(Path of Exile offers a $12,500 pack though!) https://www.pathofexile.com/purchase
(Also, some MMOs, such as LOTRO and STO, offered Lifetime subscriptions for $200)
Of course, these are all F2P: a small portion of the players will pay the $200, and other players pay other amounts. So I guess your point remains valid: would anyone pay $200 for a non-F2P?
Mind blown, how can you call these game free-to-play when they allow this?
Most p2p games will cost you over 200$ if you play them for a year. And if you stop paying you can't play period. If I spend 200$ on a "f2p" game, then even if I never pay again, I can still play the game and have access to the things I got for my 200$. I don't have a problem at all if people don't like f2p games or the payment model, but to ask "would you spend more than 200$ on a pay 2 play game" the answer will be yes, if a person likes it. If you like WoW enough to have been playing it from the beginning you will have spent well over a thousand dollars.
OP, they are free to play. You opted to spend 12 grand on them. They didnt lock your game content behind pay wall. You freely and happily went and spent your cash on their most expensive bundle packs.
Dont complain now. This is why these companies do this, because brainless people like you fall for it. EDIT: i am not callin you brainless myself, companies see you as brainless zombies cos they know some of you will fall for it.
Supporting the companies you love doesnt mean you have to buy their most expensive stuff. You can buy the cheapest ones and along with more people you are part of the support. Period.
Stop falling for those 200 dollar packs and they will stop adding them. Its clearly a rip-off but hey, you fell for it. Not me.
Learn from that experience. Unless you are happy to be a whale. Then have fun, and dont complain.
You clearly have dispossable income, but dont know how to use it smartly. But it was your choice.
There are usually trials for p2p games (no trial is usually fishy), and it's not very hard to run a background check and inform yourself (asking players) before a purchase. I have no idea what your bias means, though. I can admit I've spent $20 in a some games and not afraid to say it was a bad investment in the long run. The problem with F2Ps (and you can ask to any paytard about this) is that for those that spend, they will only notice the game is bad after ditching a much higher amount.
There is obviously shady stuff going on in any business, but if a company makes a living solely out of memberships and typically very minor cash shop purchases with a growing playerbase, I can assume for the player that likes that game it's going to be a longterm entertainment. Afteral, sub based games are all about keeping the players while f2p is about grabbing the players. Another plus is that after your monthly fee is paid, there is no more correlation between each player's character and their wallet, which is also nice. It's much harder to judge quality before playing a F2P: virtually everything except the most terrible f2p games can survive in the market due to a few whales, but how many P2P/B2P games can survive thesedays? Only the best.
Demos in P2P games aren't universally tried by players (also, often on day 1 there isn't a trial; not usually out of maliciousness, but because the developer is scrambling to release, but still, it happens.)
Neither are F2P MMOs.
A bias is a bias. It's not mind control. It's simply the function of "I had a hunch, based on the hype, that I'd like this game, and now I've spent $60 on it too, and so my mind is fairly predisposed to want to justify these hunches and decisions."
And you'd make that same purchase decision, with similar degrees of advance pre-purchase information available to you, on any game, MMO, single-player, online, offline, or otherwise.
I want to say that one of the studies I saw on this effect was focused around free and paid apps on the iPhones store, and that customer ratings were a full half-star (out of 5) higher on average. Even in the same app. That's pretty significant (again, it's not mind control, but neither are the things F2P games are doing which are even more innocuous.)
I wouldn't exactly consider designing a game around well-known concepts of human nature, addictive personalities, social pressures, and such... and then selling items in a cash shop specifically hand-picked and provided to feed those traits "innocuous".
I have no clue how you have a hard time judging quality (without paying) in a F2P game. You get to play the game for as long as you want for free. In the same time it takes me to make a judgement on any game, I've decided whether a F2P game is worth paying for.
Because the experience you have in a F2P as a non-payer is considerably different from the one you have as one who spends money. For reasons I've already noted elsewhere, and then some. This has been discussed in other threads, and on other forums, at length, with people - including long-time payers - illustrating the difference in experience one has when paying, compared to one who plays "completely free". It's not exactly "secret" anymore.
