I'm a subscription fan through and through because it keeps everybody on the same playing field. I make plenty of money and could buy my way to the top of any cash shop game but its a tainted climb and when you look back down theres no feeling of triumph or accomplishment.
A-freakin'-men.
And that should be the /thread.
But we already know that is not the case.
There is the "cash" advantage and there is the "time" advantage.
Some people are fine with one and disparage the other.
In the end, one cannot really say that either is right - though, there is a tendency to feel better about the latter than the former. You pay your dues . . . you do not pay to avoid your dues.
It depends on how the game is structured and how people view the game.....
Is there a "time advantage" in Chess or Baseball?
Well hopefully if you've played that game quite a bit, you (as a player) will have learned something from that experience as to how to play the game more effecively then a beginner.
Very few people would regard that a player being more experienced at playing Chess and a player who was allowed to buy an extra Queen to play with as being equivalent in terms of fairness.
For most people...games are intended to be a measure of the players skill at the game...and not a measure of thier bank accounts.
Now if you have a game (as some of our games and quite a few MMO's are) where a players ability is purely or mostly a measure of the hours spent while logged into a character....because the character becomes more powerfull the longer the player is logged in... regardless of whether the player actually learns anything about playing a game or not... then you have an arguement...
But wouldn't that be more a criticism of the typical grind/character advancement model that so many games follow rather then an arguement for time & money being equivalent?
I guess isnce its an editorial you dont have to look at both sides or present truths contradictory to your bashing of a particular mdoel, but you are so biased against SoE that your blurb about the EQ2 model completely ignores its MAJOR advantages over systems such as LOTRO:
It gives you the most playable content BY FAR of any f2p (and most p2p) MMOs. The gear you are restrcited form is only needed to make you from overpowered to godlike for 90% of the games content. It would be akin to doing regular (not heroic) dungeons in WOTLK without allowing use of purples. Its not until you get to the end game that it remotely matters, and at that point you could always just sub if you really want too.
Yes, you do need to pay the $10 for silver to have access to the features youll need, but once you do that you are set for as long as you want to be. Until the end game you will never once need to buy anything outside of a particular class or race you may want. There is a very large amount of content you can do before then. You wont go to a use a horse and have it say 'sorry, pay to unlock this' or go to a quest giver and it says 'you must unlock quests for this zone' or try to enter a dungeon and have it say 'sorry you havent purchased this'. You will not be underpowered for any content (unless you choose to ignore your AAs) until you get into the upper 80s. Youll have enough bag space, and the gold cap is pretty generous compared to the competition and isnt a big deal.
So yes, for a hardcore player its not better than a sub option (which is always available), but for those people that like to take their time and explore and do things at their pace its a great value. Its not for everyone, but there is definitely a fairly large group of people that its the ebst deal on the market for.
Also: most of what you wrote about eq2x directly applies to lotro's system and you were much less negative towards it
Don't throw SOE in there as an example as they have made so many people mad at them, they can't expect to fund in the normal way.
Also note this: The top feature people ask for in WoW is player or guild housing. People also regularly ask for more/shared bank slots and a way to upgrade the starter bag.
Blizzards response to both of these is how costly it would be to implement both features, strain on their databases etc.
Yet EQ2 has the most extensive housing system in the genre and the largest amount of inventory storage.
Its fair to say WoW makes more $$ per person than EQ2 does per subscription, and WoW has at least 20x the NA/EU subs as EQ2 does.
Yet which game has added more content over 7 years? Its not really close.
Its very reasonable to say SoE has the cash shop because they need too, not because of greed. And its also very likely that eq2x was in part an experiment for future projects. If they were truly after just money they could have copied Turbines system. With all EQ2s content thats a lot of paying to unlock they are missing out on. Yes, they wanted more people playing eq2x, but the turbine model could have done that too. They tried something different.
It depends on how the game is structured and how people view the game.....
Is there a "time advantage" in Chess or Baseball?
Well hopefully if you've played that game quite a bit, you (as a player) will have learned something from that experience as to how to play the game more effecively then a beginner.
Very few people would regard that a player being more experienced at playing Chess and a player who was allowed to buy an extra Queen to play with as being equivalent in terms of fairness.
For most people...games are intended to be a measure of the players skill at the game...and not a measure of thier bank accounts.
Now if you have a game (as some of our games and quite a few MMO's are) where a players ability is purely or mostly a measure of the hours spent while logged into a character....because the character becomes more powerfull the longer the player is logged in... regardless of whether the player actually learns anything about playing a game or not... then you have an arguement...
But wouldn't that be more a criticism of the typical grind/character advancement model that so many games follow rather then an arguement for time & money being equivalent?
