for developers high revenue til people relies that the game isn't good quality it's like sacking a staff member quick return in the short term. Long term it doesn't help . And most games that are reasonable quality were once p2p models.
Current games; Star treck online Rift Eve online Firefall
If there's a game that offers different subscription plans, highest one ($15) being full access to game and some cheaper ones with restrictions, and a really restricted free one being for those who want to try the game or really can't afford to pay, well, that would be ok.
But they sell the gameplay elements in cash shops, like exp potions, HP/mana potions, various enhancements, mounts, clothes and even sometimes armor and weapons.
The games could exist just having various subscription plans and that would be the ideal F2P model, but obviously, they are too greedy.
So, are they free to operate? There is no staff payroll? There is no leasing payment on an office location? There are no datacenter costs? There were no computers used to create the game? There was no software on those computers that did not exist? Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc... so they did not cost anything to develop and they do not cost anything to operate?
Of course not.
They cost money to develop.
They cost money to operate.
The companies developing and operating them are businesses. Not only do they have to cover their expenses - they need to turn a profit.
That means they need a revenue stream.
F2P games generate reveue.
Period.
However it is not a requirement to contribute to that revenue stream. As for all of these arguments in this post, you just solidified the reasoning of why the cash shop exists. You however did not prove in any shape or form, that they are not free to pick up and play, for as long as your heart desires..well at least while the service is available.
F2P games are open to the public, you're welcome to come in and stay for as long as you want, interact with the players around you and complete the content available to you, in most, if not all cases, all the way to end-game.
Why is it so hard to understand as well as accept this? You keep taking this argument all over the place, yet not once have you disproven the simple fact that F2P is F2P. With the option to purchase more assets to use while you continue to play for free. The only fees are tied to the extras you want to add to the options available to you. Be it gear, content, fluff, etc...
The distinction is there is no monthly fee or upfront cost. That's why it's referred to as F2P.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
However it is not a requirement to contribute to that revenue stream. As for all of these arguments in this post, you just solidified the reasoning of why the cash shop exists. You however did not prove in any shape or form, that they are not free to pick up and play, for as long as your heart desires..well at least while the service is available.
F2P games are open to the public, you're welcome to come in and stay for as long as you want, interact with the players around you and complete the content available to you, in most, if not all cases, all the way to end-game.
Why is it so hard to understand as well as accept this? You keep taking this argument all over the place, yet not once have you disproven the simple fact that F2P is F2P. With the option to purchase more assets to use while you continue to play for free. The only fees are tied to the extras you want to add to the options available to you. Be it gear, content, fluff, etc...
The distinction is there is no monthly fee or upfront cost. That's why it's referred to as F2P.
Instead of going around in circles arguing about if F2P games are really free or not, let me try a different angle.
I see F2P games kind of like...going to the mall. Much like an F2P game, it's absolutely free to go to the mall, and some folks can have a good time walking around the mall without spending any money at all.
BUT.
The mall is specifically engineered to make you spend money. Ads are strategically placed, the aroma of food wafts through the halls, tempting goods are displayed everywhere, and the dry air can make you really want to buy a drink. So whether you spend money or not, your experience will always be influenced by the fact that the whole mall is designed to make people spend money. Personally, I would rather not deal with this all the time.
Now on the other hand a P2P game is more like a country club. You pay your membership dues sure, but once you do that you're done. The club is not designed to make people spend more money, it's just designed to offer people a good time so they keep paying their dues.
And this is really my main problem with F2P. I don't want my shopping experience to "begin" when I play the game. I want to have just bought the game and then be able to enjoy it without having to be constantly irritated with incentives to spend more money.
P2P games are designed to have you buy more than a sub fee now too. This is why using that argument against F2P has lost momentum since P2P has jumped on this trend. Blizzard recently released the guardian cub that is tradeable as of November 1st. It can be purchased using real money and traded for gold currency in the game. It may not be direct purchase of gold with real life money but it is close enough. P2P MMORPG's the last three years have embraced cash shops/micro transactions, which is why the F2P movement has picked up steam. At least City of Heroes did the decent thing of going Freemium. World of Warcraft is making money despite the sub losses because of these micro transactions. P2P games no longer have the moral or ethical high ground.
