Originally posted by Loktofeit Originally posted by FoomerangOriginally posted by sayuuPayment model has nothing to do with a communities Toxicity levelAs a game gets more popular so to does the community get more toxic.Someone mentioned Trove as a F2P game with a good community, It is that way because it is not mainsteam (I'm talking League, WoW, or CoD levels of popularity here) if it did become mainstream then the community would reach the levels of toxicity found in ALL mainstream games. . .TL;DRPeople are jerks on the internet.
Perhaps it has less to do with popularity and more to do with the activity's available in a given mmo? I think maybe if your game offers little more than combative activities for players to engage in, the more inclined the community is to behave combatively. I don't think this necessarily holds true in other more focused genres where people get together for a mutually agreed upon style of play. Yes and No. Competitive gameplay attracts competitive players, but that doesn't necessarily mean a lack of civility. The smaller the circle, the more familiarity one will tend to have with other players, especially if that circle is entered into by choice. Even in a larger game, you can see the difference between how you interact with guildmates vs the larger game population. Assuming you're in a guild for the people and not just their resources, raid access, etc... your guild interactions will often be with more empathy and civility than your interactions with the general populace. It's that whole Dunbar thing.
Interesting point. I was thinking about this a little more. I used to be heavy into the fighting game scene. It was highly competitive and yeah there were a few unpleasant people but for the most part it was a healthy community to be a part of. But the environment was stil real life, meaning we engaged in this activity as a small part of our daily routine. MMOs are the same way but there is an added environmental layer that I don't think exists in other genres. It's the game you play within a climate which then extends out into real life. That menial plane, so to speak, allows for people to behave socially according to the type of world their character is inhabiting.
Or I could be completely off base heh. But it kind of makes sense in some ways
May be they need to charge enough to make it profitable and small. Make it $50 a month and this will let the developers have a smaller player base and still make money. We as players get a smaller population we can then get more familiar with and names matter and consequences will become the currency we deal in.
The games these days plan for large numbers so they need a lot of turnover because not enough people pay to play and if they do pay they leave after awhile. So you need to make the monthly payments even higher for P2P to work now.
Originally posted by DMKano Since when is a payment model a foundation for good community? Nonsense. Game design and guilds are the foundation of a good community.
They all are. Without a steady income stream, nothing new will be coming down the pike to keep the game fresh. Cash shop revenues cannot be planned, hence f2p is just a fad.
What I find interesting is that the most popular MMORPGs currently out are the ones that were originally designed around the P2P or B2P business model. I think that is further proof that content design is very much affected by the intended business model.
Isn't this topic debated hourly on this website without the need of a column? I mean really, why not just cut and paste the pages upon pages of back and forth forum tag into one long piece and call it an article. What's next... Is PVP Doomed? Is the PC Doomed? Is MMORPGs Doomed? You have 20 years worth of columns just from your readers banter alone. Apparently we like repeating ourselves so much that we don't see articles like these for what they are.
Originally posted by Pepeq Isn't this topic debated hourly on this website without the need of a column? I mean really, why not just cut and paste the pages upon pages of back and forth forum tag into one long piece and call it an article. What's next... Is PVP Doomed? Is the PC Doomed? Is MMORPGs Doomed? You have 20 years worth of columns just from your readers banter alone. Apparently we like repeating ourselves so much that we don't see articles like these for what they are.
No one twisted your arm to read or participate in this thread about said column.
Originally posted by DMKano Since when is a payment model a foundation for good community? Nonsense. Game design and guilds are the foundation of a good community.
If individuals do not need to trade for goods they find ingame, or go through the same troubles and tribulations as their peers due to xp pots, faster mounts, bought recipes and crafting components, bought skills and traits, hired henchmen. If they can purchase them in a cash shop it does change the dynamics of the community. Its left with just joining one another for group based questing/raiding and mass PVP fighting. Which I feel is cheap because I have my purchased pots to keep me safe. Ingame economies flourish without cash shops and die when a cash shop offers the same stuff. A flourishing community takes part in the whole of a game, not just the endgame part of it. Why do I need to stick with a guild/clan for longer than 3 months if I can max out 2 toons in this time? Answer, I don't and as soon as I get max im off to the next game and another community.
Buy2play (a sub) allows a community to flourish and grow. Keeps people around for longer than 3 months. A cash shop game is a 3 month chuck.
First PC Game: Pool of Radiance July 10th, 1990. First MMO: Everquest April 23, 1999
Originally posted by DMKano Since when is a payment model a foundation for good community? Nonsense. Game design and guilds are the foundation of a good community.