Also keep in mind I was talking purely about B2P (the box sale itself) and not a subcription. A subscription is is just an ongoing, forced F2P transaction (except one you usually have to pay for the box for, so it's kind the worst of all worlds.) Similar to the F2P, subscriptions are only going to be purchased if players actually like the game after playing it.
Demos in P2P games aren't universally tried by players (also, often on day 1 there isn't a trial; not usually out of maliciousness, but because the developer is scrambling to release, but still, it happens.)
Neither are F2P MMOs.
A bias is a bias. It's not mind control. It's simply the function of "I had a hunch, based on the hype, that I'd like this game, and now I've spent $60 on it too, and so my mind is fairly predisposed to want to justify these hunches and decisions."
And you'd make that same purchase decision, with similar degrees of advance pre-purchase information available to you, on any game, MMO, single-player, online, offline, or otherwise.
I want to say that one of the studies I saw on this effect was focused around free and paid apps on the iPhones store, and that customer ratings were a full half-star (out of 5) higher on average. Even in the same app. That's pretty significant (again, it's not mind control, but neither are the things F2P games are doing which are even more innocuous.)
I wouldn't exactly consider designing a game around well-known concepts of human nature, addictive personalities, social pressures, and such... and then selling items in a cash shop specifically hand-picked and provided to feed those traits "innocuous".
I have no clue how you have a hard time judging quality (without paying) in a F2P game. You get to play the game for as long as you want for free. In the same time it takes me to make a judgement on any game, I've decided whether a F2P game is worth paying for.
Because the experience you have in a F2P as a non-payer is considerably different from the one you have as one who spends money. For reasons I've already noted elsewhere, and then some. This has been discussed in other threads, and on other forums, at length, with people - including long-time payers - illustrating the difference in experience one has when paying, compared to one who plays "completely free". It's not exactly "secret" anymore.
Also keep in mind I was talking purely about B2P (the box sale itself) and not a subcription. A subscription is is just an ongoing, forced F2P transaction (except one you usually have to pay for the box for, so it's kind the worst of all worlds.) Similar to the F2P, subscriptions are only going to be purchased if players actually like the game after playing it.
And you accused me of spinning?
Wow.
Pot, meet Kettle.
Your first comment makes no sense. Most players in a B2P game haven't played the demo, so they paid before knowing what the gameplay was like firsthand. Meanwhile nearly 100% of F2P players have tried the game (because it's free) before paying.
Your second comment makes no sense. My bit you were replying to wasn't about whether someone is deciding to purchase, but how they mentally justify the decision. A player makes a hypothesis that a game is worth buying, based on the advertising, and confirmation bias is a factor in how the player justifies the purchase. Whereas in a F2P game the buyer has a crystal clear picture of how much they enjoy a game before paying, because they're playing the game.
Your third comment is ludicrous. You do realize that every game is designed around well-known concepts of human nature, right? Every single one of your favorite games was your favorite because it manipulated you into experiencing emotions you enjoyed. So let's not play the "every form of psychological manipulation is malicious" card and accept that some psychological manipulation that B2P employs is clearly worse than some of the things F2P games do.
Your fourth comment isn't well thought out either. You experience the game as a non-payer. You get to make an informed decision! If you can't accept that having access to the core game before you pay is a massive advantage to players who want to be discerning with their money, then you're so hard-nosed anti-F2P that you're unwilling to hear reason.
And lastly, you're right that lumping a mandatory subscription fee in the same boat as optional microtransactions is a little unfair. Unfair to the microtransactions, that is, since they're completely optional and you have much more freedom over exactly what you purchase. With a subscription, it's just a mandatory requirement to avoid having the game turn off.
