I prefer subscriptions, but ideally, a game that has both is great to me. If you want it f2p, then you can, but then have a sub model that opens up all the content you could buy piecemeal.
Sort of how LoTRO did--not sure if that is still how they do it though, havent played in a while.
Free 2 Play seems to work for those little asian MMOs. However, in most AAA games, it seems a player will most likely have to spend more than $15.00 per month just have default features.
Can you give some examples of 'default features' that players would have to pay monthly to have/retain?
Sure. EQ2X. Have to pay in order to hold a certain teir of items, be able to send private chats, be able to browse broker, be able to hold a certain amount of gold, etc.
Free 2 Play seems to work for those little asian MMOs. However, in most AAA games, it seems a player will most likely have to spend more than $15.00 per month just have default features.
Can you give some examples of 'default features' that players would have to pay monthly to have/retain?
Sure. EQ2X. Have to pay in order to hold a certain teir of items, be able to send private chats, be able to browse broker, be able to hold a certain amount of gold, etc.
Legendary/Fabled are rare items for levels 50 and up.
/say /te// group and /guild are available
Nothing stops you from interacting with and trading with others. You just can't use the broker. This goes back to the argument of some players wanting more social interaction! and more innovation... but not really wanting that.
Gold limit in F2P is something you can thank the gold sellers for, however it isn't a very restrictive limit.
What you have is a game that really won't cost you anything for the first 50-70 levels. Beyond that, most of what you want can be obtained with a one-time $10 purchase. That seems rather generous and far from unreasonable.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Sorry but only 10-year-olds (and apparently you) still use the "GW is not a true MMO" argument to counter the B2P model, while it's been proven numeous times, that the instanced nature of a MMO has almost nothing to do with server costs. At least not anymore.
To me, this is hardly an objective article..
Rather than take your belief as to if guild wars is a mmo, lets see what the makers of the game think. (unless you know better than they do).
Is Guild Wars an MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game)?
Guild Wars has some similarities to existing MMORPGs, but it also has some key differences. Like existing MMOs, Guild Wars is played entirely online in a secure hosted environment. Thousands of players inhabit the same virtual world. Players can meet new friends in gathering places like towns and outposts where they form parties and go questing with them. Unlike many MMOs, when players form a party and embark upon a quest in Guild Wars, they get their own private copy of the area where the quest takes place. This design eliminates some of the frustrating gameplay elements commonly associated with MMOs, such as spawn camping, loot stealing, and standing in a queue in order to complete a quest.
Guild Wars takes place in a large virtual world made up of many different zones, and players can walk from one end of the world to the other. In Guild Wars much of the tedium of traveling through the world has been eliminated. Players can instantly return to any safe area (town or outpost) that they have previously visited just by clicking on it in the world overview map.
Rather than labeling Guild Wars an MMORPG, we prefer to call it a CORPG (Competitive Online Role-Playing Game). Guild Wars was designed from the ground up to create the best possible competitive role-playing experience. Success in Guild Wars is always the result of player skill, not time spent playing or the size of one's guild. As characters progress, they acquire a diverse set of skills and items, enabling them to use new strategies in combat. Players can do battle in open arenas or compete in guild-vs-guild warfare or the international tournament. Engaging in combat is always the player's choice, however; there is no player-killing in cooperative areas of the world.
Players in Guild Wars can play with or against players from around the world in the global tournaments and arenas. And while players are initially placed in a region based on their selected language (so that there is a greater likelihood that others will be speaking their language) they can join up in the always-available International District to form parties and to play with anyone from anywhere in the world.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
I will never touch a subscription model game ever again.
I have no issue with Buy2play like A-net does. I have no problem with F2p with optional Content packs and no issue with normal games with DLC.
I have a big issue with paying 15 bucks every month on top of a 60 buck box fee and then another 30-40 every two years for expansions. Its simply too much of a money sink for one game.
The more casual you are about your gaming, the less appealing the subscription model becomes. F2P has some pitfalls but it's not all as bad as you seem to make it. Maybe you spend a lot of hours on your games and you're getting your moneys worth but P2P tends to make me feel like I have to play as much as I can and each month you have to decide if you want to fork over another $15 to keep on playing the game. After a while the answer will be no and then you won't even be able to log in anymore. With F2P games you can at the very least log in just to chat to old friends.
There are few games out there that are actually worth a subscription in the long run.
I prefer a subscription model. Most games that I have played that have the f2p model essentially just arent as fun for me. When I go to play a game I want to have the same game that everyone around me has, I don't think I should have to pay extra so that I can stay competative or play in area's that don't come with the initial offering.
I understand that it is still a MMO and that they still have to make money to keep it running, but segragating population and creating issues between pay players and free ones doesn't make for an appealing game for me.
I havent played a f2p game that has offered me something half as well as a p2p game has. From what I have seen f2p is just a way of keeping games that are waning in sub numbers active and making money. Even though some do keep adding content and keep updating, unless your willing to pay even more you don't get to see it.
So in my simply opinion, I would rather play a p2p game, with regular content updates and expansions, even if I have to pay for multiple boxes over the lifetime of the game. If its a good game and it keeps me entertained then its worth it. Atleast this way I get what Im paying for and I dont feel like no matter how much I spend I dont get to the same game as everyone else or a game that is just dated and still trying to make a buck.
It's nice to see some objective opinions on this topic.
"Publishers much prefer the obnoxious phrase "F2P", even though under the trades-descriptions act, what they are doing is a felony."
Considering that that statement is demonstrably false, why should I buy your argument that paying $60 for a game, plus $10 or $15 per month and then another $40 to $60 for any expansions is so much better? Why should I pay that much money for a game when I can have just as much an enjoyable experience when I buy the box and then pay nothing more, or when I pay nothing up front and then decide when, and how much I actually want to spend on a game? I don't understand the mentality that says F2P with cash shop is horrible because some people who can't control themselves spend more money there than on a game that has a sub. Just because an idiot minority spends so much in a cash shop, that makes that model a bad model? Or makes the devs liars because some people can't keep better control of their money?