If individuals do not need to trade for goods they find ingame, or go through the same troubles and tribulations as their peers due to xp pots, faster mounts, bought recipes and crafting components, bought skills and traits, hired henchmen. If they can purchase them in a cash shop it does change the dynamics of the community. Its left with just joining one another for group based questing/raiding and mass PVP fighting.
Your argument is built on several false premises. One, that using other people to reach an end is a decent (or even the only) foundation for a community. Two, that your cherry-picked list of items is the sole inventory of an item mall. There's plenty more, but...
If the game is that shallow that 'grouping' is the closest it has to any form of meaningful social interaction, then YES, the community really doesn't grow. However, that has nothing to do with the existence or not of an item mall.
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 DMKano Since when is a payment model a foundation for good community? Nonsense. Game design and guilds are the foundation of a good community.
If individuals do not need to trade for goods they find ingame, or go through the same troubles and tribulations as their peers due to xp pots, faster mounts, bought recipes and crafting components, bought skills and traits, hired henchmen. If they can purchase them in a cash shop it does change the dynamics of the community. Its left with just joining one another for group based questing/raiding and mass PVP fighting.
Your argument is built on several false premises. One, that using other people to reach an end is a decent (or even the only) foundation for a community. Two, that your cherry-picked list of items is the sole inventory of an item mall. There's plenty more, but...
If the game is that shallow that 'grouping' is the closest it has to any form of meaningful social interaction, then YES, the community really doesn't grow. However, that has nothing to do with the existence or not of an item mall.
How do both of these views fit into the sense of being needed in a game.
If I make the best pantaloons on the server aren't I at least interested in logging on more often to sell my wares than when everyone can buy it for sale from the store. Don't I get a social reward when people welcome me back and ask me to make my pantaloons, or if I open my mail and there is a request to make them with the materials sent from a guild member, isn't that reinforcing that I play a part in the game community. If people miss me when I don't show up isn't that a part of community. Since the cash shop never sleeps it won't take a day off. Maybe pants aren't a good example - how about consumables because they get used up frequently.
I think I'm swaying toward the first viewpoint because economically you want people to produce something other people buy. If everyone buys from the cash shop they never get any chance to haggle a price up or down or even undercut their competition on an auction (though i hate that). They also can't barter an item in the cash shop in the sense of I'll give you my 100 ore for your 100 gems when both parties just have items they consider overflow. A barter trade would have to be multiple processes, first I sell my ore, then I use the gold to buy game currency with it, then I buy my gems with it.
If people miss you just because of pantaloons or consumables you just reinforced his point.
Good game design brings about "good communities." Even that jerk you know in one game may be the nicest or most generous in another. People act according to their environment. WoW and Eve are known to have some bad communities -- and they're some of the last few that have P2P (even though I no longer consider Eve such since they use the PLEX system -- something WoW will adopt soon enough).
FFXIV also has examples of this when it came to the first 8 man dungeons and the massive arguments / hate of new players wanting to see cinematics vs. those who want speed runs.
This was fixed by the time 24 Looking For Raid was implemented by giving people notifications that someone was new and giving bonuses to their tome acquisition for the entire raid because of it (not to mention fixing some of the problems that caused the bad behavior by saving most story for the end). It was then when -- nearly every time -- you see someone say something like "Bonus! Awesome! Thanks whoever is new! You're the real MVP!"
Such encouragement is foreign in WoW LFR situations.
With regards to not wanting to waste money on a game you only play once a week, I am in the same boat. I would be subscribed to every game on the market if they only charged for how much time I played (and up to a max total to quell fears of spending more than $15 a month).
That would be the subscription "barrier" some people want -- although I believe the idea is ridiculous and the existing P2P communities have it just as bad, if not worse in accordance to how the game handles itself -- as well as being more reasonable.
Fun little fact is that higher numbers of people produce... you guessed it! More people. More people means more jerks naturally. Your chat box in general will be spammed even if the monthly fee was $100 an hour and somehow 1,000,000+ people are going along with it. It's the systems in place and the atmosphere of the game that will determine how people coexist with each other as a whole.
Some silly comments about good communities.
Good game design brings about "good communities." Even that jerk you know in one game may be the nicest or most generous in another. People act according to their environment. WoW and Eve are known to have some bad communities -- and they're some of the last few that have P2P (even though I no longer consider Eve such since they use the PLEX system -- something WoW will adopt soon enough).
FFXIV also has examples of this when it came to the first 8 man dungeons and the massive arguments / hate of new players wanting to see cinematics vs. those who want speed runs.
