For your argument to have any merit to the rest of the conversation you need to name one f2p AAA game popular before the release of Guildwars, because that would substantiate your argument "b2p is an inconsequential classification" or "b2p is just another f2p" or whatever other incorrect thing you're trying to say about mmo payment models.
Don't use runescape. Its beta was f2p, but in early 2002 had a sub.
You're not acquainted with the evolution of the mmo pay systems. AAA mmos were P2P or they were B2P. No one early on ventured a FTP with cash shop. You can always recognize "newer" players by this.
Except there's a ton of old-school players like myself who used to play P2P games and now play F2P games, if we play MMOs at all, which increasingly we're not. Times change. Get used to it.
Get used to what? You're misunderstanding something. I don't care what you do. The issue is whether B2p is a legitimate classification of product "subscription" and the answer is "the payment model existed before f2p", therefore it's totally relevant.
You're the one that said that I wasn't familiar with the evolution of the MMO pay systems. I'm pointing out that I've been around since the beginning and I'm probably more familiar with them than you are. In fact, you argued that anyone who didn't accept what you said must be a "newer" player, said in a very derogatory fashion. As a matter of fact, virtually all AAA MMOs were P2P to start, but as time went on, developers realized that F2P made them as much, if not more money than P2P. As I said, things change, just wishing for the good old days doesn't win the argument.
You're not acquainted with the evolution of the mmo pay systems. AAA mmos were P2P or they were B2P. No one early on ventured a FTP with cash shop. You can always recognize "newer" players by this.
Except there's a ton of old-school players like myself who used to play P2P games and now play F2P games, if we play MMOs at all, which increasingly we're not. Times change. Get used to it.
Get used to what? You're misunderstanding something. I don't care what you do. The issue is whether B2p is a legitimate classification of product "subscription" and the answer is "the payment model existed before f2p", therefore it's totally relevant.
You're the one that said that I wasn't familiar with the evolution of the MMO pay systems. I'm pointing out that I've been around since the beginning and I'm probably more familiar with them than you are. In fact, you argued that anyone who didn't accept what you said must be a "newer" player, said in a very derogatory fashion. As a matter of fact, virtually all AAA MMOs were P2P to start, but as time went on, developers realized that F2P made them as much, if not more money than P2P. As I said, things change, just wishing for the good old days doesn't win the argument.
You're mistaken. I wasn't replying to you there with "not being acquainted" and that's pretty damn apparent from the fact Iselin was quoted. I replied to a post of yours earlier about statistics.
You're not acquainted with the evolution of the mmo pay systems. AAA mmos were P2P or they were B2P. No one early on ventured a FTP with cash shop. You can always recognize "newer" players by this.
Except there's a ton of old-school players like myself who used to play P2P games and now play F2P games, if we play MMOs at all, which increasingly we're not. Times change. Get used to it.
Get used to what? You're misunderstanding something. I don't care what you do. The issue is whether B2p is a legitimate classification of product "subscription" and the answer is "the payment model existed before f2p", therefore it's totally relevant.
You're the one that said that I wasn't familiar with the evolution of the MMO pay systems. I'm pointing out that I've been around since the beginning and I'm probably more familiar with them than you are. In fact, you argued that anyone who didn't accept what you said must be a "newer" player, said in a very derogatory fashion. As a matter of fact, virtually all AAA MMOs were P2P to start, but as time went on, developers realized that F2P made them as much, if not more money than P2P. As I said, things change, just wishing for the good old days doesn't win the argument.
You're mistaken. I wasn't replying to you there with "not being acquainted" and that's pretty damn apparent from the fact Iselin was quoted. I replied to a post of yours earlier about statistics.
Now, say you're sorry and sit down.
I quoted what you said for a reason. It's there in black and white. You can try to spin it however you like but you said what you said. If you didn't mean it that way, maybe you should learn to write better.
- is not free to play. Like Secret World, it is buy to play. There is an initial investment you must make before you can access the software.
lol... yes... even worse then isn't it?
Or are you as literal-minded as the other guy who insists in making the B2P distinction despite the fact that after the box price there is also a cash store just like in any F2P title.