Most F2P games ARE free to play. If you're willing to spend the time to grind it out. That's the problem. The vocal minority who hate F2P (including you apparently), are not willing to grind it out.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
I notice how you conveniently forgot to mention that WoW still wants you to shell out $60 every time one of those content updates comes along. So $15 a month plus $60 every few years? No thanks.
You're demonizing F2P for wanting to make money, yet you think the sun shines out of WoW's @** for making you pay right out the gate. WTF, mate? At least with F2P you have the choice. Of course they're not 100% free. If they were, they would be out of business. And if a game's F2P turns out to be a big huge trial? So what? It was free! When you hit the caps set in store for you, you have three choices: sub, leave, or keep playing because it's f***ing free! No one's making you pay. You only have yourself to blame if you do. For my part, I've enjoyed every one of those F2P games without paying a cent (except that I subbed to RS when I was in grade school), so stick that in your holier-than-thou pipe and smoke it.
I would direct you to the "Well yes it does. You know where you stand with a fixed monthly fee - there are no hidden payments or extras, and with the exception of periodic expansion packs, this subscription model still attracts through its simplicity."
I quite clearly expressed that this was my opinion, I explained why, and then asked for yours, theres no need for churlish name calling is there?
I would also point out, the "World of Warcraft" model, does not reflect upon the game itself, just that it is the most popular of its subscription models. Perhaps I was silly for thinking that a mere mention of this game wasn't going to cause a red rag to a bull type reaction.
I just want to apologize for any insult I might have given you (I tried editing that post several times after I wrote it, but it doesn't look like they held), and also applaud you on using "churlish" (a word that doesn't get enough air-time). That aside, it wasn't the WoW mention that irked me as much as the general assault on F2P games. F2P gets a ridiculous amount of bad rep because, I feel, people prefer to stick to their guns on the matter rather than looking at the matter objectively, i.e. refuse to see how F2P works and only look at how it doesn't. I feel that your article just promotes that mode of thought.
I would emplore you now (now that I'm less tired, more chagrinned, and less peeved) to consider in your mind how F2P works. To help this process I will edit (again) my original post to be civil.
"You're demonizing F2P for needing to make money, yet somehow the sun shines out of P2P games's unmentionables for making you pay right out the gate. Why? At least with F2P you have the choice. Of course they're not 100% free. If they were, they would be out of business. And if a game's F2P turns out to just be an unlimited free trial? So what? It was free! When you hit the caps set in store for you, you have four choices: sub, buy some item mall doo-dad, leave, or keep playing because it's free! No one's making you pay. No goons are coming to break you knees. You only have yourself to blame if you pay, but don't want to. For my part, I've enjoyed every one of those F2P games without paying a cent (except that I subbed to RS when I was in grade school)."
Free is free is free, no matter how much free there is. I only play F2Ps, I have spent a grand total of $20 on them to date, and I primarily play MMOs. If for some reason you feel that you need to pay and do, but don't want to, then, IMO, you're being way too hardcore and probably have issues other than the $50 you just lost on the thingy of thingness.
I would also add that nothing is simpler than downloading a game and playing it, which is what F2P games offer, if only for varrying periods of time. But these are games. At some point you will always move on. Sooner or later, you have to move on.
And this post isn't sarcastic. Seriously. I really do feel bad about the original draft.
Okay, before I get started - I'm going to go have a smoke. I'm going to take a deep breath. I'm going to consider my words carefully...
...cause generally speaking, this topic and I - well, I get dinged - I go on little vacations - ahem, etc.
Brb...
I'm not sure where to start, to be honest. Depending on where you start, people reading will either continue reading or they will just go off and post a reply without reading what you've said. I've run into that issue on posts previously. It looks like this thread has had some of those in regard to the original editorial.
Bah, screw it. I've been arguing that first point in countless threads. I've lost my cool in a few of those threads. There are a group of people out there that would argue if you dropped a ball - it would fall up. I've told people to check their local, state, and even Federal consumer protection laws. They do not care. They're right - screw the world.
I suppose the second thing would be, I do not believe that any game is free - even if a person is playing it for free. I'm taking a broader look at it - I accepting the fact that the games are put out by businesses - a business needs revenue - it needs to turn a profit.
If the game is a browser game - where there are ads on the web page or there are ads before you can actually play the game - it is an ad supported game. Some browser games will have ads as well as item shops or they may just have item shops. Even if you do not buy anything - somebody else is. Somebody is spending money. It is a business, revenue - profit. The same goes for all the various models - even if *you* are not paying for some reason - somebody else is. The games cost money to develop and to operate - they need funds for further development of that game and for the development of other games.
So if you're enjoying a game - but not supporting the game in any fashion - well, that gets into a separate discussion about types of people (not even just gamers - people that shoplift, pirate music - movies - or games, etc - because if you're playing a game without supporting the developers in any fashion - well, basically you're stealing).
So for me, no game is actually free - they can't be, unless there was no cost to develop nor a cost to operate. Tic-tac-toe with a stick in the dirt - definitely a free game.
So we get into the Revenue Models - and I'm glad that you used that term - because they are revenue models - F2P is a revenue model (which boggles the mind at how the term can even exist).
I'm glad that you went with more than just three. People typically just go with P2P, B2P, and F2P. Even within P2P, there are multiple P2P models. The same goes for B2P and F2P. Unfortunately though, many of us will still use the three terms when discussing the countless models out there.
I feel this leads to a lot of the bad feelings toward F2P. There are far more variants of F2P than there are of P2P and B2P. So if a person comes across a bunch of the "bad" ones - well, then they are all "bad" - simple as that.
Some people are fine with P2P, but dislike paying a sub and buying expansions. Some are fine with that, but hate doing that and paying for DLC. Some are fine with that, but hate doing that and having an item shop. Because yes, there are P2P models that have a sub, paid expansions, DLC, and item shops. Heck, with B2P - outside of the sub (even sometimes with a secret sub - you have many variants as well.
Then we have F2P - God knows what it means. It seems like what F2P means is different with every game - and sometimes - it even changes with the same game.
Many F2P actually include B2P and P2P elements... you spend $5 in the shop, and you are now a Premium member. You're no longer just a Free member. You just did B2P. Sure, it was $5 instead of $50 - but it is what it is. You buy a 30 day license that lets you access the auction house or increases your crafting speed, etc. You spend a couple of bucks on that. You spend a couple of bucks on that the next month. You spend a couple of bucks on that the month after. Yep, you're paying a sub - sure, it's only a couple of bucks a month instead of $15 - but it is what it is.