This was fixed by the time 24 Looking For Raid was implemented by giving people notifications that someone was new and giving bonuses to their tome acquisition for the entire raid because of it (not to mention fixing some of the problems that caused the bad behavior by saving most story for the end). It was then when -- nearly every time -- you see someone say something like "Bonus! Awesome! Thanks whoever is new! You're the real MVP!"
Such encouragement is foreign in WoW LFR situations.
With regards to not wanting to waste money on a game you only play once a week, I am in the same boat. I would be subscribed to every game on the market if they only charged for how much time I played (and up to a max total to quell fears of spending more than $15 a month).
That would be the subscription "barrier" some people want -- although I believe the idea is ridiculous and the existing P2P communities have it just as bad, if not worse in accordance to how the game handles itself -- as well as being more reasonable.
Fun little fact is that higher numbers of people produce... you guessed it! More people. More people means more jerks naturally. Your chat box in general will be spammed even if the monthly fee was $100 an hour and somehow 1,000,000+ people are going along with it. It's the systems in place and the atmosphere of the game that will determine how people coexist with each other as a whole.
When something is free, more comes to it and... Well, would you look at that! More people. Which gives the illusion that it may be "worst" because there are more "bad eggs" in the bunch, and the systems in place not readily able to shepherd such.
Due to frequent travel in my youth, English isn't something I consider my primary language (and thus I obtained quirky ways of writing). German and French were always easier for me despite my family being U.S. citizens for over a century. Spanish I learned as a requirement in school, Japanese and Korean I acquired for my youthful desire of anime and gaming (and also work now). I only debate in English to help me work with it (and limit things). In addition, I'm not smart enough to remain fluent in everything and typically need exposure to get in the groove of things again if I haven't heard it in a while. If you understand Mandarin, I know a little, but it has actually been a challenge and could use some help.
Also, I thoroughly enjoy debates and have accounts on over a dozen sites for this. If you wish to engage in such, please put effort in a post and provide sources -- I will then do the same with what I already wrote (if I didn't) as well as with my responses to your own. Expanding my information on a subject makes my stance either change or strengthen the next time I speak of it or write a thesis. Allow me to thank you sincerely for your time.
Originally posted by DMKano Since when is a payment model a foundation for good community? Nonsense. Game design and guilds are the foundation of a good community.
^This, i think people are still stuck on the early days of Pay to Play where only the good games used that model and cheap horrible F2P games plagued the internet. But those days are long gone, and AAA MMOs are buy to play and F2P now, payment model is irrelevant in deciding if the community is good or not. Games are more mainstream then ever so a larger audience now plays these games then before so you attract all manner of people to include trolls and other hateful players. Paying a sub fee doesnt weed out trolls or hateful players in anyway, they can afford sub fees too lol and i seen plenty in many P2P games. Its all about the game design and yes guilds as well as stated in the qoute. Its the very community itself as well as the games design in regards to such issues and also the target audience that matters.
If there's anyone to blame for the P2P erosion it's no one else's fault but the 1% themselves. They can't even support the games made specifically to cater to their nostalgia so that forces the Devs to find other ways of making money. They are their own enemy so these articles are kind of ironic really.
Originally posted by DMKano Since when is a payment model a foundation for good community? Nonsense. Game design and guilds are the foundation of a good community.
If individuals do not need to trade for goods they find ingame, or go through the same troubles and tribulations as their peers due to xp pots, faster mounts, bought recipes and crafting components, bought skills and traits, hired henchmen. If they can purchase them in a cash shop it does change the dynamics of the community. Its left with just joining one another for group based questing/raiding and mass PVP fighting.
Your argument is built on several false premises. One, that using other people to reach an end is a decent (or even the only) foundation for a community. Two, that your cherry-picked list of items is the sole inventory of an item mall. There's plenty more, but...
If the game is that shallow that 'grouping' is the closest it has to any form of meaningful social interaction, then YES, the community really doesn't grow. However, that has nothing to do with the existence or not of an item mall.
How do both of these views fit into the sense of being needed in a game.
If I make the best pantaloons on the server aren't I at least interested in logging on more often to sell my wares than when everyone can buy it for sale from the store. Don't I get a social reward when people welcome me back and ask me to make my pantaloons, or if I open my mail and there is a request to make them with the materials sent from a guild member, isn't that reinforcing that I play a part in the game community. If people miss me when I don't show up isn't that a part of community. Since the cash shop never sleeps it won't take a day off. Maybe pants aren't a good example - how about consumables because they get used up frequently.
