the payment model doesnt matter, the communities are the same. You find as many "toxic" people in P2P as in F2P, and yes have played all of them.
60$ + 15$/month wont keep out people you do not like - unless you dislike asians I guess, which is always annoying if there is too many of those, since they blah blah in their own native languages.
It's not a question of keeping out every single person of that type, it's the fact that a game you can jump into for zero charge is inherently going to attract MORE of those people. Not necessarily referring to "toxic" individuals, as gaming communities usually have a degree of toxicity by nature. It does attract plenty of hackers, cheaters, spammers, etc. though since they don't lose anything at all if they get banned.
It also promotes the way the game is going to be maintained. A sub model entices the company to churn out good content that the players want and enjoy. A f2p model entices them to come up with something new to sell in the cash shop, since most of their players will be gone and replaced with new ones regularly anyway.. why focus on real content?
Lol, well as far as sweeping generalizations go, that pretty much takes the cake. First of all, Honorbuddy people just got bans from WoW and there were something like 200K HonorBuddy Subscribers which accounts for about 3% of the entire WoW population, which is pretty damn substantial. And that's just one "type" of person. There were actually 3 people in my 20-person guild (back in the day) who got banned for cheating. It's not as uncommon in P2P as you'd like to believe. It's just hidden better. Why? Well, because if you get caught, it's a bigger deal. I really don't think that there is a great difference between the two models. Spammers, maybe.
As for your other assertion about content updates. I think that just about every P2P MMO works on 6-month update cycles, and then WoW will pump out a new, paid, expansion every couple years too. In actuality, F2P tends to be more front-end heavy with content updates. Maybe because games aren't entirely finished? Maybe because getting people onboard early is best for business? Then the regular releases seem to taper off. That's just my experience, though.
Yea there are games all they do bait people into the cash shop many that do this, but with f2p game cash shop is they game some there money they need to put development time in to it, or they surely not going get the income needed can't avoid that part. I seen many paywalls in many games, but is the paywall limited to cash shop? or can unlock it in game then is not so bad.
But paying your sub does give you access, but even with access to it there big grind or a type of rank, if you didn't play the right class or with right group, you left out, feel much like more f2p comes down to it, access means noting if you can't get to it in a good amount of time with out being hand me down.
So what are you saying? You want an MMO with no levels and no grind, that automatically pairs you with a good group of players and hands you the best gear on day 1? You're comparing things that make absolutely no sense in the context of this discussion.
F2P PC games it is something to be celebrating, it save the PC game from a PC market thats if it's don't live up to the top main PC sub games is not worth the money for a lot the people, it drives new players away from people who review the game but go back to there main game saying many bad things about it, but never the good parts of the game.
F2P will be the reason for a market *closure* ... ; TESO, W* flopped due been sub games ... (ignoring all the other flaws), there´re too many F2P alternatives out there for every genre, why even bother buying games for the PC? Play any other the billions F2P Shooters, Racers, Sports, MMOS for your daily kick and then do something else ...
When a mobile game is making more $$$ every day than WoW, well then ...
Takes years to fix many flaws of a mmo in general, unless they do what FF14 close down try to fix all the problem people had with and hope didn't crash and burn again. People hold the bar to high for a mmo thinking it's going to be the next wow killer.
But yeah there to many F2P alternatives is it a bad thing? not so much, having more option is good, having to many same option with no content, meaning there just copy each other like 100% copy, so people don't think a chat window in a mmo is copying wow, but anyhow the market have room for good games but not the wow breaker numbers people are looking for, there only so many people on the planet that play games or mmo in general to have so many mmo with numbers like that.
Yea there are games all they do bait people into the cash shop many that do this, but with f2p game cash shop is they game some there money they need to put development time in to it, or they surely not going get the income needed can't avoid that part. I seen many paywalls in many games, but is the paywall limited to cash shop? or can unlock it in game then is not so bad.
But paying your sub does give you access, but even with access to it there big grind or a type of rank, if you didn't play the right class or with right group, you left out, feel much like more f2p comes down to it, access means noting if you can't get to it in a good amount of time with out being hand me down.
So what are you saying? You want an MMO with no levels and no grind, that automatically pairs you with a good group of players and hands you the best gear on day 1? You're comparing things that make absolutely no sense in the context of this discussion.
