People have forgotten (or are too young to know) how this all started.
MMO's started as pay by the minute.
They changed to a flat monthly fee (based on how many minutes the average person played).
They have recently changed to free access, with a variety of secondary options (subscription, micro transactions, etc).
This is a very logical progression, based on how the costs to operate have changed. It used to be that the bandwidth and server cost was the main driver. Now this is so cheap it is negligible... but the cost of creating content has increased significantly. None of this should be a suprise to anyone.
A good example of this exact market change is Email. Most people use a free email... but years ago everyone laughed when companies tried to launch free email services. They were told that no one would ever want to use them, and that they were lower quality services that should be scorned. Sound familiar?
Your email example doesn't even remotely apply to F2P games. Plus when hotmail launched, and it was free... and not msn... no one laughed. We used it.
Here we go, people getting WE and I mixed up again. Maybe you did, and maybe you knew some people who also did but can you categorically state that there was never ever any backlash to the idea of a free email service over a paid one?
YOUR opinion is that you don't beleive there was ever a backlash to free email from people beleiving it would go no where. this does not mean that such a bashlash never happened.
Otherwise I could end this WHOLE thread right now with:
"Who doesnt like F2P? I...We Like it so its all good."
Dude.. not opinion. You were 9 or 10 when it came out. It wasn't considered a joke. It was accepted and considered popular. It grew WAY to fast for them to handle because it was so accepted. Its not my opinion... ITS WHAT HAPPENED! Hotmail did have its struggle not long afterwards. This is typically due to security flaws the site had. Regardless, your comparison doesn't even remotely apply to MMO's.
Nice Superman0X. I can never be bothered to go get facts, especially when its replying to ppl who made their arguement without even thinking about facts.
There are some facts. You can read. Do so. Also where is his reasearch or facts? All I see is a guy writing stuff.... oh well.
You are also comparing a completely free email service to a game that requires micro-transactions to fully take advantage of it. I do not understand what you aren't getting.
Here we go, people getting WE and I mixed up again. Maybe you did, and maybe you knew some people who also did but can you categorically state that there was never ever any backlash to the idea of a free email service over a paid one?
YOUR opinion is that you don't beleive there was ever a backlash to free email from people beleiving it would go no where. this does not mean that such a bashlash never happened.
Otherwise I could end this WHOLE thread right now with:
"Who doesnt like F2P? I...We Like it so its all good."
Well it's a clear expectation that there is resistance to change. Most people have a hard time dealing with change.
This thread wouldn't even exist without a dislike of change, and a misunderstanding of the factors at play with F2P gaming.
But F2P is the inevitable norm for at least a big chunk of gaming (and probably a very large majority of gaming.)
F2P is better for everyone. Players get to experience a game before paying, which is a really big deal and protects them from being suckered into paying for crappy games (which happens in any game where money changes hands before the player has played.)
I guess it's not better for everyone. F2P is bad for two groups: Bad Developers (who want to be able to sucker players into paying by hyping their bad game) and Advertisers (who do the hyping.)
By December 1997, it reported more than 8.5 million subscribers. (hotmail #'s via wiki) Back in 1997 those are HUGE numbers. HUGE.
Come on guys.... this information is available ALL OVER THE WEB.
I see what you're saying, and your right; D3 is totally a P2W game. However, I'll mention two things.
One, you can still technically buy most of the same stuff with in-game gold, so people that use real money don't have a unique advantage.
Two, they recieved a ton of flack for it, and they damaged their company name in doing so. People are starting to turn on Blizzard. If they make too many more money grabs like they did with Diablo 3, then it's going to start costing them financially.
Another thing is that developers have to be a lot more careful with F2P, because if there's no box charge and they drive away their player-base with crummy money grabs, then they're going to fail. D3 was a special case; the IP is huge, and very few, if any, games could get away with what they did. I really don't expect that to become the norm; it's the exception.
This kind comes down to each person definition on Pay to Win, the way i see it if someone for the sake of example with umlimited funds can obtain items or anything else that would take a regular player months to get by farming gold or farming for rares thats pay to win for me.The only definition that everybody seems to agree on is that of cash shops that sell items that are superior than anything else in the game and can only be bought from the cash shop but there are other kinds as i just mentioned even though it varies from player to player.
As far as i can tell Blizzard received alot of negative response from Diablo 3 mostly because the player base thinks the game is bad i didnt see many complains regarding the real money auction house, i could be wrong of course just saying that the complains i saw werent so much adressed at that feature as it was to the gameplay.You should also notice that what billzard did on Diablo 3 is sort of a "test drive" they were experimenting on this bussness model and wanted to see the kind of response and money they could make out of it.Sadly none other than Blizzard itself has the number concerning the RMAH so we dont know if it is providing to be a sucess or not but assuming it turns out to be making alot of money despite complains or not do u honestly think they wouldnt add such feature to their future games if they believe it is a winning strategy? Gotta keep in mind that the big companys tend to follow trends, like P2P is the bussness model that majority uses if it turns out F2W provides more revenue of course majority of the AAA games will follow that model.
As i said i believe you can create a very good free to play game with a cash shop that wont affect players gameplay based on how much they spend, there are a few sucessfull examples on the market even though most are FSP or MOBA the issue i have is even if u do start it off fair nothing stoping the ones in charge from chaning it to P2W in the future.