The B2P distinction is not really worth making since B2P MMOs that don't behave exactly like F2P after you've paid the up-front entry fee don't exist.
You're not acquainted with the evolution of the mmo pay systems. AAA mmos were P2P or they were B2P. No one early on ventured a FTP with cash shop. You can always recognize "newer" players by this.
Do you see this? You decided to hop on board and decide I was talking to you. You are out of context and mistaken. Nothing you say is relevant to Iselin's and my exchange.
edit:message intended for Cephus, so there's not MORE... whatever this is.
You lost me there. Of course I don't have that expectation...it's why I'm calling them "A" and "B."
So the "B" game is accurately F2P by your definition.
Yes...there is something you can do for free. I call it the "B" game.
Great ... so ...
a) F2P is accurate to describe the B-game
b) The B-game is fun to me in many games, and that is the reason why many are playing MMO without paying.
...and many drink no-name cola too But hey, It's a pointless circular argument.
The important bit to me is not how aware you personally are about MMO advertising practices to know, going in, that some of the things in their ads are pay features. We who play lots of these games know the deal... and are occasionaly pleasantly surprised by games like POE.
But the fact that they promote a single game - the full meal deal, not the one you can get for free - and call it F2P is the deception most engage in.
And where did they advertise "full meal deal"? I don't see anyone saying you can get everything for free. Most gamers are not born yesterday, you know.
Don't think you are the only one who can read a website.
The important bit to me is not how aware you personally are about MMO advertising practices to know, going in, that some of the things in their ads are pay features. We who play lots of these games know the deal... and are occasionaly pleasantly surprised by games like POE.
But the fact that they promote a single game - the full meal deal, not the one you can get for free - and call it F2P is the deception most engage in.
And where did they advertise "full meal deal"? I don't see anyone saying you can get everything for free. Most gamers are not born yesterday, you know.
Don't think you are the only one who can read a website.
You can see through it, I can see through it, we can see through it... therefore deceptive advertising doesn't exist? O......kay.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
You can see through it, I can see through it, we can see through it... therefore deceptive advertising doesn't exist? O......kay.
Yeah .. if "we" can see the truth, where is the "deception"?
Take Marvel Heroes as an example ... is there any illusion that you get all the heroes for free? Does it take a genius to figure out that a free game is only free to certain extent?
Don't you think even teenagers have some ideas what "free to play" means if they have ever played LoL?
Basically, they have to make something in the game be desirable that a percentage of people will pay for it....If they made it so no one wanted to pay, they would be out of business.
I would prefer p2p, with no cash shop as my model....p2p with cosmetic only a 2nd....p2p dipping into f2p area is ridiculous imo....Then you have f2p, which in mmo terms 95%+ of the time takes on a form of p2w imo... Yes, even if it isn't pvp imo.... People 'win' things all the time irl that are not monitary based, if you can pay to achieve and get a leg up, you are 'beating' someone else basically that has put in the same amount of time, but not money...
People cry about 'play to win' also, as the argument to that...So if that is the devil too, it is one I prefer (and no, I have a full time job, house, wife etc... I cannot 'beat' someone at that game, but at least they put in the time to do it, not the credit card number to do it).
So yeah, f2p cannot be f2p for everyone in the end....I prefer everyone being on equal footing opportunity in game wise (which doesn't mean real life wise, as I stated earlier).
I am not railing against f2p though, the industry kind of did it to themselves...I don't like it, but no one has kept them from offering free trials at launch, told them to put cash shops in p2p games etc... They saw people will pay, and f2p brings the biggest pool of people to draw that percentage of people willing to pay into a game... It has killed the staying power and quality imo, and made more people game jumpers.
So where does that leave things? Vote with your wallet, I do. Then what will happen..happens.
