Originally posted by FinalFikus Free to play shouldn't charge for anything.
There is so many of them it doesn't really matter anyway.
You are mistaking F2P for non-profit. F2P only means there is no entry fee.
Wal-mart is now free to shop.
It always has been. "Shop" just means you're allowed into the store to look at things, and given the opportunity to spend money if you choose to take it. A place that isn't "free to shop" would be one that charges you just to come inside the store.
Originally posted by Cirventhor
I'm honestly fine with most F2P stores, including LOTRO, SWTOR and GW2 (technically B2P, but whatever).
What I dislike is mainly the gambling boxes that in particular infest SWTOR, but also GW2 and LOTRO to a lesser extent. Let us buy the stuff up front, don't put it behind RNG when we're paying real money.
My other dislike with F2P-models are how they're aimed at getting subscribers to pay more than they otherwise would have paid if the game was solely subscription based (i.e. "whales"). The monthly allotment you get when you subscribe of whatever currency the game uses is usually woefully small compared to the prices in the store, and there is a lot of content you don't get when subscribing. Ideally I'd like to completely ignore the ingame store when subscribing to a F2P-game, without feeling like I'm missing out.
Just curious, do you extend your distaste to poker games, slot machines, lotteries? Because I'm pretty sure people are aware they are gambling when they buy those boxes, and nobody is forcing them to do it. And I don't see the problem with subscribers having the opportunity to get more by paying more. Now if they were to *remove* things subscribers already had, and charge them to get their access back again, that would be a problem worth complaining about.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
A free to play title only needs to do a couple of small things in order to encourage players to pay:
- Lower XP gain by some amount. Half is generally a good place to start.
- Restrict all but the lowest tier of end game content. If the game launches with only one tier of content, then offer one of the end game raids for free.
That's it.
Most players will subscribe to the game just to level at a normal pace and will keep subscribing in order to collect the gear associated with end game content. Those who aren't paying, for whatever reason, can still experience the leveling process and get a taste of the end game content.
The cash shop should only have cosmetic items. Unique mounts, unique armors and such, but not a single item that could give an in game advantage. These items should all be resalable in-game between players. The people with more disposable income will buy extra vanity items and sell them for in-game money.
Originally posted by FinalFikus Free to play shouldn't charge for anything.
There is so many of them it doesn't really matter anyway.
You are mistaking F2P for non-profit. F2P only means there is no entry fee.
Wal-mart is now free to shop.
It always has been. "Shop" just means you're allowed into the store to look at things, and given the opportunity to spend money if you choose to take it. A place that isn't "free to shop" would be one that charges you just to come inside the store.
Originally posted by Cirventhor
I'm honestly fine with most F2P stores, including LOTRO, SWTOR and GW2 (technically B2P, but whatever).
What I dislike is mainly the gambling boxes that in particular infest SWTOR, but also GW2 and LOTRO to a lesser extent. Let us buy the stuff up front, don't put it behind RNG when we're paying real money.
My other dislike with F2P-models are how they're aimed at getting subscribers to pay more than they otherwise would have paid if the game was solely subscription based (i.e. "whales"). The monthly allotment you get when you subscribe of whatever currency the game uses is usually woefully small compared to the prices in the store, and there is a lot of content you don't get when subscribing. Ideally I'd like to completely ignore the ingame store when subscribing to a F2P-game, without feeling like I'm missing out.
Just curious, do you extend your distaste to poker games, slot machines, lotteries? Because I'm pretty sure people are aware they are gambling when they buy those boxes, and nobody is forcing them to do it. And I don't see the problem with subscribers having the opportunity to get more by paying more. Now if they were to *remove* things subscribers already had, and charge them to get their access back again, that would be a problem worth complaining about.
I just want to touch on what you said about the 'gambling ' boxes.
I gamble. Once a year I go out to the casino for a weekend and lose $500. Its a blast. I eat well, see some great entertainment, stay in a nice room and gamble away $500 which I have every intention of losing- In fact, usually at the end the trip my friends and I put our 'winnings' (if there are any) or whats left of our gaming money up for a final game of Blackjack.
I am totally NOT opposed to gambling.
Gambling is also regulated . There is an age restriction. To hit a casino means I have a nice drive ahead of me. This is targeting Children to gamble from home losing (potentialy) real money on virtual items. This is very harmful stuff. This isnt kids playing some penny poker,with their buddies- This is a Corporation allowing kids to risk real money for virtual items online with no regulation and oversight.
IF they had some real regulation and an age restriction- I would be fine with this. I would also be fine with Online Casino gambling for real money with Adults (which is Illegal here) so I do not understand how they are getting away with this- I think soon the industry will be regulated and rather than allow regulation they will do away with the boxes and such since it will be evident what a rip off it really is.
Originally posted by FinalFikus Free to play shouldn't charge for anything.There is so many of them it doesn't really matter anyway.
This is nonsense. The game must charge for something or it will cease to exist. All games, unless they are developed in someone's spare time must charge for something.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I just want to touch on what you said about the 'gambling ' boxes.
I gamble. Once a year I go out to the casino for a weekend and lose $500. Its a blast. I eat well, see some great entertainment, stay in a nice room and gamble away $500 which I have every intention of losing- In fact, usually at the end the trip my friends and I put our 'winnings' (if there are any) or whats left of our gaming money up for a final game of Blackjack.
I am totally NOT opposed to gambling.