There are 2 main reasons to mess with a good F2P game:
1-It aint paying itself up, like it or not if u release an AAA game as free to play right of the bat u need to make plenty of money to pay up for developming costs, u need people to buy stuff of the cash shop and cosmetic stuff alone prolly wont generate alot of revenue so they will add more advantages in hopes of getting more players to spent and get enought money to pay for the game
2-Game is doing fine but the ones in charge want more money.People mention this over and over again on this forums, companys are in for the profit.They might be making money but want more so they start slowly changing the cash shop into P2W in baby-steps, add new items that provide small advantages and see the community response and sales and see how far they can go and get away with.I have seen couple games that did such thing, some even started of without a cash shop and it slowly evolved into the P2W model.
You're right; there is some subjective variation in the P2W definition. There's kind of a thick, hazy line, but from what I've seen (and in the interviews I posted), developers want to be a safe distance on the right side of it.
Yes, it possible that a game may start adding in P2W features, but I doubt they would push it too far if thay are actually generating revenue with the game. Here's why: once that line has been crossed and it gets labeled as a P2W by the community, it's going to be really hard to recover from that. Especially if there is stiff competition from other AAA games that aren't trying to pull that crap. I'm not saying that won't ever happen, but I don't think it's something that's going to happen large-scale by every company... unless we, the players, let it happen. Then that's kind of on us though. And that goes back to my original point, F2P puts the power into the players. If we let P2W happen, of course they'll get away with it. However, most gamers seem pretty adamant about hating P2W. It's something that we're just ging to have to wait and see, but I have faith it'll turn out okay.
It is well known that only a minority of players ever pay in a F2P MMO.
Secondly, i found MANY f2p mmos are fun. So i *am* getting free fun already. Why should i stop? And this "have to buy $150 sword" claim is just silly. Many have fun without spending a dime ... including me.
You want to know why companies are pushing F2P so hard? It's not that the F2P model is superior - for the customer. It's so taht they can combine a subscription model with the F2P, but give players the illusion that they have options.
Another thread by someone that does not know what the difference between F2P and Paytrap is.
Just because a company calls it F2P, it doesnt mean it actually is. SWTOR is a paytrap...I dont recall ANYONE stating that SWTOR should be paytrap...I do however remember seeing everyone say F2P.
Let Bioware use the paytrap model, just another in a long line of idiotic mistakes that will lead to more people being "moved" out of the company.
Originally posted by WarleyPlus, people won't decide, anything. Companies will just use deceptive marketing (paid forum posters, etc), and push it down our throats how that $100 sword, $20 dungeon, or $5 xp potion are of great value. It's called nickle & diming, but making you think that you're getting the last laugh because of the 'high value' you seen these items have by forum posters that mostly consist of blind sheep or paid shills.
This is highly unlikely. P2W has a very negative association; no AAA game company would shoot themselves in the foot like that. As I mentioned, pretty much all the devs of upcoming games have made explicit mention of the cash shops not being P2W.
It's possible that they could be lying, but it's clear that they're aware that P2W is bad. If they launch as a P2W, then they'll get eaten alive. I think the stigma of old F2P games needs to die... and it is to a degree. I used to be fairly anti-F2P, but I started noticing a change in the trend. I think that the model will improve end become good for players and developers alike.
For now... once enough people 'accept f2p', then it becomes 'some advantage', then 'bigger advantage', and before we know it, you have to spend 100+ a month just to compete. IT WILL HAPPEN. That's the natural progression based upon the 'need' of corporations to 'MAKE MORE MONEY'.
your right because you understand the mind of a suit, alot of these other posters dont and never will so just leave it alone lol.
You both seem to be missing the point. Companies can't make money with an unpopular product. P2W games are not favorable in the gaming community. That's why devs are constantly stressing that cash shops are NOT P2W. You can speculate about the future all you want, but right now (and the trend leading to the future) is not having P2W chash shops. You're right; "suits" want to make money, and they're not going to do that by enraging their fanbase... especially in the F2P market, where they'll need to keep people playing their game. Speculating that unabashed, blind greed will circumvent common busineess practices, such as simple market resaech, is silly.
You both seem to be arguging some hypothetical future with no evidence or reasoning, other than your own bais.
Originally posted by WarleyPlus, people won't decide, anything. Companies will just use deceptive marketing (paid forum posters, etc), and push it down our throats how that $100 sword, $20 dungeon, or $5 xp potion are of great value. It's called nickle & diming, but making you think that you're getting the last laugh because of the 'high value' you seen these items have by forum posters that mostly consist of blind sheep or paid shills.
This is highly unlikely. P2W has a very negative association; no AAA game company would shoot themselves in the foot like that. As I mentioned, pretty much all the devs of upcoming games have made explicit mention of the cash shops not being P2W.
It's possible that they could be lying, but it's clear that they're aware that P2W is bad. If they launch as a P2W, then they'll get eaten alive. I think the stigma of old F2P games needs to die... and it is to a degree. I used to be fairly anti-F2P, but I started noticing a change in the trend. I think that the model will improve end become good for players and developers alike.
For now... once enough people 'accept f2p', then it becomes 'some advantage', then 'bigger advantage', and before we know it, you have to spend 100+ a month just to compete. IT WILL HAPPEN. That's the natural progression based upon the 'need' of corporations to 'MAKE MORE MONEY'.
When people accept F2P, they still won't accept pay to win. Not in the west... it's just not happening.
I see what you're saying, and your right; D3 is totally a P2W game. However, I'll mention two things.
One, you can still technically buy most of the same stuff with in-game gold, so people that use real money don't have a unique advantage.