P2P games are designed to have you buy more than a sub fee now too. This is why using that argument against F2P has lost momentum since P2P has jumped on this trend. Blizzard recently released the guardian cub that is tradeable as of November 1st. It can be purchased using real money and traded for gold currency in the game. It may not be direct purchase of gold with real life money but it is close enough. P2P MMORPG's the last three years have embraced cash shops/micro transactions, which is why the F2P movement has picked up steam. At least City of Heroes did the decent thing of going Freemium. World of Warcraft is making money despite the sub losses because of these micro transactions. P2P games no longer have the moral or ethical high ground.
I dislike the idea of "pay to win" period. I really don't care if P2P games jump on the bandwagon too, it doesn't change my mind. It just makes me dislike those games as well.
There's no "moral high ground" here. We're not endorsing everything that P2P games do.
World of Warcraft is making money despite the sub losses because of these micro transactions. P2P games no longer have the moral or ethical high ground.
it's part of the lifecycle of a MMO;
1-MMO goes Live; you have a subscription program;
2-after the numbers go down you introduce a cashshop while having a subscription model;
3-you introduce a "f2p" model next to the suibscription game, a stripped game with many limitations to get you a) buy the full game instead or give money through small micro transactions;
4-the servers get shut down.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
P2P games are designed to have you buy more than a sub fee now too. This is why using that argument against F2P has lost momentum since P2P has jumped on this trend. Blizzard recently released the guardian cub that is tradeable as of November 1st. It can be purchased using real money and traded for gold currency in the game. It may not be direct purchase of gold with real life money but it is close enough. P2P MMORPG's the last three years have embraced cash shops/micro transactions, which is why the F2P movement has picked up steam. At least City of Heroes did the decent thing of going Freemium. World of Warcraft is making money despite the sub losses because of these micro transactions. P2P games no longer have the moral or ethical high ground.
I dislike the idea of "pay to win" period. I really don't care if P2P games jump on the bandwagon too, it doesn't change my mind. It just makes me dislike those games as well.
There's no "moral high ground" here. We're not endorsing everything that P2P games do.
If you don't endorse what P2P or F2P MMORPG's are doing what MMORPG will you play when the dust settles? :P
Muke
I think that is a very interesting theory, but most are waiting for the other shoe to drop (WoW introducing a Freemium/F2P model) before running with it. WoW remember was supposed to originally be a F2P game if I recall, but they changed their model to P2P.
P2P games are designed to have you buy more than a sub fee now too. This is why using that argument against F2P has lost momentum since P2P has jumped on this trend. Blizzard recently released the guardian cub that is tradeable as of November 1st. It can be purchased using real money and traded for gold currency in the game. It may not be direct purchase of gold with real life money but it is close enough. P2P MMORPG's the last three years have embraced cash shops/micro transactions, which is why the F2P movement has picked up steam. At least City of Heroes did the decent thing of going Freemium. World of Warcraft is making money despite the sub losses because of these micro transactions. P2P games no longer have the moral or ethical high ground.
I dislike the idea of "pay to win" period. I really don't care if P2P games jump on the bandwagon too, it doesn't change my mind. It just makes me dislike those games as well.
There's no "moral high ground" here. We're not endorsing everything that P2P games do.
If you don't endorse what P2P or F2P MMORPG's are doing what MMORPG will you play when the dust settles? :P
Muke
I think that is a very interesting theory, but most are waiting for the other shoe to drop (WoW introducing a Freemium/F2P model) before running with it. WoW remember was supposed to originally be a F2P game if I recall, but they changed their model to P2P.
I will play whatever does not have pay 2 win. If there is no game that does not have pay 2 win, then I will play single player games . You see, I remain hopeful that not every single game will go P2W because there is a market for people that hate P2W.