Hell, you buy XP pots while leveling up - buying them each time they run out - tada, you're paying a micro-sub.
In the end, much of it simply comes down to how honest the company is being about what they're doing. FE names their free players "Scavengers" - an insulting term probably lost on many - but they also outline the penalties that the free player will experience compared to one of their three subs. Yep, they're showing penalties. They're not trying to sell it like the free player is playing the normal game - and - a subscription gets you more. With a sub, you can buy your way to normal and buy your way past normal if you like. They're honest about it. Not many are...
This was nowhere near as organized as I would have liked, but it's just a forum reply - on a topic that has been hotly debated for a long time. Considering all the threads we've had of late, I'm wondering if the mods are going to lock down the discussion and refer folks here to centralize the discussion.
Speaking of the mods - I want to touch upon something. Heh, not in regard to the mods - but to the site itself. Is this a free website? Nope. It is an ad supported site. They make that very clear (lol, painfully so at times) - but they're not trying to hide it - we're not getting spam from them - etc, etc, etc. The ads support our being able to post here - read news about the genre and the games we love.
How many folks are browsing this site with AdBlock,Ghostery, or something like that...?
We're not really supporting the site that is giving us this news or allowing us to throw flaming kittens at each other occasionally...ahem. If we like it here, we should at least show the ads to show some support - right? If we do not like it, well - we would simply leave - right? But if we like it here...
...so why should it be any different for the games discussed here? If we like them, we should pay for them in some fashion - whether it is the $5 or $50 B2P or the $2 or $15 P2P...no?
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Something I left out, which is often mentioned by some that play F2P games - is that they can avoid the "burn" sometimes involved with a B2P or P2P game. That "burn" is shelling out money upfront for a game that you either dislike or is simply garbage, lol.
Oddly enough, that is one of the reasons that I mainly gave up on singleplayer and console games. Burned time after time, with games that either did not have demos or they had demos like some movies have trailers - the best part was in the demo/trailer and the game/movie was garbage...lol.
I think that MMORPGs should have trials. Not just open betas where they do some stress testing. Many of us have been in an open beta on the last day before launch and have found ourselves going WTF the when the game launches - trying to figure out how the game changed so much, lol. No, they should have actual trials after the launch - so you can try the game in production - to determine if you want to buy or sub to it.
Speaking of subs, I also think that P2P needs tiers. I seriously do. I think they should be content tiers - of a sort.
Thomas likes PvP - but hates PvE.
Richard likes PvE - but hates PvP.
Harold likes both PvE and PvP - but hates Raiding.
Eugene likes it all.
All four of them pay the same sub...why?
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
So if you're enjoying a game - but not supporting the game in any fashion - well, that gets into a separate discussion about types of people (not even just gamers - people that shoplift, pirate music - movies - or games, etc - because if you're playing a game without supporting the developers in any fashion - well, basically you're stealing).
Speaking of the mods - I want to touch upon something. Heh, not in regard to the mods - but to the site itself. Is this a free website? Nope. It is an ad supported site. They make that very clear (lol, painfully so at times) - but they're not trying to hide it - we're not getting spam from them - etc, etc, etc. The ads support our being able to post here - read news about the genre and the games we love.
How many folks are browsing this site with AdBlock,Ghostery, or something like that...?
We're not really supporting the site that is giving us this news or allowing us to throw flaming kittens at each other occasionally...ahem. If we like it here, we should at least show the ads to show some support - right? If we do not like it, well - we would simply leave - right? But if we like it here...
...so why should it be any different for the games discussed here? If we like them, we should pay for them in some fashion - whether it is the $5 or $50 B2P or the $2 or $15 P2P...no?
So I assume when you listen to the radio or watch TV, you jot down every 4th commercial then go down and buy the product?
That's not really the way it works.
Same with F2P.
It's okay if you don't give them money. They expect that. You are, in fact, supplying something to the F2P people even if you don't give them money. YOu give them numbers and community and a lower class.
You can't have an upper class without treading on the backs of the lower class citizens, so by your simple miserable unpaid existence, you make people paying seem more attractive.
Not paying for a F2P game is NOTHING AT ALL like piracy. In one case, you are specifically part of the revenue model, you are planned, and you are taking what they are giving you for free.
In fact, you could look at F2P and other online content-paying mechanisms as a direct answer to piracy and used game sales (Which to a game company, is much closer to the same thing. ). Games with lots of content downloads? A method of getting money from people who weren't the primary buyer.
I totally disagree with your subscription based logic because you don't get what you paid for and infact you are paying too much.
When you first purchased WoW, it markets to have a massive content you can explore and discover, so massive that it takes years to fully experience....but Blizzard only gives you ONE month to do all that. So you pay $50-$60 for a game you are only to play for a month. That's fraud and false advertisement.
Now in order for you to access the rest of the massive content that you supposed to have paid for, you have to fork-up $15 for another month of playtime. That's just ridiculous.
Sure back then it made sense because there's no other alternatives until games like AsianMMO and GW proved that the sub based model is a scam.
The F2P model has no secret on how they get revenues. Unlike the sub based, where you become chained and commited to play because the clock is ticking...F2P model allows you to drop the game and pick it up later without stressing out about the deadline.
You can see this trend in other things like cellphones' pay as you go model. It proves that a lot of player simply do not want to commit because they have to, they want to commit because they choose to, when they want to.
Free-to-play to me is "play whenever you want, however you want".
Sub based to me is "play because time is running out". Lame.
In short I hate the p2w model everyone can play it, theres absolutely no filter so the community is filled with scum. Also for me an itemshop is a huge immersionbreaker and will soon be flooded with p2w stuff (experience scrolls, better health flasks, mounts...) you name it. I prefer knowing my costs and therefore gladly pay 15 $ a month for a good game, everyone is even and you can't buy advantages.
For me the p2p modell works best but I hate hybrids, such as having p2p AND on top of that an itemshop its a big nogo and will make me quit immediately.