"Advantage" is one of the few things that is very black & white to me. Either there is an advantage or there is not. Now, when you get into the depth of that advantage - most definitely things get grey and fuzzy . . . are subject to debate. Whether something is an advantage or not, though - is black & white.
I have a problem with your analogy. You're comparing two different items. In such a case, it is obvious that one is buying an advantage to overcome the advantage of the other.
However, what if we look at these two analogies:
Player A has played for 3 years and accumulated knowledge in playing the game.
Player B pays somebody to teach him to as much knowledge of the game as somebody that has played for 3 years.
And the second one:
Player A has played for 3 years and as a reward has earned a second Queen.
Player B buys a second Queen.
To Player B, he is paying for equivalency. He is buying away Player A's advantage of time. He's going to see it one way. Player A is going to see it as Player B paying for an advantage - since he did not have to put the time in.
Objectively though, they're equivalent to an extent. Player A should still have an advantage in both cases though. His experience with the knowledge and his sheer experience in playing - should overcome what Player B has done.
There are the games that allow somebody to pay for the rough "equivalent" of what another player can accrue through time. An issue that I have with this is, that it sounds nifty for balance in a sense - but if you have two new players that start out, the one that pays will obviously have an advantage over the one that does not pay.
The concept of buying an advantage is nothing new though - it exists in many sports, where over time artificial caps have been placed in an attempt to keep things more competitive. Even something as simple as an R/C Car Race - unless artificial caps are put in place, can be subject to being decided by wallet rather than pure skill: two equally skilled drivers where one can buy the better car, etc.
Although I did not state a preference originally, I'm very much opposed to the P2W model. However, even many P2P games are generally P2W.
Tom buys ABC. Jerry buys ABC. They both advance to the level cap. They're generally "equivalent" so to speak. A paid expansion comes out. Jerry buys XYZ. Tom does not. Jerry has access to a higher level cap, more abilities, and better equipment than Tom does. If Tom does not buy that expansion, he will no longer be "equivalent" to Jerry. Jerry has bought an advantage.
Much like some would consider that a "macro" transaction - the same thing would happen in a F2P game with a "micro" transaction. Jerry buys the Eternal Flaming Sword of WTFPWNJOO. That gives him an advantage over Tom. Tom has the option to buy the same sword. No, they're not exactly the same thing - there is a difference of time between expansions, etc - the number of items that can be bought while leapfrogging eachother, etc . . . but they are still both about buying an advantage.
It is one reason that I prefer the P2P model without paid expansions. Tada - nobody is buying that advantage. Of course, I'm also for the tiered P2P w/o paid expansions and w/DLC. Er...whut?
I do not think that everybody should pay the same. I've said that in a few threads. If I'm not a raider, why should I pay the same as somebody that is raiding? If you're somebody that does not PvP, why should you pay the same as somebody that does? As for DLC, I'm a character progression guy. So while it is natural for people to think that DLC content would likely include new and better gear - thus, DLC could be seen as a form of P2W - I see the DLC as just new stuff to do that would not reward better gear. It's just buying more stuff to do - more fun.
As for your final question - as I detailed earlier in my reply - there are ways that one could roughly make "time"/"cash" equivalent... but that you would still have the issue for the brand new players.
However, the equivalency I address...is that both are an advantage - not the depth of the advantage. There are many different types out there - time > all, cash > all, some a mixed bag, some where you can chip away at the one reducing the overall effect of it so that perhaps skill can close the remaining gap, etc, etc...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Hmm, no category for subscription game with massive cash shop? I prefer the subscription game with no cash shop at all. Barring that, The freemium model is generally acceptable to me, as long as the subscription allows me access to everything, accepting any paid expansions of course.
"Oh my, how horrible, someone is criticizing a MMO. Oh yeah, that is what a forum is about, looking at both sides. You rather have to be critical of anything in this genre as of late because the track record of these major studios has just been appalling." -Ozmodan
@Meowhead, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the "free" F2P players being "filler" community in a game. I understand wanting to have a population in the game. I remember the AA launch and kind of going, "Hello? Is there anybody else here?"
However, as a developer - I would not want just anybody as community. Call it discriminatory or call it discriminating - we already see it in betas and trials. While part of limiting access to chat channels is to cut down on gold selling spam, it also serves the purpose of cutting down on unwanted spam in general.
Community is a pretty touchy subject with some people. Even recently, we've had people asking if folks would pay more per month for a RP rules enforced server (with GM events). There were more than one reply in that thread from people that would be tempted to pay more just to get away from the "community" on regular servers. There are folks that roll on RP servers that have no intention of participating in RP - simply because they want to get away from the general MMORPG community.
So I have a tough time with just wanting warm bodies there.