Gambling is also regulated . There is an age restriction. To hit a casino means I have a nice drive ahead of me. This is targeting Children to gamble from home losing (potentialy) real money on virtual items. This is very harmful stuff. This isnt kids playing some penny poker,with their buddies- This is a Corporation allowing kids to risk real money for virtual items online with no regulation and oversight.
IF they had some real regulation and an age restriction- I would be fine with this. I would also be fine with Online Casino gambling for real money with Adults (which is Illegal here) so I do not understand how they are getting away with this- I think soon the industry will be regulated and rather than allow regulation they will do away with the boxes and such since it will be evident what a rip off it really is.
Uh... The average age of gamers is now somewhere in the late 20s/early 30s. People who are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves whether to gamble. The purchase of items from cash shops requires a credit card. In order to get your own credit card, you have to be at least 18. Old enough to make the decision to gamble. The only way for "children" to gamble in a game is if parents give them access to a credit card, and that isn't on the companies, that is on the parents. Regulating content for *everybody* based on the theory that companies have a responsibility to make up for lack of parenting is more than a little ridiculous.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
I'm sure everyone has seen at least one thread on at least one F2P game where whatever the developer or publisher is charging for is somehow P2W, underhanded or just a flat out rip-off.
So given that people are willing to go into such granular detail on what developers shouldn't charge for, what exactly should they charge for in a F2P game?
In your hypothetical scenario, keep in mind the following:
* The game must actually make money. Yes, this is a consideration. Even for your favorite game, they must make money. Not only must they make money to cover expenses, they have to make a profit, or the game will not continue to exist.
* "Subscription" as the answer will not work here. The game is F2P, and must sell stuff in their cash shop, either in or out of the game.
* Nothing is off limits. The only wrong answer is "Subscription".
**
"Some F2P Options OR Subscription" would be a fine answer. "Subscription" by itself is the only wrong answer here. It's a F2P game, so something has to be charged for in the cash shop.
so for the best f2p approach comes from the secret world imo.
there is nearly no item you actually NEED in the shop. like 9999 clothings, and maybe 1 or 2 of those super disenchant thingies.
they charge for issues, eg content patches, abit like they (funcom) did in AoC before TSW.
awesome approach, give me more clothings to buy!
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
I just want to touch on what you said about the 'gambling ' boxes.I gamble. Once a year I go out to the casino for a weekend and lose $500. Its a blast. I eat well, see some great entertainment, stay in a nice room and gamble away $500 which I have every intention of losing- In fact, usually at the end the trip my friends and I put our 'winnings' (if there are any) or whats left of our gaming money up for a final game of Blackjack.I am totally NOT opposed to gambling. Gambling is also regulated . There is an age restriction. To hit a casino means I have a nice drive ahead of me. This is targeting Children to gamble from home losing (potentialy) real money on virtual items. This is very harmful stuff. This isnt kids playing some penny poker,with their buddies- This is a Corporation allowing kids to risk real money for virtual items online with no regulation and oversight.IF they had some real regulation and an age restriction- I would be fine with this. I would also be fine with Online Casino gambling for real money with Adults (which is Illegal here) so I do not understand how they are getting away with this- I think soon the industry will be regulated and rather than allow regulation they will do away with the boxes and such since it will be evident what a rip off it really is.
Uh... The average age of gamers is now somewhere in the late 20s/early 30s. People who are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves whether to gamble. The purchase of items from cash shops requires a credit card. In order to get your own credit card, you have to be at least 18. Old enough to make the decision to gamble. The only way for "children" to gamble in a game is if parents give them access to a credit card, and that isn't on the companies, that is on the parents. Regulating content for *everybody* based on the theory that companies have a responsibility to make up for lack of parenting is more than a little ridiculous.
The average age of "gamers" is 30.
The average age of the people buying stuff is 35.
Gamers have been playing games on average for 13 years.
I just want to touch on what you said about the 'gambling ' boxes.
I gamble. Once a year I go out to the casino for a weekend and lose $500. Its a blast. I eat well, see some great entertainment, stay in a nice room and gamble away $500 which I have every intention of losing- In fact, usually at the end the trip my friends and I put our 'winnings' (if there are any) or whats left of our gaming money up for a final game of Blackjack.
I am totally NOT opposed to gambling.
Gambling is also regulated . There is an age restriction. To hit a casino means I have a nice drive ahead of me. This is targeting Children to gamble from home losing (potentialy) real money on virtual items. This is very harmful stuff. This isnt kids playing some penny poker,with their buddies- This is a Corporation allowing kids to risk real money for virtual items online with no regulation and oversight.
IF they had some real regulation and an age restriction- I would be fine with this. I would also be fine with Online Casino gambling for real money with Adults (which is Illegal here) so I do not understand how they are getting away with this- I think soon the industry will be regulated and rather than allow regulation they will do away with the boxes and such since it will be evident what a rip off it really is.
Uh... The average age of gamers is now somewhere in the late 20s/early 30s. People who are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves whether to gamble. The purchase of items from cash shops requires a credit card. In order to get your own credit card, you have to be at least 18. Old enough to make the decision to gamble. The only way for "children" to gamble in a game is if parents give them access to a credit card, and that isn't on the companies, that is on the parents. Regulating content for *everybody* based on the theory that companies have a responsibility to make up for lack of parenting is more than a little ridiculous.
Your understanding of the Law is incorrect here. Not going to debate that however-
I also understand the average age of a gamer today- Which is why I welcome regulation in the industry on these issues and understanding that this is , in fact, gambling.