Publishers are liars there is no such stuff such as vanity items. If I'm paying a monthly fee I should be able to get this things depending on my time investment and skill. Also thinking freeminum is the biggest joke evere its just a rip off hybrid model and not suited for a so called AAA MMOG.
I know people are saying GW has a b2p model right but lets see whats GW 2 itemshop is gonna look like they have already mentioned experience boosts but overall at least this model is the only alternative to p2p I asume somewhat fair.
Verdict: p2p without itemshop yay other crap nay.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play." "Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
You are, in fact, supplying something to the F2P people even if you don't give them money. YOu give them numbers and community and a lower class.
You can't have an upper class without treading on the backs of the lower class citizens, so by your simple miserable unpaid existence, you make people paying seem more attractive.
I'm trying to figure out if you're playfully poking the F2P beehive or if you actually believe what you typed there.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
You are, in fact, supplying something to the F2P people even if you don't give them money. YOu give them numbers and community and a lower class.
You can't have an upper class without treading on the backs of the lower class citizens, so by your simple miserable unpaid existence, you make people paying seem more attractive.
I'm trying to figure out if you're playfully poking the F2P beehive or if you actually believe what you typed there.
Can you tell me what was inaccurate about what I said?
I play lots of F2P games, but I have no illusions that I am not, in fact, some sort of second-class (Or third-class) citizen, scrabbling at the fringes of existence, my miserable plaintive wails of suffering making everybody who pays for stuff glad they don't have to put up with the agonies I inflict upon myself in an attempt to play a game.
So I assume when you listen to the radio or watch TV, you jot down every 4th commercial then go down and buy the product?
The commercials play. The networks are being paid for the commercials to air. Some people will look for more info on the products advertised or keep them in mind when they think about purchasing a particular product. Some people flip channels - go out for a smoke, go to the bathroom, etc. The commercials play.
That's not really the way it works.
TV and radio advertising works.
Same with F2P.
It's okay if you don't give them money. They expect that. You are, in fact, supplying something to the F2P people even if you don't give them money. YOu give them numbers and community and a lower class.
You can't have an upper class without treading on the backs of the lower class citizens, so by your simple miserable unpaid existence, you make people paying seem more attractive.
So you see a symbiotic relationship where the free players are partaking in an interactive commercial for the game?
Not paying for a F2P game is NOTHING AT ALL like piracy. In one case, you are specifically part of the revenue model, you are planned, and you are taking what they are giving you for free.
You are enjoying a product. You are not paying for it. It's that simple.
You're trying to sell a bogus possibility by tying it into something that sounds good.
A company might give free tickets to people that will talk about the movie - it's a good movie. Others will possibly buy tickets. A company is not going to give out free tickets for people to stand out the theater in the hopes that people will buy tickets to go in and see the movie.
Carrot and stick works in the P2P model to get people to continue subscribing. They want to keep up with the Joneses (or even surpass them).
Trying to justify that a person playing a game for free is providing a service to the game company by looking pathetic is a form of delusional rationalization.
It would be akin to saying that I steel from jewelry stores, because when I get arrested and go to jail - it is going to make people more likely to buy jewelry. Say that's the reason you did it - and it may keep you out of jail . . . because you'll be going to the local nuthut.
In fact, you could look at F2P and other online content-paying mechanisms as a direct answer to piracy and used game sales (Which to a game company, is much closer to the same thing. ). Games with lots of content downloads? A method of getting money from people who weren't the primary buyer.
F2P is not an answer to that. B2P with paid expansions or DLC would be an answer to that. P2P is an answer to that. Making it bannable to sell accounts for online games - is an answer to that.
F2P is a revenue model. That is not in question. The question that comes up is using the term F2P when talking about a revenue model.
There was a good discussion about the free cheese pizza - trying to get people to come to the restaurant to spend more money. The problem with the analogy though - is that it is not unlimited free pizza. Yet some people feel they're entitled to unlimited free pizza...in playing a F2P game without supporting the game.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
You are, in fact, supplying something to the F2P people even if you don't give them money. YOu give them numbers and community and a lower class.
You can't have an upper class without treading on the backs of the lower class citizens, so by your simple miserable unpaid existence, you make people paying seem more attractive.
I'm trying to figure out if you're playfully poking the F2P beehive or if you actually believe what you typed there.
+ there is plenty of slides, presentations and even official, academic, etc papers on f2p model on the internet - easy to find really. Besides there are almsot no western f2p titles from the ground up. Some think they will be better than p2p -> f2p. You will be surprised. In a bad way imho.
You might be surprised if you think Meowhead is getting ideas out of his 'lower back' ;p
+ there is plenty of slides, presentations and even official, academic, etc papers on f2p model. You might be surprised if you think Meowhead is getting ideas out of his 'lower back' ;p
I've seen that before, and it still surprises me that anybody that has watched it could support the F2P model.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
+ there is plenty of slides, presentations and even official, academic, etc papers on f2p model. You might be surprised if you think Meowhead is getting ideas out of his 'lower back' ;p
I've seen that before, and it still surprises me that anybody that has watched it could support the F2P model.
I mean, honestly - his "selling points" for making the switch to the F2P model reads like a "What I hate about the F2P model?" list from the forums here...lol.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
The commercials play. The networks are being paid for the commercials to air. Some people will look for more info on the products advertised or keep them in mind when they think about purchasing a particular product. Some people flip channels - go out for a smoke, go to the bathroom, etc. The commercials play.
The people who pay for F2P pay. Somebody is paying for F2P. They do not expect EVERYBODY to pay. They don't even expect most people to pay. They know, acknowledge that, and are PERFECTLY HAPPY with it. It's just like TV and radio people don't talk about you 'stealing their entertainment' just because you're part of the masses who aren't influenced by the advertising.
TV and radio advertising works.
... and so do F2Ps. Thank you. Actually, it's like you're arguing my case for me. This is getting lazy!
So you see a symbiotic relationship where the free players are partaking in an interactive commercial for the game?
I see a symbiotic relationship where part of what an MMORPG is selling is the community. Free people are the VAST MAJORITY of the community. Most players pay very little, if anything. Who the hell would advertise their MMORPG as 'now with 4/5ths less players, because we thought the other people weren't giving us enough money!'. Nobody.