My "best F2P system" isn't B2P at all. The game is free to play, you buy content and classes. It's not that far off from DDO, LOTRO, and EQ2 really (which are three of the better F2P systems in the MMORPG side of things.)
B2P - you buy the game - you have DLC, expansions, fluff. I stated that your system is B2P without the initial Buy part. So, outside of the initial Buy part involved in the B2P, it is exactly B2P. And I said name the F2P MMORPG that is like that... the one that does not have the poor elements of F2P design you mentioned.
Apart from being blue, my shirt is exactly a red shirt.
Apart from being a PC, my computer is exactly a Mac.
B2P. The B stands for Buy. As in pay. Upfront pay.
You know...the single defining trait that makes something Buy To Play?
Nothing like the model I suggested.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
And this is really my main problem with F2P. I don't want my shopping experience to "begin" when I play the game. I want to have just bought the game and then be able to enjoy it without having to be constantly irritated with incentives to spend more money.
Then don't play F2P games. Problem solved. Sitting around whining about it doesn't change a thing.
And this is really my main problem with F2P. I don't want my shopping experience to "begin" when I play the game. I want to have just bought the game and then be able to enjoy it without having to be constantly irritated with incentives to spend more money.
Then don't play F2P games. Problem solved. Sitting around whining about it doesn't change a thing.
Soon there may not such a choice, all games will likely have a hybrid payment model of some sort.
Whininig about it might change some folks mind in the long term....
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
And this is really my main problem with F2P. I don't want my shopping experience to "begin" when I play the game. I want to have just bought the game and then be able to enjoy it without having to be constantly irritated with incentives to spend more money.
Then don't play F2P games. Problem solved. Sitting around whining about it doesn't change a thing.
Soon there may not such a choice, all games will likely have a hybrid payment model of some sort.
Whininig about it might change some folks mind in the long term....
I think what has happened is that people equate P2P = B2P. But P2P is paying a sub fee monthly while B2P is a one time upfront fee.
So, those that dislike F2P, and the trend of P2P to mimic F2P, maybe B2P would satisfy their gaming needs?
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.
First, I seriously hope you're wrong and this isn't the future of MMO's.
Second, I completely agree that F2P is very deceptive. The business model behind F2P games is basically like this:
Pizza Place: Hey guys! I've got a free pizza for you right here, dig in!
Guys: Alright! Pepperoni my favorite!
Pizza Place: Whooooooa!!! Not so fast partner, you only get to eat the CRUST for free. If you want to eat the rest of the pizza...then that's going to cost you. You can either pay $20 or you can run around the city 20 times and you can have the pizza.
Just like in my pizza example, a F2P game really isn't free. You get to play "part" of the game for free, but if you want to play the rest you either have to pay money or do a ridiculous amount of menial things (grinding) to get there.
So I really don't think they should be called F2P games. They should be called something like "Choose to pay" or "a la carte" to reflect the fact that you can pick and choose what features or cheats you want to buy.
I play lotro just fine for free, never paid a cent for anything that i didnt wantm which was just the newest expansion, everything elses has been obtained, with no money from me, so unless people just cant seem to grasp what free means, these games are free to play, get over it.
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling" Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
And this is really my main problem with F2P. I don't want my shopping experience to "begin" when I play the game. I want to have just bought the game and then be able to enjoy it without having to be constantly irritated with incentives to spend more money.
Then don't play F2P games. Problem solved. Sitting around whining about it doesn't change a thing.
Soon there may not such a choice, all games will likely have a hybrid payment model of some sort.
Whininig about it might change some folks mind in the long term....
That's the risk that faces those of us who prefer the P2P model.
Throwing your hands up in the air saying "oh well, that's just the way it is" has never gone well with our species. Now, more than ever (enter the internet), it is important for people to discuss what they do and do not like about whatever topic it is they're discussing. Assuming the position and simply settling never yields positive results.
