Originally posted by Yamota They should be labeled Pay to Win because I haven't played a single F2P MMO which does not give you some advantage from buying stuff in the cash shop. Some are obvious about it, such as STO, where every powerful ship can be bought in the shop and some are less obvious about it like games such as Eve, which even has a sub and is technically P2P, but where every single thing in the game can be in-directly, and legally, bought by real cash. Including high level/skill characters!
I could care less what you or anyone else calls them Yamota. I am still going to play them.
Winning! Makes me laugh every time I hear someone use that word in reference to an MMO!!
So you pay $180 a year for your precious little sub games. Oh, plus the box cost usually. I wonder how many ships could be bought in STO for that amount?
Keep the tears flowing lads, these games aren't going anywhere soon.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
And again, it is no where near the same thing. Everyone pays one flat fee for an expansions or sub and everyone level at the same rate and have to do the same things to get a gear, level, mount whatever. In Eve you can have 0 game hours, pay a few hundred $ for PLEX and then buy a top skilled character which otherwise takes a year to skill up.
If you cant see the difference between that and paying for an expansion, I am not sure there is much point in continuing this discussion. And yes, many sub-games are double dipping by having both a sub and a cash shop, which makes them even worse than F2P games.
Aha, but you forget that time is money.
Everyone pays the same flat fee, everyone takes the same time to level, but does everyone have the same time available to put into the game to? If you pay $15 for a month in which you play the game for 50 hours total, while I pay $15 for month in which I play the game for 20 hours total, that isn't really the same value is it? You're paying 30 cents an hour, I'm paying 75 cents an hour.
And you could say, "Well that's your fault for not playing." But I could say it's your fault for not spending as much money in the cash shop on a F2P. Maybe you don't have the financial means to pay more. But maybe I have more obligations than you do and less time to play.
Either way, the cost isn't necessarily fair for everyone in P2P either.
Because personal time availability outside the game has no bearing on the rate of progress possible in-game.
If something takes ~5 hours to complete in a MMO, that's 5 hours played time. That means, whether it's done in one shot, or spread out across 3 days... it didn't take you more than ~5 hours to complete. If someone can only play once a week for 30 minutes, then it'll still take them the same ~5 hours of played time to complete... just spread out over a longer period of real time.
To put it another way... If we both spend $70 a month on Cable TV, but you have 20 hours a month to watch it, while I only have 5... does that mean you're getting a better deal than me?
No. We're both paying for 24/7 access to all the Cable channels included in our plan. That's what the company is offering, that's what we're paying for, and that's what we're getting. How much or how little time any one person has to watch TV isn't the company's problem. Whether or not it's worth your money is not their concern, nor their problem. It's yours.
Same with a MMO developer. They're giving you 24/7 all-you-can-eat access to a game in 30 day intervals for a flat fee. That's what they're offering, that's what you're paying for, and that's what they're giving you. How much or how little time you have to play isn't the developers' problem. Whether or not it's worth your money is not their concern, nor problem. It's yours.
People have this really strange idea that somehow developers are obligated to cater to their personal life circumstances and mold the game around that. It's not only an ego-centric mentality to have, it's extremely unrealistic.
Because personal time availability outside the game has no bearing on the rate of progress possible in-game.
If something takes ~5 hours to complete in a MMO, that's 5 hours played time. That means, whether it's done in one shot, or spread out across 3 days... it didn't take you more than ~5 hours to complete. If someone can only play once a week for 30 minutes, then it'll still take them the same ~5 hours of played time to complete... just spread out over a longer period of real time.
Money vs Time. Neither is skill or any type of achievement thing, just a matter of resources sunk into the task. The anti-F2P crowd is hellbent on 'winning' an MMO and your argument seems a clear portrayal of that.
If you're not in favor of time as an advantage, then it seems you'd be in favor of a business model where people only pay for the content they use, yes? And if how long a person takes to complete the content isn't part of the equation, then it seems you're also fine with consumables that a person can use to for higher returns while they play. Correct?
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
Because personal time availability outside the game has no bearing on the rate of progress possible in-game.
If something takes ~5 hours to complete in a MMO, that's 5 hours played time. That means, whether it's done in one shot, or spread out across 3 days... it didn't take you more than ~5 hours to complete. If someone can only play once a week for 30 minutes, then it'll still take them the same ~5 hours of played time to complete... just spread out over a longer period of real time.
Money vs Time. Neither is skill or any type of achievement thing, just a matter of resources sunk into the task. The anti-F2P crowd is hellbent on 'winning' an MMO and your argument seems a clear portrayal of that.
If you're not in favor of time as an advantage, then it seems you'd be in favor of a business model where people only pay for the content they use, yes? And if how long a person takes to complete the content isn't part of the equation, then it seems you're also fine with consumables that a person can use to for higher returns while they play. Correct?
That's content we used to have. Remember the crafters? It's cheese dude.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Originally posted by YamotaAha, but you forget that time is money.
Everyone pays the same flat fee, everyone takes the same time to level, but does everyone have the same time available to put into the game to? If you pay $15 for a month in which you play the game for 50 hours total, while I pay $15 for month in which I play the game for 20 hours total, that isn't really the same value is it? You're paying 30 cents an hour, I'm paying 75 cents an hour.