Not at all, meaning the best gear should not locked away if you can't be part the ranking or the system that is for the 1% not saying should get it at the same level rate, but give people a option not 1 option you do it or you don't if people like it that way, wonder why mmo's in general are going f2p:)
Lol, well as far as sweeping generalizations go, that pretty much takes the cake. First of all, Honorbuddy people just got bans from WoW and there were something like 200K HonorBuddy Subscribers which accounts for about 3% of the entire WoW population, which is pretty damn substantial. And that's just one "type" of person. There were actually 3 people in my 20-person guild (back in the day) who got banned for cheating. It's not as uncommon in P2P as you'd like to believe. It's just hidden better. Why? Well, because if you get caught, it's a bigger deal. I really don't think that there is a great difference between the two models. Spammers, maybe.
As for your other assertion about content updates. I think that just about every P2P MMO works on 6-month update cycles, and then WoW will pump out a new, paid, expansion every couple years too. In actuality, F2P tends to be more front-end heavy with content updates. Maybe because games aren't entirely finished? Maybe because getting people onboard early is best for business? Then the regular releases seem to taper off. That's just my experience, though.
What is my "sweeping generalization" that takes the cake here? My stance that a game with absolutely no cost to enter is more conducive to players that like to break the rules? Is that even debatable as being false? Do you even know what a barrier to entry is?
You're making some pretty big errors in your logic here. The only reason honorbuddy usage was so high is because no action was ever taken, unless you did something ridiculous like leave your bot running for 4 days straight. Wow has also been out for so long that people are just bored of the old content, no one wants to spend the time leveling their 8th character through the same content again or grinding the same battlegrounds while they have no gear and just get stomped. If Blizzard had been better about detecting and banning people for using honorbuddy, do you think it would still have been so widespread? And do you think people would keep paying the box price + sub fee to create a new account and get banned again? I highly doubt it. If there was no barrier to entry however...
Cheating actually IS pretty uncommon, once again as long as action is being taken. Someone is FAR less likely to cheat if they need to pay to get back into the game after being banned. You've also kind of made my point and then tried to refute it in the same 2 sentences. You say it's a bigger deal if you get caught but there's no difference between the 2 models? That IS the difference.
As far as the content issue, all I'm saying is that a sub based game motivates the company to retain their players for a longer duration of time. I think it's pretty self explanatory why that's a good thing for the player.
we all like MMOs because we get to live out a fantasy as if it were our real selves in the world right??!
The majority of players play games for the gameplay. While providing an interesting, internally-consistent world is always a plus for most players, it's not the main reason players tend to like these games. This is visible in the stark difference in popularity between early games which were (sorta) just worlds vs. the later games that provided far superior gameplay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
we all like MMOs because we get to live out a fantasy as if it were our real selves in the world right??!
The majority of players play games for the gameplay. While providing an interesting, internally-consistent world is always a plus for most players, it's not the main reason players tend to like these games. This is visible in the stark difference in popularity between early games which were (sorta) just worlds vs. the later games that provided far superior gameplay.
the word "gameplay" is so obscure to what the underlying premises is. im sure you mean gameplay is alternative routes you can take at any given time, and by that you are right. but what i mean is you get to do something thing you cant do in real life, but you can, for the most part, do it in that virtual reality; no matter if it's a sandbox (early games) or a themepark(the streamline new-age type).
I like F2P/B2P games and the communities seem the same as subscription games. I've played a lot of both. I also notice no one likes to name these great subscription only games that don't charge for expansions and have such a great above average community.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
I saw first hand what kind of damage the move to F2P can do to a game with an excellent community, LOTRO, even worse on the Laurelin server of course.
F2P definitely negatively affects communities. B2P not so much, because there's the box price filter. But F2P? Why be respectful, when you can create as many accounts as you want.
My experience with LOTRO's F2P transition was much different. I was vehemently against the switch back then, I didn't like all the restrictions being put in place and I was worried what it would do to the game and the community. But, to my surprise, after the switch nothing really changed. There were a lot of new faces, and I had quite a bit of fun helping out the new players, met a lot of nice people. There were bad apples of course, but I met quite a few bad apples before the switch as well. Really the worst experience I had was being asked for money every few minutes, but that died down after a couple of weeks and I was able to clear out my ignore list.
LOTRO is what really changed my mind on F2P. I don't know how the game is now, everything changes over time (especially cash shops and communities), but back then it showed me that F2P can work. I haven't had a subscription to an MMO since.