Two, they recieved a ton of flack for it, and they damaged their company name in doing so. People are starting to turn on Blizzard. If they make too many more money grabs like they did with Diablo 3, then it's going to start costing them financially.
Another thing is that developers have to be a lot more careful with F2P, because if there's no box charge and they drive away their player-base with crummy money grabs, then they're going to fail. D3 was a special case; the IP is huge, and very few, if any, games could get away with what they did. I really don't expect that to become the norm; it's the exception.
This kind comes down to each person definition on Pay to Win, the way i see it if someone for the sake of example with umlimited funds can obtain items or anything else that would take a regular player months to get by farming gold or farming for rares thats pay to win for me.The only definition that everybody seems to agree on is that of cash shops that sell items that are superior than anything else in the game and can only be bought from the cash shop but there are other kinds as i just mentioned even though it varies from player to player.
As far as i can tell Blizzard received alot of negative response from Diablo 3 mostly because the player base thinks the game is bad i didnt see many complains regarding the real money auction house, i could be wrong of course just saying that the complains i saw werent so much adressed at that feature as it was to the gameplay.You should also notice that what billzard did on Diablo 3 is sort of a "test drive" they were experimenting on this bussness model and wanted to see the kind of response and money they could make out of it.Sadly none other than Blizzard itself has the number concerning the RMAH so we dont know if it is providing to be a sucess or not but assuming it turns out to be making alot of money despite complains or not do u honestly think they wouldnt add such feature to their future games if they believe it is a winning strategy? Gotta keep in mind that the big companys tend to follow trends, like P2P is the bussness model that majority uses if it turns out F2W provides more revenue of course majority of the AAA games will follow that model.
As i said i believe you can create a very good free to play game with a cash shop that wont affect players gameplay based on how much they spend, there are a few sucessfull examples on the market even though most are FSP or MOBA the issue i have is even if u do start it off fair nothing stoping the ones in charge from chaning it to P2W in the future.
There are 2 main reasons to mess with a good F2P game:
1-It aint paying itself up, like it or not if u release an AAA game as free to play right of the bat u need to make plenty of money to pay up for developming costs, u need people to buy stuff of the cash shop and cosmetic stuff alone prolly wont generate alot of revenue so they will add more advantages in hopes of getting more players to spent and get enought money to pay for the game
2-Game is doing fine but the ones in charge want more money.People mention this over and over again on this forums, companys are in for the profit.They might be making money but want more so they start slowly changing the cash shop into P2W in baby-steps, add new items that provide small advantages and see the community response and sales and see how far they can go and get away with.I have seen couple games that did such thing, some even started of without a cash shop and it slowly evolved into the P2W model.
You're right; there is some subjective variation in the P2W definition. There's kind of a thick, hazy line, but from what I've seen (and in the interviews I posted), developers want to be a safe distance on the right side of it.
Yes, it possible that a game may start adding in P2W features, but I doubt they would push it too far if thay are actually generating revenue with the game. Here's why: once that line has been crossed and it gets labeled as a P2W by the community, it's going to be really hard to recover from that. Especially if there is stiff competition from other AAA games that aren't trying to pull that crap. I'm not saying that won't ever happen, but I don't think it's something that's going to happen large-scale by every company... unless we, the players, let it happen. Then that's kind of on us though. And that goes back to my original point, F2P puts the power into the players. If we let P2W happen, of course they'll get away with it. However, most gamers seem pretty adamant about hating P2W. It's something that we're just ging to have to wait and see, but I have faith it'll turn out okay.
Yeah guess we agree on most points, our views only differ in terms of the player base itself. I tend to have a more pessimistic view as i have seen a few decent games turn into P2W and the game population is so alienated that they think it is entirely fine for a game to work that way (check fiesta forum and cash shop as an example if u interested or play bored).It really can go either way to be honest we might be getting a great deal with this change or we gonna get screwed hard... just in case someone comes here to say im crazy remember what happend with WoW and all its clones.That was players fault as many love to point out, and still is as i see plenty of people joining the hype train for whatever is new buying it and complaing a month later how the game is just another "WoW fail copy" as some like to call it.
You're right; there is some subjective variation in the P2W definition. There's kind of a thick, hazy line, but from what I've seen (and in the interviews I posted), developers want to be a safe distance on the right side of it.
Yes, it possible that a game may start adding in P2W features, but I doubt they would push it too far if thay are actually generating revenue with the game. Here's why: once that line has been crossed and it gets labeled as a P2W by the community, it's going to be really hard to recover from that. Especially if there is stiff competition from other AAA games that aren't trying to pull that crap. I'm not saying that won't ever happen, but I don't think it's something that's going to happen large-scale by every company... unless we, the players, let it happen. Then that's kind of on us though. And that goes back to my original point, F2P puts the power into the players. If we let P2W happen, of course they'll get away with it. However, most gamers seem pretty adamant about hating P2W. It's something that we're just ging to have to wait and see, but I have faith it'll turn out okay.
Yeah guess we agree on most points, our views only differ in terms of the player base itself. I tend to have a more pessimistic view as i have seen a few decent games turn into P2W and the game population is so alienated that they think it is entirely fine for a game to work that way (check fiesta forum and cash shop as an example if u interested or play bored).It really can go either way to be honest we might be getting a great deal with this change or we gonna get screwed hard... just in case someone comes here to say im crazy remember what happend with WoW and all its clones.That was players fault as many love to point out, and still is as i see plenty of people joining the hype train for whatever is new buying it and complaing a month later how the game is just another "WoW fail copy" as some like to call it.