And you could say, "Well that's your fault for not playing." But I could say it's your fault for not spending as much money in the cash shop on a F2P. Maybe you don't have the financial means to pay more. But maybe I have more obligations than you do and less time to play.
Either way, the cost isn't necessarily fair for everyone in P2P either.
Because personal time availability outside the game has no bearing on the rate of progress possible in-game.
If something takes ~5 hours to complete in a MMO, that's 5 hours played time. That means, whether it's done in one shot, or spread out across 3 days... it didn't take you more than ~5 hours to complete. If someone can only play once a week for 30 minutes, then it'll still take them the same ~5 hours of played time to complete... just spread out over a longer period of real time.
To put it another way... If we both spend $70 a month on Cable TV, but you have 20 hours a month to watch it, while I only have 5... does that mean you're getting a better deal than me?
No. We're both paying for 24/7 access to all the Cable channels included in our plan. That's what the company is offering, that's what we're paying for, and that's what we're getting. How much or how little time any one person has to watch TV isn't the company's problem. Whether or not it's worth your money is not their concern, nor their problem. It's yours.
Same with a MMO developer. They're giving you 24/7 all-you-can-eat access to a game in 30 day intervals for a flat fee. That's what they're offering, that's what you're paying for, and that's what they're giving you. How much or how little time you have to play isn't the developers' problem. Whether or not it's worth your money is not their concern, nor problem. It's yours.
People have this really strange idea that somehow developers are obligated to cater to their personal life circumstances and mold the game around that. It's not only an ego-centric mentality to have, it's extremely unrealistic.
And thats also the sub models biggest weakness.
One of the things we constantly hear on these forums, is how sub players are more loyal to their games. And yet if you are paying the same monthly fee and, after 6 months, you are logging in for maybe 10 hours a month versus 50 hours a month when you started playing, are you going to feel the same about continuing to pay that amount every month? Your cost per hour has now soared 500%
And what if another game comes along that looks interesting and you would like to try it? Are you going to pay $30 dollars a month now even though you still have roughly the same amount of playing time,now divided by 2 games? Now your game hours are costing twice as much. Probably one sub will end up being dropped due to diminishing return on investment.
Sure some people might not bat an eye at the cost, but the reality is that many people will. That limits the people willing to pay the price and it does absolutely nothing to guarantee they will be loyal long term players either. Its a lose/lose for players and publishers.
Hence the reason why Pay to Win a Free Game with a Cash Shop, is the preferred payment model presently.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Because personal time availability outside the game has no bearing on the rate of progress possible in-game.
If something takes ~5 hours to complete in a MMO, that's 5 hours played time. That means, whether it's done in one shot, or spread out across 3 days... it didn't take you more than ~5 hours to complete. If someone can only play once a week for 30 minutes, then it'll still take them the same ~5 hours of played time to complete... just spread out over a longer period of real time.
Money vs Time. Neither is skill or any type of achievement thing, just a matter of resources sunk into the task. The anti-F2P crowd is hellbent on 'winning' an MMO and your argument seems a clear portrayal of that.
The "money vs time" remark is nonsense in the context of playing MMOs (unless you're RMT, but that's irrelevant here). It's another example of people trying to impose their real-life circumstances on their in-game progression. MMO gaming is a casual activity, a hobby, engaged in on one's free time for fun, not profit. It's entertainment, not work (people who treat MMOs like a job notwithstanding). If someone's playing a game when they could - or even should - be making money instead, then that's their cue to re-evaluate their priorities. It's not the developers' cue to alter the game design to suit them.
And my remarks have nothing to do with with any of that. You are way off the mark.
I couldn't be *farther* from the type who's "hellbent on winning a MMO".
It took me 3 years to get my first level 75 in FFXI. In 5 years of playing L2, I've never gotten a character to level cap. I'm the type who wants to go do content just to experience it, because I want to see and do all a MMO has to offer - however long it takes - even if most of that content is considered "pointless" by others. I've spent a week in some MMOs not getting a single level, just hanging around, doing other stuff, helping other people finish stuff they need to get done.
I am 100% about the journey, and I like it to last as long as possible. Read my signature and my quote. They sum my attitude up pretty well.
But then that's what happens when you try to inject your own presumptions into the statements of someone you know nothing about.
If you're not in favor of time as an advantage, then it seems you'd be in favor of a business model where people only pay for the content they use, yes? And if how long a person takes to complete the content isn't part of the equation, then it seems you're also fine with consumables that a person can use to for higher returns while they play. Correct?
Incorrect.
Again, you couldn't be more wrong about me and my views. I'm not even sure how you came to those conclusions from reading my remarks, to be honest.
No. I'm in favor of a game design where everyone pays a flat fee to get the same access to the same content, with the same gameplay requirements and the same time requirement in terms of time spent in-game playing, not in terms of real-world time. I'm in favor of a model where how much or how little money they make in RL means nothing in-game, because it's an even playing field.
Because personal time availability outside the game has no bearing on the rate of progress possible in-game.