No doubt I take that a step further because of my belief that if you enjoy an entertainment product, you should pay for it. So that "community" would be filled with people that do not share that belief.
Yet, in turn - this begs the question - if you fill your community with people that are fine with not paying for their entertainment, why on Earth would you expect any of them ever to purchase anything? Would they also not simply attract others that were not interested in paying anything?
You might get a nickel or a dime out of them - but they are a far cry from those that wish to pay a la carte. After all, those are the people that are actually utilizing the cash shops. So you would be filling your world with people . . . with differing desires than your target audience.
Which I believe speaks to a larger overall issue - people are trying to sell a one-size fits all form of "community" - when the playerbase is incredibly diverse. Look at all the varying discussions on what "social" means - people do not agree.
If I'm looking to hold a rally for Steelers fans - odds are that I'm not going to use a marketing list for Ravens fans to generate my invitations.
... basically, you've just explained why you wouldn't even be able to come up with the idea of F2P on your own, or why you wouldn't be able to run an F2P business. You're turning away potential customers.
There's no sign on people that says 'I am never going to buy, I have no friends that are ever going to buy stuff, and not only that, but when I'm in the game, I will not make anybody have any chance of enjoying the game more than they already are'.
If there was. Yeah, I guess you'd want to get rid of those people if you could somehow pick them out.
There's no way to do that though. I'm fascinated by the idea that there are people out there who base their friendships on whether or not their friends are willing to pay in a cash shop though (Hey, just out of curiousity, you've been my friend for ten years. Would you buy a cosmetic item in a cash shop? What? SCREW YOU. I'm deleting you off my phone! Now to call my next friend."
F2P games are ever optimistic. They think 'Sooner or later... if they keep playing... they'll pay. If not, they'll invite a friend to play with them (Because when you play MMOs, you often want to play with friends), and one of those friends will pay. If neither of those, then they will at least buy something from a paying customer, or help a paying customer out in a dungeon, or perhaps talk to them in passing and help our game not feel like an empty shell because we just lost 4/5ths of our population."
In fact, there are several F2P games where non-paying players are huge parts of the community. The fact that you have problems with MMO community seems to be a personal thing for you.
I'll list some examples of F2P style games that do so, so you don't have to take my word for it.
Spiral Knights. You can buy energy using cash, or you can trade for it in the game market with in game money. People who don't pay cash are playing more, working hard, and actually giving in-game resources in trade for the energy. Which allows people who buy the energy with cash to make in-game money quickly.
This also works in EVE. You can trade RL money for monthly subscriptions, which can be traded for in-game money. Anybody who is paying using in-game money for their monthly fees is obviously playing a lot, and quite probaly is fairly entwined with the community.
Gaia Online (not actually an MMO, but it's a social network type thing. WIth a fashion cash shop). People buy things using in-game money and RL money, and trade is enacted between the two. People who don't pay a dime to Gaia are still making Gaia money, because they're doing things like farming out events or whatever, and in order to get certain rare items those non-payers have, some people pay real life money to buy game items to trade. (Same thing with many other social type places with fashion cash-shops. Like Tinier Me, for example.)
Champions Online is F2P as well, but the subscribers or people paying cash shop have a lot of advantages (Access to a wider range of powers, more fashion, more areas in game). Still, the people who pay often team up with those who don't. The non-payers pad out teams, make bigger super groups, and if they want to be competitive, they struggle extra hard in the game. Doing crazy things like farming a badguy for 24 hours straight during Halloween. This creates a market for hard to get in-game items, that cash shop people actually buy cash shop items for and trade to get these uber-rare items.
Non-paying people create a market.
You obviously 1. Dont' play enough F2P games and 2. Aren't evil-minded enough to understand how you can take even non-paying members of your game and wring money out of them even if they personally don't pay a cent.
Luckily for you, I've played a lot of F2P games and am sufficiently evil-minded to understand how a large player base of non-paying people leads to more profit, far in excess of the bandwidth and resources they take up.
If you'd like, I'm more than willing to take a discussion to PMs to explain to you how and why it is important to the Western developer to offer equal (and in some cases, greater) support to the players that are not spending money.
"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."
^---That is the topic I was addressing. The misconception that the free player in a F2P MMO focused on Western gamers and their current culture (not culture five years from now) requires and receives equal focus and attention in order to make a successful Western F2P MMO.
Hmm. So you don't think that F2P players who aren't paying a cent are not experiencing any sort of inferior content to people who are paying?
I'm not saying second class citizens as in... the game company spits on them and doesn't make them feel welcome.
I'm saying they're just lesser people. They're not as good. They don't get all the cool stuff. They don't look as good. They can't do as much, or do all the cool stuff.
Maybe not all of those, but at least some of those apply to non-paying people.