I see the "F2P" model as a parasite that has the potential to turn this entire genre (which I love) into something that I may have to say goodbye to. It is a system that gives less for more (if I want to enjoy the entire game, which I do). It is a system that favours the makers not the players (if I want to enjoy the entire game, which I do). It's enough that I pay a sub fee in addition to the cost of the box, that much I can handle. For me though, it crosses the line when I have to pay for nit picky little things such as items, abilities, skills, quests or other content etc. All of that can be included for a very small monthly fee. I'm not looking to take extended test drives of these games. A little bit research, a dash of YouTube, and a mix of the ever so common free fucking trial is all anyone should need these days.
The only kind of gamer I see that is the perfect pairing with the "F2P" model is the type that is constantly jumping from game to game. The type that has a dozen or more mmos on their HD at any given time. For any other type of gamer that supports this model, you are either insanely casual, as in you hardly ever progress very far in video games, or you're just a little out-there.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
The only kind of gamer I see that is the perfect pairing with the "F2P" model is the type that is constantly jumping from game to game. The type that has a dozen or more mmos on their HD at any given time. For any other type of gamer that supports this model, you are either insanely casual, as in you hardly ever progress very far in video games, or you're just a little out-there.
Oh, oh, I can play the game too! So, my turn: NO U!!!1!111!
I don't think that "I am the definition of norm; you all are simply pathetic deviants" is an argument that can be entertained seriously.
Especially since it's me who is the zero point of normality; everything else in the world is relative to me. Not to you.
Comments
To an extent, I can see what you're saying with that particular form of horizontal progression. Normally, I might nitpick into the terms - but you stated it very well, so I'm not going to get into that. You worded that vey well.
As for twitch, no doubt there is an amount of twitch/reaction speed involved in the common games. Sometimes you have to move. There is how fast you mash your buttons. PvP sees more of the positioning.
There is no dodging though. It is not player aim.
All in all, given that I'm one that is so particular about terms - it is kind of funny that I've been lazy with the twitch statement. I've been using the family name to discuss some of the children... mea culpa.
So while I definitely agree with #1, #2, #4.. #3, to an extent I would agree with that - because no doubt twitch is involved to a degree; but that twitch to me would be in directing the character to act rather than acting directly.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
I see twitch as kind of a continuum. Because really, in every video game you play you are just directing your character. Even in God of War...you are not actually swinging the weapon, you just press A and it happens. So the directing your character definition doesn't really make sense to me.
I see the continuum as this...
On one end there is the "dice rolling" turn based game like the old D&D gold box game. This game is completely character and tactics based. There is aboslutely no twitch at all.
On the other end, there is the completely twitch based game like old school FPS's (newer ones don't count, they have progression). In these games the ONLY thing that matters is your skill as a player, your character contributes nothing to winning.
Most games fall somewhere inbetween these two extremes. And most people have a certain point on the continuum that they believe to be optimal. Personally, I like things a little twitchier than most probably, but I still want your character to have a lot to do with it.
But one interesting thing to note is that you don't need any twitch at all to remove gear and level as the definitive factor of PvP. Look at games like Chess or Civilization. These games have zero twitch, and yet they are entirely based on the player's ability with an even playing field for each player.
I don't see why an MMORPG couldn't be created where it was more about the player's tactical choices in and out of combat that leads to victory rather than gear/level. I mean, really if you made everyone the same level and gave everyone the same quality of gear in WoW, that's what the game would be. Class imbalances aside of course...
Granted WoW has twitch as well as we previously stated, but you get where I'm going.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Er, isn't your Fallen Earth example a subscription and therefore clearly not a F2P model? And even if you somehow consider it's F2P, its' clearly Bad F2P Design.
(Bejeweled 2 is B2P, bud. Meanwhile LoL is flat-out a F2P model which gives free players the entire game, minus some champion-choosing functionality)
My "best F2P system" isn't B2P at all. The game is free to play, you buy content and classes. It's not that far off from DDO, LOTRO, and EQ2 really (which are three of the better F2P systems in the MMORPG side of things.)