If something takes ~5 hours to complete in a MMO, that's 5 hours played time. That means, whether it's done in one shot, or spread out across 3 days... it didn't take you more than ~5 hours to complete. If someone can only play once a week for 30 minutes, then it'll still take them the same ~5 hours of played time to complete... just spread out over a longer period of real time.
Money vs Time. Neither is skill or any type of achievement thing, just a matter of resources sunk into the task. The anti-F2P crowd is hellbent on 'winning' an MMO and your argument seems a clear portrayal of that.
And my remarks have nothing to do with with any of that. You are way off the mark.
I couldn't be *farther* from the type who's "hellbent on winning a MMO".
It took me 3 years to get my first level 75 in FFXI. In 5 years of playing L2, I've never gotten a character to level cap. I'm the type who wants to go do content just to experience it, because I want to see and do all a MMO has to offer - however long it takes - even if most of that content is considered "pointless" by others. I've spent a week in some MMOs not getting a single level, just hanging around, doing other stuff, helping other people finish stuff they need to get done.
I am 100% about the journey, and I like it to last as long as possible. Read my signature and my quote. They sum my attitude up pretty well.
But then that's what happens when you try to inject your own presumptions into the statements of someone you know nothing about.
If you're not in favor of time as an advantage, then it seems you'd be in favor of a business model where people only pay for the content they use, yes? And if how long a person takes to complete the content isn't part of the equation, then it seems you're also fine with consumables that a person can use to for higher returns while they play. Correct?
Incorrect.
Again, you couldn't be more wrong about me and my views. I'm not even sure how you came to those conclusions from reading my remarks, to be honest.
No. I'm in favor of a game design where everyone pays a flat fee to get the same access to the same content, with the same requirements and the same time requirement in terms of time spent in-game playing, not in terms of real-world time. I'm in favor of a model where how much or how little money they make in RL means nothing in-game, because it's an even playing field.
You got rather defensive there. I never presumed any view on your part, rather asked you what your views were.
Your post, just the like the previous one, contradicts itself. You're in it for the journey, you don't care how long it takes to level and you're not competing with other players to get there. So why does it make a difference how fast they do their thing? Where is this winning in Pay to Win then? I mean, you say you want a level playing field, as long as time spent grinding - not necessarily time spent playing - gives one an advantage.
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 YamotaAha, but you forget that time is money.
Everyone pays the same flat fee, everyone takes the same time to level, but does everyone have the same time available to put into the game to? If you pay $15 for a month in which you play the game for 50 hours total, while I pay $15 for month in which I play the game for 20 hours total, that isn't really the same value is it? You're paying 30 cents an hour, I'm paying 75 cents an hour.
And you could say, "Well that's your fault for not playing." But I could say it's your fault for not spending as much money in the cash shop on a F2P. Maybe you don't have the financial means to pay more. But maybe I have more obligations than you do and less time to play.
Either way, the cost isn't necessarily fair for everyone in P2P either.
Because personal time availability outside the game has no bearing on the rate of progress possible in-game.
If something takes ~5 hours to complete in a MMO, that's 5 hours played time. That means, whether it's done in one shot, or spread out across 3 days... it didn't take you more than ~5 hours to complete. If someone can only play once a week for 30 minutes, then it'll still take them the same ~5 hours of played time to complete... just spread out over a longer period of real time.
To put it another way... If we both spend $70 a month on Cable TV, but you have 20 hours a month to watch it, while I only have 5... does that mean you're getting a better deal than me?
No. We're both paying for 24/7 access to all the Cable channels included in our plan. That's what the company is offering, that's what we're paying for, and that's what we're getting. How much or how little time any one person has to watch TV isn't the company's problem. Whether or not it's worth your money is not their concern, nor their problem. It's yours.
Same with a MMO developer. They're giving you 24/7 all-you-can-eat access to a game in 30 day intervals for a flat fee. That's what they're offering, that's what you're paying for, and that's what they're giving you. How much or how little time you have to play isn't the developers' problem. Whether or not it's worth your money is not their concern, nor problem. It's yours.
People have this really strange idea that somehow developers are obligated to cater to their personal life circumstances and mold the game around that. It's not only an ego-centric mentality to have, it's extremely unrealistic.
And thats also the sub models biggest weakness.
One of the things we constantly hear on these forums, is how sub players are more loyal to their games. And yet if you are paying the same monthly fee and, after 6 months, you are logging in for maybe 10 hours a month versus 50 hours a month when you started playing, are you going to feel the same about continuing to pay that amount every month? Your cost per hour has now soared 500%
And what if another game comes along that looks interesting and you would like to try it? Are you going to pay $30 dollars a month now even though you still have roughly the same amount of playing time,now divided by 2 games? Now your game hours are costing twice as much. Probably one sub will end up being dropped due to diminishing return on investment.
Sure some people might not bat an eye at the cost, but the reality is that many people will. That limits the people willing to pay the price and it does absolutely nothing to guarantee they will be loyal long term players either. Its a lose/lose for players and publishers.
Hence the reason why Pay to Win a Free Game with a Cash Shop, is the preferred payment model presently.
