Originally posted by JRRNeiklot I wish free to play would go to hell. FTP is like going to Mcdonalds with a coupon for a free Big Mac and only getting the bun. Then it's $2 for a piece of meat, $1 for cheese, .50 each for ketchup and mustard, $3 for Special Sauce. Piss on that. Not when I can get a non free whopper for 3 bucks.
actually it is more like going to McD's for a free big mac and getting it. If you want something to drink, pay. If you want fries with that, pay. You want fruit pies, pay.
I wish attitudes like yours would go away. especially since you are not even close to correct about a f2p model
No it's not. Not when they advertise the game or the food as "free." Free means free. But hell, I'll give you a brand new porsche free, if you like. Of course, al you'll get is a floor mat and a valve stem.
I know what the ftp model is. It's a marketing ploy to suck money out of people. But the one thing it is NOT is free to play.
Naw it's much closer to what mrrshann said.
You get the basic game free. You get the burger free. You want extra's you pay for them.
You get the basic porche free. You want top of the line tires, fancy rims, Hawk performance or big red brakes, you pay extra for those. We'll give you the basics.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by JRRNeiklot I wish free to play would go to hell. FTP is like going to Mcdonalds with a coupon for a free Big Mac and only getting the bun. Then it's $2 for a piece of meat, $1 for cheese, .50 each for ketchup and mustard, $3 for Special Sauce. Piss on that. Not when I can get a non free whopper for 3 bucks.
actually it is more like going to McD's for a free big mac and getting it. If you want something to drink, pay. If you want fries with that, pay. You want fruit pies, pay.
I wish attitudes like yours would go away. especially since you are not even close to correct about a f2p model
No it's not. Not when they advertise the game or the food as "free." Free means free. But hell, I'll give you a brand new porsche free, if you like. Of course, al you'll get is a floor mat and a valve stem.
I know what the ftp model is. It's a marketing ploy to suck money out of people. But the one thing it is NOT is free to play.
Naw it's much closer to what mrrshann said.
You get the basic game free. You get the burger free. You want extra's you pay for them.
You get the basic porche free. You want top of the line tires, fancy rims, Hawk performance or big red brakes, you pay extra for those. We'll give you the basics.
Free or not, some people would go to McDonald's wanting a Big Mac and nothing else. Virtually one picks up a "free to play" item mall game genuinely only wanting the stuff that is free unless the company badly botched the business model.
P2P aren't because they need a specific amount of people to pay in order to make money. It is really that simple.
elaborate on the quoted part. why do P2P need a specific ammount of people and F2P don't ?
is it because P2P having a fixed rate can only increase revenue by increasing playerbase whereas F2P can do so by increasing prices ?
Pretty easy - many F2P games more people spend money in the CS (even in a very little) while people will try a P2P and leave if is not exactly what they wanted, recently. Notice all the P2P games going F2P and wonder why? SWTOR, TSW and TERA are examples. What game has come out RECENTLY that has STAYED P2P?
What game that has come out RECENTLY that was good enough to be P2P?
The problem is, whales tend to like flagrantly pay-to-win games. No one wants to pay $100+ per month to be average; if you're going to pay that kind of money, you expect a big return for it. So if you want to attract a lot of whales, you have to make your game pretty aggressively pay-to-win.
If that's truly the case, then shouldn't those same games be practically devoid of nonpaying players? But they're not. Freeloaders do not exclusively inhabit non-P2W games. Why would they? Unless they're looking for a game to play competitively, it doesn't really matter what's in the cash shop even if you can directly purchase levels or in-game currency. They're not going to pay, so the only thing that matters is the base game: what you get if you pay nothing. There's no reason I would insist on going to a "truly" F2P game rather than a P2W game if playing the P2W game for free is more fun.
As I said before with the Mega Man post, a freeloader has no reason for looking at the version of the game he's playing as being "crippled". Crippled compared to what? Compared to an option he's already decided he's not going to play? That's a total non-issue.