It would be akin to saying that I steel from jewelry stores, because when I get arrested and go to jail - it is going to make people more likely to buy jewelry. Say that's the reason you did it - and it may keep you out of jail . . . because you'll be going to the local nuthut.
If there was a jewelry store that had a sign out front 'come in and take free jewelry', ushered you in, then festooned you with some of the cheaper jewelry in hopes your friends would buy the good stuff... then yes. Yes. It would certainly be akin to that. Until it's like that, your analogy is crap. It's craptastically crap. F2P model =fully expects most players not to pay=. Which part of that don't you understand? It's nothing at all like any model where some people are playing for free =against the express wishes of the company=.
F2P is not an answer to that. B2P with paid expansions or DLC would be an answer to that. P2P is an answer to that. Making it bannable to sell accounts for online games - is an answer to that.
F2P is a revenue model. That is not in question. The question that comes up is using the term F2P when talking about a revenue model.
There was a good discussion about the free cheese pizza - trying to get people to come to the restaurant to spend more money. The problem with the analogy though - is that it is not unlimited free pizza. Yet some people feel they're entitled to unlimited free pizza...in playing a F2P game without supporting the game.
B2P and DLC are both also answers to it. F2P is the same type of thing, and solves the same sorts of problems as subscriptions. Just think about all those pirates who say 'I download to see if I like it, and then if I like it, I pay for it'. Well, hey, that's exactly what you do in F2P.
... and yes. Yes you are entitled to unlimited free pizza, if that's what they say you get. Now, if it's all cheese pizza, and the company is withholding all other toppings... you're not entitled to say... a meat lover's pizza, but yes. Because the company said so, you're entitled to all the cheese pizza you can gorge your piggy face on.
That's exactly what the company wants you to do. The whole while wafting the smell of pepperoni under your nose. Stop conflating a crime with something that the company is expecting out of you. I think the F2P company people would think you're not very good at running a F2P business, since their whole model is based off of getting their money out of a minority of people.
I think this whole argument can be settled by pointing out that F2P games have the majority of players not paying, they're still in business, and they don't care if you think their customers are thieves, because you're wrong, and because they love all their customers, paying or not.
I'm surprised you don't understand the concept of creating tiers of society, and how F2Ps sell their products based off of being better than the underclass. Otherwise they wouldn't sell STUFF, F2Ps would be like a charity. 'Give us money and you can play the exact same game, with no benefits, cosmetic or otherwise. ... but we'd appreciate the money' NPR the MMORPG.
People who don't pay in F2P games are playing the free parts. It only becomes theft if you somehow manage to hack their system and get the stuff they're charging for when you're not supposed to. :T
The people who pay for F2P pay. Somebody is paying for F2P. They do not expect EVERYBODY to pay. They don't even expect most people to pay. They know, acknowledge that, and are PERFECTLY HAPPY with it. It's just like TV and radio people don't talk about you 'stealing their entertainment' just because you're part of the masses who aren't influenced by the advertising.
The third party companies are paying for the advertising to support the shows that we enjoy. The TV networks are not expecting that any of the viewers will pay like the third party advertisers are. When you get into the cable networks - there is third party advertising and you are paying a premium for the cable access.
At this point, they are expecting that somebody is going to pay. Is everybody going to pay? Somebody invites a friend over to watch. Is that friend paying? No. But guess what, there is still the third party advertiser that is paying. It is still being covered.
Companies using the F2P model do not expect everybody to pay. They expect that a certain percentage of their players will steal the entertainment - and - expect to turn a profit on the overall revenue generated by those players that are not stealing their entertainment.
... and so do F2Ps. Thank you. Actually, it's like you're arguing my case for me. This is getting lazy!
There is no doubt, no offense meant, that you are being lazy in your arguments supporting the F2P model. I do not see how I am arguing your case for you in the least. Nothing has agreed with you.
I see a symbiotic relationship where part of what an MMORPG is selling is the community. Free people are the VAST MAJORITY of the community. Most players pay very little, if anything. Who the hell would advertise their MMORPG as 'now with 4/5ths less players, because we thought the other people weren't giving us enough money!'. Nobody.
You've obviously missed all of the discussions on the lack of "social" in MMOs and how they are singleplayer games with a persistent world.
If there was a jewelry store that had a sign out front 'come in and take free jewelry', ushered you in, then festooned you with some of the cheaper jewelry in hopes your friends would buy the good stuff... then yes. Yes. It would certainly be akin to that. Until it's like that, your analogy is crap. It's craptastically crap. F2P model =fully expects most players not to pay=. Which part of that don't you understand? It's nothing at all like any model where some people are playing for free =against the express wishes of the company=.
The express wishes of the company is that people spend money. They are a business. They're looking for revenue and a profit. The wish would be that everybody spends all their money on the game and that the developers can retire early to tropical islands.
If you offer me free garbage, that is not going to entice me to buy something nicer. It's that simple. You don't bait with the carrot and stick model by placing a turd on the end of the stick in the hopes that the players will look for a carrot.
B2P and DLC are both also answers to it. F2P is the same type of thing, and solves the same sorts of problems as subscriptions. Just think about all those pirates who say 'I download to see if I like it, and then if I like it, I pay for it'. Well, hey, that's exactly what you do in F2P.
Except, as you have pointed out - there is no need for the person ever to pay anything. Thus, it is not an answer - is it? B2P and P2P are answers to it. You are guaranteed revenue.
... and yes. Yes you are entitled to unlimited free pizza, if that's what they say you get. Now, if it's all cheese pizza, and the company is withholding all other toppings... you're not entitled to say... a meat lover's pizza, but yes. Because the company said so, you're entitled to all the cheese pizza you can gorge your piggy face on.
Which is where some F2P models are honest and some are not. Which is one of the issues with the F2P business model in general.
That's exactly what the company wants you to do. The whole while wafting the smell of pepperoni under your nose. Stop conflating a crime with something that the company is expecting out of you. I think the F2P company people would think you're not very good at running a F2P business, since their whole model is based off of getting their money out of a minority of people.
They are not going to give you a free cheese pizza, day after day after day after day - in the hopes that one day you will add pepperoni.