Another person projecting their own views onto me, and then using them as a launching point for a bunch of wrong assumptions.
First, I don't measure the value of a subscription on "how many hours I've gotten to play and what each hour has cost me". I value it on "how much fun am I having when I get to play, whether it's for 30 minutes or 3 hours, 10 days in a month, or 20 days".
I'm paying for the whole package. I'm paying for the ability to log in and play when ever I have the opportunity. I'm paying because the game in question is worth it to me.
And yes, I have had 2 subscriptions going. In fact, at one point, I had 3. Why? Because I was splitting my time between those 3 games (more or less evenly) and all 3 were worth the sub fee to me at that time. You're trying to paint the situation as though it's some kind of dilemma... and it isn't.
And really, even when I have wanted to play more than 1 but couldn't afford or justify the extra expense - money's tight or whatever - then I just decide which one I really want to play the most, pay for that one and let the other two lapse. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
I mean, what am I supposed to think? That it's somehow unfair that I don't get to play those other games "just because I can't afford them all"? That there's something wrong with the way that's set up? That having to choose one game to play instead of 2 or 3 is some kind of unfair limitation? Sorry, but that rings a bit too much of an entitled mentality for me to even consider, much less agree with.
I'm far too grounded in reality and not self-centered enough to think that way. It's quite simple... If I can afford and justify the cost for something, I get to play it. If I can't, then I don't. My life circumstances don't entitle me to special treatment or a free ride. Developers aren't obligated to design their games around my financial status or time availability. I am not the center of anyone's universe.
It's quite simple: If you can afford something, you get to have it. If you can't afford it, you don't. Pretty basic wisdom there.
However, if you want to break it down to "cost per hour", your way of portraying it (with the 500% bit) is very disingenuous and, I suspect, deliberately deceptive - using big numbers like "500%", etc. It's particularly deceptive when the 500% you're talking about is a matter of going from (based on your numbers) .30 cents an hour at 50 hours to $1.50/hr at 10. Frankly, your "extreme example" still falls short. $1.50 will barely get me a medium coffee at my local cafe'. A 90 minute movie at a theater will cost me almost $10. So, for a MMO I'm enjoying, $1.50 per hour of "whatever the hell I want to do" entertainment is an awesome deal. So, your 10/50/500% example doesn't mean a whole lot even in that scenario.
Want to know a huge reason why people prefer F2P presently? This might surprise you...
Because people like to get free stuff. Even more so, especially these days, many people actually feel entitled to get free stuff. Your dilemma of "having to choose only one MMO because you can't afford to play 2" certainly seems to stem from such an entitled mindset, seeing as how you frame it as some kind of a "problem".
Just for future posters who might want to "take me on", here's a quick tip. If you're going to try building arguments on presumptions of what my mentality is about gaming, or what I can or can't afford, or do or don't find worth paying for, like Lokto or Boneserino have in their posts... Just don't bother. You'll have lost before you started.
Originally posted by YamotaAha, but you forget that time is money.
Everyone pays the same flat fee, everyone takes the same time to level, but does everyone have the same time available to put into the game to? If you pay $15 for a month in which you play the game for 50 hours total, while I pay $15 for month in which I play the game for 20 hours total, that isn't really the same value is it? You're paying 30 cents an hour, I'm paying 75 cents an hour.
And you could say, "Well that's your fault for not playing." But I could say it's your fault for not spending as much money in the cash shop on a F2P. Maybe you don't have the financial means to pay more. But maybe I have more obligations than you do and less time to play.
Either way, the cost isn't necessarily fair for everyone in P2P either.
Because personal time availability outside the game has no bearing on the rate of progress possible in-game.
If something takes ~5 hours to complete in a MMO, that's 5 hours played time. That means, whether it's done in one shot, or spread out across 3 days... it didn't take you more than ~5 hours to complete. If someone can only play once a week for 30 minutes, then it'll still take them the same ~5 hours of played time to complete... just spread out over a longer period of real time.
To put it another way... If we both spend $70 a month on Cable TV, but you have 20 hours a month to watch it, while I only have 5... does that mean you're getting a better deal than me?
No. We're both paying for 24/7 access to all the Cable channels included in our plan. That's what the company is offering, that's what we're paying for, and that's what we're getting. How much or how little time any one person has to watch TV isn't the company's problem. Whether or not it's worth your money is not their concern, nor their problem. It's yours.
Same with a MMO developer. They're giving you 24/7 all-you-can-eat access to a game in 30 day intervals for a flat fee. That's what they're offering, that's what you're paying for, and that's what they're giving you. How much or how little time you have to play isn't the developers' problem. Whether or not it's worth your money is not their concern, nor problem. It's yours.
People have this really strange idea that somehow developers are obligated to cater to their personal life circumstances and mold the game around that. It's not only an ego-centric mentality to have, it's extremely unrealistic.
And thats also the sub models biggest weakness.
One of the things we constantly hear on these forums, is how sub players are more loyal to their games. And yet if you are paying the same monthly fee and, after 6 months, you are logging in for maybe 10 hours a month versus 50 hours a month when you started playing, are you going to feel the same about continuing to pay that amount every month? Your cost per hour has now soared 500%
And what if another game comes along that looks interesting and you would like to try it? Are you going to pay $30 dollars a month now even though you still have roughly the same amount of playing time,now divided by 2 games? Now your game hours are costing twice as much. Probably one sub will end up being dropped due to diminishing return on investment.