Originally posted by Xthos Basically, they have to make something in the game be desirable that a percentage of people will pay for it....If they made it so no one wanted to pay, they would be out of business.I would prefer p2p, with no cash shop as my model....p2p with cosmetic only a 2nd....p2p dipping into f2p area is ridiculous imo....Then you have f2p, which in mmo terms 95%+ of the time takes on a form of p2w imo... Yes, even if it isn't pvp imo.... People 'win' things all the time irl that are not monitary based, if you can pay to achieve and get a leg up, you are 'beating' someone else basically that has put in the same amount of time, but not money...People cry about 'play to win' also, as the argument to that...So if that is the devil too, it is one I prefer (and no, I have a full time job, house, wife etc... I cannot 'beat' someone at that game, but at least they put in the time to do it, not the credit card number to do it). So yeah, f2p cannot be f2p for everyone in the end....I prefer everyone being on equal footing opportunity in game wise (which doesn't mean real life wise, as I stated earlier). I am not railing against f2p though, the industry kind of did it to themselves...I don't like it, but no one has kept them from offering free trials at launch, told them to put cash shops in p2p games etc... They saw people will pay, and f2p brings the biggest pool of people to draw that percentage of people willing to pay into a game... It has killed the staying power and quality imo, and made more people game jumpers. So where does that leave things? Vote with your wallet, I do. Then what will happen..happens.
This post highlights the actual issue with F2P games. Rather than entice players with things they want and can afford, developers can coerce players with limitations in game play, and coercive systems are both effective and easy to implement. The best example I can think of are games where leveling takes longer and longer, eventually becoming impossible without purchasing XP potions from the cash shop.
It's a problem because it manages to subvert the "vote with your wallet" system. Players are voting with their wallets, but they are voting for something that doesn't actually give them additional game play, but rather gets them what most people would consider standard game play. It is F2P in name only.
Not all F2P systems work like this. Many, in fact, do not. I'm hopeful that competition will eliminate the coercive systems in favor of the enticement systems, especially in larger games, and this does seem to be happening, but there are still coercive F2P systems out there. They obviously aren't so unpopular that they go away entirely.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
This post highlights the actual issue with F2P games. Rather than entice players with things they want and can afford, developers can coerce players with limitations in game play, and coercive systems are both effective and easy to implement. The best example I can think of are games where leveling takes longer and longer, eventually becoming impossible without purchasing XP potions from the cash shop.
It's a problem because it manages to subvert the "vote with your wallet" system. Players are voting with their wallets, but they are voting for something that doesn't actually give them additional game play, but rather gets them what most people would consider standard game play. It is F2P in name only.
No one says you have to play such a game. Of course i can vote with my feet.
In fact, i will not play a game, F2P or not, when it is not fun for even 5 min. If grinding xp is boring, what is prevent me from quitting? Nothing.
I don't gripe about players who do microtransactions to access the content in a F2P game that they want. I have a gripe with the ones who come out and rant and complain because the game doesn't let them do everything or limits how much of certain content they can access without paying for it.
I sub to the game I enjoy to play plus pay a little extra for microtransactions. I do this cause I want to I don't complain because the manufacturer puts something in the game and to get access to it I have to pay a little extra. Granted this is predominately gear or pets, and vehicles if I want it and have to pay for it I don't gripe because I sub and they don't just give it to me.
So while you are correct that alot of people who play f2p mmo's do pay to access certain content or be able to use certain gear; the game is still f2p because they can still play the open portion of the game without paying.
I didn't read through all this so sorry if I make same responses.
I started playing EQ 1 around 3 months after it launched. Since then I played a lot of other games but have been gone for about 3/4 years. I recently started playing Everquest 2 with the F2P model. I couldn't imagine playing that game F2P. It's complete nickle and dime. Not able to share banks, 2 character slots, limited bags, and not even able to sale. Cool to try it out by it is hardly free to play. Last thing from it.
The model to me at least is horrid. I think its took MMORPGs in the wrong direction and is perhaps we have a hundreds of quite frankly shit games. I remember when I started Everquest and was like "Oh my god I can't wait to see what these games will be like in 10/15 years. Well here we are. Still playing the same exact game (raiding, tank/healer/dps/crowd control), with quest, and that pretty much sums up 97% of games out there. Only thing that has changed much is payment method. To a much worse system imho.