The LotRO community isn't much different now than it was 8 years ago. Some of the names have changed but the various roles on the forum have remain filled. The server communities I still find very nice especially on Crickhollow and Vilya, but I'm sure the rest are decent.
Of course F2P haters are going to say that the payment model affects communities. It validates their vitriol.
I'm in no way a F2P "hater", but on Laurelin, the community drastically changed. Before, if you had one asshat in a month, it was already a lot, and he was quickly squelched by the mods. Nowadays, they are rampant all over the place and the GMs don't do a think, or do it very slowly. This said, it's possibly also because the game is bleeding players like no tomorrow because of the many mistakes Turbine made in the design of the later expansions...
That's a good point, and to also touch on what the other guy was trying to say.. How can anyone claim that the payment model doesn't affect communities? A game that is completely free is always going to attract players that wouldn't have bought the game if the price tag was still in play. Now, you can debate whether or not it affects it negatively but there will always be an effect.
it simple just play a sub game and ignore the rest. That is what I do.
I tell that to people that hate f2p, just ignore what f2p games that are out there, but there can't they will rage about it how much is p2w when they don't even play it.
That's probably because they recognize the fact that even though they don't play f2p games, they are negatively affecting the market. You don't seem to grasp that concept. We rarely even get a quality sub based MMO anymore because everyone wants to play games for free, so instead we end up with a wealth of terrible cash grab free games with little kids, gold spammers, hackers, bots, etc. plaguing them.
You make a good point. I tried (and sadly gave money to a couple of F2P games) over the past few years before I learned my lesson. Archeage burnt me big time and I refuse to ever play a F2P game again. It is impacting the industry when companies like SOE go F2p and Blizzard brings in the WoW token. Many of us only want to pay a sub with no other cash grabs and would gladly pay more to do so.
If you look at all the big aaa MMO with cash shops and there's no cash grabbing, you simply play and pay if you fancy something. Archage was simply a bad example (one of the worst j believe)
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
The problem is that those companies aren't thinking straight. You make the most money by binding your customers to you through fidelity and trust.
Customers should feel good about buying the ingame product and about having it. Being practically forced to spend (often a lot) of money in order to enjoy the game is obviously the wrong way.
Yet some stupid companies still believe they can make much more money of off the few "Whales" who throw it all out of the window than off the rest of their community.
The title of this thread is the effect of F2P on Game Communities though. F2P doesn't necessarily affect those negatively. I personally met a lot of fun players who would never have played a sub game.
Crappy business practices destroy gaming communities, not just in F2P titles but in other games as well. Just think about the crap with locked Imperials in ESO, paid modding on steam, Diablo auction houses ...
Their belief that they can make money that way is based on the overwhelming evidence around us that people can and do make money off a few whales. It seems questionable (if not outright wrong) to call them stupid for believing something supported by clear evidence instead of believing your opinion (which isn't.)
That's not to say trust isn't valuable of course. You're sort of implying you can't have trust and whales, and that's not true (and is somewhat the opposite of reality, actually.)
Your closing statements seem to lack any rational thought or evidence. Are you seriously implying that you ESO's community is "destroyed" because you can't create a free Imperial character? I have the race unlocked and thus far have been completely fine without using it for a single character. It's basically a balanced lateral character creation choice and yet you're making a strong implication that not only is that a destructive business practice but has "destroyed" the community. The community seems fine.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
OmaliMMO Business CorrespondentMemberUncommonPosts: 1,177
Originally posted by Zarriya
Many of us only want to pay a sub with no other cash grabs and would gladly pay more to do so.
it simple just play a sub game and ignore the rest. That is what I do.
I tell that to people that hate f2p, just ignore what f2p games that are out there, but there can't they will rage about it how much is p2w when they don't even play it.
That's probably because they recognize the fact that even though they don't play f2p games, they are negatively affecting the market. You don't seem to grasp that concept. We rarely even get a quality sub based MMO anymore because everyone wants to play games for free, so instead we end up with a wealth of terrible cash grab free games with little kids, gold spammers, hackers, bots, etc. plaguing them.
Hackers, gold spammers, and bots have been around longer than F2P. They have always been a part of the MMO crowd.Not sure why F2P gets the blame here
it simple just play a sub game and ignore the rest. That is what I do.
I tell that to people that hate f2p, just ignore what f2p games that are out there, but there can't they will rage about it how much is p2w when they don't even play it.