Sure some people might not bat an eye at the cost, but the reality is that many people will. That limits the people willing to pay the price and it does absolutely nothing to guarantee they will be loyal long term players either. Its a lose/lose for players and publishers.
Hence the reason why Pay to Win a Free Game with a Cash Shop, is the preferred payment model presently.
Im sure you guys can support em all forever and tons of new ones too.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Just for future posters who might want to "take me on", here's a quick tip. If you're going to try building arguments on presumptions of what my mentality is about gaming, or what I can or can't afford, or do or don't find worth paying for, like Lokto or Boneserino have in their posts... Just don't bother. You'll have lost before you started.
You're creating a competition that simply isn't there. Take you on? Lost? It's called "discussion". No one is attacking you, TP.
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
Just for future posters who might want to "take me on", here's a quick tip. If you're going to try building arguments on presumptions of what my mentality is about gaming, or what I can or can't afford, or do or don't find worth paying for, like Lokto or Boneserino have in their posts... Just don't bother. You'll have lost before you started.
You're creating a competition that simply isn't there. Take you on? Lost? It's called "discussion". No one is attacking you, TP.
lol... Speaking of creating things that aren't there.
I'm sure you knew exactly what I meant by "take me on", in the context I used it and are now just nit-picking, looking for any opportunity to play "gotcha". However, if I'm mistaken, and you truly didn't understand it, then I'll gladly explain it for you if you'd like.
Anyway...
I agree. No one is attacking me. That's why I never claimed they were. I suggested people not bother trying to build arguments based on assumptions about my mentality, or what I do or don't find worth paying for, which is exactly what you and Bones were doing in your posts, and were both 100% wrong on every point.
Just as you were wrong when you attempted to categorize me as part of an "anti-F2P crowd hellbent on "winning" an MMO.
Just as you were way out in the weeds and barking up an entirely wrong tree with your "questions".
You're 0 for 3 so far. Maybe you should quit while you're ahead?
Or, at the very least, try a different tactic, like, say, addressing what I've actually said (in its intended context), and stop trying to play "gotcha" with things I haven't?
Just for future posters who might want to "take me on", here's a quick tip. If you're going to try building arguments on presumptions of what my mentality is about gaming, or what I can or can't afford, or do or don't find worth paying for, like Lokto or Boneserino have in their posts... Just don't bother. You'll have lost before you started.
You're creating a competition that simply isn't there. Take you on? Lost? It's called "discussion". No one is attacking you, TP.
lol... Speaking of creating things that aren't there.
I'm sure you knew exactly what I meant by "take me on", in the context I used it and are now just nit-picking, looking for any opportunity to play "gotcha". However, if I'm mistaken, and you truly didn't understand it, then I'll gladly explain it for you if you'd like.
Anyway...
I agree. No one is attacking me. That's why I never claimed they were. I suggested people not bother trying to build arguments based on assumptions about my mentality, or what I do or don't find worth paying for, which is exactly what you and Bones were doing in your posts, and were both 100% wrong on every point.
Just as you were wrong when you attempted to categorize me as part of an "anti-F2P crowd hellbent on "winning" an MMO.
Just as you were way out in the weeds and barking up an entirely wrong tree with your "questions".
You're 0 for 3 so far. Maybe you should quit while you're ahead?
Or, at the very least, try a different tactic, like, say, addressing what I've actually said (in its intended context), and stop trying to play "gotcha" with things I haven't?
TP, I never made any claims about your stance or presumed to know what you were thinking. Each post was asking you questions to better understand your stance, none of which you answered and instead wrote multiple posts about how you're winning at forum posting on MMORPG.com.
If you want to discuss the topic, I'm all for it, but you've done everything but that for the past four or five posts.
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 think we should called F2P Forced to pay, since really thats what they do. They force you to buy their xp booss, their new tanks, new weapons to be on par with the pay to win kiddies. I despise anything with a cash shop because sooner or later they force you to buy their new items or you are behind the curve.
Pay to play method is more of an even ball park, hence why most veterans prefer that payment type.
Grind to Play or Cash to Play are close to the truth. Marketing loves the word free, they are never going to drop that unless advertising standards makes them.
While they are better described as micro-transaction funded games, you cant deny that they are in fact - free to play. I think it is your perception of what free is that is causing the confusion. You think that 'free to play' means everything is included, which is not indicated in the title, all it says is that the game is free to play, which they are since you can play with no monetary investment.
These games do not advertise that everything is included for free. Its like going to the park. Its free, but if you want to enjoy a lunch in the park, you will need to pay extra. Is the park itself still free? Yep. Was the whole experience free? No.
Too many people on here have massively warped senses of entitlement. These are companies making these games, that have to hire staff and pay wages and overheads. This isn't a charity for you. They are there to make money, and F2P is just another payment model. You can try it for free, if you want more to your experience you will have to pay up.