The closest I've seen to a 'Well,it's more like a donation than you actually having a better gaming experience' F2P model in an MMO that I can think of would be Glitch.
Where the only major difference is paying people can vote, but heck, most people dont' vote in RL, so it's hardly something most people would miss.
@Meowhead, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the "free" F2P players being "filler" community in a game. I understand wanting to have a population in the game. I remember the AA launch and kind of going, "Hello? Is there anybody else here?"
However, as a developer - I would not want just anybody as community. Call it discriminatory or call it discriminating - we already see it in betas and trials. While part of limiting access to chat channels is to cut down on gold selling spam, it also serves the purpose of cutting down on unwanted spam in general.
Community is a pretty touchy subject with some people. Even recently, we've had people asking if folks would pay more per month for a RP rules enforced server (with GM events). There were more than one reply in that thread from people that would be tempted to pay more just to get away from the "community" on regular servers. There are folks that roll on RP servers that have no intention of participating in RP - simply because they want to get away from the general MMORPG community.
So I have a tough time with just wanting warm bodies there.
No doubt I take that a step further because of my belief that if you enjoy an entertainment product, you should pay for it. So that "community" would be filled with people that do not share that belief.
Yet, in turn - this begs the question - if you fill your community with people that are fine with not paying for their entertainment, why on Earth would you expect any of them ever to purchase anything? Would they also not simply attract others that were not interested in paying anything?
You might get a nickel or a dime out of them - but they are a far cry from those that wish to pay a la carte. After all, those are the people that are actually utilizing the cash shops. So you would be filling your world with people . . . with differing desires than your target audience.
Which I believe speaks to a larger overall issue - people are trying to sell a one-size fits all form of "community" - when the playerbase is incredibly diverse. Look at all the varying discussions on what "social" means - people do not agree.
If I'm looking to hold a rally for Steelers fans - odds are that I'm not going to use a marketing list for Ravens fans to generate my invitations.
... basically, you've just explained why you wouldn't even be able to come up with the idea of F2P on your own, or why you wouldn't be able to run an F2P business. You're turning away potential customers.
There's no sign on people that says 'I am never going to buy, I have no friends that are ever going to buy stuff, and not only that, but when I'm in the game, I will not make anybody have any chance of enjoying the game more than they already are'.
If there was. Yeah, I guess you'd want to get rid of those people if you could somehow pick them out.
There's no way to do that though. I'm fascinated by the idea that there are people out there who base their friendships on whether or not their friends are willing to pay in a cash shop though (Hey, just out of curiousity, you've been my friend for ten years. Would you buy a cosmetic item in a cash shop? What? SCREW YOU. I'm deleting you off my phone! Now to call my next friend."
F2P games are ever optimistic. They think 'Sooner or later... if they keep playing... they'll pay. If not, they'll invite a friend to play with them (Because when you play MMOs, you often want to play with friends), and one of those friends will pay. If neither of those, then they will at least buy something from a paying customer, or help a paying customer out in a dungeon, or perhaps talk to them in passing and help our game not feel like an empty shell because we just lost 4/5ths of our population."
In fact, there are several F2P games where non-paying players are huge parts of the community. The fact that you have problems with MMO community seems to be a personal thing for you.
I'll list some examples of F2P style games that do so, so you don't have to take my word for it.
Spiral Knights. You can buy energy using cash, or you can trade for it in the game market with in game money. People who don't pay cash are playing more, working hard, and actually giving in-game resources in trade for the energy. Which allows people who buy the energy with cash to make in-game money quickly.
This also works in EVE. You can trade RL money for monthly subscriptions, which can be traded for in-game money. Anybody who is paying using in-game money for their monthly fees is obviously playing a lot, and quite probaly is fairly entwined with the community.
Gaia Online (not actually an MMO, but it's a social network type thing. WIth a fashion cash shop). People buy things using in-game money and RL money, and trade is enacted between the two. People who don't pay a dime to Gaia are still making Gaia money, because they're doing things like farming out events or whatever, and in order to get certain rare items those non-payers have, some people pay real life money to buy game items to trade. (Same thing with many other social type places with fashion cash-shops. Like Tinier Me, for example.)
Champions Online is F2P as well, but the subscribers or people paying cash shop have a lot of advantages (Access to a wider range of powers, more fashion, more areas in game). Still, the people who pay often team up with those who don't. The non-payers pad out teams, make bigger super groups, and if they want to be competitive, they struggle extra hard in the game. Doing crazy things like farming a badguy for 24 hours straight during Halloween. This creates a market for hard to get in-game items, that cash shop people actually buy cash shop items for and trade to get these uber-rare items.
Non-paying people create a market.