Haha. Yeah, people sure do love to complain about WoW. However, that has more to do with content than a crappy cash system. WoW is losing subs though, and they aren't really attracting too many new players. People keep playing WoW because they feel invested in it, so they'll keep getting the new content in hopes that it'll get better. I suppose a company that has invested players may be able to get away with turning into P2W, but they'll certainly alianate new/potential players. One of the biggest advanteges of the F2P system has is the number of people who are willing to try it out with no financial commitment. I wouldn't think sacrficing that perk would be worth it to them... but ya never know, I guess.
For now... once enough people 'accept f2p', then it becomes 'some advantage', then 'bigger advantage', and before we know it, you have to spend 100+ a month just to compete. IT WILL HAPPEN. That's the natural progression based upon the 'need' of corporations to 'MAKE MORE MONEY'.
When people accept F2P, they still won't accept pay to win. Not in the west... it's just not happening.
There is competition. If game A needs $100+ to have fun, and game B can have some fun for free .. you know what will happen.
And from what i have seen so far, most of the F2P games give you a lot of game for free. Most players don't pay. And this idea of "need to compete" is just envy .. which obviously lots of players would not pay money for, including me.
Originally posted by WarleyPlus, people won't decide, anything. Companies will just use deceptive marketing (paid forum posters, etc), and push it down our throats how that $100 sword, $20 dungeon, or $5 xp potion are of great value. It's called nickle & diming, but making you think that you're getting the last laugh because of the 'high value' you seen these items have by forum posters that mostly consist of blind sheep or paid shills.
This is highly unlikely. P2W has a very negative association; no AAA game company would shoot themselves in the foot like that. As I mentioned, pretty much all the devs of upcoming games have made explicit mention of the cash shops not being P2W.
It's possible that they could be lying, but it's clear that they're aware that P2W is bad. If they launch as a P2W, then they'll get eaten alive. I think the stigma of old F2P games needs to die... and it is to a degree. I used to be fairly anti-F2P, but I started noticing a change in the trend. I think that the model will improve end become good for players and developers alike.
For now... once enough people 'accept f2p', then it becomes 'some advantage', then 'bigger advantage', and before we know it, you have to spend 100+ a month just to compete. IT WILL HAPPEN. That's the natural progression based upon the 'need' of corporations to 'MAKE MORE MONEY'.
When people accept F2P, they still won't accept pay to win. Not in the west... it's just not happening.
Like we have a choice. Sounds like what people said about Ubisoft and always online DRM. Consumers are sheep. The ones that vote with their wallet are a minority. It will take time for the F2P thing to blow up and then simmer down back to normal.
I just hope they always keep a sub model attached. And not one that states "oh as a sub player you get access to 1500 points for $15.00 a month". I mean a serious COMPLETE game for the sub player.
Originally posted by WarleyPlus, people won't decide, anything. Companies will just use deceptive marketing (paid forum posters, etc), and push it down our throats how that $100 sword, $20 dungeon, or $5 xp potion are of great value. It's called nickle & diming, but making you think that you're getting the last laugh because of the 'high value' you seen these items have by forum posters that mostly consist of blind sheep or paid shills.
This is highly unlikely. P2W has a very negative association; no AAA game company would shoot themselves in the foot like that. As I mentioned, pretty much all the devs of upcoming games have made explicit mention of the cash shops not being P2W.
It's possible that they could be lying, but it's clear that they're aware that P2W is bad. If they launch as a P2W, then they'll get eaten alive. I think the stigma of old F2P games needs to die... and it is to a degree. I used to be fairly anti-F2P, but I started noticing a change in the trend. I think that the model will improve end become good for players and developers alike.
For now... once enough people 'accept f2p', then it becomes 'some advantage', then 'bigger advantage', and before we know it, you have to spend 100+ a month just to compete. IT WILL HAPPEN. That's the natural progression based upon the 'need' of corporations to 'MAKE MORE MONEY'.
When people accept F2P, they still won't accept pay to win. Not in the west... it's just not happening.
Like we have a choice. Sounds like what people said about Ubisoft and always online DRM. Consumers are sheep. The ones that vote with their wallet are a minority. It will take time for the F2P thing to blow up and then simmer down back to normal.
I just hope they always keep a sub model attached. And not one that states "oh as a sub player you get access to 1500 points for $15.00 a month". I mean a serious COMPLETE game for the sub player.
Of couse we have a choice. Is someone forcing you to play the game or buy something? Playing the game and buying something are completely optional.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Like we have a choice. Sounds like what people said about Ubisoft and always online DRM. Consumers are sheep. The ones that vote with their wallet are a minority. It will take time for the F2P thing to blow up and then simmer down back to normal.
F2P is not some new fad...and as you say, consumers are sheep...thats why they think they have no choice but pay even in F2P games.
Originally posted by WarleyPlus, people won't decide, anything. Companies will just use deceptive marketing (paid forum posters, etc), and push it down our throats how that $100 sword, $20 dungeon, or $5 xp potion are of great value. It's called nickle & diming, but making you think that you're getting the last laugh because of the 'high value' you seen these items have by forum posters that mostly consist of blind sheep or paid shills.
This is highly unlikely. P2W has a very negative association; no AAA game company would shoot themselves in the foot like that. As I mentioned, pretty much all the devs of upcoming games have made explicit mention of the cash shops not being P2W.