If you (as an adult) want to waste real money for a chance to win a virtual item (or win nothing) that is 100% your right and your choice. I (again) am not against these boxes. However there are ways to allow your Child to use tyour Card and even give them in game money for whetever reasons and still lock out the age restricted content. Quite simply when you sign them up there could be a box stating that the person using the account is over 18. A 'no' would not allow them gamble or to partake in anything age appropriate. A 'yes' would have no effect on the content you could acess. This would allow a parent to even KNOW they have this choice. many have no clue the money they allowed their child to spend in game is being used for gambling.
EDIT- I would also add- Personally if this were going on when my children were young I would allow them to waste their allowance on this. They played Free Realm back in the day and often used their allowance money to purchase pets and things...Things they knew they were going to get for a price they knew they were going to pay- BUT if Gambling were in that game I would have enjoyed the opportunity to teach them a life lesson about how stupid gambling is if you are ever expecting to 'win'.
I'm sure everyone has seen at least one thread on at least one F2P game where whatever the developer or publisher is charging for is somehow P2W, underhanded or just a flat out rip-off.
So given that people are willing to go into such granular detail on what developers shouldn't charge for, what exactly should they charge for in a F2P game?
In your hypothetical scenario, keep in mind the following:
* The game must actually make money. Yes, this is a consideration. Even for your favorite game, they must make money. Not only must they make money to cover expenses, they have to make a profit, or the game will not continue to exist.
* "Subscription" as the answer will not work here. The game is F2P, and must sell stuff in their cash shop, either in or out of the game.
* Nothing is off limits. The only wrong answer is "Subscription".
**
"Some F2P Options OR Subscription" would be a fine answer. "Subscription" by itself is the only wrong answer here. It's a F2P game, so something has to be charged for in the cash shop.
so for the best f2p approach comes from the secret world imo.
there is nearly no item you actually NEED in the shop. like 9999 clothings, and maybe 1 or 2 of those super disenchant thingies.
they charge for issues, eg content patches, abit like they (funcom) did in AoC before TSW.
awesome approach, give me more clothings to buy!
Is it just me or is there really this many people so dense they can't understand what F2P is even after so many people have pointed out several good definitions in this very thread.
F2P = No Entry Fee - You can play without putting up a single cent.
Originally posted by Iylz Originally posted by ThaneOriginally posted by lizardbones I'm sure everyone has seen at least one thread on at least one F2P game where whatever the developer or publisher is charging for is somehow P2W, underhanded or just a flat out rip-off. So given that people are willing to go into such granular detail on what developers shouldn't charge for, what exactly should they charge for in a F2P game? In your hypothetical scenario, keep in mind the following: * The game must actually make money. Yes, this is a consideration. Even for your favorite game, they must make money. Not only must they make money to cover expenses, they have to make a profit, or the game will not continue to exist. * "Subscription" as the answer will not work here. The game is F2P, and must sell stuff in their cash shop, either in or out of the game. * Nothing is off limits. The only wrong answer is "Subscription". ** "Some F2P Options OR Subscription" would be a fine answer. "Subscription" by itself is the only wrong answer here. It's a F2P game, so something has to be charged for in the cash shop.
so for the best f2p approach comes from the secret world imo.there is nearly no item you actually NEED in the shop. like 9999 clothings, and maybe 1 or 2 of those super disenchant thingies.they charge for issues, eg content patches, abit like they (funcom) did in AoC before TSW.awesome approach, give me more clothings to buy!Is it just me or is there really this many people so dense they can't understand what F2P is even after so many people have pointed out several good definitions in this very thread.
F2P = No Entry Fee - You can play without putting up a single cent.
The similarity between B2P and F2P is close enough after initial entry into the game that a B2P game's ongoing revenues could be used as an example of a 'good' F2P cash shop.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Nothing they should only be around so the entitlement crowd can play any game they want for free completely free. If it's not this way we get post after post about how game X is not free enough or company X is greedy.
When end the truth is the real issue is not the f2p models but the entitlement crowd taking over mmos.
I tend to think like Quizzical does. Charge for things/services I (the player) does not care about. It will differ with every player and what they enjoy doing.
Simply stated, charge the other players.
Sounds good to me.
Since I very rarely play F2P games that don't offer a sub option, I say push the envelope. Charge by the key press and mouse click after you login, that would be comical.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
Nothing they should only be around so the entitlement crowd can play any game they want for free completely free. If it's not this way we get post after post about how game X is not free enough or company X is greedy.
When end the truth is the real issue is not the f2p models but the entitlement crowd taking over mmos.
I think alot of it is backlash over what is blatant greed.
To me, a good F2P is a game I can spend $15 month for (essentially) everything- Even if it takes me time to get everything (if that makes sense)
LOTRO was a good F2P, Wiz 101 was a good F2P, GW 1 was fantastic B2P model, Gw2 has a decent model, Free realms was a decent F2P model, stronghold kingdoms even worked well.
The other end of the spectrum is some of the "F2P" games I have tried which would have honestly cost $40- $50 / month to be competitive and the quality of the game was horrid to begin with. Just blatant money sinks.
I prefer sub games myself but they are much harder to find these day- I usually wend up spending more than $15 month on "F2P" games but not astronomicly so and I am very picky about the games I play and never support the "rip off" F2P games regardless...