I think we should called F2P Forced to pay, since really thats what they do. They force you to buy their xp booss, their new tanks, new weapons to be on par with the pay to win kiddies. I despise anything with a cash shop because sooner or later they force you to buy their new items or you are behind the curve.
Pay to play method is more of an even ball park, hence why most veterans prefer that payment type.
Those first two sentences were beautiful, and I thank you for posting that. The closing line with personal assumption as fact was great and all, but those first two sentences really drive home how there are certain seemingly unshakable beliefs that we as a community need to move past in order to push this conversation beyond the stunted path it is limited to in these many F2P/P2P threads.
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
But they are indeed free to play. You can play them without paying. The quality of what you get without paying varies game to game but you do not have to pay to play.
Originally posted by skeaser But they are indeed free to play. You can play them without paying. The quality of what you get without paying varies game to game but you do not have to pay to play.
You are utterly wrong. You see, nobody ever play games for any other reason but to be on top of "the curve". Therefore, all who play the game and are not on top of "the curve" are not really playing! Therefore, all who really play the game, have to pay, therefore they are not free.
I think we should called F2P Forced to pay, since really thats what they do. They force you to buy their xp booss, their new tanks, new weapons to be on par with the pay to win kiddies. I despise anything with a cash shop because sooner or later they force you to buy their new items or you are behind the curve.
Pay to play method is more of an even ball park, hence why most veterans prefer that payment type.
I have to agree this first sentence is indeed great. It describes my entire time while playing ANY sub game.
the f2p model allows me to spend as little or as much as I want based on how much I want to support a game.
If the game is worth it. I buy coins and bank em for later, you know kind of like paying a monthly sub.
If the game is not worth it, or (imho) only worth it during events then I support then - you know kind of like resubbing for a few months.
As I person I like to be frugal with my money and feel that the time that I was forced to pay for a game just to keep my characters from being deleted (FFXI) even though I had no time to play was not worth it. I know things are not that bad anymore but it does not change the fact that I do not like to pay for things I'm not using.
On top of that, all those sub games are in reality no better than many of the f2p or sub/f2p hybrid games out there. Then again this is where tastes come in. To "you" WoW may be the best thing since fire was harness. However to me I'm bored and the game such. (WoW was merely given as an example)
Play what you Like. I like SWOTR, Have a referral to get you going! --> http://www.swtor.com/r/nBndbs <-- Several Unlocks and a few days game time to make the F2P considerably easier
Originally posted by skeaser But they are indeed free to play. You can play them without paying. The quality of what you get without paying varies game to game but you do not have to pay to play.
You are utterly wrong. You see, nobody ever play games for any other reason but to be on top of "the curve". Therefore, all who play the game and are not on top of "the curve" are not really playing! Therefore, all who really play the game, have to pay, therefore they are not free.
Logic!
You keep using that word (Logic). I dont think it means what you think it means.
Basic mathmatics dictates that only a small % of players can ever be at the top of the curve. The curve itself is composed of all players, averaging the results across everyone. As players improve, the curve moves up with them. There is no way to get ahead, without outperforming others at the same level.
As you have stated, players want to be on the top, but as anything that they do will have diminishing returns, the only way to actually do this is to go to extremes. This means that players will play endless hours, spend large amounts of money, and dedicate themselves to the game just to have a chance to be in the top....
However, most people dont have the time/resources to do this, and dont even want to try. They just want to have fun, and not sacrafice their whole life to the game. That means that mostly play for free, and ocassionally some will spend a little money. They dont feel the need to try to compete with players who are putting in 120 hours a week on the game.
F2P is free for most players, however, it is paid for by a small % who want to be the top, at any cost.
Originally posted by skeaser But they are indeed free to play. You can play them without paying. The quality of what you get without paying varies game to game but you do not have to pay to play.
You are utterly wrong. You see, nobody ever play games for any other reason but to be on top of "the curve". Therefore, all who play the game and are not on top of "the curve" are not really playing! Therefore, all who really play the game, have to pay, therefore they are not free.
Logic!
You keep using that word (Logic). I dont think it means what you think it means.
He does. The post wasn't meant to be serious.
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
Comments
I could care less what you or anyone else calls them Yamota. I am still going to play them.
Winning! Makes me laugh every time I hear someone use that word in reference to an MMO!!
So you pay $180 a year for your precious little sub games. Oh, plus the box cost usually. I wonder how many ships could be bought in STO for that amount?
Keep the tears flowing lads, these games aren't going anywhere soon.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Because personal time availability outside the game has no bearing on the rate of progress possible in-game.
If something takes ~5 hours to complete in a MMO, that's 5 hours played time. That means, whether it's done in one shot, or spread out across 3 days... it didn't take you more than ~5 hours to complete. If someone can only play once a week for 30 minutes, then it'll still take them the same ~5 hours of played time to complete... just spread out over a longer period of real time.
To put it another way... If we both spend $70 a month on Cable TV, but you have 20 hours a month to watch it, while I only have 5... does that mean you're getting a better deal than me?