And man, that interview in your sig...that poor guy is way off the mark on his knowledge of the market and how things work. It's really striking to me (working in the industry) just how far the US industry has come in terms of design and business sense compared with the stagnant JP industry. In the last decade they've just been completely eclipsed, with few exceptions.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I never said you were employing confirmation bias, but that the B2P model does. I was filling in the gaps in the conversation -- since both payment models have their own set of "evils".
You weren't "filling in blanks". You were responding directly to my remarks, in my post.
This is a common tactic with you, Axe, which I've seen you do time and again in your discussions/debates. You make assertions/remarks that clearly indicate your perspective on something. Then when someone calls or corrects you on them, you backpedal out of it with some "I never said that..." routine.
It's very dishonest and I do wish you'd stop doing it. If you're going to assert an opinion or argument, stand by it and stop leaving yourself convenient escape routes.
F2P isn't any more negative than any other business model.
Only if one is intellectually dishonest or willfully ignorant to the very real and documented facts about how MT-based MMOs and their Cash Shops are designed and implemented.
As a player, I strongly prefer a game like TF2 or LoL where I can play the game before laying down money, because it protects me from being tricked by hype. After playing the game for free, I'm able to judge whether the game is worth my money and spend (or not) accordingly. I'm not buying the hype, I'm buying the game.
So, do you never buy anything unless you can get a free, hands-on preview of it first? I kind of doubt that, personally.. But maybe you do and just don't buy a whole lot of things. This is a pertinent question to me, given that your main qualm seems to be the idea of having to buy something on "hype alone".
Why would you imply anyone was thinking the B2P model was different from buying any other game? That's what the B2P model is: purchasing the box. So yes, it includes every offline singleplayer game too. But again, the problem is you're purchasing based on hype, not based on having experienced the gameplay.
Again, there is tons of information available out there on any game you might be interested in. Videos, let's plays, reviews, articles, interviews, wiki guides, forum discussions, word-of-mouth, and on and on... You do not have to rely on hype alone to make a decision. Buyers have more resources available to them nowadays than ever before. There's no way someone can claim "I have nothing but hype about the game to go on". It's a completely dishonest argument to make.
It bears repeating: "In the age of Information, ignorance is a choice".
And why is it suddenly a "horrible thing" to rely on the recommendations of others? Do you not see movies, try restaurants or what-have-you, based on the information or recommendations you see or receive from others? Are youso cynical in every aspect of your life? Or is that cynicism limited to this topic, in this thread, where it suits you?
You mention the buddy pass, but then neglected to give it the same negative psychological spin you've given F2P's traits. In the interest of being fair, we should probably point out how a buddy pass is designed to influence players via peer pressure to purchase the game.
.... Seriously? "Peer pressure"? That's your spin on that?
Are you so easily influenced, Axe, that someone saying "Hey, I have a buddy pass for this new game I'm playing. Wanna check it out?", you would feel "pressured" into trying it? And then, you'd feel "pressured" to continue playing, even if you weren't enjoying it?
Do you assume others are so weak-minded?
Seriously. You gotta try harder than that. You're grasping big time here.
Sales exist in both models, so obviously bringing that up is irrelevant.
100% pure equivocation here; yet another of your characteristic "hit-and-run" assertions, made without examples or elaboration.
Limited inventories exist in both models, but that's also irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it's "fake" or not, because the value to customers is the idea that they now own something that others can't buy. The only time it's bad is if that trust is betrayed, and the limited item comes out a second time (which sadly the people running my last game sort of did; the items in question weren't overtly advertised as "limited" but it was close enough that I feel like they betrayed players' trust, and now players are less likely to care about whether something is "limited" because the game broke the rules by re-releasing them.)
And yet another equivocation, made without example or elaboration.
The rest of that paragraph is you spinning like a top, completely circumventing the point of my remarks.
But again, the real point is that all business models involve psychological factors. Even a dude bartering away his chickens for a pig is going to get more value from them by cleaning them up and having them in a clean stall when the sale is negotiated -- and that perception of his trading partner is a psychological factor in the decision to buy them, and for how much.
So if we're going to paint it in a negative light, we have to paint all psychological factors in the same negative light -- even the negative factors to our preferred model. Anything else would obscure the truth.