If a game is P2win then I am not even installing it.
I look look now at MMORPG world and think to myself "What will these games be like in 10/15 years". No more hope at all. Rather I expect when I go to cast a spell it will ask me to insert a quarter to complete it.
With that said enjoying EQ2 now as I am a gold member (thank god) and my wife is going to go gold Friday once she has time to play. F2P might help short term business wise but it will hurt the genre long term wise.
You still have to pay the equivelant of a sub anyways to get the most out of the game for vip, gold memberships etc. + storage, bankspace and travel. You can even buy characters already leveled up.
Originally posted by kabitoshin Free to play games can be played without paying anything, thus makes it free to play. They just make it a lot less enjoyable to play if you don't pay for unlocks / quality of life items.
There are definitely horrible implementations of F2P. It would be strange if there weren't bad implementations. On the other hand, there are implementations that seem to meet with a lot of consumer approval. LoTR's implementation and now that they've adjusted things a bit, SWToR's implementation both seem to be very accepted by at least hundreds of thousands of players. Why wouldn't they? Those players have an ongoing game experience that they don't have to play for.
On the other hand, there are games like Requiem where leveling becomes impossible without resorting to leveling potions in the cash shop. There is no ongoing experience in the game because the main activity in the game cannot be achieved without leveling potions.
so remind me again, which old time game was it where the top level was unreachable? I never played any of them, didn't have internet access at the time. time an again, I've seen people wax poetic about those old games. yet a direct comparison between an old game that involved grinding levels for negligible gain/rare gear (was so much fun!), and say an Asian grinder (OMG I haz to GRIND for levels/gear?! the horror!).
main activity? oh yeah, end game. that's all games are, end game. everything else is to be skipped over, because it doesn't directly involve end game. never mind grouping up with other players to make the experience more enjoyable. if you can't reach "end game" within a week or less "the game sucks" and isn't worth playing. also never mind that once you get there the complaints about there "not being enough to do" are constant. bleeding locusts.
The problem isn't with the term "free" it is with the personal understanding and definition of "play". ALL free to play game are "free to play". It is how much you can play in that manner or what you have access to that varies. it is not free to have everything you want or play the way you want. . . depending on what you want.
I have played free to play games for several months without spending any money such as Neverwinter. For me that was absolutely free to play. If you want to 'play' differently then that is where the discrepancy comes in.
The problem isn't with the term "free" it is with the personal understanding and definition of "play". ALL free to play game are "free to play". It is how much you can play in that manner or what you have access to that varies. it is not free to have everything you want or play the way you want. . . depending on what you want.
I have played free to play games for several months without spending any money such as Neverwinter. For me that was absolutely free to play. If you want to 'play' differently then that is where the discrepancy comes in.
Right. The games should define what play is in their games. HBO is free to watch.....the previews. No one expects to watch everything for free.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Originally posted by ariasaitcho Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by kabitoshinFree to play games can be played without paying anything, thus makes it free to play. They just make it a lot less enjoyable to play if you don't pay for unlocks / quality of life items.
There are definitely horrible implementations of F2P. It would be strange if there weren't bad implementations. On the other hand, there are implementations that seem to meet with a lot of consumer approval. LoTR's implementation and now that they've adjusted things a bit, SWToR's implementation both seem to be very accepted by at least hundreds of thousands of players. Why wouldn't they? Those players have an ongoing game experience that they don't have to play for. On the other hand, there are games like Requiem where leveling becomes impossible without resorting to leveling potions in the cash shop. There is no ongoing experience in the game because the main activity in the game cannot be achieved without leveling potions. so remind me again, which old time game was it where the top level was unreachable? I never played any of them, didn't have internet access at the time. time an again, I've seen people wax poetic about those old games. yet a direct comparison between an old game that involved grinding levels for negligible gain/rare gear (was so much fun!), and say an Asian grinder (OMG I haz to GRIND for levels/gear?! the horror!).
main activity? oh yeah, end game. that's all games are, end game. everything else is to be skipped over, because it doesn't directly involve end game. never mind grouping up with other players to make the experience more enjoyable. if you can't reach "end game" within a week or less "the game sucks" and isn't worth playing. also never mind that once you get there the complaints about there "not being enough to do" are constant. bleeding locusts.