Originally posted by Jacxolope Originally posted by Kicksave321Nothing they should only be around so the entitlement crowd can play any game they want for free completely free. If it's not this way we get post after post about how game X is not free enough or company X is greedy. When end the truth is the real issue is not the f2p models but the entitlement crowd taking over mmos.
I think alot of it is backlash over what is blatant greed.
To me, a good F2P is a game I can spend $15 month for (essentially) everything- Even if it takes me time to get everything (if that makes sense)
LOTRO was a good F2P, Wiz 101 was a good F2P, GW 1 was fantastic B2P model, Gw2 has a decent model, Free realms was a decent F2P model, stronghold kingdoms even worked well.
The other end of the spectrum is some of the "F2P" games I have tried which would have honestly cost $40- $50 / month to be competitive and the quality of the game was horrid to begin with. Just blatant money sinks.
I prefer sub games myself but they are much harder to find these day- I usually wend up spending more than $15 month on "F2P" games but not astronomicly so and I am very picky about the games I play and never support the "rip off" F2P games regardless...
What are games at the other end of the spectrum? For instance, Allods Online could potentially take players to the bank for over a thousand dollars. This was driven by people who actually spent that much money and basically became juggernauts. Staying competitive was only possible by spending a LOT of money.
I think it's legit in this discussion to list specific games and examples both of what is good or fair, and what is bad or unfair.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Kicksave321Nothing they should only be around so the entitlement crowd can play any game they want for free completely free. If it's not this way we get post after post about how game X is not free enough or company X is greedy. When end the truth is the real issue is not the f2p models but the entitlement crowd taking over mmos.
I think alot of it is backlash over what is blatant greed.
To me, a good F2P is a game I can spend $15 month for (essentially) everything- Even if it takes me time to get everything (if that makes sense)
LOTRO was a good F2P, Wiz 101 was a good F2P, GW 1 was fantastic B2P model, Gw2 has a decent model, Free realms was a decent F2P model, stronghold kingdoms even worked well.
The other end of the spectrum is some of the "F2P" games I have tried which would have honestly cost $40- $50 / month to be competitive and the quality of the game was horrid to begin with. Just blatant money sinks.
I prefer sub games myself but they are much harder to find these day- I usually wend up spending more than $15 month on "F2P" games but not astronomicly so and I am very picky about the games I play and never support the "rip off" F2P games regardless...
What are games at the other end of the spectrum? For instance, Allods Online could potentially take players to the bank for over a thousand dollars. This was driven by people who actually spent that much money and basically became juggernauts. Staying competitive was only possible by spending a LOT of money.
I think it's legit in this discussion to list specific games and examples both of what is good or fair, and what is bad or unfair.
-Thats a good question and I would have to actually ask my kids for specific names... Perfect World or Flying World? Runes of magic was one for sure that started off really nice but by mid to high level it was going to be highly expensive- I know we were spending around $20/month for that and it wouldnt have been a drop in the bucket to what we would have needed.
I will try to get some exact names later - But thats the best I can do offhand. I know I have seen a good many of these games but the titles (and game) is usually highly generic and not memorable.
Do we just sit back and play free games because someone elses addiction is funding them, where is the community in that. I don't want to think that a baby goes hungry in a household because I'm too cheap to fork out 15 bucks a month or little Jonathan can't get a new pair of shoes this season because mommy spent all the money on boxes for her game.
My ex and I used to repair computers before I went to college. I once had a computer from a woman hopelessly addicted to Everquest. She called several times a day asking if the computer was ready. That is the type of person who has it bad and I'm sure she isn't alone. For some, the fantasy world becomes most important because the real world is too painful. Their character is everything they aren't - attractive, wealthy, liked. I don't like it sir, I do not. I don't like that there is no ceiling on the money that can be made from her "second life" and it ruins the entire feel of games to know developers would manipulate her into paying as much as possible.
Man, it's hard to talk about this subject and not compare it to a sub game.
Seriously? The baby isn't going hungry because you didn't fork out 15 a month, it's going hungry because it's parents have addiction prone personalities. If they weren't irresponsibly blowing their money on a F2P game, they would in all likelihood be blowing it on something else. This falls into the category of "people who shouldn't have children" not "evil greedy companies." Stupid people will do stupid things. Always. Finding a way to make their stupidity benefit others (i.e. keeping a game enjoyed by tens or hundreds of thousands well funded) is a lot better than failing to make use of that resource for any productive purpose.
Originally posted by Jacxolope
Originally posted by CazNeerg
Uh... The average age of gamers is now somewhere in the late 20s/early 30s. People who are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves whether to gamble. The purchase of items from cash shops requires a credit card. In order to get your own credit card, you have to be at least 18. Old enough to make the decision to gamble. The only way for "children" to gamble in a game is if parents give them access to a credit card, and that isn't on the companies, that is on the parents. Regulating content for *everybody* based on the theory that companies have a responsibility to make up for lack of parenting is more than a little ridiculous.
Your understanding of the Law is incorrect here. Not going to debate that however-
I also understand the average age of a gamer today- Which is why I welcome regulation in the industry on these issues and understanding that this is , in fact, gambling.
If you (as an adult) want to waste real money for a chance to win a virtual item (or win nothing) that is 100% your right and your choice. I (again) am not against these boxes. However there are ways to allow your Child to use tyour Card and even give them in game money for whetever reasons and still lock out the age restricted content. Quite simply when you sign them up there could be a box stating that the person using the account is over 18. A 'no' would not allow them gamble or to partake in anything age appropriate. A 'yes' would have no effect on the content you could acess. This would allow a parent to even KNOW they have this choice. many have no clue the money they allowed their child to spend in game is being used for gambling.