I think I'm swaying toward the first viewpoint because economically you want people to produce something other people buy. If everyone buys from the cash shop they never get any chance to haggle a price up or down or even undercut their competition on an auction (though i hate that). They also can't barter an item in the cash shop in the sense of I'll give you my 100 ore for your 100 gems when both parties just have items they consider overflow. A barter trade would have to be multiple processes, first I sell my ore, then I use the gold to buy game currency with it, then I buy my gems with it.
If people miss you just because of pantaloons or consumables you just reinforced his point.
Exactly. Good communities in virtual worlds are built around people interacting because they choose to, not because they have to. Making it fun or engaging for players to trade directly does far more to promote socialization than making it so that players simply have to trade directly.
greenreen, you also went into two interesting areas - economic competition and barter/haggling.
Economic competition - I don't doubt this is fun. I love it in games! However, it just seems odd to see someone saying capitalism fosters good community. I'd have to say that's the first I've seen that claim made in any universe, real or virtual.
Barter/haggling - currency and established/automated trade locations came about because bartering is too nebulous for most and haggling is something most players don't want to do and many players can't do. I mean, do you really not remember having this conversation a thousand times...
"How much for the Longsword +1?"
"Make offer"
"I dunno. Give me a price."
"Make offer"
"Ok, 30 gold."
"No."
"Fine. How much for the Scimitar +1?"
"Make offer."
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
Barter/haggling - currency and established/automated trade locations came about because bartering is too nebulous for most and haggling is something most players don't want to do and many players can't do. I mean, do you really not remember having this conversation a thousand times...
"How much for the Longsword +1?"
"Make offer"
"I dunno. Give me a price."
"Make offer"
"Ok, 30 gold."
"No."
"Fine. How much for the Scimitar +1?"
"Make offer."
I remember.
Despite it all downsides that we both know of, actual trading is still better than in-game ebay.
Real problem of player-made economy with actual trading and players making things is that game companies are not able to protect game from RMT and cheating.
The only issue that matters, is the one ignored in this topic. Should Dev’s pander to P4F gamers. The answer is no. If you can't afford to pay, you can’t afford to play. The whales have spoken, they don’t want hacks and they don’t want rats (P4F). The only thing that makes P2P unviable are Devs that think inferior games are worth a sub. A game must have all features, and have them flawless as possible. One game meets this criteria, and makes the most money because of this. All other do not. At some point their features appear lacking to the gaming population and they turn away.
If the game was good, they would pay the sub. Just like millions do for the only good game out there. At max I paid for 11 subs a month, last year I paid for three. This year I pay for two. I still go out to eat, but I only see one movie a month instead of 4 or 6.
This weekend I took a look at 3 F2P games that I spent money on last year. Their first 3 maps are empty, the chat was dead. I played each game for 2 hours and didn’t see another player. They only players in game may all be in end game (90% level cap). I was only at 33%-40% of cap. If the game feels incomplete or under done, even F2P won’t help it.
Pardon any spelling errors
Konfess your cyns and some maybe forgiven Boy: Why can't I talk to Him? Mom: We don't talk to Priests. As if it could exist, without being payed for. F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing. Even telemarketers wouldn't think that. It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
ESO was supposed to be a marriage of DAOC and the Elder Scrolls world till Matt Firror changed his mind and decided to make an action combat pve console oriented game.So what we think we know...until its in the game.......... is just bloviating.
I am encouraged with the WORDS Jacobs is saying about CAMELOT UNCHAINED .Heck CROWFALL might even turn out to be something.
What is real...and the still undisputed gold standard for faction vs faction conflict is DAOC. It's where I returned after cancelling my ESO subscription.
"What I dislike about the subscription model isn’t the cost, it’s the pressure. I don’t want to feel like I have to log in or else waste money."
So he feels like he is wasting money if he dont log in for a few days a month ? its like less than half a doller a day oh my god thats going to break the bank for sure..
If you are going to miss $14.99 a month then its best to save that money and not spend it on gaming.
Yep. And as I pointed out in a previous post... if he's "feeling like he has to log in or else waste money", then I'd suggest that he should seek out a different game, because I don't think his heart is really in the one he's paying for.
If his sense of value is purely on "have I played "enough" (whatever 'enough' is) to make this payment worthwhile?", and not "how much fun am I having while I'm logged in?" - again.. he's probably not playing the right game for himself.