You obviously 1. Dont' play enough F2P games and 2. Aren't evil-minded enough to understand how you can take even non-paying members of your game and wring money out of them even if they personally don't pay a cent.
Luckily for you, I've played a lot of F2P games and am sufficiently evil-minded to understand how a large player base of non-paying people leads to more profit, far in excess of the bandwidth and resources they take up.
I think there two issues at play here. Firstly, there have been alot of online services (including ones in games/entertainment vertical) that have had pretty substantial user bases and have gone under. Having a large user base and being able to sufficiently monetize that user base are entirely seperate capabilities. While people can be pretty inventive in finding ways to monetize an audience.....it definately is not as easy as most people think....as many online services that have found themselves in recievership have found out.
Bottom line is that each user is a cost center for an online service. In order to recoup that cost you've got to find some way to monetize enough of those users.... which is something alot of companies do struggle with.
In terms of community, people tend to value something based upon what they've invested in it. Obviously for paying customers there is at least some built-in investment just in terms of dollars spent. For others it could certainly be time, effort or emotional investments....and those can often exceed significantly any financial considerations. However that only holds true for a certain segment of the F2P players. However for the others, those who have neither made financial or non-financial investments in the game....there is no disincentive to behave badly toward the community...because they literaly have nothing to loose by doing so. Which is why F2P communities TEND (but do not neccessarly HAVE to be) a bit less freindly.
It's pretty much human behavior 101, give someone a thing that costs $10 to replace and thing that they can replace for no cost....and observe the differences in how they treat it.
Give me a monthly fee with full access and I am happy. I have played F2P and the other models and to really experience endgame you end up paying more than monthly subscriptions overall.
... basically, you've just explained why you wouldn't even be able to come up with the idea of F2P on your own, or why you wouldn't be able to run an F2P business. You're turning away potential customers.
I'm trying not to turn away potential customers by inviting non-potential customers.
There's no sign on people that says 'I am never going to buy, I have no friends that are ever going to buy stuff, and not only that, but when I'm in the game, I will not make anybody have any chance of enjoying the game more than they already are'.
Games are full of people that troll during betas and trials.
If there was. Yeah, I guess you'd want to get rid of those people if you could somehow pick them out.
They're more likely to troll for free than pay to troll.
There's no way to do that though. I'm fascinated by the idea that there are people out there who base their friendships on whether or not their friends are willing to pay in a cash shop though (Hey, just out of curiousity, you've been my friend for ten years. Would you buy a cosmetic item in a cash shop? What? SCREW YOU. I'm deleting you off my phone! Now to call my next friend."
I could not see somebody doing that with a friend. After all, friends often turn a blind eye to many things. Of course, with acquaintances - that would be different. What a person accepts with a friend is something that might prevent somebody else from becoming a friend.
F2P games are ever optimistic. They think 'Sooner or later... if they keep playing... they'll pay. If not, they'll invite a friend to play with them (Because when you play MMOs, you often want to play with friends), and one of those friends will pay. If neither of those, then they will at least buy something from a paying customer, or help a paying customer out in a dungeon, or perhaps talk to them in passing and help our game not feel like an empty shell because we just lost 4/5ths of our population."
They think...sooner or later? No... they design...sooner or later.
If the game lost 4/5ths of the population - there is a reason for that - and that reason needs to be addressed. Bringing in rotating filler does not address it.
In fact, there are several F2P games where non-paying players are huge parts of the community. The fact that you have problems with MMO community seems to be a personal thing for you.
There have been many threads on the matter of late...none of them started by me.
I'll list some examples of F2P style games that do so, so you don't have to take my word for it.
Spiral Knights. You can buy energy using cash, or you can trade for it in the game market with in game money. People who don't pay cash are playing more, working hard, and actually giving in-game resources in trade for the energy. Which allows people who buy the energy with cash to make in-game money quickly.
Spiral Knights...um...seriously? Okay, forget it - this is a general discussion on the revenue models and not a discussion on MMORPG games for adults...carry on.
This also works in EVE. You can trade RL money for monthly subscriptions, which can be traded for in-game money. Anybody who is paying using in-game money for their monthly fees is obviously playing a lot, and quite probaly is fairly entwined with the community.
Or scamming...or botting...or pirating. PLEX is definitely a touchy subject amongst some current and former players of EVE. It changed the Market - affected the cost to the every day player. It was a means for CCP to deal with the ISK sellers...by selling it themselves.
Gaia Online (not actually an MMO, but it's a social network type thing. WIth a fashion cash shop). People buy things using in-game money and RL money, and trade is enacted between the two. People who don't pay a dime to Gaia are still making Gaia money, because they're doing things like farming out events or whatever, and in order to get certain rare items those non-payers have, some people pay real life money to buy game items to trade. (Same thing with many other social type places with fashion cash-shops. Like Tinier Me, for example.)