That's probably because they recognize the fact that even though they don't play f2p games, they are negatively affecting the market. You don't seem to grasp that concept. We rarely even get a quality sub based MMO anymore because everyone wants to play games for free, so instead we end up with a wealth of terrible cash grab free games with little kids, gold spammers, hackers, bots, etc. plaguing them.
You make a good point. I tried (and sadly gave money to a couple of F2P games) over the past few years before I learned my lesson. Archeage burnt me big time and I refuse to ever play a F2P game again. It is impacting the industry when companies like SOE go F2p and Blizzard brings in the WoW token. Many of us only want to pay a sub with no other cash grabs and would gladly pay more to do so.
When I seen Trion pick up arche age, I was like hope they know what there doing, I didn't even go with the flow how much how good arche age is all over the froums, youtube, and streams even web site, as I seen it a over sea game, and games come over sea and see the US dollors coming in and go crazy. Next is blade and soul, how much thats going get hype up soon how great it is then people get burn later:) , is the part don't follow the hype is bad news, in any game.
it simple just play a sub game and ignore the rest. That is what I do.
I tell that to people that hate f2p, just ignore what f2p games that are out there, but there can't they will rage about it how much is p2w when they don't even play it.
That's probably because they recognize the fact that even though they don't play f2p games, they are negatively affecting the market. You don't seem to grasp that concept. We rarely even get a quality sub based MMO anymore because everyone wants to play games for free, so instead we end up with a wealth of terrible cash grab free games with little kids, gold spammers, hackers, bots, etc. plaguing them.
Hackers, gold spammers, and bots have been around longer than F2P. They have always been a part of the MMO crowd.Not sure why F2P gets the blame here
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I'm not trying to say they don't exist in sub games. They are just more abundant in f2p games because there is absolutely no barrier to entry. You can get banned for spamming and be right back at it for free in 5 minutes. F2p is just more conducive to this type of person.
it simple just play a sub game and ignore the rest. That is what I do.
I tell that to people that hate f2p, just ignore what f2p games that are out there, but there can't they will rage about it how much is p2w when they don't even play it.
That's probably because they recognize the fact that even though they don't play f2p games, they are negatively affecting the market. You don't seem to grasp that concept. We rarely even get a quality sub based MMO anymore because everyone wants to play games for free, so instead we end up with a wealth of terrible cash grab free games with little kids, gold spammers, hackers, bots, etc. plaguing them.
Hackers, gold spammers, and bots have been around longer than F2P. They have always been a part of the MMO crowd.Not sure why F2P gets the blame here
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I'm not trying to say they don't exist in sub games. They are just more abundant in f2p games because there is absolutely no barrier to entry. You can get banned for spamming and be right back at it for free in 5 minutes. F2p is just more conducive to this type of person.
Very popular mmo sub or free to play, gold spammer will not stop there way even if there entry unless there system in play from low level can't really do much unless there in a higher level in the game. Gold spammer target money makers for them.
Very popular mmo sub or free to play, gold spammer will not stop there way even if there entry unless there system in play from low level can't really do much unless there in a higher level in the game. Gold spammer target money makers for them.
Gold spammers have no business if the cash shop also sells gold, and certainly they cannot sell p2w items.
Hacks, bots, asshats .. may be a problem .. but i don't think gold spammer is that big of a deal in f2p games. In fact, the worse gold spammer i have seen is in wow when a lot of people are subbing ... because there is a market there.
Originally posted by sludgebeard Seriously, take STO for example. Even though STO never had strong reviews, and even had kind of a weak start as an MMO, there was still a very budding community for it, in a very niche way.
Then upon the F2P transition, and the Tier 6 Ships being locked behind a pay-wall, the community has all but abandoned the game citing it as a quick cash grab.
I remember seeing the steam reviews for it back in the day saying "Mostly Positive", and now its a darker shade of red and the word "Mixed" in its place.
The community is torn on the game, mainly for a love of the trek franchise, but the F2P transition made the game into a much less competitve game unless you wanna spend money on the PVP ships.
Lets think about Arche Age now, a game which I played for a good time in beta in loved, and payed money for and it didnt matter, it was worth it.
Now out of beta the game is just even more pay for this-pay for that, the community hates the way they monetized the game, many people would even perfer just a buy-to-play method, just so they didnt have to worry about their competitive PvP game being ruined by people with more money.