EDIT- I would also add- Personally if this were going on when my children were young I would allow them to waste their allowance on this. They played Free Realm back in the day and often used their allowance money to purchase pets and things...Things they knew they were going to get for a price they knew they were going to pay- BUT if Gambling were in that game I would have enjoyed the opportunity to teach them a life lesson about how stupid gambling is if you are ever expecting to 'win'.
Please, point to the part where I said anything about the law.
And there don't need to be systems in place to "protect" children from the consequences of lazy parenting. Parents just need to not give the kids access to credit cards. "Problem" solved. The parents you mention who "have no clue" need to pay more attention to what their kids are doing, not ask companies to do it for them.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
To prevent all this P2W rubbish that tend to see in so many F2P games these days, either directly or indirectly, they should sell time, it gets away from the whole subscription thing, and people just buy as much game-time as they care to. Only want to play a game casually, just buy 6 hours, or even just 2 hours of game time.
I'm sure everyone has seen at least one thread on at least one F2P game where whatever the developer or publisher is charging for is somehow P2W, underhanded or just a flat out rip-off.
So given that people are willing to go into such granular detail on what developers shouldn't charge for, what exactly should they charge for in a F2P game?
In your hypothetical scenario, keep in mind the following:
* The game must actually make money. Yes, this is a consideration. Even for your favorite game, they must make money. Not only must they make money to cover expenses, they have to make a profit, or the game will not continue to exist.
* "Subscription" as the answer will not work here. The game is F2P, and must sell stuff in their cash shop, either in or out of the game.
* Nothing is off limits. The only wrong answer is "Subscription".
**
"Some F2P Options OR Subscription" would be a fine answer. "Subscription" by itself is the only wrong answer here. It's a F2P game, so something has to be charged for in the cash shop.
Here is the real problem:
There are a lot of cheap gamers out there who feel they should get to play games without paying anything. Because of this they want F2P to exist.
The problem is that since they really want it to be free, they feel all F2P games should sell cosmetic fluff only so that they can game without ever paying a cent. Businesses however need to make a profit. Cosmetic simply does not cut it, so they have to sell things that infringe on gameplay itself.
This is the disconnect. The unrealistic gamer of the current generation who, for some reason I cannot fathom, feels they are entitled to wholly free gaming and the companies who make the games and need to make money from them.
This is why so many major titles stick to b2p and why I think more will return to that model in the future. The MMO world is the only one besides casual mobile gaming that has really "embraced" f2p. And that was more because the genre is dying and desperation drove it to F2P to try to survive for as long as is possible.
This will, and has, have a noticeable impact on the quality of games as well. If player's really try to insist that only cosmetics should require payment then guess what the company will spend it's resources on? They obviously won't drop millions into content they can't charge for, they will instead focus most of their efforts on goofy cosmetics to bring in revenue and only occasionally put in half hearted content (unless they charge for the content as an expansion pack) to string people along.
I think alot of it is backlash over what is blatant greed.
To me, a good F2P is a game I can spend $15 month for (essentially) everything- Even if it takes me time to get everything (if that makes sense)
LOTRO was a good F2P, Wiz 101 was a good F2P, GW 1 was fantastic B2P model, Gw2 has a decent model, Free realms was a decent F2P model, stronghold kingdoms even worked well.
The other end of the spectrum is some of the "F2P" games I have tried which would have honestly cost $40- $50 / month to be competitive and the quality of the game was horrid to begin with. Just blatant money sinks.
I prefer sub games myself but they are much harder to find these day- I usually wend up spending more than $15 month on "F2P" games but not astronomicly so and I am very picky about the games I play and never support the "rip off" F2P games regardless...
"To be competitive?" Please elaborate, competitive with what? In most games, the only included elements which are competitive rather than cooperative are related to PvP, and how many cash shops sell items that impact PvP performance?
And again, most F2P games include an option to sub, and the sub experience is the same as it was before the game converted to F2P. The addition of the cash shop just gives more options on top of that.
Originally posted by lizardbones
What are games at the other end of the spectrum? For instance, Allods Online could potentially take players to the bank for over a thousand dollars. This was driven by people who actually spent that much money and basically became juggernauts. Staying competitive was only possible by spending a LOT of money.
I think it's legit in this discussion to list specific games and examples both of what is good or fair, and what is bad or unfair.
Same question as above. Competitive with what?
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
Do we just sit back and play free games because someone elses addiction is funding them, where is the community in that. I don't want to think that a baby goes hungry in a household because I'm too cheap to fork out 15 bucks a month or little Jonathan can't get a new pair of shoes this season because mommy spent all the money on boxes for her game.
My ex and I used to repair computers before I went to college. I once had a computer from a woman hopelessly addicted to Everquest. She called several times a day asking if the computer was ready. That is the type of person who has it bad and I'm sure she isn't alone. For some, the fantasy world becomes most important because the real world is too painful. Their character is everything they aren't - attractive, wealthy, liked. I don't like it sir, I do not. I don't like that there is no ceiling on the money that can be made from her "second life" and it ruins the entire feel of games to know developers would manipulate her into paying as much as possible.
Man, it's hard to talk about this subject and not compare it to a sub game.