They do a promotion - akin to a trial, open beta, or a demo.
The F2P business model is based off of separating fools and their money.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
I think this whole argument can be settled by pointing out that F2P games have the majority of players not paying, they're still in business, and they don't care if you think their customers are thieves, because you're wrong, and because they love all their customers, paying or not.
I'm surprised you don't understand the concept of creating tiers of society, and how F2Ps sell their products based off of being better than the underclass. Otherwise they wouldn't sell STUFF, F2Ps would be like a charity. 'Give us money and you can play the exact same game, with no benefits, cosmetic or otherwise. ... but we'd appreciate the money' NPR the MMORPG.
People who don't pay in F2P games are playing the free parts. It only becomes theft if you somehow manage to hack their system and get the stuff they're charging for when you're not supposed to. :T
If you are enjoying an entertainment product, should you pay for it? Should you experience it for free? Is the actual desire of the F2P to have people play for free? Or is it that they will spend more money than the company would have gotten with a B2P or P2P model?
At the grocery store, there is an employee with a little tray of samples. The desire is that you will try the sample and buy the product. The expectation is that enough people will buy the product to cover the cost of the product used for samples, any advertising, and having the person standing there. It is accepted that not everybody is going to buy the product.
If somebody makes multiple passes - with no intention of ever buying the product...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Comments
I prefer subscriptions, but ideally, a game that has both is great to me. If you want it f2p, then you can, but then have a sub model that opens up all the content you could buy piecemeal.
Sort of how LoTRO did--not sure if that is still how they do it though, havent played in a while.
Sure. EQ2X. Have to pay in order to hold a certain teir of items, be able to send private chats, be able to browse broker, be able to hold a certain amount of gold, etc.
http://everquest2.com/_themes/default/images/extended/membershipMatrix.jpg
Legendary/Fabled are rare items for levels 50 and up.
/say /te// group and /guild are available
Nothing stops you from interacting with and trading with others. You just can't use the broker. This goes back to the argument of some players wanting more social interaction! and more innovation... but not really wanting that.
Gold limit in F2P is something you can thank the gold sellers for, however it isn't a very restrictive limit.
What you have is a game that really won't cost you anything for the first 50-70 levels. Beyond that, most of what you want can be obtained with a one-time $10 purchase. That seems rather generous and far from unreasonable.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Rather than take your belief as to if guild wars is a mmo, lets see what the makers of the game think. (unless you know better than they do).
From the FAQ: http://www.guildwars.com/products/guildwars/features/default.php
Is Guild Wars an MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game)?
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
I will never touch a subscription model game ever again.
I have no issue with Buy2play like A-net does. I have no problem with F2p with optional Content packs and no issue with normal games with DLC.
I have a big issue with paying 15 bucks every month on top of a 60 buck box fee and then another 30-40 every two years for expansions. Its simply too much of a money sink for one game.
Playing: Nothing
Looking forward to: Nothing
The more casual you are about your gaming, the less appealing the subscription model becomes. F2P has some pitfalls but it's not all as bad as you seem to make it. Maybe you spend a lot of hours on your games and you're getting your moneys worth but P2P tends to make me feel like I have to play as much as I can and each month you have to decide if you want to fork over another $15 to keep on playing the game. After a while the answer will be no and then you won't even be able to log in anymore. With F2P games you can at the very least log in just to chat to old friends.
There are few games out there that are actually worth a subscription in the long run.
I prefer a subscription model. Most games that I have played that have the f2p model essentially just arent as fun for me. When I go to play a game I want to have the same game that everyone around me has, I don't think I should have to pay extra so that I can stay competative or play in area's that don't come with the initial offering.
I understand that it is still a MMO and that they still have to make money to keep it running, but segragating population and creating issues between pay players and free ones doesn't make for an appealing game for me.
I havent played a f2p game that has offered me something half as well as a p2p game has. From what I have seen f2p is just a way of keeping games that are waning in sub numbers active and making money. Even though some do keep adding content and keep updating, unless your willing to pay even more you don't get to see it.
So in my simply opinion, I would rather play a p2p game, with regular content updates and expansions, even if I have to pay for multiple boxes over the lifetime of the game. If its a good game and it keeps me entertained then its worth it. Atleast this way I get what Im paying for and I dont feel like no matter how much I spend I dont get to the same game as everyone else or a game that is just dated and still trying to make a buck.
It's nice to see some objective opinions on this topic.
"Publishers much prefer the obnoxious phrase "F2P", even though under the trades-descriptions act, what they are doing is a felony."
Considering that that statement is demonstrably false, why should I buy your argument that paying $60 for a game, plus $10 or $15 per month and then another $40 to $60 for any expansions is so much better? Why should I pay that much money for a game when I can have just as much an enjoyable experience when I buy the box and then pay nothing more, or when I pay nothing up front and then decide when, and how much I actually want to spend on a game? I don't understand the mentality that says F2P with cash shop is horrible because some people who can't control themselves spend more money there than on a game that has a sub. Just because an idiot minority spends so much in a cash shop, that makes that model a bad model? Or makes the devs liars because some people can't keep better control of their money?
Most F2P games ARE free to play. If you're willing to spend the time to grind it out. That's the problem. The vocal minority who hate F2P (including you apparently), are not willing to grind it out.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Be afraid.....The dragons are HERE!
Or the EVE model?
- Monthly fee
- Free expansions
- Trade ingame currency for game time
- (Vanity item shop)
Sounds better then the described 'wow model'.
I just want to apologize for any insult I might have given you (I tried editing that post several times after I wrote it, but it doesn't look like they held), and also applaud you on using "churlish" (a word that doesn't get enough air-time). That aside, it wasn't the WoW mention that irked me as much as the general assault on F2P games. F2P gets a ridiculous amount of bad rep because, I feel, people prefer to stick to their guns on the matter rather than looking at the matter objectively, i.e. refuse to see how F2P works and only look at how it doesn't. I feel that your article just promotes that mode of thought.
I would emplore you now (now that I'm less tired, more chagrinned, and less peeved) to consider in your mind how F2P works. To help this process I will edit (again) my original post to be civil.