The problem is, whales tend to like flagrantly pay-to-win games. No one wants to pay $100+ per month to be average; if you're going to pay that kind of money, you expect a big return for it. So if you want to attract a lot of whales, you have to make your game pretty aggressively pay-to-win.
If that's truly the case, then shouldn't those same games be practically devoid of nonpaying players? But they're not. Freeloaders do not exclusively inhabit non-P2W games. Why would they? Unless they're looking for a game to play competitively, it doesn't really matter what's in the cash shop even if you can directly purchase levels or in-game currency. They're not going to pay, so the only thing that matters is the base game: what you get if you pay nothing. There's no reason I would insist on going to a "truly" F2P game rather than a P2W game if playing the P2W game for free is more fun.
As I said before with the Mega Man post, a freeloader has no reason for looking at the version of the game he's playing as being "crippled". Crippled compared to what? Compared to an option he's already decided he's not going to play? That's a total non-issue.
People who know that they're never going to pay anything tend to want as much as they possibly can for free, even though it will always be far short of everything. Games with flagrant pay-to-win item malls tend to be the best for that, as they can give a lot of the game away for free and charge later. Subscription games with a free trial tend to offer far less of the game for free.
free to play is what is says it is.. i have played many free to play games without spending a dime. im not ocd, adhd. i dont need to dominiate pvp. i dont need to sit in town to show off my uber armor/weps/mounts.
if everyone would wake up and realize mmo companies are not non-profit organizations. they are only making these games for one reason, and its not to make the player base happy
^This^
As long as you're not treating MMOs like personal dick-waving machines, you can play for free. It's the hyper-competitive assholes who have to be #1 and live to show off that have issues, and they should.
If it's so easy to play for free forever, then how do the games make any money? Remember that the only reason that a game will ever be "free to play" is if they think that they'll make more money that way than any other business model.
Because there are people who are happy to pay. The vast majority of F2P players never pay a penny and some people willingly pay thousands. You have a choice which way to play. Just don't complain when you want to play for nothing, but you want to get all the goodies that the whales pay for. Pick one. Stick with it.
Yeah f2p means we are going to pick your pockets later.
But recently we've seen some fairer free play models like gw2 and ps2.
So where,as once I was vehemently anti f2p, now I recognise there are a handful of games that do f2p right.
How do they pick your pockets, you have to decide to enter your credit card number, they can't do it without your permission.
It's not them picking your pockets, it's you having no self-control.
If people don't pay into the shop, the game closes. If enough people don't pay into the shop, the game closes. If barely enough people pay into the shop, the game suffers. Something tells me that F2P games aren't looking for gamers like you, but the ones more prone to impulse buying, hence the entire setup for impulse / gambling enticements.
They're looking for suckers and there are plenty of suckers out there. I'm not one of them. I have no problem playing a game that is being funded by people with self-control issues. It's not my problem.
Originally posted by botrytis Originally posted by Robokapp Originally posted by botrytis P2P aren't because they need a specific amount of people to pay in order to make money. It is really that simple.
elaborate on the quoted part. why do P2P need a specific ammount of people and F2P don't ?
is it because P2P having a fixed rate can only increase revenue by increasing playerbase whereas F2P can do so by increasing prices ?
Pretty easy - many F2P games more people spend money in the CS (even in a very little) while people will try a P2P and leave if is not exactly what they wanted, recently. Notice all the P2P games going F2P and wonder why? SWTOR, TSW and TERA are examples. What game has come out RECENTLY that has STAYED P2P?
What game that has come out RECENTLY that was good enough to be P2P?
If that's truly the case, then shouldn't those same games be practically devoid of nonpaying players? But they're not. Freeloaders do not exclusively inhabit non-P2W games. Why would they? Unless they're looking for a game to play competitively, it doesn't really matter what's in the cash shop even if you can directly purchase levels or in-game currency. They're not going to pay, so the only thing that matters is the base game: what you get if you pay nothing. There's no reason I would insist on going to a "truly" F2P game rather than a P2W game if playing the P2W game for free is more fun.