Much like Spiral Knights - it has the visual appeal of something I would expect to see 2-4 year olds watching on TV. Offering cutesie lil' games as examples - does not really work well for me.
Champions Online is F2P as well, but the subscribers or people paying cash shop have a lot of advantages (Access to a wider range of powers, more fashion, more areas in game). Still, the people who pay often team up with those who don't. The non-payers pad out teams, make bigger super groups, and if they want to be competitive, they struggle extra hard in the game. Doing crazy things like farming a badguy for 24 hours straight during Halloween. This creates a market for hard to get in-game items, that cash shop people actually buy cash shop items for and trade to get these uber-rare items.
In discussing which "F2P" SuperHero game to play - CO almost never enters the discussion. People talk about whether to play CoH or DCUO.
Non-paying people create a market.
Paying people can create that same market. Paying people can fill each role you stated there. Without having to design the game around trying to trick money out of people.
You obviously 1. Dont' play enough F2P games and 2. Aren't evil-minded enough to understand how you can take even non-paying members of your game and wring money out of them even if they personally don't pay a cent.
I pay to play. I might do a demo, beta, or trial - but if I'm going to play, I'm going to pay. In the games that have gone with a hybrid model, I have left those games. The incoming players act like drunken buffoons at a black tie dinner. Chat channels are spammed (a reason that many have limited that access), an increase in the selfishness with things such as kill-stealing, ninja looting, blocking paths, etc, etc. All in all, the experience in such games has been dreadful.
As far as not being Evil-minded enough? No, thankfully I'm not. I'm your average, relatively honest good guy.
Luckily for you, I've played a lot of F2P games and am sufficiently evil-minded to understand how a large player base of non-paying people leads to more profit, far in excess of the bandwidth and resources they take up.
It is not luckily for me in the least...and that being said, I'm done reading anything you type.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Comments
It depends on how the game is structured and how people view the game.....
Is there a "time advantage" in Chess or Baseball?
Well hopefully if you've played that game quite a bit, you (as a player) will have learned something from that experience as to how to play the game more effecively then a beginner.
Very few people would regard that a player being more experienced at playing Chess and a player who was allowed to buy an extra Queen to play with as being equivalent in terms of fairness.
For most people...games are intended to be a measure of the players skill at the game...and not a measure of thier bank accounts.
Now if you have a game (as some of our games and quite a few MMO's are) where a players ability is purely or mostly a measure of the hours spent while logged into a character....because the character becomes more powerfull the longer the player is logged in... regardless of whether the player actually learns anything about playing a game or not... then you have an arguement...
But wouldn't that be more a criticism of the typical grind/character advancement model that so many games follow rather then an arguement for time & money being equivalent?
I guess isnce its an editorial you dont have to look at both sides or present truths contradictory to your bashing of a particular mdoel, but you are so biased against SoE that your blurb about the EQ2 model completely ignores its MAJOR advantages over systems such as LOTRO:
It gives you the most playable content BY FAR of any f2p (and most p2p) MMOs. The gear you are restrcited form is only needed to make you from overpowered to godlike for 90% of the games content. It would be akin to doing regular (not heroic) dungeons in WOTLK without allowing use of purples. Its not until you get to the end game that it remotely matters, and at that point you could always just sub if you really want too.
Yes, you do need to pay the $10 for silver to have access to the features youll need, but once you do that you are set for as long as you want to be. Until the end game you will never once need to buy anything outside of a particular class or race you may want. There is a very large amount of content you can do before then. You wont go to a use a horse and have it say 'sorry, pay to unlock this' or go to a quest giver and it says 'you must unlock quests for this zone' or try to enter a dungeon and have it say 'sorry you havent purchased this'. You will not be underpowered for any content (unless you choose to ignore your AAs) until you get into the upper 80s. Youll have enough bag space, and the gold cap is pretty generous compared to the competition and isnt a big deal.
So yes, for a hardcore player its not better than a sub option (which is always available), but for those people that like to take their time and explore and do things at their pace its a great value. Its not for everyone, but there is definitely a fairly large group of people that its the ebst deal on the market for.
Also: most of what you wrote about eq2x directly applies to lotro's system and you were much less negative towards it
Also note this: The top feature people ask for in WoW is player or guild housing. People also regularly ask for more/shared bank slots and a way to upgrade the starter bag.
Blizzards response to both of these is how costly it would be to implement both features, strain on their databases etc.
Yet EQ2 has the most extensive housing system in the genre and the largest amount of inventory storage.
Its fair to say WoW makes more $$ per person than EQ2 does per subscription, and WoW has at least 20x the NA/EU subs as EQ2 does.