A vague, meandering ramble without point or relevance.
You're lost in the weeds here, man. You have no good counter-argument to make, but dammit, you're trying to make one anyway. You want to disagree, but have demonstrated no solid ground on which to do so.
I made specific arguments, with specific examples and illustrations. You've responded with a spin-tastic array of equivocation, vague non-arguments and 'hit-and-run' assertions made without example or explanation.
I think it's safe to say at this point that you've lost the debate. Thanks for the exchange, though. It was spirited.
Originally posted by Claies People seem to completely forget, these games are Free to Play, but they certainly aren't Free to Make. Somebody has to put time, energy, money into creating these games, and they aren't charities. If you want a game that's Free for Everything (no cash shop, no subscriptions, no restrictions at all) then please spend your money and create one for us.... Let's see how far that really gets.
When I was a kid we used to call that playing outside... I don't think kids do that anymore...
(Path of Exile offers a $12,500 pack though!) https://www.pathofexile.com/purchase
(Also, some MMOs, such as LOTRO and STO, offered Lifetime subscriptions for $200)
Of course, these are all F2P: a small portion of the players will pay the $200, and other players pay other amounts. So I guess your point remains valid: would anyone pay $200 for a non-F2P?
Mind blown, how can you call these game free-to-play when they allow this?
Whilst I get the sentiment, what i find odd is that you make the game with one of the best payment models around seem like the worst offender and one that is pretty much pay to win seem the best.
Have you actually bothered to look at what you get for that 12.5k in path of exile? The ingame items consist of some weapon effects(cosmetic) and a few non combat pets? There's nothing within that package that you need or will make you any better or access anymore of the game than someone that's paid nothing how exactly is that bad? I think warframe fits into this catagory aswell.
I've not payed anything into sto and it seems realistic you can play that for free but if you want to be truly competative in pvp you'll probably need the lifetime sub. But why you'd want to in sto i don't know(isn't much in the way of pvp). Not sure about neverwinter but i do know that pwe has a reputation for overpriced items in the store(including sto in this statement).
Lotro can be done for free but is not a good payment model as far as i can tell(would be cheaper to sub)
Firefall looks like decent model but realistically you need to pay tha $100 or chances are you won't be able to compete with those that have.
But i agree that for the most part most f2p games are only free as long as you pay.
Originally posted by SamuraiXIV Soon EQNext will be in that list trying to milk peoples money.
So do you live off the charity of others or do you milk the rest of the world with your job. If you feel a business is trying to milk you then stop doing business with them.
The OP is either incredibly naive or extremely immature and inexperienced.
Also people, how many times does the marketing term F2P need to be explained. Do some research.
I never play seriously any free to play aka pay to win bs games. As long as there are monthly subscription mmorpg I'll be a mmorpg gamer, if all go free to play is when I'll move on and give up
Free to play games are 100% scam and who falls for them is .... nevermind I am not here to call names.
Maybe a long time ago this would be true but there is plenty of F2P titles that do not sell power. Most of the people complaining here are still thinking of F2P as being titles from years ago.
I never said you were employing confirmation bias, but that the B2P model does. I was filling in the gaps in the conversation -- since both payment models have their own set of "evils".
You weren't "filling in blanks". You were responding directly to my remarks, in my post.
This is a common tactic with you, Axe, which I've seen you do time and again in your discussions/debates. You make assertions/remarks that clearly indicate your perspective on something. Then when someone calls or corrects you on them, you backpedal out of it with some "I never said that..." routine.
It's very dishonest and I do wish you'd stop doing it. If you're going to assert an opinion or argument, stand by it and stop leaving yourself convenient escape routes.
F2P isn't any more negative than any other business model.
Only if one is intellectually dishonest or willfully ignorant to the very real and documented facts about how MT-based MMOs and their Cash Shops are designed and implemented.