"You're demonizing F2P for needing to make money, yet somehow the sun shines out of P2P games's unmentionables for making you pay right out the gate. Why? At least with F2P you have the choice. Of course they're not 100% free. If they were, they would be out of business. And if a game's F2P turns out to just be an unlimited free trial? So what? It was free! When you hit the caps set in store for you, you have four choices: sub, buy some item mall doo-dad, leave, or keep playing because it's free! No one's making you pay. No goons are coming to break you knees. You only have yourself to blame if you pay, but don't want to. For my part, I've enjoyed every one of those F2P games without paying a cent (except that I subbed to RS when I was in grade school)."
Free is free is free, no matter how much free there is. I only play F2Ps, I have spent a grand total of $20 on them to date, and I primarily play MMOs. If for some reason you feel that you need to pay and do, but don't want to, then, IMO, you're being way too hardcore and probably have issues other than the $50 you just lost on the thingy of thingness.
I would also add that nothing is simpler than downloading a game and playing it, which is what F2P games offer, if only for varrying periods of time. But these are games. At some point you will always move on. Sooner or later, you have to move on.
And this post isn't sarcastic. Seriously. I really do feel bad about the original draft.
Okay, before I get started - I'm going to go have a smoke. I'm going to take a deep breath. I'm going to consider my words carefully...
...cause generally speaking, this topic and I - well, I get dinged - I go on little vacations - ahem, etc.
Brb...
I'm not sure where to start, to be honest. Depending on where you start, people reading will either continue reading or they will just go off and post a reply without reading what you've said. I've run into that issue on posts previously. It looks like this thread has had some of those in regard to the original editorial.
Bah, screw it. I've been arguing that first point in countless threads. I've lost my cool in a few of those threads. There are a group of people out there that would argue if you dropped a ball - it would fall up. I've told people to check their local, state, and even Federal consumer protection laws. They do not care. They're right - screw the world.
I suppose the second thing would be, I do not believe that any game is free - even if a person is playing it for free. I'm taking a broader look at it - I accepting the fact that the games are put out by businesses - a business needs revenue - it needs to turn a profit.
If the game is a browser game - where there are ads on the web page or there are ads before you can actually play the game - it is an ad supported game. Some browser games will have ads as well as item shops or they may just have item shops. Even if you do not buy anything - somebody else is. Somebody is spending money. It is a business, revenue - profit. The same goes for all the various models - even if *you* are not paying for some reason - somebody else is. The games cost money to develop and to operate - they need funds for further development of that game and for the development of other games.
So if you're enjoying a game - but not supporting the game in any fashion - well, that gets into a separate discussion about types of people (not even just gamers - people that shoplift, pirate music - movies - or games, etc - because if you're playing a game without supporting the developers in any fashion - well, basically you're stealing).
So for me, no game is actually free - they can't be, unless there was no cost to develop nor a cost to operate. Tic-tac-toe with a stick in the dirt - definitely a free game.
So we get into the Revenue Models - and I'm glad that you used that term - because they are revenue models - F2P is a revenue model (which boggles the mind at how the term can even exist).
I'm glad that you went with more than just three. People typically just go with P2P, B2P, and F2P. Even within P2P, there are multiple P2P models. The same goes for B2P and F2P. Unfortunately though, many of us will still use the three terms when discussing the countless models out there.
I feel this leads to a lot of the bad feelings toward F2P. There are far more variants of F2P than there are of P2P and B2P. So if a person comes across a bunch of the "bad" ones - well, then they are all "bad" - simple as that.
Some people are fine with P2P, but dislike paying a sub and buying expansions. Some are fine with that, but hate doing that and paying for DLC. Some are fine with that, but hate doing that and having an item shop. Because yes, there are P2P models that have a sub, paid expansions, DLC, and item shops. Heck, with B2P - outside of the sub (even sometimes with a secret sub - you have many variants as well.
Then we have F2P - God knows what it means. It seems like what F2P means is different with every game - and sometimes - it even changes with the same game.
Many F2P actually include B2P and P2P elements... you spend $5 in the shop, and you are now a Premium member. You're no longer just a Free member. You just did B2P. Sure, it was $5 instead of $50 - but it is what it is. You buy a 30 day license that lets you access the auction house or increases your crafting speed, etc. You spend a couple of bucks on that. You spend a couple of bucks on that the next month. You spend a couple of bucks on that the month after. Yep, you're paying a sub - sure, it's only a couple of bucks a month instead of $15 - but it is what it is.
Hell, you buy XP pots while leveling up - buying them each time they run out - tada, you're paying a micro-sub.
In the end, much of it simply comes down to how honest the company is being about what they're doing. FE names their free players "Scavengers" - an insulting term probably lost on many - but they also outline the penalties that the free player will experience compared to one of their three subs. Yep, they're showing penalties. They're not trying to sell it like the free player is playing the normal game - and - a subscription gets you more. With a sub, you can buy your way to normal and buy your way past normal if you like. They're honest about it. Not many are...
This was nowhere near as organized as I would have liked, but it's just a forum reply - on a topic that has been hotly debated for a long time. Considering all the threads we've had of late, I'm wondering if the mods are going to lock down the discussion and refer folks here to centralize the discussion.
Speaking of the mods - I want to touch upon something. Heh, not in regard to the mods - but to the site itself. Is this a free website? Nope. It is an ad supported site. They make that very clear (lol, painfully so at times) - but they're not trying to hide it - we're not getting spam from them - etc, etc, etc. The ads support our being able to post here - read news about the genre and the games we love.
How many folks are browsing this site with AdBlock,Ghostery, or something like that...?
We're not really supporting the site that is giving us this news or allowing us to throw flaming kittens at each other occasionally...ahem. If we like it here, we should at least show the ads to show some support - right? If we do not like it, well - we would simply leave - right? But if we like it here...
...so why should it be any different for the games discussed here? If we like them, we should pay for them in some fashion - whether it is the $5 or $50 B2P or the $2 or $15 P2P...no?
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Something I left out, which is often mentioned by some that play F2P games - is that they can avoid the "burn" sometimes involved with a B2P or P2P game. That "burn" is shelling out money upfront for a game that you either dislike or is simply garbage, lol.