Again, developers of B2P games love the fact that people are interested in buying purely on the advertising-flashiness promise of fun, rather than actually experiencing their games (and all features) before buying.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Now here is how I see this I have no problem handing my hard earned $ to play a game I personly prefer the b2p and the p2p models because I know I am getting he full game and content without all the hidden tricks of the f2p model.
At the end of the day as long as I am getting good value for money I don't reallycomplain for example dc online recently went f2p at the moment they are not getting greedy you can play the game with most the content to level 25 before needing to pay for a secription per month . The problem is slot of f2p games get greedy in their cash stores and I also find f2p games are not as good quality as p2p games but there are aception to the rules.
As long as the makers don't get greedy I enjoy f2p games I think an extended trial period would be better but this quick fix of making games f2p lines developers pockets and is a quick fix to getting people in but it doesn't keep them.
The only that keeps players is good quality games and good communities .
Current games;
Star treck online
Rift
Eve online
Firefall
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Yes they are free to play.
You stated it yourself. You download them and you play them.
Period.
So, are they free to operate? There is no staff payroll? There is no leasing payment on an office location? There are no datacenter costs? There were no computers used to create the game? There was no software on those computers that did not exist? Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc... so they did not cost anything to develop and they do not cost anything to operate?
Of course not.
They cost money to develop.
They cost money to operate.
The companies developing and operating them are businesses. Not only do they have to cover their expenses - they need to turn a profit.
That means they need a revenue stream.
F2P games generate reveue.
Period.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Current games;
Star treck online
Rift
Eve online
Firefall
F2P would be ok, if it didn't have cash shops
If there's a game that offers different subscription plans, highest one ($15) being full access to game and some cheaper ones with restrictions, and a really restricted free one being for those who want to try the game or really can't afford to pay, well, that would be ok.
But they sell the gameplay elements in cash shops, like exp potions, HP/mana potions, various enhancements, mounts, clothes and even sometimes armor and weapons.
The games could exist just having various subscription plans and that would be the ideal F2P model, but obviously, they are too greedy.
However it is not a requirement to contribute to that revenue stream. As for all of these arguments in this post, you just solidified the reasoning of why the cash shop exists. You however did not prove in any shape or form, that they are not free to pick up and play, for as long as your heart desires..well at least while the service is available.
F2P games are open to the public, you're welcome to come in and stay for as long as you want, interact with the players around you and complete the content available to you, in most, if not all cases, all the way to end-game.
Why is it so hard to understand as well as accept this? You keep taking this argument all over the place, yet not once have you disproven the simple fact that F2P is F2P. With the option to purchase more assets to use while you continue to play for free. The only fees are tied to the extras you want to add to the options available to you. Be it gear, content, fluff, etc...
The distinction is there is no monthly fee or upfront cost. That's why it's referred to as F2P.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Instead of going around in circles arguing about if F2P games are really free or not, let me try a different angle.
I see F2P games kind of like...going to the mall. Much like an F2P game, it's absolutely free to go to the mall, and some folks can have a good time walking around the mall without spending any money at all.
BUT.
The mall is specifically engineered to make you spend money. Ads are strategically placed, the aroma of food wafts through the halls, tempting goods are displayed everywhere, and the dry air can make you really want to buy a drink. So whether you spend money or not, your experience will always be influenced by the fact that the whole mall is designed to make people spend money. Personally, I would rather not deal with this all the time.
Now on the other hand a P2P game is more like a country club. You pay your membership dues sure, but once you do that you're done. The club is not designed to make people spend more money, it's just designed to offer people a good time so they keep paying their dues.
And this is really my main problem with F2P. I don't want my shopping experience to "begin" when I play the game. I want to have just bought the game and then be able to enjoy it without having to be constantly irritated with incentives to spend more money.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
P2P games are designed to have you buy more than a sub fee now too. This is why using that argument against F2P has lost momentum since P2P has jumped on this trend. Blizzard recently released the guardian cub that is tradeable as of November 1st. It can be purchased using real money and traded for gold currency in the game. It may not be direct purchase of gold with real life money but it is close enough. P2P MMORPG's the last three years have embraced cash shops/micro transactions, which is why the F2P movement has picked up steam. At least City of Heroes did the decent thing of going Freemium. World of Warcraft is making money despite the sub losses because of these micro transactions. P2P games no longer have the moral or ethical high ground.