It's possible that they could be lying, but it's clear that they're aware that P2W is bad. If they launch as a P2W, then they'll get eaten alive. I think the stigma of old F2P games needs to die... and it is to a degree. I used to be fairly anti-F2P, but I started noticing a change in the trend. I think that the model will improve end become good for players and developers alike.
For now... once enough people 'accept f2p', then it becomes 'some advantage', then 'bigger advantage', and before we know it, you have to spend 100+ a month just to compete. IT WILL HAPPEN. That's the natural progression based upon the 'need' of corporations to 'MAKE MORE MONEY'.
your right because you understand the mind of a suit, alot of these other posters dont and never will so just leave it alone lol.
You both seem to be missing the point. Companies can't make money with an unpopular product. P2W games are not favorable in the gaming community. That's why devs are constantly stressing that cash shops are NOT P2W. You can speculate about the future all you want, but right now (and the trend leading to the future) is not having P2W chash shops. You're right; "suits" want to make money, and they're not going to do that by enraging their fanbase... especially in the F2P market, where they'll need to keep people playing their game. Speculating that unabashed, blind greed will circumvent common busineess practices, such as simple market resaech, is silly.
You both seem to be arguging some hypothetical future with no evidence or reasoning, other than your own bais.
We'll see.
Oh, and earlier I said LoL, I mean LoTRO. Sorry, LoTRO was originally a P2P game, not LoL.
Also, I've been a League of Legend player since beta. They absolutely implemented F2P in the most perfect way. However, LoL isn't an online-persistant MMORPG; it's a DOTA or MOBA style game - BIG BIG difference. For a DOTA style game, LoL absolutely has the perfect business model.
I'm curious, though. Everquest made Sony Online Entertainment the most profitable division of Sony, and their business model was P2P with periodic expansions. They were so successful that they went on to produce two more games that cost in the 10's of millions. World of Warcraft also used this same business model to become the most successful MMORPG of all-time; with a playerbase most likely bigger than the rest of the P2P games combined.
Other companies who have seen success with the P2P model include Mythic, Turbine, Funcom, and EA Origins (UO). These have proven to be successful business models, so why change them? Well, it's cheaper to make a game like Free Realms than it is to make a game like LoTRO. Of course, if you throw in sparkles everywhere, people are sure to be attracted to them.
Seriously, go play Free Realms or SOE's other F2P Star Wars game. Is that the future of MMORPG's that you envision? That's what you're getting with F2P.
Like we have a choice. Sounds like what people said about Ubisoft and always online DRM. Consumers are sheep. The ones that vote with their wallet are a minority. It will take time for the F2P thing to blow up and then simmer down back to normal.
F2P is not some new fad...and as you say, consumers are sheep...thats why they think they have no choice but pay even in F2P games.
LOL. Well, of course, you have a 'choice'. But, your choice is either a can of beans or -pay enormous sums- homemade style lasagna. You could pay a little here and there, and get a few pieces of cheese to cook with them beans, but if you want that lasagna, you better be forking over a substantially larger sum than $15 a month.
LOL. Well, of course, you have a 'choice'. But, your choice is either a can of beans or -pay enormous sums- homemade style lasagna. You could pay a little here and there, and get a few pieces of cheese to cook with them beans, but if you want that lasagna, you better be forking over a substantially larger sum than $15 a month.
No .. you also have the choice of not eating anything.
I don't see anything wrong with free cans of beans. In fact, that is more value than $15 a month lasagna for many.
Well i don't like f2p and freemium and genreal all microtransaction models i've tried until now, so my gaming time with mmorpg's are coming to either end or long hiatus.
Which one it will be remain to be seen and is wholly dependant on what mmorpg market will be able to offer me and I have some rather niche at least current mmorpg market preferences.
LOL. Well, of course, you have a 'choice'. But, your choice is either a can of beans or -pay enormous sums- homemade style lasagna. You could pay a little here and there, and get a few pieces of cheese to cook with them beans, but if you want that lasagna, you better be forking over a substantially larger sum than $15 a month.
I see you have no choice but provide piss poor lopsided examples to try to make your points seem valid. You clearly know nothing of F2P or B2P and think anything with a shop is "pay to win" and seem to only have played the worst paytraps on the market.
You both seem to be missing the point. Companies can't make money with an unpopular product. P2W games are not favorable in the gaming community. That's why devs are constantly stressing that cash shops are NOT P2W. You can speculate about the future all you want, but right now (and the trend leading to the future) is not having P2W chash shops. You're right; "suits" want to make money, and they're not going to do that by enraging their fanbase... especially in the F2P market, where they'll need to keep people playing their game. Speculating that unabashed, blind greed will circumvent common busineess practices, such as simple market resaech, is silly.
You both seem to be arguging some hypothetical future with no evidence or reasoning, other than your own bais.
We'll see.
Oh, and earlier I said LoL, I mean LoTRO. Sorry, LoTRO was originally a P2P game, not LoL.
Also, I've been a League of Legend player since beta. They absolutely implemented F2P in the most perfect way. However, LoL isn't an online-persistant MMORPG; it's a DOTA or MOBA style game - BIG BIG difference. For a DOTA style game, LoL absolutely has the perfect business model.
I'm curious, though. Everquest made Sony Online Entertainment the most profitable division of Sony, and their business model was P2P with periodic expansions. They were so successful that they went on to produce two more games that cost in the 10's of millions. World of Warcraft also used this same business model to become the most successful MMORPG of all-time; with a playerbase most likely bigger than the rest of the P2P games combined.