Oddly enough, that is one of the reasons that I mainly gave up on singleplayer and console games. Burned time after time, with games that either did not have demos or they had demos like some movies have trailers - the best part was in the demo/trailer and the game/movie was garbage...lol.
I think that MMORPGs should have trials. Not just open betas where they do some stress testing. Many of us have been in an open beta on the last day before launch and have found ourselves going WTF the when the game launches - trying to figure out how the game changed so much, lol. No, they should have actual trials after the launch - so you can try the game in production - to determine if you want to buy or sub to it.
Speaking of subs, I also think that P2P needs tiers. I seriously do. I think they should be content tiers - of a sort.
Thomas likes PvP - but hates PvE.
Richard likes PvE - but hates PvP.
Harold likes both PvE and PvP - but hates Raiding.
Eugene likes it all.
All four of them pay the same sub...why?
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Best model is P2P WITHOUT CASH SHOP.
That is rare nowadays unfortunetally
btw. for me as player who find pure p2p best - freemium subscriptions are NOT an alternative. cash shop basically is what I despise
So I assume when you listen to the radio or watch TV, you jot down every 4th commercial then go down and buy the product?
That's not really the way it works.
Same with F2P.
It's okay if you don't give them money. They expect that. You are, in fact, supplying something to the F2P people even if you don't give them money. YOu give them numbers and community and a lower class.
You can't have an upper class without treading on the backs of the lower class citizens, so by your simple miserable unpaid existence, you make people paying seem more attractive.
Not paying for a F2P game is NOTHING AT ALL like piracy. In one case, you are specifically part of the revenue model, you are planned, and you are taking what they are giving you for free.
In fact, you could look at F2P and other online content-paying mechanisms as a direct answer to piracy and used game sales (Which to a game company, is much closer to the same thing.
). Games with lots of content downloads? A method of getting money from people who weren't the primary buyer.
I totally disagree with your subscription based logic because you don't get what you paid for and infact you are paying too much.
When you first purchased WoW, it markets to have a massive content you can explore and discover, so massive that it takes years to fully experience....but Blizzard only gives you ONE month to do all that. So you pay $50-$60 for a game you are only to play for a month. That's fraud and false advertisement.
Now in order for you to access the rest of the massive content that you supposed to have paid for, you have to fork-up $15 for another month of playtime. That's just ridiculous.
Sure back then it made sense because there's no other alternatives until games like AsianMMO and GW proved that the sub based model is a scam.
The F2P model has no secret on how they get revenues. Unlike the sub based, where you become chained and commited to play because the clock is ticking...F2P model allows you to drop the game and pick it up later without stressing out about the deadline.
You can see this trend in other things like cellphones' pay as you go model. It proves that a lot of player simply do not want to commit because they have to, they want to commit because they choose to, when they want to.
Free-to-play to me is "play whenever you want, however you want".
Sub based to me is "play because time is running out". Lame.
Ready for GW2!!!
In short I hate the p2w model everyone can play it, theres absolutely no filter so the community is filled with scum. Also for me an itemshop is a huge immersionbreaker and will soon be flooded with p2w stuff (experience scrolls, better health flasks, mounts...) you name it. I prefer knowing my costs and therefore gladly pay 15 $ a month for a good game, everyone is even and you can't buy advantages.
For me the p2p modell works best but I hate hybrids, such as having p2p AND on top of that an itemshop its a big nogo and will make me quit immediately.
Publishers are liars there is no such stuff such as vanity items. If I'm paying a monthly fee I should be able to get this things depending on my time investment and skill. Also thinking freeminum is the biggest joke evere its just a rip off hybrid model and not suited for a so called AAA MMOG.
I know people are saying GW has a b2p model right but lets see whats GW 2 itemshop is gonna look like they have already mentioned experience boosts but overall at least this model is the only alternative to p2p I asume somewhat fair.
Verdict: p2p without itemshop yay other crap nay.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play."
"Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
I'm trying to figure out if you're playfully poking the F2P beehive or if you actually believe what you typed there.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Can you tell me what was inaccurate about what I said?
I play lots of F2P games, but I have no illusions that I am not, in fact, some sort of second-class (Or third-class) citizen, scrabbling at the fringes of existence, my miserable plaintive wails of suffering making everybody who pays for stuff glad they don't have to put up with the agonies I inflict upon myself in an attempt to play a game.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
You might want to read that:
http://www.slideshare.net/vgsummit/zhan-ye-what-us-game-developers-need-to-know-about-freetoplay-in-china-2408412
+ there is plenty of slides, presentations and even official, academic, etc papers on f2p model on the internet - easy to find really. Besides there are almsot no western f2p titles from the ground up. Some think they will be better than p2p -> f2p. You will be surprised. In a bad way imho.
You might be surprised if you think Meowhead is getting ideas out of his 'lower back' ;p
I've seen that before, and it still surprises me that anybody that has watched it could support the F2P model.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
I mean, honestly - his "selling points" for making the switch to the F2P model reads like a "What I hate about the F2P model?" list from the forums here...lol.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
I think this whole argument can be settled by pointing out that F2P games have the majority of players not paying, they're still in business, and they don't care if you think their customers are thieves, because you're wrong, and because they love all their customers, paying or not.
I'm surprised you don't understand the concept of creating tiers of society, and how F2Ps sell their products based off of being better than the underclass.
Otherwise they wouldn't sell STUFF, F2Ps would be like a charity. 'Give us money and you can play the exact same game, with no benefits, cosmetic or otherwise. ... but we'd appreciate the money' NPR the MMORPG.
People who don't pay in F2P games are playing the free parts. It only becomes theft if you somehow manage to hack their system and get the stuff they're charging for when you're not supposed to. :T
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
If you are enjoying an entertainment product, should you pay for it? Should you experience it for free? Is the actual desire of the F2P to have people play for free? Or is it that they will spend more money than the company would have gotten with a B2P or P2P model?
At the grocery store, there is an employee with a little tray of samples. The desire is that you will try the sample and buy the product. The expectation is that enough people will buy the product to cover the cost of the product used for samples, any advertising, and having the person standing there. It is accepted that not everybody is going to buy the product.
If somebody makes multiple passes - with no intention of ever buying the product...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%