Yet which game has added more content over 7 years? Its not really close.
Its very reasonable to say SoE has the cash shop because they need too, not because of greed. And its also very likely that eq2x was in part an experiment for future projects. If they were truly after just money they could have copied Turbines system. With all EQ2s content thats a lot of paying to unlock they are missing out on. Yes, they wanted more people playing eq2x, but the turbine model could have done that too. They tried something different.
"Advantage" is one of the few things that is very black & white to me. Either there is an advantage or there is not. Now, when you get into the depth of that advantage - most definitely things get grey and fuzzy . . . are subject to debate. Whether something is an advantage or not, though - is black & white.
I have a problem with your analogy. You're comparing two different items. In such a case, it is obvious that one is buying an advantage to overcome the advantage of the other.
However, what if we look at these two analogies:
Player A has played for 3 years and accumulated knowledge in playing the game.
Player B pays somebody to teach him to as much knowledge of the game as somebody that has played for 3 years.
And the second one:
Player A has played for 3 years and as a reward has earned a second Queen.
Player B buys a second Queen.
To Player B, he is paying for equivalency. He is buying away Player A's advantage of time. He's going to see it one way. Player A is going to see it as Player B paying for an advantage - since he did not have to put the time in.
Objectively though, they're equivalent to an extent. Player A should still have an advantage in both cases though. His experience with the knowledge and his sheer experience in playing - should overcome what Player B has done.
There are the games that allow somebody to pay for the rough "equivalent" of what another player can accrue through time. An issue that I have with this is, that it sounds nifty for balance in a sense - but if you have two new players that start out, the one that pays will obviously have an advantage over the one that does not pay.
The concept of buying an advantage is nothing new though - it exists in many sports, where over time artificial caps have been placed in an attempt to keep things more competitive. Even something as simple as an R/C Car Race - unless artificial caps are put in place, can be subject to being decided by wallet rather than pure skill: two equally skilled drivers where one can buy the better car, etc.
Although I did not state a preference originally, I'm very much opposed to the P2W model. However, even many P2P games are generally P2W.
Tom buys ABC. Jerry buys ABC. They both advance to the level cap. They're generally "equivalent" so to speak. A paid expansion comes out. Jerry buys XYZ. Tom does not. Jerry has access to a higher level cap, more abilities, and better equipment than Tom does. If Tom does not buy that expansion, he will no longer be "equivalent" to Jerry. Jerry has bought an advantage.
Much like some would consider that a "macro" transaction - the same thing would happen in a F2P game with a "micro" transaction. Jerry buys the Eternal Flaming Sword of WTFPWNJOO. That gives him an advantage over Tom. Tom has the option to buy the same sword. No, they're not exactly the same thing - there is a difference of time between expansions, etc - the number of items that can be bought while leapfrogging eachother, etc . . . but they are still both about buying an advantage.
It is one reason that I prefer the P2P model without paid expansions. Tada - nobody is buying that advantage. Of course, I'm also for the tiered P2P w/o paid expansions and w/DLC. Er...whut?
I do not think that everybody should pay the same. I've said that in a few threads. If I'm not a raider, why should I pay the same as somebody that is raiding? If you're somebody that does not PvP, why should you pay the same as somebody that does? As for DLC, I'm a character progression guy. So while it is natural for people to think that DLC content would likely include new and better gear - thus, DLC could be seen as a form of P2W - I see the DLC as just new stuff to do that would not reward better gear. It's just buying more stuff to do - more fun.
As for your final question - as I detailed earlier in my reply - there are ways that one could roughly make "time"/"cash" equivalent... but that you would still have the issue for the brand new players.
However, the equivalency I address...is that both are an advantage - not the depth of the advantage. There are many different types out there - time > all, cash > all, some a mixed bag, some where you can chip away at the one reducing the overall effect of it so that perhaps skill can close the remaining gap, etc, etc...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Hmm, no category for subscription game with massive cash shop? I prefer the subscription game with no cash shop at all. Barring that, The freemium model is generally acceptable to me, as long as the subscription allows me access to everything, accepting any paid expansions of course.
"Oh my, how horrible, someone is criticizing a MMO. Oh yeah, that is what a forum is about, looking at both sides. You rather have to be critical of anything in this genre as of late because the track record of these major studios has just been appalling." -Ozmodan
Subscription all the way.
Can't wait for the F2P/P2W model to die a death.
-----
Pay-to-Win / F2P will be the death of real gaming, Boycott it !!
... basically, you've just explained why you wouldn't even be able to come up with the idea of F2P on your own, or why you wouldn't be able to run an F2P business. You're turning away potential customers.