I'm so very tired of this repeating argument.
I wasn't part of that "old time" game conversation. You'll have to seek elsewhere for that answer. I'm not sure that is even relevant. Who cares if there was a game in 1996 that had a F2P implementation? That game is obviously not relevant now.
Your second paragraph is hyperbole. The point of playing RPGs is progression. The ding. If progression becomes impossible without resorting to XP potions, then the developer is trying to coerce the player into spending money, rather than entice them into spending money with something they want, but don't need. It's all very fuzzy. I understand if you're frustrated by not getting a black-and-white answer, but none exists.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by lizardbones This post highlights the actual issue with F2P games. Rather than entice players with things they want and can afford, developers can coerce players with limitations in game play, and coercive systems are both effective and easy to implement. The best example I can think of are games where leveling takes longer and longer, eventually becoming impossible without purchasing XP potions from the cash shop. It's a problem because it manages to subvert the "vote with your wallet" system. Players are voting with their wallets, but they are voting for something that doesn't actually give them additional game play, but rather gets them what most people would consider standard game play. It is F2P in name only.
No one says you have to play such a game. Of course i can vote with my feet.
In fact, i will not play a game, F2P or not, when it is not fun for even 5 min. If grinding xp is boring, what is prevent me from quitting? Nothing.
Well, of course, I can leave the game. I have other things to do like homework, so I'm not going to waste my time on such a game. Not for very long anyway. My response to such a game is irrelevant compared to the response of the many, many players who are apparently willing to pay money in those scenarios though. Per Raph Koster, coercive techniques are an effective way to collect money from players. It is more difficult to create a long term enticement system than to create a short term coercive system, so we still get coercive systems, and threads like these. Although, I bet we would still get threads like these even if there were 0 coercive F2P systems.
Final note is that I realize my demarcation between "coercive" and "enticement" F2P implementations is subjective. Some people do not mind having to pay for XP potions to progress in a game, and some people find it coercive to have to pay for outfits for their avatar. *shrug*
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Don't get me wrong, I've been very tempted to subscribe to quite a few games, and of course I've been a subscriber before to quite a few. But I can't stand that feeling like when I subscribe I'm then obligated to play to get my money's worth. I can't play any of my other games, because they aren't costing me money to play. I have to play that game, because otherwise I wasted $15.
And when you have a tight budget like mine, you can't afford to just throw $15 away.
When your budget is that tight then no P2P game will give you the value you can get from F2P titles. P2P is often a ripoff anyway. If you don't care about the money then P2P can be ok since it often means the absence of other monetization schemes. However you're very right in demanding value for money and pay as you go as long as you feel good about it. P2P will not give you that luxury, and most of the time not that value either. You'll have to buy boxed expansions anyway, the stuff that is supposed to justify the price of P2P (the cost of the online service and the so called added content, more like bugfixes if even that).
Well, of course, I can leave the game. I have other things to do like homework, so I'm not going to waste my time on such a game. Not for very long anyway. My response to such a game is irrelevant compared to the response of the many, many players who are apparently willing to pay money in those scenarios though. Per Raph Koster, coercive techniques are an effective way to collect money from players. It is more difficult to create a long term enticement system than to create a short term coercive system, so we still get coercive systems, and threads like these. Although, I bet we would still get threads like these even if there were 0 coercive F2P systems.
Final note is that I realize my demarcation between "coercive" and "enticement" F2P implementations is subjective. Some people do not mind having to pay for XP potions to progress in a game, and some people find it coercive to have to pay for outfits for their avatar. *shrug*
"coercive" implies against someone's will. How can that be when anyone can leave at any time.
Like you say, it is more like enticement. The whole notion that "some people find it coercive to have to pay for outfits" is nonsensical because no one will die without a new virtual outfit. It is akin in saying Louis Vuitton is coercing women to spend lots of money on handbags .. which is balony.