Seriously? The baby isn't going hungry because you didn't fork out 15 a month, it's going hungry because it's parents have addiction prone personalities. If they weren't irresponsibly blowing their money on a F2P game, they would in all likelihood be blowing it on something else. This falls into the category of "people who shouldn't have children" not "evil greedy companies." Stupid people will do stupid things. Always. Finding a way to make their stupidity benefit others (i.e. keeping a game enjoyed by tens or hundreds of thousands well funded) is a lot better than failing to make use of that resource for any productive purpose.
Originally posted by Jacxolope
Originally posted by CazNeerg
Uh... The average age of gamers is now somewhere in the late 20s/early 30s. People who are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves whether to gamble. The purchase of items from cash shops requires a credit card. In order to get your own credit card, you have to be at least 18. Old enough to make the decision to gamble. The only way for "children" to gamble in a game is if parents give them access to a credit card, and that isn't on the companies, that is on the parents. Regulating content for *everybody* based on the theory that companies have a responsibility to make up for lack of parenting is more than a little ridiculous.
Your understanding of the Law is incorrect here. Not going to debate that however-
I also understand the average age of a gamer today- Which is why I welcome regulation in the industry on these issues and understanding that this is , in fact, gambling.
If you (as an adult) want to waste real money for a chance to win a virtual item (or win nothing) that is 100% your right and your choice. I (again) am not against these boxes. However there are ways to allow your Child to use tyour Card and even give them in game money for whetever reasons and still lock out the age restricted content. Quite simply when you sign them up there could be a box stating that the person using the account is over 18. A 'no' would not allow them gamble or to partake in anything age appropriate. A 'yes' would have no effect on the content you could acess. This would allow a parent to even KNOW they have this choice. many have no clue the money they allowed their child to spend in game is being used for gambling.
EDIT- I would also add- Personally if this were going on when my children were young I would allow them to waste their allowance on this. They played Free Realm back in the day and often used their allowance money to purchase pets and things...Things they knew they were going to get for a price they knew they were going to pay- BUT if Gambling were in that game I would have enjoyed the opportunity to teach them a life lesson about how stupid gambling is if you are ever expecting to 'win'.
Please, point to the part where I said anything about the law.
And there don't need to be systems in place to "protect" children from the consequences of lazy parenting. Parents just need to not give the kids access to credit cards. "Problem" solved. The parents you mention who "have no clue" need to pay more attention to what their kids are doing, not ask companies to do it for them.
You and Ayn Rand should get together for a Holiday.
Its nothing about "bad parenting" that parents do not realize their kids are gambling in games (since gambling online is Illegal here) so when little Johnny Mother buys him 200 Diamonds (or whatever) she should be made aware that little johnny can gamble that money away for potentially nothing.
I am talking about regulation. Knowing the ODDS of winning. When I buy a Lotto Ticket or pull a slot I know what my odds are and there is third party regulation to assure those odds. I want the same in gambing during an online game if real money is in any way involved. Period. And its coming too... Will not effect YOU as an adult. In fact, you will have the RIGHT to know your real odds and more than likely the Odds will increase once they are regulated and forced to disclose- Its win/win for the consumer.
I think alot of it is backlash over what is blatant greed.
To me, a good F2P is a game I can spend $15 month for (essentially) everything- Even if it takes me time to get everything (if that makes sense)
LOTRO was a good F2P, Wiz 101 was a good F2P, GW 1 was fantastic B2P model, Gw2 has a decent model, Free realms was a decent F2P model, stronghold kingdoms even worked well.
The other end of the spectrum is some of the "F2P" games I have tried which would have honestly cost $40- $50 / month to be competitive and the quality of the game was horrid to begin with. Just blatant money sinks.
I prefer sub games myself but they are much harder to find these day- I usually wend up spending more than $15 month on "F2P" games but not astronomicly so and I am very picky about the games I play and never support the "rip off" F2P games regardless...
"To be competitive?" Please elaborate, competitive with what? In most games, the only included elements which are competitive rather than cooperative are related to PvP, and how many cash shops sell items that impact PvP performance?
And again, most F2P games include an option to sub, and the sub experience is the same as it was before the game converted to F2P. The addition of the cash shop just gives more options on top of that.
Originally posted by lizardbones
What are games at the other end of the spectrum? For instance, Allods Online could potentially take players to the bank for over a thousand dollars. This was driven by people who actually spent that much money and basically became juggernauts. Staying competitive was only possible by spending a LOT of money.
I think it's legit in this discussion to list specific games and examples both of what is good or fair, and what is bad or unfair.
Same question as above. Competitive with what?
Whatever the goal of the game IS....
In Runes of magic its Guild Wars (total PVP) and its total P2W in too many ways to describe. Other games can be PVE if raiding is the "goal" and you unable to do so without spending tons in the cash shop.
Every game is 'competitive' in many different ways-
Its nothing about "bad parenting" that parents do not realize their kids are gambling in games (since gambling online is Illegal here) so when little Johnny Mother buys him 200 Diamonds (or whatever) she should be made aware that little johnny can gamble that money away for potentially nothing.
I disagree. It's absolutely bad parenting to give your kid money for something online without researching it a bit first. People need to stop letting the internet raise their kids. Same with all this "cyber bullying" BS if parents would do their jobs and take a proper interest in what their kids are doing this kind of stuff would happen a lot less.