If they don't see the value in paying a flat $13-$15 fee for 24/7, always on, "all you can eat" access to a game that they can log in and play however much they want, and do whatever they want... without the entire game being designed in service to an ever present cash shop, which is there to nickel and dime them at any/every opportunity... Then I wonder how they feel about spending almost as much for a movie ticket, which gets them a single viewing to a single movie, which might last 3 hours, if it's on the long side?
Think of it this way... if he pays a monthly fee, and then only plays 2-3 hours in a month... he's getting at least as much entertainment for his money as he would at a movie. The difference is, he has agency in the activity. He has a lot of influence on what his experience is going to be like. He isn't just sitting in a chair looking on.
Of course, I highly doubt anyone, however limited for time, is only playing 3 hours a month, in a MMO they otherwise enjoy playing. If they're at that point, then I'd agree it's probably not worth playing it... but not because of the revenue model, or the cost.
Originally posted by DMKano Since when is a payment model a foundation for good community? Nonsense. Game design and guilds are the foundation of a good community.
If individuals do not need to trade for goods they find ingame, or go through the same troubles and tribulations as their peers due to xp pots, faster mounts, bought recipes and crafting components, bought skills and traits, hired henchmen. If they can purchase them in a cash shop it does change the dynamics of the community. Its left with just joining one another for group based questing/raiding and mass PVP fighting.
Your argument is built on several false premises. One, that using other people to reach an end is a decent (or even the only) foundation for a community. Two, that your cherry-picked list of items is the sole inventory of an item mall. There's plenty more, but...
If the game is that shallow that 'grouping' is the closest it has to any form of meaningful social interaction, then YES, the community really doesn't grow. However, that has nothing to do with the existence or not of an item mall.
Payment model and game design effect community, guilds stand as a bastion against the changes that have occurred. You can continue your community in a guild no matter what crap they throw at you. And plenty has come our way, that list may have been cherry picked but it was spot on. Game design which involves interaction of players of any kind has been "streamlined", dropped or minimised in other words. Cash Shops do not like designing, crafting or building; doing anything yourself, they like paying and nothing else.
But guilds stand against all this commercialism and trivial gameplay. Until they get scrapped for social media groups that is, after all connecting to the real you and pinging your latest purchase is what it is all about. Not stupid old guild ethos.
Chris has the right of it. The subscription model is dead, and the evidence keeps stacking up higher and higher. Still doesn't mean it won't work for the outliers (WoW, FFXIV), but in order to truly do well with a sub, a company needs either millions of players, or (as was said) bank on very few and just be a niche game.
And Chris is completely right about the "pressure" of playing, where Ryan seems too thick to understand the difference between a value and literally throwing money away. A subscription in sub-only games, you're only paying for one thing: time. If you don't feel like playing, and decide to play something else, or just spend you're time not playing anything, that time still ticks away. A single player game, sure, you might not get as many hours out of it, but once you buy a single player, that game is ALWAYS there to play. A single player game won't up and say "Oh! You haven't played me in a while, pay me more money to keep playing."
And then on top of that, say you put in 150 hours into your MMO character, get max level, all the best stuff, but then get bored for a while, stop paying the sub, and play other games. Now to go back and play that character again you need to whip out the credit card again. Now they hold all the work you put in hostage until you pay up again.
There are too many gaming options out today that don't pull that scam that how people still fight for subs is beyond me.
Chris has the right of it. The subscription model is dead, and the evidence keeps stacking up higher and higher. Still doesn't mean it won't work for the outliers (WoW, FFXIV), but in order to truly do well with a sub, a company needs either millions of players, or (as was said) bank on very few and just be a niche game.
And Chris is completely right about the "pressure" of playing, where Ryan seems too thick to understand the difference between a value and literally throwing money away. A subscription in sub-only games, you're only paying for one thing: time. If you don't feel like playing, and decide to play something else, or just spend you're time not playing anything, that time still ticks away. A single player game, sure, you might not get as many hours out of it, but once you buy a single player, that game is ALWAYS there to play. A single player game won't up and say "Oh! You haven't played me in a while, pay me more money to keep playing."
And then on top of that, say you put in 150 hours into your MMO character, get max level, all the best stuff, but then get bored for a while, stop paying the sub, and play other games. Now to go back and play that character again you need to whip out the credit card again. Now they hold all the work you put in hostage until you pay up again.
There are too many gaming options out today that don't pull that scam that how people still fight for subs is beyond me.