If someone cannot resist spending money on F2P games ... it is because they have weak minds (or they actually derive enjoyment from paying). The fact that many plays with paying nothing is proof that there is no coercion. And the point is quite moot anyway with the market so competitive. It is quite easy to just switch game if a game rubs me the wrong way even slightly.
Luckily we won't have to change the abbreviation because everybody knows what it means.
I understand what you're getting at, but anyone who ever thought "Oh it's F2P, that must mean i get everything in the game completely free!" is fucking naive.
Why don't you just call it as Free To Play Until You want To Pay !! cause you never have to pay, but you can, so those that plays for free are playing for free, those that buys anything from the game is playing for free until they pay.
So it works for everyone. And then we can shorten the term back to FTP because people are lazy and they don't want to verbally explain everything clearly. So back to square one, Free to Play.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
Comments
For your argument to have any merit to the rest of the conversation you need to name one f2p AAA game popular before the release of Guildwars, because that would substantiate your argument "b2p is an inconsequential classification" or "b2p is just another f2p" or whatever other incorrect thing you're trying to say about mmo payment models.
Don't use runescape. Its beta was f2p, but in early 2002 had a sub.
You're the one that said that I wasn't familiar with the evolution of the MMO pay systems. I'm pointing out that I've been around since the beginning and I'm probably more familiar with them than you are. In fact, you argued that anyone who didn't accept what you said must be a "newer" player, said in a very derogatory fashion. As a matter of fact, virtually all AAA MMOs were P2P to start, but as time went on, developers realized that F2P made them as much, if not more money than P2P. As I said, things change, just wishing for the good old days doesn't win the argument.
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
You're mistaken. I wasn't replying to you there with "not being acquainted" and that's pretty damn apparent from the fact Iselin was quoted. I replied to a post of yours earlier about statistics.
Now, say you're sorry and sit down.
I quoted what you said for a reason. It's there in black and white. You can try to spin it however you like but you said what you said. If you didn't mean it that way, maybe you should learn to write better.
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
Do you see this? You decided to hop on board and decide I was talking to you. You are out of context and mistaken. Nothing you say is relevant to Iselin's and my exchange.
edit:message intended for Cephus, so there's not MORE... whatever this is.
And where did they advertise "full meal deal"? I don't see anyone saying you can get everything for free. Most gamers are not born yesterday, you know.
Don't think you are the only one who can read a website.
You can see through it, I can see through it, we can see through it... therefore deceptive advertising doesn't exist? O......kay.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Yeah .. if "we" can see the truth, where is the "deception"?
Take Marvel Heroes as an example ... is there any illusion that you get all the heroes for free? Does it take a genius to figure out that a free game is only free to certain extent?
Don't you think even teenagers have some ideas what "free to play" means if they have ever played LoL?
Basically, they have to make something in the game be desirable that a percentage of people will pay for it....If they made it so no one wanted to pay, they would be out of business.
I would prefer p2p, with no cash shop as my model....p2p with cosmetic only a 2nd....p2p dipping into f2p area is ridiculous imo....Then you have f2p, which in mmo terms 95%+ of the time takes on a form of p2w imo... Yes, even if it isn't pvp imo.... People 'win' things all the time irl that are not monitary based, if you can pay to achieve and get a leg up, you are 'beating' someone else basically that has put in the same amount of time, but not money...
People cry about 'play to win' also, as the argument to that...So if that is the devil too, it is one I prefer (and no, I have a full time job, house, wife etc... I cannot 'beat' someone at that game, but at least they put in the time to do it, not the credit card number to do it).
So yeah, f2p cannot be f2p for everyone in the end....I prefer everyone being on equal footing opportunity in game wise (which doesn't mean real life wise, as I stated earlier).
I am not railing against f2p though, the industry kind of did it to themselves...I don't like it, but no one has kept them from offering free trials at launch, told them to put cash shops in p2p games etc... They saw people will pay, and f2p brings the biggest pool of people to draw that percentage of people willing to pay into a game... It has killed the staying power and quality imo, and made more people game jumpers.