There's no sign on people that says 'I am never going to buy, I have no friends that are ever going to buy stuff, and not only that, but when I'm in the game, I will not make anybody have any chance of enjoying the game more than they already are'.
If there was. Yeah, I guess you'd want to get rid of those people if you could somehow pick them out.
There's no way to do that though. I'm fascinated by the idea that there are people out there who base their friendships on whether or not their friends are willing to pay in a cash shop though (Hey, just out of curiousity, you've been my friend for ten years. Would you buy a cosmetic item in a cash shop? What? SCREW YOU. I'm deleting you off my phone! Now to call my next friend."
F2P games are ever optimistic. They think 'Sooner or later... if they keep playing... they'll pay. If not, they'll invite a friend to play with them (Because when you play MMOs, you often want to play with friends), and one of those friends will pay. If neither of those, then they will at least buy something from a paying customer, or help a paying customer out in a dungeon, or perhaps talk to them in passing and help our game not feel like an empty shell because we just lost 4/5ths of our population."
In fact, there are several F2P games where non-paying players are huge parts of the community. The fact that you have problems with MMO community seems to be a personal thing for you.
I'll list some examples of F2P style games that do so, so you don't have to take my word for it.
Spiral Knights. You can buy energy using cash, or you can trade for it in the game market with in game money. People who don't pay cash are playing more, working hard, and actually giving in-game resources in trade for the energy. Which allows people who buy the energy with cash to make in-game money quickly.
This also works in EVE. You can trade RL money for monthly subscriptions, which can be traded for in-game money. Anybody who is paying using in-game money for their monthly fees is obviously playing a lot, and quite probaly is fairly entwined with the community.
Gaia Online (not actually an MMO, but it's a social network type thing. WIth a fashion cash shop). People buy things using in-game money and RL money, and trade is enacted between the two. People who don't pay a dime to Gaia are still making Gaia money, because they're doing things like farming out events or whatever, and in order to get certain rare items those non-payers have, some people pay real life money to buy game items to trade. (Same thing with many other social type places with fashion cash-shops. Like Tinier Me, for example.)
Champions Online is F2P as well, but the subscribers or people paying cash shop have a lot of advantages (Access to a wider range of powers, more fashion, more areas in game). Still, the people who pay often team up with those who don't. The non-payers pad out teams, make bigger super groups, and if they want to be competitive, they struggle extra hard in the game. Doing crazy things like farming a badguy for 24 hours straight during Halloween. This creates a market for hard to get in-game items, that cash shop people actually buy cash shop items for and trade to get these uber-rare items.
Non-paying people create a market.
You obviously 1. Dont' play enough F2P games and 2. Aren't evil-minded enough to understand how you can take even non-paying members of your game and wring money out of them even if they personally don't pay a cent.
Luckily for you, I've played a lot of F2P games and am sufficiently evil-minded to understand how a large player base of non-paying people leads to more profit, far in excess of the bandwidth and resources they take up.
Hmm. So you don't think that F2P players who aren't paying a cent are not experiencing any sort of inferior content to people who are paying?
I'm not saying second class citizens as in... the game company spits on them and doesn't make them feel welcome.
I'm saying they're just lesser people. They're not as good. They don't get all the cool stuff. They don't look as good. They can't do as much, or do all the cool stuff.
Maybe not all of those, but at least some of those apply to non-paying people.
The closest I've seen to a 'Well,it's more like a donation than you actually having a better gaming experience' F2P model in an MMO that I can think of would be Glitch.
Where the only major difference is paying people can vote, but heck, most people dont' vote in RL, so it's hardly something most people would miss.
I think there two issues at play here. Firstly, there have been alot of online services (including ones in games/entertainment vertical) that have had pretty substantial user bases and have gone under. Having a large user base and being able to sufficiently monetize that user base are entirely seperate capabilities. While people can be pretty inventive in finding ways to monetize an audience.....it definately is not as easy as most people think....as many online services that have found themselves in recievership have found out.
Bottom line is that each user is a cost center for an online service. In order to recoup that cost you've got to find some way to monetize enough of those users.... which is something alot of companies do struggle with.
In terms of community, people tend to value something based upon what they've invested in it. Obviously for paying customers there is at least some built-in investment just in terms of dollars spent. For others it could certainly be time, effort or emotional investments....and those can often exceed significantly any financial considerations. However that only holds true for a certain segment of the F2P players. However for the others, those who have neither made financial or non-financial investments in the game....there is no disincentive to behave badly toward the community...because they literaly have nothing to loose by doing so. Which is why F2P communities TEND (but do not neccessarly HAVE to be) a bit less freindly.
It's pretty much human behavior 101, give someone a thing that costs $10 to replace and thing that they can replace for no cost....and observe the differences in how they treat it.
Free to play is really a scam.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%