As I said before with the Mega Man post, a freeloader has no reason for looking at the version of the game he's playing as being "crippled". Crippled compared to what? Compared to an option he's already decided he's not going to play? That's a total non-issue.
People who know that they're never going to pay anything tend to want as much as they possibly can for free, even though it will always be far short of everything. Games with flagrant pay-to-win item malls tend to be the best for that, as they can give a lot of the game away for free and charge later. Subscription games with a free trial tend to offer far less of the game for free.
You make it sound as though pay-to-win games have a lot to offer to many different types of players.
Not every sub-free game model works off the whale principle. That very much has been a hallmark of Asian publishers. I think it's also one that will eventually become niche or go the way of the dodo.
Why? didn't you see that now in the US, F2P MMOs are making more than twice the amount of money than P2P MMOs?
I think the whale principle is alive and well in the western world too. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
f2p mmo's vastly outnumber p2p mmo's.
That is evidence that the whale principle works. Otherwise why would there be so many F2P MMOs?
The problem is, whales tend to like flagrantly pay-to-win games. No one wants to pay $100+ per month to be average; if you're going to pay that kind of money, you expect a big return for it. So if you want to attract a lot of whales, you have to make your game pretty aggressively pay-to-win.
If that's truly the case, then shouldn't those same games be practically devoid of nonpaying players? But they're not. Freeloaders do not exclusively inhabit non-P2W games. Why would they? Unless they're looking for a game to play competitively, it doesn't really matter what's in the cash shop even if you can directly purchase levels or in-game currency. They're not going to pay, so the only thing that matters is the base game: what you get if you pay nothing. There's no reason I would insist on going to a "truly" F2P game rather than a P2W game if playing the P2W game for free is more fun.
As I said before with the Mega Man post, a freeloader has no reason for looking at the version of the game he's playing as being "crippled". Crippled compared to what? Compared to an option he's already decided he's not going to play? That's a total non-issue.
This is good logic and works perfectly for me.
If the free part of a game is fun, there is no reason not to spend some time on it. The paid part does not concern me at all.
I think F2P is fine, I think given time it will settle and develop its ruleset and the ability to nickle and dime the community it has will be less rampant. As development in the F2P market matures the quality of titles will improve and the bar will be raised so that half-assed attempts are LESS tolerated.
I do not see it being a major issue to the sub community. I think sub games and F2P games cater to vastly different audiences by design. Sub games attempt to keep you playing as long as possible to accrue months, F2P games attempt to speed you through content to gobble up cash items or constantly need something more(note I use attempt as not everyone will do this, but it is the goal).
The sub model will not die because there will remain a market for it. The question is how dense that market will be and how represented it will be. Subs may no longer have 15 games a month coming out, but with any luck those that do will go back to being creative, interesting titles with crowd pleasing being the objective along with deep, rich content. Shine and polish may suffer, but I know that most of the old timers that are looking for those type games could likely do without all the bells and whistles anyway if the game was worth looking past it.
Eventually the F2P market will cater more toward instant gratification seekers and casuals and sub models will regress back to the geeks and freaks that want to spend years in a single world.
So hell, maybe it works out in favor of everyone and the world is sunshine, rainbows, and quality games in the eyes of their intended audiences.
Thats my take on it at least, my rose colored glasses are in full effect.
Perhaps you should ask Turbine, since LOTRO gained 400% revenue increase the month they went from SUB only to SUB / F2P. Problem is, companies think cash shops should make their job easier, which is their fault for having lazy thinking. If they want to make money from a F2P game, then they need to have enticing products, not P2W products in their cash shop.
You got a source for those numbers? They were never posted by Turbine and any article that states the revenue increase always uses another news article as a source.
They don't say 400% increase in revenue but they do say doubled, and according to them it is Lord of the Rings Online Executive Producer Kate Paiz that is saying it.