So where does that leave things? Vote with your wallet, I do. Then what will happen..happens.
This post highlights the actual issue with F2P games. Rather than entice players with things they want and can afford, developers can coerce players with limitations in game play, and coercive systems are both effective and easy to implement. The best example I can think of are games where leveling takes longer and longer, eventually becoming impossible without purchasing XP potions from the cash shop.
It's a problem because it manages to subvert the "vote with your wallet" system. Players are voting with their wallets, but they are voting for something that doesn't actually give them additional game play, but rather gets them what most people would consider standard game play. It is F2P in name only.
Not all F2P systems work like this. Many, in fact, do not. I'm hopeful that competition will eliminate the coercive systems in favor of the enticement systems, especially in larger games, and this does seem to be happening, but there are still coercive F2P systems out there. They obviously aren't so unpopular that they go away entirely.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Wal-mart is free to shop.
Casino's are free to gamble.
I doubt they could get away with that though.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
No one says you have to play such a game. Of course i can vote with my feet.
In fact, i will not play a game, F2P or not, when it is not fun for even 5 min. If grinding xp is boring, what is prevent me from quitting? Nothing.
I don't gripe about players who do microtransactions to access the content in a F2P game that they want. I have a gripe with the ones who come out and rant and complain because the game doesn't let them do everything or limits how much of certain content they can access without paying for it.
I sub to the game I enjoy to play plus pay a little extra for microtransactions. I do this cause I want to I don't complain because the manufacturer puts something in the game and to get access to it I have to pay a little extra. Granted this is predominately gear or pets, and vehicles if I want it and have to pay for it I don't gripe because I sub and they don't just give it to me.
So while you are correct that alot of people who play f2p mmo's do pay to access certain content or be able to use certain gear; the game is still f2p because they can still play the open portion of the game without paying.
I didn't read through all this so sorry if I make same responses.
I started playing EQ 1 around 3 months after it launched. Since then I played a lot of other games but have been gone for about 3/4 years. I recently started playing Everquest 2 with the F2P model. I couldn't imagine playing that game F2P. It's complete nickle and dime. Not able to share banks, 2 character slots, limited bags, and not even able to sale. Cool to try it out by it is hardly free to play. Last thing from it.
The model to me at least is horrid. I think its took MMORPGs in the wrong direction and is perhaps we have a hundreds of quite frankly shit games. I remember when I started Everquest and was like "Oh my god I can't wait to see what these games will be like in 10/15 years. Well here we are. Still playing the same exact game (raiding, tank/healer/dps/crowd control), with quest, and that pretty much sums up 97% of games out there. Only thing that has changed much is payment method. To a much worse system imho.
If a game is P2win then I am not even installing it.
I look look now at MMORPG world and think to myself "What will these games be like in 10/15 years". No more hope at all. Rather I expect when I go to cast a spell it will ask me to insert a quarter to complete it.
With that said enjoying EQ2 now as I am a gold member (thank god) and my wife is going to go gold Friday once she has time to play. F2P might help short term business wise but it will hurt the genre long term wise.
This isn't a signature, you just think it is.
so remind me again, which old time game was it where the top level was unreachable? I never played any of them, didn't have internet access at the time. time an again, I've seen people wax poetic about those old games. yet a direct comparison between an old game that involved grinding levels for negligible gain/rare gear (was so much fun!), and say an Asian grinder (OMG I haz to GRIND for levels/gear?! the horror!).
main activity? oh yeah, end game. that's all games are, end game. everything else is to be skipped over, because it doesn't directly involve end game. never mind grouping up with other players to make the experience more enjoyable. if you can't reach "end game" within a week or less "the game sucks" and isn't worth playing. also never mind that once you get there the complaints about there "not being enough to do" are constant. bleeding locusts.
I'm so very tired of this repeating argument.
The problem isn't with the term "free" it is with the personal understanding and definition of "play". ALL free to play game are "free to play". It is how much you can play in that manner or what you have access to that varies. it is not free to have everything you want or play the way you want. . . depending on what you want.