As a player, I strongly prefer a game like TF2 or LoL where I can play the game before laying down money, because it protects me from being tricked by hype. After playing the game for free, I'm able to judge whether the game is worth my money and spend (or not) accordingly. I'm not buying the hype, I'm buying the game.
So, do you never buy anything unless you can get a free, hands-on preview of it first? I kind of doubt that, personally.. But maybe you do and just don't buy a whole lot of things. This is a pertinent question to me, given that your main qualm seems to be the idea of having to buy something on "hype alone".
Why would you imply anyone was thinking the B2P model was different from buying any other game? That's what the B2P model is: purchasing the box. So yes, it includes every offline singleplayer game too. But again, the problem is you're purchasing based on hype, not based on having experienced the gameplay.
Again, there is tons of information available out there on any game you might be interested in. Videos, let's plays, reviews, articles, interviews, wiki guides, forum discussions, word-of-mouth, and on and on... You do not have to rely on hype alone to make a decision. Buyers have more resources available to them nowadays than ever before. There's no way someone can claim "I have nothing but hype about the game to go on". It's a completely dishonest argument to make.
It bears repeating: "In the age of Information, ignorance is a choice".
And why is it suddenly a "horrible thing" to rely on the recommendations of others? Do you not see movies, try restaurants or what-have-you, based on the information or recommendations you see or receive from others? Are youso cynical in every aspect of your life? Or is that cynicism limited to this topic, in this thread, where it suits you?
You mention the buddy pass, but then neglected to give it the same negative psychological spin you've given F2P's traits. In the interest of being fair, we should probably point out how a buddy pass is designed to influence players via peer pressure to purchase the game.
.... Seriously? "Peer pressure"? That's your spin on that?
Are you so easily influenced, Axe, that someone saying "Hey, I have a buddy pass for this new game I'm playing. Wanna check it out?", you would feel "pressured" into trying it? And then, you'd feel "pressured" to continue playing, even if you weren't enjoying it?
Do you assume others are so weak-minded?
Seriously. You gotta try harder than that. You're grasping big time here.
Sales exist in both models, so obviously bringing that up is irrelevant.
100% pure equivocation here; yet another of your characteristic "hit-and-run" assertions, made without examples or elaboration.
Limited inventories exist in both models, but that's also irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it's "fake" or not, because the value to customers is the idea that they now own something that others can't buy. The only time it's bad is if that trust is betrayed, and the limited item comes out a second time (which sadly the people running my last game sort of did; the items in question weren't overtly advertised as "limited" but it was close enough that I feel like they betrayed players' trust, and now players are less likely to care about whether something is "limited" because the game broke the rules by re-releasing them.)
And yet another equivocation, made without example or elaboration.
The rest of that paragraph is you spinning like a top, completely circumventing the point of my remarks.
But again, the real point is that all business models involve psychological factors. Even a dude bartering away his chickens for a pig is going to get more value from them by cleaning them up and having them in a clean stall when the sale is negotiated -- and that perception of his trading partner is a psychological factor in the decision to buy them, and for how much.
So if we're going to paint it in a negative light, we have to paint all psychological factors in the same negative light -- even the negative factors to our preferred model. Anything else would obscure the truth.
A vague, meandering ramble without point or relevance.
You're lost in the weeds here, man. You have no good counter-argument to make, but dammit, you're trying to make one anyway. You want to disagree, but have demonstrated no solid ground on which to do so.
I made specific arguments, with specific examples and illustrations. You've responded with a spin-tastic array of equivocation, vague non-arguments and 'hit-and-run' assertions made without example or explanation.
I think it's safe to say at this point that you've lost the debate. Thanks for the exchange, though. It was spirited.
Here's what actually happened. Feel free to re-read all the posts to realize no backpedaling happened:
You made a post in isolation about F2P, only focusing on F2P's negative psychological aspects.
I made a post pointing out B2P also has negative psychological aspects, including confirmation bias.
Somehow you mistook that for me saying your post had confirmation bias. You were wrong.
I clarified this.
You called it backpedaling, when it was really just the truth.