There was a 400% increase in player activity though, half of which bought something. Interesting that the number of people that bought was that high.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Hidden costs are the foundation of 'F2P'. It's why prices are hidden behind fake virtual currencies and why they love lucky dip gambling mechanisms so much.
Anything to distance the buyer from the amount of money they are actually spending, until the credit card bill comes in ofc.
F2P alway been and will alway be an immersion breaker for me.
Its no different if its F2P or P2W, at the very moment i am in a virtual world trying to get immersed, the shop element immediately bring me back to reality thus breaking immersion. I would like it more if everything virtual shop related was doable only outside of the game, because seeing rl cash vendor in city or advertissement when you are already playing and trying to immersed is a breaker.
The simple answer is Yes. F2P games are intentionally more unclear than sub games in regards to how much it will cost you. In sub games (barring free trials) you know the cost up front. In F2P games you know you will be able to log in without paying anything. From that point on it varys from F2P game to F2P game how much you will spend.
Yes, people are different. Yet we have categories like "mainstream" and "niche". This suggest that even though we are all different, we are also pretty similar in our tastes. That means that games that are more clever in their luring will benefit from our commonalities the most. Obvious greedy bastards will only lure the town idiots.
People who say "a game is just a game, so I dont care about flashing buy-me buttons on my screen" are simply people I dont have that much in common with. The part I hate the most about F2P is that the model itself detracts from the RPG experience. They pave a road, then afterwards deliberately fill it with potholes and sell asphalt in the in-game shop. It's very obvious, like the chests you get which you only can open with shop keys.
This discussion shouldnt be about wether or not a company should make money from the F2P model. Of course we know they must and should. The question the OP is posing is wether or not it is more unclear what the consumers will end up paying compared to sub based games.
Of course it's more unclear.
PS! I noticed someone voting for sub based games with cash shops. Are you out of your mind?! That's voting for double income tax!
The problem is, whales tend to like flagrantly pay-to-win games. No one wants to pay $100+ per month to be average; if you're going to pay that kind of money, you expect a big return for it. So if you want to attract a lot of whales, you have to make your game pretty aggressively pay-to-win.
If that's truly the case, then shouldn't those same games be practically devoid of nonpaying players? But they're not. Freeloaders do not exclusively inhabit non-P2W games. Why would they? Unless they're looking for a game to play competitively, it doesn't really matter what's in the cash shop even if you can directly purchase levels or in-game currency. They're not going to pay, so the only thing that matters is the base game: what you get if you pay nothing. There's no reason I would insist on going to a "truly" F2P game rather than a P2W game if playing the P2W game for free is more fun.
As I said before with the Mega Man post, a freeloader has no reason for looking at the version of the game he's playing as being "crippled". Crippled compared to what? Compared to an option he's already decided he's not going to play? That's a total non-issue.
This is good logic and works perfectly for me.
If the free part of a game is fun, there is no reason not to spend some time on it. The paid part does not concern me at all.
That's how most people are. Most people aren't busy dissecting business practices or worrying about how much milk the guy next to them has in their glass, especially in PvE games where it really doesn't make a damn bit of difference.
They try a game and if they find it fun, they play until it isn't. It's that simple.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by Quizzical I prefer to know a game's business model up front before deciding whether to play it. When a company advertises a game as "free to play", they're trying to hide the business model, as they're never going to truly give away everything for free. Do you think "free to play" will eventually become a derogatory term that marketers avoid for that reason?
I don't think it'll become a derogatory term (moreso than it is already). I do think that its current preference of use by developers will turn around and bite them hard in a few years as Mark Jacobs stated. We'll start to see some big name developers have to close because they banked on F2P and lost.
Turbine comes to mind. Unless they ship a solid game with a subscription business model, they could be that first big name to go. Which is ironic as they were the first Western big name to essentially go full monty with, aside from AC1. AC1's subscriptions probably aren't enough een in tandem with the subscriptions they have for LOTRO and D&D (remember those two you have a choice, and most gamers are playing for free).