I have played free to play games for several months without spending any money such as Neverwinter. For me that was absolutely free to play. If you want to 'play' differently then that is where the discrepancy comes in.
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
Right. The games should define what play is in their games. HBO is free to watch.....the previews. No one expects to watch everything for free.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
so remind me again, which old time game was it where the top level was unreachable? I never played any of them, didn't have internet access at the time. time an again, I've seen people wax poetic about those old games. yet a direct comparison between an old game that involved grinding levels for negligible gain/rare gear (was so much fun!), and say an Asian grinder (OMG I haz to GRIND for levels/gear?! the horror!).
main activity? oh yeah, end game. that's all games are, end game. everything else is to be skipped over, because it doesn't directly involve end game. never mind grouping up with other players to make the experience more enjoyable. if you can't reach "end game" within a week or less "the game sucks" and isn't worth playing. also never mind that once you get there the complaints about there "not being enough to do" are constant. bleeding locusts.
I'm so very tired of this repeating argument.
I wasn't part of that "old time" game conversation. You'll have to seek elsewhere for that answer. I'm not sure that is even relevant. Who cares if there was a game in 1996 that had a F2P implementation? That game is obviously not relevant now.
Your second paragraph is hyperbole. The point of playing RPGs is progression. The ding. If progression becomes impossible without resorting to XP potions, then the developer is trying to coerce the player into spending money, rather than entice them into spending money with something they want, but don't need. It's all very fuzzy. I understand if you're frustrated by not getting a black-and-white answer, but none exists.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
In fact, i will not play a game, F2P or not, when it is not fun for even 5 min. If grinding xp is boring, what is prevent me from quitting? Nothing.
Well, of course, I can leave the game. I have other things to do like homework, so I'm not going to waste my time on such a game. Not for very long anyway. My response to such a game is irrelevant compared to the response of the many, many players who are apparently willing to pay money in those scenarios though. Per Raph Koster, coercive techniques are an effective way to collect money from players. It is more difficult to create a long term enticement system than to create a short term coercive system, so we still get coercive systems, and threads like these. Although, I bet we would still get threads like these even if there were 0 coercive F2P systems.
Final note is that I realize my demarcation between "coercive" and "enticement" F2P implementations is subjective. Some people do not mind having to pay for XP potions to progress in a game, and some people find it coercive to have to pay for outfits for their avatar. *shrug*
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
When your budget is that tight then no P2P game will give you the value you can get from F2P titles. P2P is often a ripoff anyway. If you don't care about the money then P2P can be ok since it often means the absence of other monetization schemes. However you're very right in demanding value for money and pay as you go as long as you feel good about it. P2P will not give you that luxury, and most of the time not that value either. You'll have to buy boxed expansions anyway, the stuff that is supposed to justify the price of P2P (the cost of the online service and the so called added content, more like bugfixes if even that).
"coercive" implies against someone's will. How can that be when anyone can leave at any time.
Like you say, it is more like enticement. The whole notion that "some people find it coercive to have to pay for outfits" is nonsensical because no one will die without a new virtual outfit. It is akin in saying Louis Vuitton is coercing women to spend lots of money on handbags .. which is balony.
If someone cannot resist spending money on F2P games ... it is because they have weak minds (or they actually derive enjoyment from paying). The fact that many plays with paying nothing is proof that there is no coercion. And the point is quite moot anyway with the market so competitive. It is quite easy to just switch game if a game rubs me the wrong way even slightly.
Luckily we won't have to change the abbreviation because everybody knows what it means.
I understand what you're getting at, but anyone who ever thought "Oh it's F2P, that must mean i get everything in the game completely free!" is fucking naive.
Mabinogi,Raiderz,neverwinter you really dont need real money. that just option if you want dye,new hair style
Mabinogi has free Inventor
Why don't you just call it as Free To Play Until You want To Pay !! cause you never have to pay, but you can, so those that plays for free are playing for free, those that buys anything from the game is playing for free until they pay.
So it works for everyone. And then we can shorten the term back to FTP because people are lazy and they don't want to verbally explain everything clearly. So back to square one, Free to Play.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.