How often do you go back to a character you have put 150 hours into? And when you go back the gap means you need to fork out for something to keep you at tier one, or you have to grind for most of your return. And those single player games that don't need anymore money to play, you have heard of DLC? You do realise that this is an evolving system, a system that is evolving to charge you more? How long before that optional dlc becomes a must have dlc? You must have seen the rise of multiplayer in 'solo' games. How prevalent it is now, what do you thing that will lead to? Has lead to already?
The cash shop has come to solo games, it wants your money and will ask you for money to keep playing. Now its just a must have new map. What will happen in five years time? Casino gameplay is now common in MMO, is that next for solo gaming?
There are many ways to pull a scam in gaming and P2P is not one of them. But is your only definition of a scam is making monthly payments when you might not be playing, I can see how you have come to that misconception.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Comments
Yes and No. Competitive gameplay attracts competitive players, but that doesn't necessarily mean a lack of civility. The smaller the circle, the more familiarity one will tend to have with other players, especially if that circle is entered into by choice. Even in a larger game, you can see the difference between how you interact with guildmates vs the larger game population. Assuming you're in a guild for the people and not just their resources, raid access, etc... your guild interactions will often be with more empathy and civility than your interactions with the general populace. It's that whole Dunbar thing.
Interesting point. I was thinking about this a little more. I used to be heavy into the fighting game scene. It was highly competitive and yeah there were a few unpleasant people but for the most part it was a healthy community to be a part of. But the environment was stil real life, meaning we engaged in this activity as a small part of our daily routine. MMOs are the same way but there is an added environmental layer that I don't think exists in other genres. It's the game you play within a climate which then extends out into real life. That menial plane, so to speak, allows for people to behave socially according to the type of world their character is inhabiting.
Or I could be completely off base heh. But it kind of makes sense in some ways
May be they need to charge enough to make it profitable and small. Make it $50 a month and this will let the developers have a smaller player base and still make money. We as players get a smaller population we can then get more familiar with and names matter and consequences will become the currency we deal in.
The games these days plan for large numbers so they need a lot of turnover because not enough people pay to play and if they do pay they leave after awhile. So you need to make the monthly payments even higher for P2P to work now.
They all are. Without a steady income stream, nothing new will be coming down the pike to keep the game fresh. Cash shop revenues cannot be planned, hence f2p is just a fad.
Please explain to me how do you plan your subscriber numbers...
No one twisted your arm to read or participate in this thread about said column.
If individuals do not need to trade for goods they find ingame, or go through the same troubles and tribulations as their peers due to xp pots, faster mounts, bought recipes and crafting components, bought skills and traits, hired henchmen. If they can purchase them in a cash shop it does change the dynamics of the community. Its left with just joining one another for group based questing/raiding and mass PVP fighting. Which I feel is cheap because I have my purchased pots to keep me safe. Ingame economies flourish without cash shops and die when a cash shop offers the same stuff. A flourishing community takes part in the whole of a game, not just the endgame part of it. Why do I need to stick with a guild/clan for longer than 3 months if I can max out 2 toons in this time? Answer, I don't and as soon as I get max im off to the next game and another community.
Buy2play (a sub) allows a community to flourish and grow. Keeps people around for longer than 3 months. A cash shop game is a 3 month chuck.
First PC Game: Pool of Radiance July 10th, 1990. First MMO: Everquest April 23, 1999
Your argument is built on several false premises. One, that using other people to reach an end is a decent (or even the only) foundation for a community. Two, that your cherry-picked list of items is the sole inventory of an item mall. There's plenty more, but...
If the game is that shallow that 'grouping' is the closest it has to any form of meaningful social interaction, then YES, the community really doesn't grow. However, that has nothing to do with the existence or not of an item mall.
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
If people miss you just because of pantaloons or consumables you just reinforced his point.
Some silly comments about good communities.
Good game design brings about "good communities." Even that jerk you know in one game may be the nicest or most generous in another. People act according to their environment. WoW and Eve are known to have some bad communities -- and they're some of the last few that have P2P (even though I no longer consider Eve such since they use the PLEX system -- something WoW will adopt soon enough).
FFXIV also has examples of this when it came to the first 8 man dungeons and the massive arguments / hate of new players wanting to see cinematics vs. those who want speed runs.
This was fixed by the time 24 Looking For Raid was implemented by giving people notifications that someone was new and giving bonuses to their tome acquisition for the entire raid because of it (not to mention fixing some of the problems that caused the bad behavior by saving most story for the end). It was then when -- nearly every time -- you see someone say something like "Bonus! Awesome! Thanks whoever is new!
You're the real MVP!"
Such encouragement is foreign in WoW LFR situations.