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
The problem is, whales tend to like flagrantly pay-to-win games. No one wants to pay $100+ per month to be average; if you're going to pay that kind of money, you expect a big return for it. So if you want to attract a lot of whales, you have to make your game pretty aggressively pay-to-win.
If that's truly the case, then shouldn't those same games be practically devoid of nonpaying players? But they're not. Freeloaders do not exclusively inhabit non-P2W games. Why would they? Unless they're looking for a game to play competitively, it doesn't really matter what's in the cash shop even if you can directly purchase levels or in-game currency. They're not going to pay, so the only thing that matters is the base game: what you get if you pay nothing. There's no reason I would insist on going to a "truly" F2P game rather than a P2W game if playing the P2W game for free is more fun.
As I said before with the Mega Man post, a freeloader has no reason for looking at the version of the game he's playing as being "crippled". Crippled compared to what? Compared to an option he's already decided he's not going to play? That's a total non-issue.
This is good logic and works perfectly for me.
If the free part of a game is fun, there is no reason not to spend some time on it. The paid part does not concern me at all.
That's how most people are. Most people aren't busy dissecting business practices or worrying about how much milk the guy next to them has in their glass, especially in PvE games where it really doesn't make a damn bit of difference.
They try a game and if they find it fun, they play until it isn't. It's that simple.
Nods. I'll play a F2P game up until the point it starts requiring me to pay to advance. At that point I'll evaluate if I'm having enough fun to pay and look at how much they are asking. That said I have really only found one game where I've paid and most don't consider it an MMO. World of Tanks.
Just my view, I guess, but if a developer doesn't think their game is worthy enough to charge for it, then I'm probably not going to give them anything for it either.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Originally posted by Rhoklaw Perhaps you should ask Turbine, since LOTRO gained 400% revenue increase the month they went from SUB only to SUB / F2P. ...
Venge said it's 200% not 400%. The increase is because the game sucks, but the IP is hugely popular. Offer it for free, and the curious will download and make impulsive purchases. "F2P" is a short term solution to sucker as many consumers as possible before they realize the game is not worth their time.
Originally posted by JRRNeiklot ...I know what the ftp model is. It's a marketing ploy to suck money out of people...
QTF
Originally posted by Burntvet
Originally posted by xAPOCx
What game that has come out RECENTLY that was good enough to be P2P?
The answer to that is: None.
QFT (Burntvet beat me to it)
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
F2P alway been and will alway be an immersion breaker for me.
Its no different if its F2P or P2W, at the very moment i am in a virtual world trying to get immersed, the shop element immediately bring me back to reality thus breaking immersion. I would like it more if everything virtual shop related was doable only outside of the game, because seeing rl cash vendor in city or advertissement when you are already playing and trying to immersed is a breaker.
I hope P2P stay
You mean P2P only games. There are plenty of F2P games with a sub option, but you still get to see the cash shop.
F2P games are intentionally more unclear than sub games in regards to how much it will cost you. In sub games (barring free trials) you know the cost up front. In F2P games you know you will be able to log in without paying anything. From that point on it varys from F2P game to F2P game how much you will spend.
What about expansions? These are a staple of P2P MMOs and nobody balks at them the way they balk at cash shops. A P2P MMO can come out with an expansion that costs two or three times as much as your monthly subscription fee, and you feel fairly obligated to buy it.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, or that it's worse than what happens with cash shop nickle-and-diming, but if your argument is that you always know up front exactly how much you'll be paying for a subscription, that's a key part that you're missing. You have no advance knowledge of how expensive expansions will be nor how much you will have to pay for them.
Comments
Naw it's much closer to what mrrshann said.
You get the basic game free. You get the burger free. You want extra's you pay for them.
You get the basic porche free. You want top of the line tires, fancy rims, Hawk performance or big red brakes, you pay extra for those. We'll give you the basics.
Free or not, some people would go to McDonald's wanting a Big Mac and nothing else. Virtually one picks up a "free to play" item mall game genuinely only wanting the stuff that is free unless the company badly botched the business model.