I dislike the idea of "pay to win" period. I really don't care if P2P games jump on the bandwagon too, it doesn't change my mind. It just makes me dislike those games as well.
There's no "moral high ground" here. We're not endorsing everything that P2P games do.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
it's part of the lifecycle of a MMO;
1-MMO goes Live; you have a subscription program;
2-after the numbers go down you introduce a cashshop while having a subscription model;
3-you introduce a "f2p" model next to the suibscription game, a stripped game with many limitations to get you a) buy the full game instead or give money through small micro transactions;
4-the servers get shut down.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
If you don't endorse what P2P or F2P MMORPG's are doing what MMORPG will you play when the dust settles? :P
Muke
I think that is a very interesting theory, but most are waiting for the other shoe to drop (WoW introducing a Freemium/F2P model) before running with it. WoW remember was supposed to originally be a F2P game if I recall, but they changed their model to P2P.
I will play whatever does not have pay 2 win. If there is no game that does not have pay 2 win, then I will play single player games
. You see, I remain hopeful that not every single game will go P2W because there is a market for people that hate P2W.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Apart from being blue, my shirt is exactly a red shirt.
Apart from being a PC, my computer is exactly a Mac.
B2P. The B stands for Buy. As in pay. Upfront pay.
You know...the single defining trait that makes something Buy To Play?
Nothing like the model I suggested.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Then don't play F2P games. Problem solved. Sitting around whining about it doesn't change a thing.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Soon there may not such a choice, all games will likely have a hybrid payment model of some sort.
Whininig about it might change some folks mind in the long term....
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I think what has happened is that people equate P2P = B2P. But P2P is paying a sub fee monthly while B2P is a one time upfront fee.
So, those that dislike F2P, and the trend of P2P to mimic F2P, maybe B2P would satisfy their gaming needs?
I play lotro just fine for free, never paid a cent for anything that i didnt wantm which was just the newest expansion, everything elses has been obtained, with no money from me, so unless people just cant seem to grasp what free means, these games are free to play, get over it.
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling"
Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
Only bad developers bend to whiners, fortunately the market does not..
if all f2p games sticked to a f2p model like league of legend where you just pay for skins( cosmetics)of your char it wouldnt be such a problem imho.
ps: lovely video about microtransactions http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/microtransactions
That's the risk that faces those of us who prefer the P2P model.
Throwing your hands up in the air saying "oh well, that's just the way it is" has never gone well with our species. Now, more than ever (enter the internet), it is important for people to discuss what they do and do not like about whatever topic it is they're discussing. Assuming the position and simply settling never yields positive results.
I see the "F2P" model as a parasite that has the potential to turn this entire genre (which I love) into something that I may have to say goodbye to. It is a system that gives less for more (if I want to enjoy the entire game, which I do). It is a system that favours the makers not the players (if I want to enjoy the entire game, which I do). It's enough that I pay a sub fee in addition to the cost of the box, that much I can handle. For me though, it crosses the line when I have to pay for nit picky little things such as items, abilities, skills, quests or other content etc. All of that can be included for a very small monthly fee. I'm not looking to take extended test drives of these games. A little bit research, a dash of YouTube, and a mix of the ever so common free fucking trial is all anyone should need these days.
The only kind of gamer I see that is the perfect pairing with the "F2P" model is the type that is constantly jumping from game to game. The type that has a dozen or more mmos on their HD at any given time. For any other type of gamer that supports this model, you are either insanely casual, as in you hardly ever progress very far in video games, or you're just a little out-there.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Oh, oh, I can play the game too! So, my turn: NO U!!!1!111!
I don't think that "I am the definition of norm; you all are simply pathetic deviants" is an argument that can be entertained seriously.
Especially since it's me who is the zero point of normality; everything else in the world is relative to me. Not to you.