Who said I never buy anything unless I can try it first? What kind of person discusses topics this way? If the Teriyaki Chicken served in the Seattle area is my favorite type of food, does that mean I never eat any other food? You're being ridiculous.
Next, none of those videos and interviews are the same as playing the game myself. Nearly all the sources you stated are outright hype! And I know for a fact that one of the games I worked on got a positively glowing review from a major gaming news site and when I looked up his account he had played it for around 10 minutes.
Ignorance is a choice, and as an industry insider I'm telling you your faith is misplaced in most of the sources you mention. You can choose ignorance, or you can choose to swallow your pride and admit that an industry insider who's seen this happen firsthand might be more knowledgeable than you on the subject. You don't have to agree with everything else I'm saying and you don't have to like F2P, but fact is fact.
It's not a horrible thing to rely on others' recommendations (except the gaming news media, as I just mentioned.) If it's a "let's play", I think that's usually going to be legit. But again, none of that is the same as playing the game firsthand. You're purchasing the idea, not the actual experience.
As for your comments about peer pressure? Peer pressure is a psychological manipulation which generates revenue for the gaming industry. Buddy passes are one example of many ways this influencer makes money for B2P/P2P games. You can neither dispute this plain fact, nor do you get to conveniently ignore this for-profit psychological manipulation just because it happens to be used by your preferred business model.
Sales exist in both models, so they're irrelevant. It's really up to you to prove otherwise, not me. Anyone who's experienced a Steam sale understands it has a massive influence on whether to buy a B2P game. The revenue spike is going to be the same as a spike seen inside a game's own economy during a sale.
Why would I need an example of limited inventories? Your post provided the examples. Pay attention to your own posts at least. Real games have real inventories (# of boxes on shelves), and digital games have digital inventories (limited editions), and it doesn't matter either way because the value to players to get something that someone else didn't get is the same in either case.
The last bit wasn't without a point. The point was clear: psychological manipulation is everywhere in economies. It's unavoidable. So painting only some small subsect of these manipulations as evil -- without a clear line of what's acceptable, and why -- is subjective tomfoolery.
Ha, as for declaring victory, you're going to have to actually make some substantial points before that can happen. As my last post just mentioned, around half your points were completely irrelevant, and as this post mentioned in other cases you conveniently ignore some rather obvious, indisputable facts about B2P games. This isn't a debate. It's about truth.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I've not payed anything into sto and it seems realistic you can play that for free but if you want to be truly competative in pvp you'll probably need the lifetime sub.
Not everyone play games for pvp.
I play STO, and i enjoy the story content without paying a dime. There is no need to.
Ditto for Marvel Heroes. In fact, i just finished MH story content with my first hero, paying absolutely nothing. That is 30 hours of free fun.
Comments
Most p2p games will cost you over 200$ if you play them for a year. And if you stop paying you can't play period. If I spend 200$ on a "f2p" game, then even if I never pay again, I can still play the game and have access to the things I got for my 200$. I don't have a problem at all if people don't like f2p games or the payment model, but to ask "would you spend more than 200$ on a pay 2 play game" the answer will be yes, if a person likes it. If you like WoW enough to have been playing it from the beginning you will have spent well over a thousand dollars.
OP, they are free to play. You opted to spend 12 grand on them. They didnt lock your game content behind pay wall. You freely and happily went and spent your cash on their most expensive bundle packs.
Dont complain now. This is why these companies do this, because brainless people like you fall for it. EDIT: i am not callin you brainless myself, companies see you as brainless zombies cos they know some of you will fall for it.
Supporting the companies you love doesnt mean you have to buy their most expensive stuff. You can buy the cheapest ones and along with more people you are part of the support. Period.
Stop falling for those 200 dollar packs and they will stop adding them. Its clearly a rip-off but hey, you fell for it. Not me.
Learn from that experience. Unless you are happy to be a whale. Then have fun, and dont complain.
You clearly have dispossable income, but dont know how to use it smartly. But it was your choice.