Other companies who have seen success with the P2P model include Mythic, Turbine, Funcom, and EA Origins (UO). These have proven to be successful business models, so why change them? Well, it's cheaper to make a game like Free Realms than it is to make a game like LoTRO. Of course, if you throw in sparkles everywhere, people are sure to be attracted to them.
Seriously, go play Free Realms or SOE's other F2P Star Wars game. Is that the future of MMORPG's that you envision? That's what you're getting with F2P.
Yes, there WERE a lot of usccessful subscription-based games, but that's changing. A sub model used to work because there wasn't much in the way of F2P competition; they were all noticebly lower quality and offered inferior content. That's not so much the case anymore. At one point, I was adamently against playing F2P games, but the P2P market has become increasinly derivative, and F2P games are exponentially increasing in quality... almost matching many sub games. For now, anyway, the developers seem to realize that being able to pay your way to power is not something people want; and like I've shown, are actively making benign cash shops. One game I didn't use as an example (because it's not completely F2P) is GW2. It has a pretty good variety of stuff, but none of it is power. There are a few things for convenience, like extra exp and on-the-spot gear repair, but doesn't really give anyone a competitve edge.
Another thing to note is there is always going to be a pay to win option no matter the game. I'm talking about 3rd party suppliers of in-game gold/items and power leveling. Those options aren't going anywhere soon. Yeah, there's a little more risk involved, but it's popular enough for there to be a market for it.
ALL I can say to alot of post here is LMAO you all have no idea what a true F2P game is or freemium or F2P/P2W is at all but let me break it down.
True F2P= Aion and Lineage 2 only true F2P games right now
Freemium= LOTRO / DDO / Champions / STO / DCUOI guess EQ / EQ2 and Vangaurd fit here so does AoC and CoX and SWToR when it goes free but to me only the first 5 are Freemium why because they offer a piece meal type purchase the others are a cross with EQ and EQ2 being alittle P2W. Not sure on CoX didnt get into it much was busy playing DCUO and Champs for super hero games and CoX is a little out dated in graphics.
P2W= look on the list most F2P games made in asia can be played 100% free but will be way under powered but can still complete most content but will have to pay to PvP. Games like Shayia and a few others were not bad at first but became worse latter PWI games are not really P2W unless you let it be everything in those games can be done with out using the CS but by easy way you can use the CS to mode gear faster. Alot of F2P games are really good games but got a bad rap for being Asian F2P and some "COUGH COUGH RUNES OF MAGIC COUGH COUGH" really are high priced P2W to Play games as in if you dont pay you dont play except up to a certain lvl 50 I think everything after is total P2P just to go to the higher lvl zones but even worse just to do dungeons.
Then you have the P2P games which are ok but F2P games have been in the states sense before 2001 so they have been around just as long.
Sherman's Gaming
Youtube Content creator for The Elder Scrolls Online
ALL I can say to alot of post here is LMAO you all have no idea what a true F2P game is or freemium or F2P/P2W is at all but let me break it down.
True F2P= Aion and Lineage 2 only true F2P games right now
Freemium= LOTRO / DDO / Champions / STO / DCUOI guess EQ / EQ2 and Vangaurd fit here so does AoC and CoX and SWToR when it goes free but to me only the first 5 are Freemium why because they offer a piece meal type purchase the others are a cross with EQ and EQ2 being alittle P2W. Not sure on CoX didnt get into it much was busy playing DCUO and Champs for super hero games and CoX is a little out dated in graphics.
P2W= look on the list most F2P games made in asia can be played 100% free but will be way under powered but can still complete most content but will have to pay to PvP. Games like Shayia and a few others were not bad at first but became worse latter PWI games are not really P2W unless you let it be everything in those games can be done with out using the CS but by easy way you can use the CS to mode gear faster. Alot of F2P games are really good games but got a bad rap for being Asian F2P and some "COUGH COUGH RUNES OF MAGIC COUGH COUGH" really are high priced P2W to Play games as in if you dont pay you dont play except up to a certain lvl 50 I think everything after is total P2P just to go to the higher lvl zones but even worse just to do dungeons.
Then you have the P2P games which are ok but F2P games have been in the states sense before 2001 so they have been around just as long.
Most of them sell advantages. You can get more powerful or/and progress faster if you pay real money. People that want a level playing field and fairness will never be able to accept that. There is no good F2P game and never will be. Because a good F2P game would not be profitable. It would be pointless and it would make more sense for the company to pull the plug or never release the game. If you are idealistic stay far away from all F2P games. They are all P2W in some way if you think about it and figure out how they are planned to help the company make a profit.
Well i don't like f2p and freemium and genreal all microtransaction models i've tried until now, so my gaming time with mmorpg's are coming to either end or long hiatus.
Which one it will be remain to be seen and is wholly dependant on what mmorpg market will be able to offer me and I have some rather niche at least current mmorpg market preferences.
And i like F2P and freemium, including RMAH (which hurray . i just made another $2 ... now my total is like ~$100 .. and i pump about $75 back into getting new gear).
I think the MMORPG, and action online RPG market is going to offer me lots of fun in 2012. Still some life left in D3. Borderland 2 is coming. MOP is coming. Marvel Heroes (F2P .. yes!!! essentially Marvel Ultimate Alliance with more characters and persistency .. it is a no brainer to play with the price of FREE) is coming.