With regards to not wanting to waste money on a game you only play once a week, I am in the same boat. I would be subscribed to every game on the market if they only charged for how much time I played (and up to a max total to quell fears of spending more than $15 a month).
That would be the subscription "barrier" some people want -- although I believe the idea is ridiculous and the existing P2P communities have it just as bad, if not worse in accordance to how the game handles itself -- as well as being more reasonable.
Fun little fact is that higher numbers of people produce... you guessed it! More people. More people means more jerks naturally. Your chat box in general will be spammed even if the monthly fee was $100 an hour and somehow 1,000,000+ people are going along with it. It's the systems in place and the atmosphere of the game that will determine how people coexist with each other as a whole.
Some silly comments about good communities.
Good game design brings about "good communities." Even that jerk you know in one game may be the nicest or most generous in another. People act according to their environment. WoW and Eve are known to have some bad communities -- and they're some of the last few that have P2P (even though I no longer consider Eve such since they use the PLEX system -- something WoW will adopt soon enough).
FFXIV also has examples of this when it came to the first 8 man dungeons and the massive arguments / hate of new players wanting to see cinematics vs. those who want speed runs.
This was fixed by the time 24 Looking For Raid was implemented by giving people notifications that someone was new and giving bonuses to their tome acquisition for the entire raid because of it (not to mention fixing some of the problems that caused the bad behavior by saving most story for the end). It was then when -- nearly every time -- you see someone say something like "Bonus! Awesome! Thanks whoever is new!
You're the real MVP!"
Such encouragement is foreign in WoW LFR situations.
With regards to not wanting to waste money on a game you only play once a week, I am in the same boat. I would be subscribed to every game on the market if they only charged for how much time I played (and up to a max total to quell fears of spending more than $15 a month).
That would be the subscription "barrier" some people want -- although I believe the idea is ridiculous and the existing P2P communities have it just as bad, if not worse in accordance to how the game handles itself -- as well as being more reasonable.
Fun little fact is that higher numbers of people produce... you guessed it! More people. More people means more jerks naturally. Your chat box in general will be spammed even if the monthly fee was $100 an hour and somehow 1,000,000+ people are going along with it. It's the systems in place and the atmosphere of the game that will determine how people coexist with each other as a whole.
^This, i think people are still stuck on the early days of Pay to Play where only the good games used that model and cheap horrible F2P games plagued the internet. But those days are long gone, and AAA MMOs are buy to play and F2P now, payment model is irrelevant in deciding if the community is good or not. Games are more mainstream then ever so a larger audience now plays these games then before so you attract all manner of people to include trolls and other hateful players. Paying a sub fee doesnt weed out trolls or hateful players in anyway, they can afford sub fees too lol and i seen plenty in many P2P games. Its all about the game design and yes guilds as well as stated in the qoute. Its the very community itself as well as the games design in regards to such issues and also the target audience that matters.
Exactly. Good communities in virtual worlds are built around people interacting because they choose to, not because they have to. Making it fun or engaging for players to trade directly does far more to promote socialization than making it so that players simply have to trade directly.
greenreen, you also went into two interesting areas - economic competition and barter/haggling.
Economic competition - I don't doubt this is fun. I love it in games! However, it just seems odd to see someone saying capitalism fosters good community. I'd have to say that's the first I've seen that claim made in any universe, real or virtual.
Barter/haggling - currency and established/automated trade locations came about because bartering is too nebulous for most and haggling is something most players don't want to do and many players can't do. I mean, do you really not remember having this conversation a thousand times...
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 remember.
Despite it all downsides that we both know of, actual trading is still better than in-game ebay.
Real problem of player-made economy with actual trading and players making things is that game companies are not able to protect game from RMT and cheating.
The only issue that matters, is the one ignored in this topic. Should Dev’s pander to P4F gamers. The answer is no. If you can't afford to pay, you can’t afford to play. The whales have spoken, they don’t want hacks and they don’t want rats (P4F). The only thing that makes P2P unviable are Devs that think inferior games are worth a sub. A game must have all features, and have them flawless as possible. One game meets this criteria, and makes the most money because of this. All other do not. At some point their features appear lacking to the gaming population and they turn away.
If the game was good, they would pay the sub. Just like millions do for the only good game out there. At max I paid for 11 subs a month, last year I paid for three. This year I pay for two. I still go out to eat, but I only see one movie a month instead of 4 or 6.