Thanks,
Mike
Working on Social Strategy MMORTS (now Launched!) http://www.worldalpha.com
There you go another one of the guys with his head stuck in the sand. If I cant see it then its not really there.
It's ok, though, if you have to also pay a sub on top of your 10k donation. I mean a dev has to eat right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4qzPbcFiA
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
Your first comment makes no sense. Most players in a B2P game haven't played the demo, so they paid before knowing what the gameplay was like firsthand. Meanwhile nearly 100% of F2P players have tried the game (because it's free) before paying.
Your second comment makes no sense. My bit you were replying to wasn't about whether someone is deciding to purchase, but how they mentally justify the decision. A player makes a hypothesis that a game is worth buying, based on the advertising, and confirmation bias is a factor in how the player justifies the purchase. Whereas in a F2P game the buyer has a crystal clear picture of how much they enjoy a game before paying, because they're playing the game.
Your third comment is ludicrous. You do realize that every game is designed around well-known concepts of human nature, right? Every single one of your favorite games was your favorite because it manipulated you into experiencing emotions you enjoyed. So let's not play the "every form of psychological manipulation is malicious" card and accept that some psychological manipulation that B2P employs is clearly worse than some of the things F2P games do.
Your fourth comment isn't well thought out either. You experience the game as a non-payer. You get to make an informed decision! If you can't accept that having access to the core game before you pay is a massive advantage to players who want to be discerning with their money, then you're so hard-nosed anti-F2P that you're unwilling to hear reason.
And lastly, you're right that lumping a mandatory subscription fee in the same boat as optional microtransactions is a little unfair. Unfair to the microtransactions, that is, since they're completely optional and you have much more freedom over exactly what you purchase. With a subscription, it's just a mandatory requirement to avoid having the game turn off.
And man, that interview in your sig...that poor guy is way off the mark on his knowledge of the market and how things work. It's really striking to me (working in the industry) just how far the US industry has come in terms of design and business sense compared with the stagnant JP industry. In the last decade they've just been completely eclipsed, with few exceptions.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The OP is the one who has his head in the sand. He can't see that many are playing F2P games for free.
I am a walking example.
When I was a kid we used to call that playing outside... I don't think kids do that anymore...
Whilst I get the sentiment, what i find odd is that you make the game with one of the best payment models around seem like the worst offender and one that is pretty much pay to win seem the best.
Have you actually bothered to look at what you get for that 12.5k in path of exile? The ingame items consist of some weapon effects(cosmetic) and a few non combat pets? There's nothing within that package that you need or will make you any better or access anymore of the game than someone that's paid nothing how exactly is that bad? I think warframe fits into this catagory aswell.
I've not payed anything into sto and it seems realistic you can play that for free but if you want to be truly competative in pvp you'll probably need the lifetime sub. But why you'd want to in sto i don't know(isn't much in the way of pvp). Not sure about neverwinter but i do know that pwe has a reputation for overpriced items in the store(including sto in this statement).
Lotro can be done for free but is not a good payment model as far as i can tell(would be cheaper to sub)
Firefall looks like decent model but realistically you need to pay tha $100 or chances are you won't be able to compete with those that have.
But i agree that for the most part most f2p games are only free as long as you pay.
Maybe a long time ago this would be true but there is plenty of F2P titles that do not sell power. Most of the people complaining here are still thinking of F2P as being titles from years ago.
Here's what actually happened. Feel free to re-read all the posts to realize no backpedaling happened:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Not everyone play games for pvp.
I play STO, and i enjoy the story content without paying a dime. There is no need to.
Ditto for Marvel Heroes. In fact, i just finished MH story content with my first hero, paying absolutely nothing. That is 30 hours of free fun.
Back in my day you took a gamble buying a $50 game and an additional $15 in month sub just to see if you liked the game and sometimes you didn't...
I remember those days.
Now is better. You can play a large part of a MMO for free.
Dont know about that.
Lets be honest now, every single f2p MMO i played did not hold my interest for very long. A few days to a week max. I bet most people feel the same.