No. We're both paying for 24/7 access to all the Cable channels included in our plan. That's what the company is offering, that's what we're paying for, and that's what we're getting. How much or how little time any one person has to watch TV isn't the company's problem. Whether or not it's worth your money is not their concern, nor their problem. It's yours.
Same with a MMO developer. They're giving you 24/7 all-you-can-eat access to a game in 30 day intervals for a flat fee. That's what they're offering, that's what you're paying for, and that's what they're giving you. How much or how little time you have to play isn't the developers' problem. Whether or not it's worth your money is not their concern, nor problem. It's yours.
People have this really strange idea that somehow developers are obligated to cater to their personal life circumstances and mold the game around that. It's not only an ego-centric mentality to have, it's extremely unrealistic.
Money vs Time. Neither is skill or any type of achievement thing, just a matter of resources sunk into the task. The anti-F2P crowd is hellbent on 'winning' an MMO and your argument seems a clear portrayal of that.
If you're not in favor of time as an advantage, then it seems you'd be in favor of a business model where people only pay for the content they use, yes? And if how long a person takes to complete the content isn't part of the equation, then it seems you're also fine with consumables that a person can use to for higher returns while they play. Correct?
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
That's content we used to have. Remember the crafters? It's cheese dude.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
And thats also the sub models biggest weakness.
One of the things we constantly hear on these forums, is how sub players are more loyal to their games. And yet if you are paying the same monthly fee and, after 6 months, you are logging in for maybe 10 hours a month versus 50 hours a month when you started playing, are you going to feel the same about continuing to pay that amount every month? Your cost per hour has now soared 500%
And what if another game comes along that looks interesting and you would like to try it? Are you going to pay $30 dollars a month now even though you still have roughly the same amount of playing time,now divided by 2 games? Now your game hours are costing twice as much. Probably one sub will end up being dropped due to diminishing return on investment.
Sure some people might not bat an eye at the cost, but the reality is that many people will. That limits the people willing to pay the price and it does absolutely nothing to guarantee they will be loyal long term players either. Its a lose/lose for players and publishers.
Hence the reason why Pay to Win a Free Game with a Cash Shop, is the preferred payment model presently.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
You got rather defensive there. I never presumed any view on your part, rather asked you what your views were.
Your post, just the like the previous one, contradicts itself. You're in it for the journey, you don't care how long it takes to level and you're not competing with other players to get there. So why does it make a difference how fast they do their thing? Where is this winning in Pay to Win then? I mean, you say you want a level playing field, as long as time spent grinding - not necessarily time spent playing - gives one an advantage.
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
Maybe if we could see some examples of games outside of video games where this business model is used we could "get it".
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Another person projecting their own views onto me, and then using them as a launching point for a bunch of wrong assumptions.
First, I don't measure the value of a subscription on "how many hours I've gotten to play and what each hour has cost me". I value it on "how much fun am I having when I get to play, whether it's for 30 minutes or 3 hours, 10 days in a month, or 20 days".
I'm paying for the whole package. I'm paying for the ability to log in and play when ever I have the opportunity. I'm paying because the game in question is worth it to me.
And yes, I have had 2 subscriptions going. In fact, at one point, I had 3. Why? Because I was splitting my time between those 3 games (more or less evenly) and all 3 were worth the sub fee to me at that time. You're trying to paint the situation as though it's some kind of dilemma... and it isn't.
And really, even when I have wanted to play more than 1 but couldn't afford or justify the extra expense - money's tight or whatever - then I just decide which one I really want to play the most, pay for that one and let the other two lapse. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
I mean, what am I supposed to think? That it's somehow unfair that I don't get to play those other games "just because I can't afford them all"? That there's something wrong with the way that's set up? That having to choose one game to play instead of 2 or 3 is some kind of unfair limitation? Sorry, but that rings a bit too much of an entitled mentality for me to even consider, much less agree with.
I'm far too grounded in reality and not self-centered enough to think that way. It's quite simple... If I can afford and justify the cost for something, I get to play it. If I can't, then I don't. My life circumstances don't entitle me to special treatment or a free ride. Developers aren't obligated to design their games around my financial status or time availability. I am not the center of anyone's universe.
It's quite simple: If you can afford something, you get to have it. If you can't afford it, you don't. Pretty basic wisdom there.
However, if you want to break it down to "cost per hour", your way of portraying it (with the 500% bit) is very disingenuous and, I suspect, deliberately deceptive - using big numbers like "500%", etc. It's particularly deceptive when the 500% you're talking about is a matter of going from (based on your numbers) .30 cents an hour at 50 hours to $1.50/hr at 10. Frankly, your "extreme example" still falls short. $1.50 will barely get me a medium coffee at my local cafe'. A 90 minute movie at a theater will cost me almost $10. So, for a MMO I'm enjoying, $1.50 per hour of "whatever the hell I want to do" entertainment is an awesome deal. So, your 10/50/500% example doesn't mean a whole lot even in that scenario.
Want to know a huge reason why people prefer F2P presently? This might surprise you...
Because people like to get free stuff. Even more so, especially these days, many people actually feel entitled to get free stuff. Your dilemma of "having to choose only one MMO because you can't afford to play 2" certainly seems to stem from such an entitled mindset, seeing as how you frame it as some kind of a "problem".