Comments
Just curious, do you extend your distaste to poker games, slot machines, lotteries? Because I'm pretty sure people are aware they are gambling when they buy those boxes, and nobody is forcing them to do it. And I don't see the problem with subscribers having the opportunity to get more by paying more. Now if they were to *remove* things subscribers already had, and charge them to get their access back again, that would be a problem worth complaining about.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
A free to play title only needs to do a couple of small things in order to encourage players to pay:
- Lower XP gain by some amount. Half is generally a good place to start.
- Restrict all but the lowest tier of end game content. If the game launches with only one tier of content, then offer one of the end game raids for free.
That's it.
Most players will subscribe to the game just to level at a normal pace and will keep subscribing in order to collect the gear associated with end game content. Those who aren't paying, for whatever reason, can still experience the leveling process and get a taste of the end game content.
The cash shop should only have cosmetic items. Unique mounts, unique armors and such, but not a single item that could give an in game advantage. These items should all be resalable in-game between players. The people with more disposable income will buy extra vanity items and sell them for in-game money.
It works for everyone involved.
I just want to touch on what you said about the 'gambling ' boxes.
I gamble. Once a year I go out to the casino for a weekend and lose $500. Its a blast. I eat well, see some great entertainment, stay in a nice room and gamble away $500 which I have every intention of losing- In fact, usually at the end the trip my friends and I put our 'winnings' (if there are any) or whats left of our gaming money up for a final game of Blackjack.
I am totally NOT opposed to gambling.
Gambling is also regulated . There is an age restriction. To hit a casino means I have a nice drive ahead of me. This is targeting Children to gamble from home losing (potentialy) real money on virtual items. This is very harmful stuff. This isnt kids playing some penny poker,with their buddies- This is a Corporation allowing kids to risk real money for virtual items online with no regulation and oversight.
IF they had some real regulation and an age restriction- I would be fine with this. I would also be fine with Online Casino gambling for real money with Adults (which is Illegal here) so I do not understand how they are getting away with this- I think soon the industry will be regulated and rather than allow regulation they will do away with the boxes and such since it will be evident what a rip off it really is.
This is nonsense. The game must charge for something or it will cease to exist. All games, unless they are developed in someone's spare time must charge for something.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Uh... The average age of gamers is now somewhere in the late 20s/early 30s. People who are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves whether to gamble. The purchase of items from cash shops requires a credit card. In order to get your own credit card, you have to be at least 18. Old enough to make the decision to gamble. The only way for "children" to gamble in a game is if parents give them access to a credit card, and that isn't on the companies, that is on the parents. Regulating content for *everybody* based on the theory that companies have a responsibility to make up for lack of parenting is more than a little ridiculous.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
so for the best f2p approach comes from the secret world imo.
there is nearly no item you actually NEED in the shop. like 9999 clothings, and maybe 1 or 2 of those super disenchant thingies.
they charge for issues, eg content patches, abit like they (funcom) did in AoC before TSW.
awesome approach, give me more clothings to buy!
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
The average age of "gamers" is 30.
The average age of the people buying stuff is 35.
Gamers have been playing games on average for 13 years.
Lots of stuff from the ESA
**
More interesting stuff from the ESA for 2013 (PDF)
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Your understanding of the Law is incorrect here. Not going to debate that however-
I also understand the average age of a gamer today- Which is why I welcome regulation in the industry on these issues and understanding that this is , in fact, gambling.
If you (as an adult) want to waste real money for a chance to win a virtual item (or win nothing) that is 100% your right and your choice. I (again) am not against these boxes. However there are ways to allow your Child to use tyour Card and even give them in game money for whetever reasons and still lock out the age restricted content. Quite simply when you sign them up there could be a box stating that the person using the account is over 18. A 'no' would not allow them gamble or to partake in anything age appropriate. A 'yes' would have no effect on the content you could acess. This would allow a parent to even KNOW they have this choice. many have no clue the money they allowed their child to spend in game is being used for gambling.
EDIT- I would also add- Personally if this were going on when my children were young I would allow them to waste their allowance on this. They played Free Realm back in the day and often used their allowance money to purchase pets and things...Things they knew they were going to get for a price they knew they were going to pay- BUT if Gambling were in that game I would have enjoyed the opportunity to teach them a life lesson about how stupid gambling is if you are ever expecting to 'win'.
Is it just me or is there really this many people so dense they can't understand what F2P is even after so many people have pointed out several good definitions in this very thread.
F2P = No Entry Fee - You can play without putting up a single cent.
Is it just me or is there really this many people so dense they can't understand what F2P is even after so many people have pointed out several good definitions in this very thread.
F2P = No Entry Fee - You can play without putting up a single cent.
The similarity between B2P and F2P is close enough after initial entry into the game that a B2P game's ongoing revenues could be used as an example of a 'good' F2P cash shop.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Nothing they should only be around so the entitlement crowd can play any game they want for free completely free. If it's not this way we get post after post about how game X is not free enough or company X is greedy.
When end the truth is the real issue is not the f2p models but the entitlement crowd taking over mmos.
Sounds good to me.
Since I very rarely play F2P games that don't offer a sub option, I say push the envelope. Charge by the key press and mouse click after you login, that would be comical.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
I think alot of it is backlash over what is blatant greed.
To me, a good F2P is a game I can spend $15 month for (essentially) everything- Even if it takes me time to get everything (if that makes sense)
LOTRO was a good F2P, Wiz 101 was a good F2P, GW 1 was fantastic B2P model, Gw2 has a decent model, Free realms was a decent F2P model, stronghold kingdoms even worked well.