What game that has come out RECENTLY that was good enough to be P2P?
If that's truly the case, then shouldn't those same games be practically devoid of nonpaying players? But they're not. Freeloaders do not exclusively inhabit non-P2W games. Why would they? Unless they're looking for a game to play competitively, it doesn't really matter what's in the cash shop even if you can directly purchase levels or in-game currency. They're not going to pay, so the only thing that matters is the base game: what you get if you pay nothing. There's no reason I would insist on going to a "truly" F2P game rather than a P2W game if playing the P2W game for free is more fun.
As I said before with the Mega Man post, a freeloader has no reason for looking at the version of the game he's playing as being "crippled". Crippled compared to what? Compared to an option he's already decided he's not going to play? That's a total non-issue.
People who know that they're never going to pay anything tend to want as much as they possibly can for free, even though it will always be far short of everything. Games with flagrant pay-to-win item malls tend to be the best for that, as they can give a lot of the game away for free and charge later. Subscription games with a free trial tend to offer far less of the game for free.
Because there are people who are happy to pay. The vast majority of F2P players never pay a penny and some people willingly pay thousands. You have a choice which way to play. Just don't complain when you want to play for nothing, but you want to get all the goodies that the whales pay for. Pick one. Stick with it.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
They're looking for suckers and there are plenty of suckers out there. I'm not one of them. I have no problem playing a game that is being funded by people with self-control issues. It's not my problem.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
elaborate on the quoted part. why do P2P need a specific ammount of people and F2P don't ?
is it because P2P having a fixed rate can only increase revenue by increasing playerbase whereas F2P can do so by increasing prices ?
Pretty easy - many F2P games more people spend money in the CS (even in a very little) while people will try a P2P and leave if is not exactly what they wanted, recently. Notice all the P2P games going F2P and wonder why? SWTOR, TSW and TERA are examples. What game has come out RECENTLY that has STAYED P2P?
What game that has come out RECENTLY that was good enough to be P2P?
The answer to that is: None.You make it sound as though pay-to-win games have a lot to offer to many different types of players.
That is evidence that the whale principle works. Otherwise why would there be so many F2P MMOs?
This is good logic and works perfectly for me.
If the free part of a game is fun, there is no reason not to spend some time on it. The paid part does not concern me at all.
Disclaimer: Baseless future-sense engage.
I think F2P is fine, I think given time it will settle and develop its ruleset and the ability to nickle and dime the community it has will be less rampant. As development in the F2P market matures the quality of titles will improve and the bar will be raised so that half-assed attempts are LESS tolerated.
I do not see it being a major issue to the sub community. I think sub games and F2P games cater to vastly different audiences by design. Sub games attempt to keep you playing as long as possible to accrue months, F2P games attempt to speed you through content to gobble up cash items or constantly need something more(note I use attempt as not everyone will do this, but it is the goal).
The sub model will not die because there will remain a market for it. The question is how dense that market will be and how represented it will be. Subs may no longer have 15 games a month coming out, but with any luck those that do will go back to being creative, interesting titles with crowd pleasing being the objective along with deep, rich content. Shine and polish may suffer, but I know that most of the old timers that are looking for those type games could likely do without all the bells and whistles anyway if the game was worth looking past it.
Eventually the F2P market will cater more toward instant gratification seekers and casuals and sub models will regress back to the geeks and freaks that want to spend years in a single world.
So hell, maybe it works out in favor of everyone and the world is sunshine, rainbows, and quality games in the eyes of their intended audiences.
Thats my take on it at least, my rose colored glasses are in full effect.
You got a source for those numbers? They were never posted by Turbine and any article that states the revenue increase always uses another news article as a source.
Funny how that works.
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/10/07/lord-of-the-rings-online-doubles-revenue-since-going-free-to-pla/
They don't say 400% increase in revenue but they do say doubled, and according to them it is Lord of the Rings Online Executive Producer Kate Paiz that is saying it.
There was a 400% increase in player activity though, half of which bought something. Interesting that the number of people that bought was that high.