Comments
Dude.. not opinion. You were 9 or 10 when it came out. It wasn't considered a joke. It was accepted and considered popular. It grew WAY to fast for them to handle because it was so accepted. Its not my opinion... ITS WHAT HAPPENED! Hotmail did have its struggle not long afterwards. This is typically due to security flaws the site had. Regardless, your comparison doesn't even remotely apply to MMO's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotmail
There are some facts. You can read. Do so. Also where is his reasearch or facts? All I see is a guy writing stuff.... oh well.
You are also comparing a completely free email service to a game that requires micro-transactions to fully take advantage of it. I do not understand what you aren't getting.
By December 1997, it reported more than 8.5 million subscribers. (hotmail #'s via wiki) Back in 1997 those are HUGE numbers. HUGE.
Come on guys.... this information is available ALL OVER THE WEB.
You're right; there is some subjective variation in the P2W definition. There's kind of a thick, hazy line, but from what I've seen (and in the interviews I posted), developers want to be a safe distance on the right side of it.
Yes, it possible that a game may start adding in P2W features, but I doubt they would push it too far if thay are actually generating revenue with the game. Here's why: once that line has been crossed and it gets labeled as a P2W by the community, it's going to be really hard to recover from that. Especially if there is stiff competition from other AAA games that aren't trying to pull that crap. I'm not saying that won't ever happen, but I don't think it's something that's going to happen large-scale by every company... unless we, the players, let it happen. Then that's kind of on us though. And that goes back to my original point, F2P puts the power into the players. If we let P2W happen, of course they'll get away with it. However, most gamers seem pretty adamant about hating P2W. It's something that we're just ging to have to wait and see, but I have faith it'll turn out okay.
This whole rant is silly.
It is well known that only a minority of players ever pay in a F2P MMO.
Secondly, i found MANY f2p mmos are fun. So i *am* getting free fun already. Why should i stop? And this "have to buy $150 sword" claim is just silly. Many have fun without spending a dime ... including me.
Another thread by someone that does not know what the difference between F2P and Paytrap is.
Just because a company calls it F2P, it doesnt mean it actually is. SWTOR is a paytrap...I dont recall ANYONE stating that SWTOR should be paytrap...I do however remember seeing everyone say F2P.
Let Bioware use the paytrap model, just another in a long line of idiotic mistakes that will lead to more people being "moved" out of the company.
You both seem to be missing the point. Companies can't make money with an unpopular product. P2W games are not favorable in the gaming community. That's why devs are constantly stressing that cash shops are NOT P2W. You can speculate about the future all you want, but right now (and the trend leading to the future) is not having P2W chash shops. You're right; "suits" want to make money, and they're not going to do that by enraging their fanbase... especially in the F2P market, where they'll need to keep people playing their game. Speculating that unabashed, blind greed will circumvent common busineess practices, such as simple market resaech, is silly.
You both seem to be arguging some hypothetical future with no evidence or reasoning, other than your own bais.
Please do not tell me what I 'want' or 'don't want'.
I can speak for myself and spend my money as I see fit!
Yes, I play F2P games as some a quite good!
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
When people accept F2P, they still won't accept pay to win. Not in the west... it's just not happening.
Yeah guess we agree on most points, our views only differ in terms of the player base itself. I tend to have a more pessimistic view as i have seen a few decent games turn into P2W and the game population is so alienated that they think it is entirely fine for a game to work that way (check fiesta forum and cash shop as an example if u interested or play bored).It really can go either way to be honest we might be getting a great deal with this change or we gonna get screwed hard... just in case someone comes here to say im crazy remember what happend with WoW and all its clones.That was players fault as many love to point out, and still is as i see plenty of people joining the hype train for whatever is new buying it and complaing a month later how the game is just another "WoW fail copy" as some like to call it.
Haha. Yeah, people sure do love to complain about WoW. However, that has more to do with content than a crappy cash system. WoW is losing subs though, and they aren't really attracting too many new players. People keep playing WoW because they feel invested in it, so they'll keep getting the new content in hopes that it'll get better. I suppose a company that has invested players may be able to get away with turning into P2W, but they'll certainly alianate new/potential players. One of the biggest advanteges of the F2P system has is the number of people who are willing to try it out with no financial commitment. I wouldn't think sacrficing that perk would be worth it to them... but ya never know, I guess.
There is competition. If game A needs $100+ to have fun, and game B can have some fun for free .. you know what will happen.
And from what i have seen so far, most of the F2P games give you a lot of game for free. Most players don't pay. And this idea of "need to compete" is just envy .. which obviously lots of players would not pay money for, including me.
HHAhhAhAHAHahAhAhAhAhAhAhahAAAQAQHahaHaHAHAHahAHAHahaah *cough cough*.... HhAhAhAhAhAhAhahahAhahaHAHAh
Like we have a choice. Sounds like what people said about Ubisoft and always online DRM. Consumers are sheep. The ones that vote with their wallet are a minority. It will take time for the F2P thing to blow up and then simmer down back to normal.
I just hope they always keep a sub model attached. And not one that states "oh as a sub player you get access to 1500 points for $15.00 a month". I mean a serious COMPLETE game for the sub player.
Of couse we have a choice. Is someone forcing you to play the game or buy something? Playing the game and buying something are completely optional.
F2P is not some new fad...and as you say, consumers are sheep...thats why they think they have no choice but pay even in F2P games.
We'll see.