The other end of the spectrum is some of the "F2P" games I have tried which would have honestly cost $40- $50 / month to be competitive and the quality of the game was horrid to begin with. Just blatant money sinks.
I prefer sub games myself but they are much harder to find these day- I usually wend up spending more than $15 month on "F2P" games but not astronomicly so and I am very picky about the games I play and never support the "rip off" F2P games regardless...
To me, a good F2P is a game I can spend $15 month for (essentially) everything- Even if it takes me time to get everything (if that makes sense)
LOTRO was a good F2P, Wiz 101 was a good F2P, GW 1 was fantastic B2P model, Gw2 has a decent model, Free realms was a decent F2P model, stronghold kingdoms even worked well.
The other end of the spectrum is some of the "F2P" games I have tried which would have honestly cost $40- $50 / month to be competitive and the quality of the game was horrid to begin with. Just blatant money sinks.
I prefer sub games myself but they are much harder to find these day- I usually wend up spending more than $15 month on "F2P" games but not astronomicly so and I am very picky about the games I play and never support the "rip off" F2P games regardless...
What are games at the other end of the spectrum? For instance, Allods Online could potentially take players to the bank for over a thousand dollars. This was driven by people who actually spent that much money and basically became juggernauts. Staying competitive was only possible by spending a LOT of money.
I think it's legit in this discussion to list specific games and examples both of what is good or fair, and what is bad or unfair.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
-Thats a good question and I would have to actually ask my kids for specific names... Perfect World or Flying World? Runes of magic was one for sure that started off really nice but by mid to high level it was going to be highly expensive- I know we were spending around $20/month for that and it wouldnt have been a drop in the bucket to what we would have needed.
I will try to get some exact names later - But thats the best I can do offhand. I know I have seen a good many of these games but the titles (and game) is usually highly generic and not memorable.
Seriously? The baby isn't going hungry because you didn't fork out 15 a month, it's going hungry because it's parents have addiction prone personalities. If they weren't irresponsibly blowing their money on a F2P game, they would in all likelihood be blowing it on something else. This falls into the category of "people who shouldn't have children" not "evil greedy companies." Stupid people will do stupid things. Always. Finding a way to make their stupidity benefit others (i.e. keeping a game enjoyed by tens or hundreds of thousands well funded) is a lot better than failing to make use of that resource for any productive purpose.
Please, point to the part where I said anything about the law.And there don't need to be systems in place to "protect" children from the consequences of lazy parenting. Parents just need to not give the kids access to credit cards. "Problem" solved. The parents you mention who "have no clue" need to pay more attention to what their kids are doing, not ask companies to do it for them.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
Here is the real problem:
There are a lot of cheap gamers out there who feel they should get to play games without paying anything. Because of this they want F2P to exist.
The problem is that since they really want it to be free, they feel all F2P games should sell cosmetic fluff only so that they can game without ever paying a cent. Businesses however need to make a profit. Cosmetic simply does not cut it, so they have to sell things that infringe on gameplay itself.
This is the disconnect. The unrealistic gamer of the current generation who, for some reason I cannot fathom, feels they are entitled to wholly free gaming and the companies who make the games and need to make money from them.
This is why so many major titles stick to b2p and why I think more will return to that model in the future. The MMO world is the only one besides casual mobile gaming that has really "embraced" f2p. And that was more because the genre is dying and desperation drove it to F2P to try to survive for as long as is possible.
This will, and has, have a noticeable impact on the quality of games as well. If player's really try to insist that only cosmetics should require payment then guess what the company will spend it's resources on? They obviously won't drop millions into content they can't charge for, they will instead focus most of their efforts on goofy cosmetics to bring in revenue and only occasionally put in half hearted content (unless they charge for the content as an expansion pack) to string people along.
Subscription!
That's the right answer, right?
"To be competitive?" Please elaborate, competitive with what? In most games, the only included elements which are competitive rather than cooperative are related to PvP, and how many cash shops sell items that impact PvP performance?
And again, most F2P games include an option to sub, and the sub experience is the same as it was before the game converted to F2P. The addition of the cash shop just gives more options on top of that.
Same question as above. Competitive with what?
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
You and Ayn Rand should get together for a Holiday.
Its nothing about "bad parenting" that parents do not realize their kids are gambling in games (since gambling online is Illegal here) so when little Johnny Mother buys him 200 Diamonds (or whatever) she should be made aware that little johnny can gamble that money away for potentially nothing.
I am talking about regulation. Knowing the ODDS of winning. When I buy a Lotto Ticket or pull a slot I know what my odds are and there is third party regulation to assure those odds. I want the same in gambing during an online game if real money is in any way involved. Period. And its coming too... Will not effect YOU as an adult. In fact, you will have the RIGHT to know your real odds and more than likely the Odds will increase once they are regulated and forced to disclose- Its win/win for the consumer.
Whatever the goal of the game IS....
In Runes of magic its Guild Wars (total PVP) and its total P2W in too many ways to describe. Other games can be PVE if raiding is the "goal" and you unable to do so without spending tons in the cash shop.
Every game is 'competitive' in many different ways-
I disagree. It's absolutely bad parenting to give your kid money for something online without researching it a bit first. People need to stop letting the internet raise their kids. Same with all this "cyber bullying" BS if parents would do their jobs and take a proper interest in what their kids are doing this kind of stuff would happen a lot less.