Hidden costs are the foundation of 'F2P'. It's why prices are hidden behind fake virtual currencies and why they love lucky dip gambling mechanisms so much.
Anything to distance the buyer from the amount of money they are actually spending, until the credit card bill comes in ofc.
F2P alway been and will alway be an immersion breaker for me.
Its no different if its F2P or P2W, at the very moment i am in a virtual world trying to get immersed, the shop element immediately bring me back to reality thus breaking immersion. I would like it more if everything virtual shop related was doable only outside of the game, because seeing rl cash vendor in city or advertissement when you are already playing and trying to immersed is a breaker.
I hope P2P stay
In regards to the OP:
The simple answer is Yes. F2P games are intentionally more unclear than sub games in regards to how much it will cost you. In sub games (barring free trials) you know the cost up front. In F2P games you know you will be able to log in without paying anything. From that point on it varys from F2P game to F2P game how much you will spend.
Yes, people are different. Yet we have categories like "mainstream" and "niche". This suggest that even though we are all different, we are also pretty similar in our tastes. That means that games that are more clever in their luring will benefit from our commonalities the most. Obvious greedy bastards will only lure the town idiots.
People who say "a game is just a game, so I dont care about flashing buy-me buttons on my screen" are simply people I dont have that much in common with. The part I hate the most about F2P is that the model itself detracts from the RPG experience. They pave a road, then afterwards deliberately fill it with potholes and sell asphalt in the in-game shop. It's very obvious, like the chests you get which you only can open with shop keys.
This discussion shouldnt be about wether or not a company should make money from the F2P model. Of course we know they must and should. The question the OP is posing is wether or not it is more unclear what the consumers will end up paying compared to sub based games.
Of course it's more unclear.
PS! I noticed someone voting for sub based games with cash shops. Are you out of your mind?! That's voting for double income tax!
That's how most people are. Most people aren't busy dissecting business practices or worrying about how much milk the guy next to them has in their glass, especially in PvE games where it really doesn't make a damn bit of difference.
They try a game and if they find it fun, they play until it isn't. It's that simple.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I don't think it'll become a derogatory term (moreso than it is already). I do think that its current preference of use by developers will turn around and bite them hard in a few years as Mark Jacobs stated. We'll start to see some big name developers have to close because they banked on F2P and lost.
Turbine comes to mind. Unless they ship a solid game with a subscription business model, they could be that first big name to go. Which is ironic as they were the first Western big name to essentially go full monty with, aside from AC1. AC1's subscriptions probably aren't enough een in tandem with the subscriptions they have for LOTRO and D&D (remember those two you have a choice, and most gamers are playing for free).
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
Nods. I'll play a F2P game up until the point it starts requiring me to pay to advance. At that point I'll evaluate if I'm having enough fun to pay and look at how much they are asking. That said I have really only found one game where I've paid and most don't consider it an MMO. World of Tanks.
Just my view, I guess, but if a developer doesn't think their game is worthy enough to charge for it, then I'm probably not going to give them anything for it either.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
Venge said it's 200% not 400%. The increase is because the game sucks, but the IP is hugely popular. Offer it for free, and the curious will download and make impulsive purchases. "F2P" is a short term solution to sucker as many consumers as possible before they realize the game is not worth their time.
QTF
QFT (Burntvet beat me to it)
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
You mean P2P only games. There are plenty of F2P games with a sub option, but you still get to see the cash shop.
Not only "they" .. i do that too. That is a pretty simple and effective strategy to get good entertainment.
What about expansions? These are a staple of P2P MMOs and nobody balks at them the way they balk at cash shops. A P2P MMO can come out with an expansion that costs two or three times as much as your monthly subscription fee, and you feel fairly obligated to buy it.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, or that it's worse than what happens with cash shop nickle-and-diming, but if your argument is that you always know up front exactly how much you'll be paying for a subscription, that's a key part that you're missing. You have no advance knowledge of how expensive expansions will be nor how much you will have to pay for them.