Oh, and earlier I said LoL, I mean LoTRO. Sorry, LoTRO was originally a P2P game, not LoL.
Also, I've been a League of Legend player since beta. They absolutely implemented F2P in the most perfect way. However, LoL isn't an online-persistant MMORPG; it's a DOTA or MOBA style game - BIG BIG difference. For a DOTA style game, LoL absolutely has the perfect business model.
I'm curious, though. Everquest made Sony Online Entertainment the most profitable division of Sony, and their business model was P2P with periodic expansions. They were so successful that they went on to produce two more games that cost in the 10's of millions. World of Warcraft also used this same business model to become the most successful MMORPG of all-time; with a playerbase most likely bigger than the rest of the P2P games combined.
Other companies who have seen success with the P2P model include Mythic, Turbine, Funcom, and EA Origins (UO). These have proven to be successful business models, so why change them? Well, it's cheaper to make a game like Free Realms than it is to make a game like LoTRO. Of course, if you throw in sparkles everywhere, people are sure to be attracted to them.
Seriously, go play Free Realms or SOE's other F2P Star Wars game. Is that the future of MMORPG's that you envision? That's what you're getting with F2P.
LOL. Well, of course, you have a 'choice'. But, your choice is either a can of beans or -pay enormous sums- homemade style lasagna. You could pay a little here and there, and get a few pieces of cheese to cook with them beans, but if you want that lasagna, you better be forking over a substantially larger sum than $15 a month.
No .. you also have the choice of not eating anything.
I don't see anything wrong with free cans of beans. In fact, that is more value than $15 a month lasagna for many.
Well i don't like f2p and freemium and genreal all microtransaction models i've tried until now, so my gaming time with mmorpg's are coming to either end or long hiatus.
Which one it will be remain to be seen and is wholly dependant on what mmorpg market will be able to offer me and I have some rather niche at least current mmorpg market preferences.
I see you have no choice but provide piss poor lopsided examples to try to make your points seem valid. You clearly know nothing of F2P or B2P and think anything with a shop is "pay to win" and seem to only have played the worst paytraps on the market.
Enter the world of Magic Earth, dragona.sc.gameclub.com
Yes, there WERE a lot of usccessful subscription-based games, but that's changing. A sub model used to work because there wasn't much in the way of F2P competition; they were all noticebly lower quality and offered inferior content. That's not so much the case anymore. At one point, I was adamently against playing F2P games, but the P2P market has become increasinly derivative, and F2P games are exponentially increasing in quality... almost matching many sub games. For now, anyway, the developers seem to realize that being able to pay your way to power is not something people want; and like I've shown, are actively making benign cash shops. One game I didn't use as an example (because it's not completely F2P) is GW2. It has a pretty good variety of stuff, but none of it is power. There are a few things for convenience, like extra exp and on-the-spot gear repair, but doesn't really give anyone a competitve edge.
Another thing to note is there is always going to be a pay to win option no matter the game. I'm talking about 3rd party suppliers of in-game gold/items and power leveling. Those options aren't going anywhere soon. Yeah, there's a little more risk involved, but it's popular enough for there to be a market for it.
ALL I can say to alot of post here is LMAO you all have no idea what a true F2P game is or freemium or F2P/P2W is at all but let me break it down.
True F2P= Aion and Lineage 2 only true F2P games right now
Freemium= LOTRO / DDO / Champions / STO / DCUOI guess EQ / EQ2 and Vangaurd fit here so does AoC and CoX and SWToR when it goes free but to me only the first 5 are Freemium why because they offer a piece meal type purchase the others are a cross with EQ and EQ2 being alittle P2W. Not sure on CoX didnt get into it much was busy playing DCUO and Champs for super hero games and CoX is a little out dated in graphics.
P2W= look on the list most F2P games made in asia can be played 100% free but will be way under powered but can still complete most content but will have to pay to PvP. Games like Shayia and a few others were not bad at first but became worse latter PWI games are not really P2W unless you let it be everything in those games can be done with out using the CS but by easy way you can use the CS to mode gear faster. Alot of F2P games are really good games but got a bad rap for being Asian F2P and some "COUGH COUGH RUNES OF MAGIC COUGH COUGH" really are high priced P2W to Play games as in if you dont pay you dont play except up to a certain lvl 50 I think everything after is total P2P just to go to the higher lvl zones but even worse just to do dungeons.
Then you have the P2P games which are ok but F2P games have been in the states sense before 2001 so they have been around just as long.
Sherman's Gaming
Youtube Content creator for The Elder Scrolls Online
Channel:http://https//www.youtube.com/channel/UCrgYNgpFTRAl4XWz31o2emw
Most of them sell advantages. You can get more powerful or/and progress faster if you pay real money. People that want a level playing field and fairness will never be able to accept that. There is no good F2P game and never will be. Because a good F2P game would not be profitable. It would be pointless and it would make more sense for the company to pull the plug or never release the game. If you are idealistic stay far away from all F2P games. They are all P2W in some way if you think about it and figure out how they are planned to help the company make a profit.
And i like F2P and freemium, including RMAH (which hurray . i just made another $2 ... now my total is like ~$100 .. and i pump about $75 back into getting new gear).
I think the MMORPG, and action online RPG market is going to offer me lots of fun in 2012. Still some life left in D3. Borderland 2 is coming. MOP is coming. Marvel Heroes (F2P .. yes!!! essentially Marvel Ultimate Alliance with more characters and persistency .. it is a no brainer to play with the price of FREE) is coming.