Just for future posters who might want to "take me on", here's a quick tip. If you're going to try building arguments on presumptions of what my mentality is about gaming, or what I can or can't afford, or do or don't find worth paying for, like Lokto or Boneserino have in their posts... Just don't bother. You'll have lost before you started.
Im sure you guys can support em all forever and tons of new ones too.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
You're creating a competition that simply isn't there. Take you on? Lost? It's called "discussion". No one is attacking you, TP.
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
lol... Speaking of creating things that aren't there.
I'm sure you knew exactly what I meant by "take me on", in the context I used it and are now just nit-picking, looking for any opportunity to play "gotcha". However, if I'm mistaken, and you truly didn't understand it, then I'll gladly explain it for you if you'd like.
Anyway...
I agree. No one is attacking me. That's why I never claimed they were. I suggested people not bother trying to build arguments based on assumptions about my mentality, or what I do or don't find worth paying for, which is exactly what you and Bones were doing in your posts, and were both 100% wrong on every point.
Just as you were wrong when you attempted to categorize me as part of an "anti-F2P crowd hellbent on "winning" an MMO.
Just as you were way out in the weeds and barking up an entirely wrong tree with your "questions".
You're 0 for 3 so far. Maybe you should quit while you're ahead?
Or, at the very least, try a different tactic, like, say, addressing what I've actually said (in its intended context), and stop trying to play "gotcha" with things I haven't?
TP, I never made any claims about your stance or presumed to know what you were thinking. Each post was asking you questions to better understand your stance, none of which you answered and instead wrote multiple posts about how you're winning at forum posting on MMORPG.com.
If you want to discuss the topic, I'm all for it, but you've done everything but that for the past four or five posts.
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 think we should called F2P Forced to pay, since really thats what they do. They force you to buy their xp booss, their new tanks, new weapons to be on par with the pay to win kiddies. I despise anything with a cash shop because sooner or later they force you to buy their new items or you are behind the curve.
Pay to play method is more of an even ball park, hence why most veterans prefer that payment type.
MurderHerd
While they are better described as micro-transaction funded games, you cant deny that they are in fact - free to play. I think it is your perception of what free is that is causing the confusion. You think that 'free to play' means everything is included, which is not indicated in the title, all it says is that the game is free to play, which they are since you can play with no monetary investment.
These games do not advertise that everything is included for free. Its like going to the park. Its free, but if you want to enjoy a lunch in the park, you will need to pay extra. Is the park itself still free? Yep. Was the whole experience free? No.
Too many people on here have massively warped senses of entitlement. These are companies making these games, that have to hire staff and pay wages and overheads. This isn't a charity for you. They are there to make money, and F2P is just another payment model. You can try it for free, if you want more to your experience you will have to pay up.
Those first two sentences were beautiful, and I thank you for posting that. The closing line with personal assumption as fact was great and all, but those first two sentences really drive home how there are certain seemingly unshakable beliefs that we as a community need to move past in order to push this conversation beyond the stunted path it is limited to in these many F2P/P2P threads.
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
You are utterly wrong. You see, nobody ever play games for any other reason but to be on top of "the curve". Therefore, all who play the game and are not on top of "the curve" are not really playing! Therefore, all who really play the game, have to pay, therefore they are not free.
Logic!
I have to agree this first sentence is indeed great. It describes my entire time while playing ANY sub game.
the f2p model allows me to spend as little or as much as I want based on how much I want to support a game.
If the game is worth it. I buy coins and bank em for later, you know kind of like paying a monthly sub.
If the game is not worth it, or (imho) only worth it during events then I support then - you know kind of like resubbing for a few months.
As I person I like to be frugal with my money and feel that the time that I was forced to pay for a game just to keep my characters from being deleted (FFXI) even though I had no time to play was not worth it. I know things are not that bad anymore but it does not change the fact that I do not like to pay for things I'm not using.
On top of that, all those sub games are in reality no better than many of the f2p or sub/f2p hybrid games out there. Then again this is where tastes come in. To "you" WoW may be the best thing since fire was harness. However to me I'm bored and the game such. (WoW was merely given as an example)
--> http://www.swtor.com/r/nBndbs <--
Several Unlocks and a few days game time to make the F2P considerably easier
You keep using that word (Logic). I dont think it means what you think it means.
Basic mathmatics dictates that only a small % of players can ever be at the top of the curve. The curve itself is composed of all players, averaging the results across everyone. As players improve, the curve moves up with them. There is no way to get ahead, without outperforming others at the same level.
As you have stated, players want to be on the top, but as anything that they do will have diminishing returns, the only way to actually do this is to go to extremes. This means that players will play endless hours, spend large amounts of money, and dedicate themselves to the game just to have a chance to be in the top....
However, most people dont have the time/resources to do this, and dont even want to try. They just want to have fun, and not sacrafice their whole life to the game. That means that mostly play for free, and ocassionally some will spend a little money. They dont feel the need to try to compete with players who are putting in 120 hours a week on the game.
F2P is free for most players, however, it is paid for by a small % who want to be the top, at any cost.
He does. The post wasn't meant to be serious.
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