This weekend I took a look at 3 F2P games that I spent money on last year. Their first 3 maps are empty, the chat was dead. I played each game for 2 hours and didn’t see another player. They only players in game may all be in end game (90% level cap). I was only at 33%-40% of cap. If the game feels incomplete or under done, even F2P won’t help it.Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
As if it could exist, without being payed for.
F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.
It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
ESO was supposed to be a marriage of DAOC and the Elder Scrolls world till Matt Firror changed his mind and decided to make an action combat pve console oriented game.So what we think we know...until its in the game.......... is just bloviating.
I am encouraged with the WORDS Jacobs is saying about CAMELOT UNCHAINED .Heck CROWFALL might even turn out to be something.
What is real...and the still undisputed gold standard for faction vs faction conflict is DAOC. It's where I returned after cancelling my ESO subscription.
Yep. And as I pointed out in a previous post... if he's "feeling like he has to log in or else waste money", then I'd suggest that he should seek out a different game, because I don't think his heart is really in the one he's paying for.
If his sense of value is purely on "have I played "enough" (whatever 'enough' is) to make this payment worthwhile?", and not "how much fun am I having while I'm logged in?" - again.. he's probably not playing the right game for himself.
If they don't see the value in paying a flat $13-$15 fee for 24/7, always on, "all you can eat" access to a game that they can log in and play however much they want, and do whatever they want... without the entire game being designed in service to an ever present cash shop, which is there to nickel and dime them at any/every opportunity... Then I wonder how they feel about spending almost as much for a movie ticket, which gets them a single viewing to a single movie, which might last 3 hours, if it's on the long side?
Think of it this way... if he pays a monthly fee, and then only plays 2-3 hours in a month... he's getting at least as much entertainment for his money as he would at a movie. The difference is, he has agency in the activity. He has a lot of influence on what his experience is going to be like. He isn't just sitting in a chair looking on.
Of course, I highly doubt anyone, however limited for time, is only playing 3 hours a month, in a MMO they otherwise enjoy playing. If they're at that point, then I'd agree it's probably not worth playing it... but not because of the revenue model, or the cost.
Payment model and game design effect community, guilds stand as a bastion against the changes that have occurred. You can continue your community in a guild no matter what crap they throw at you. And plenty has come our way, that list may have been cherry picked but it was spot on. Game design which involves interaction of players of any kind has been "streamlined", dropped or minimised in other words. Cash Shops do not like designing, crafting or building; doing anything yourself, they like paying and nothing else.
But guilds stand against all this commercialism and trivial gameplay. Until they get scrapped for social media groups that is, after all connecting to the real you and pinging your latest purchase is what it is all about. Not stupid old guild ethos.
Chris has the right of it. The subscription model is dead, and the evidence keeps stacking up higher and higher. Still doesn't mean it won't work for the outliers (WoW, FFXIV), but in order to truly do well with a sub, a company needs either millions of players, or (as was said) bank on very few and just be a niche game.
And Chris is completely right about the "pressure" of playing, where Ryan seems too thick to understand the difference between a value and literally throwing money away. A subscription in sub-only games, you're only paying for one thing: time. If you don't feel like playing, and decide to play something else, or just spend you're time not playing anything, that time still ticks away. A single player game, sure, you might not get as many hours out of it, but once you buy a single player, that game is ALWAYS there to play. A single player game won't up and say "Oh! You haven't played me in a while, pay me more money to keep playing."
And then on top of that, say you put in 150 hours into your MMO character, get max level, all the best stuff, but then get bored for a while, stop paying the sub, and play other games. Now to go back and play that character again you need to whip out the credit card again. Now they hold all the work you put in hostage until you pay up again.
There are too many gaming options out today that don't pull that scam that how people still fight for subs is beyond me.
How often do you go back to a character you have put 150 hours into? And when you go back the gap means you need to fork out for something to keep you at tier one, or you have to grind for most of your return. And those single player games that don't need anymore money to play, you have heard of DLC? You do realise that this is an evolving system, a system that is evolving to charge you more? How long before that optional dlc becomes a must have dlc? You must have seen the rise of multiplayer in 'solo' games. How prevalent it is now, what do you thing that will lead to? Has lead to already?
The cash shop has come to solo games, it wants your money and will ask you for money to keep playing. Now its just a must have new map. What will happen in five years time? Casino gameplay is now common in MMO, is that next for solo gaming?
There are many ways to pull a scam in gaming and P2P is not one of them. But is your only definition of a scam is making monthly payments when you might not be playing, I can see how you have come to that misconception.
Free to play games are too expensive. :P
I wonder how many of them have their daily starbucks coffee? What is a venti at starbucks priced at these days? $5.00?
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"