These are huge issues, because look, maybe im naive, but to me, the idea of squeezing out a few extra thousand a year by seperating content into micro-transaction's, it just isnt worth a game community, a beloved IP, or even the right to call itself an MMO.
F2P games are not something we should be celebrating, if anything we should be looking into the value these companys make by detaching content and selling it for smaller intervals and quick-money transactions.
MMO fans need to take a good look in the mirror and ask if they really want this invading their games for the rest of this generation.
Apparently you haven't played a good free 2 play model. Seriously you are using a very bad free 2 play model.
the word "gameplay" is so obscure to what the underlying premises is. im sure you mean gameplay is alternative routes you can take at any given time, and by that you are right. but what i mean is you get to do something thing you cant do in real life, but you can, for the most part, do it in that virtual reality; no matter if it's a sandbox (early games) or a themepark(the streamline new-age type).
Yeah "alternative routes you can take at any given time" is basically right. And also broad and vague (because aiming 2 degrees more to the left in a FPS in the direction your victim is sprinting is one of those "routes" you can take.) But it hits upon the core pattern-mastery which is the most common way players enjoy games (Koster, 2003). And it establishes the fact that plenty of games go gameplay-first and yet still manage to provide that fantasy (there's plenty of immersion in Bioshock, System Shock 2, X-Wing, and other great games, without sacrificing gameplay to achieve it.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Pretty sure people who don't like the f2p model often talk about how it damages game communities. What is not so often discussed though is how sub-based models damage game communities.
Originally posted by YashaX Pretty sure people who don't like the f2p model often talk about how it damages game communities. What is not so often discussed though is how sub-based models damage game communities.
or that communities are not that good because most players don't care much .. .and payment model, or even the game has little to do with it.
Originally posted by YashaX Pretty sure people who don't like the f2p model often talk about how it damages game communities. What is not so often discussed though is how sub-based models damage game communities.
Well they damage it by limiting how many players have access to the game, but many would argue this self-selects for players with money and who have invested into a product (both factors are at least a little likely to make players better-behaved.)
But the payment model tends to be minor compared with how players interact and affect each other. When someone tags a boss before me and the game doesn't give me quest credit for helping kill that boss, then other players are detrimental to my experience and that creates friction. In team-based games when my team isn't pulling their weight, that creates friction. In PVP where outright failure is a common result of a bad team, that creates more friction. In games where bad teammates not only fail to contribute but actively contribute to the enemy (feeding XP/gold to the enemy in MOBA), there's even more friction.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by YashaX Pretty sure people who don't like the f2p model often talk about how it damages game communities. What is not so often discussed though is how sub-based models damage game communities.
The maybe you should enlighten everybody here and start the discussion instead of just saying something without any argument to back it up.
So pray tell... how does P2P damage communities?
Just because you have money, it doesnt make you a good member of the community. Sure, someone may feel entitled because you have paid, but it doesnt make them a (potentially) better member than someone that wanted to see the product before paying.
Comments
Lol, well as far as sweeping generalizations go, that pretty much takes the cake. First of all, Honorbuddy people just got bans from WoW and there were something like 200K HonorBuddy Subscribers which accounts for about 3% of the entire WoW population, which is pretty damn substantial. And that's just one "type" of person. There were actually 3 people in my 20-person guild (back in the day) who got banned for cheating. It's not as uncommon in P2P as you'd like to believe. It's just hidden better. Why? Well, because if you get caught, it's a bigger deal. I really don't think that there is a great difference between the two models. Spammers, maybe.
As for your other assertion about content updates. I think that just about every P2P MMO works on 6-month update cycles, and then WoW will pump out a new, paid, expansion every couple years too. In actuality, F2P tends to be more front-end heavy with content updates. Maybe because games aren't entirely finished? Maybe because getting people onboard early is best for business? Then the regular releases seem to taper off. That's just my experience, though.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
So what are you saying? You want an MMO with no levels and no grind, that automatically pairs you with a good group of players and hands you the best gear on day 1? You're comparing things that make absolutely no sense in the context of this discussion.
Takes years to fix many flaws of a mmo in general, unless they do what FF14 close down try to fix all the problem people had with and hope didn't crash and burn again. People hold the bar to high for a mmo thinking it's going to be the next wow killer.
But yeah there to many F2P alternatives is it a bad thing? not so much, having more option is good, having to many same option with no content, meaning there just copy each other like 100% copy, so people don't think a chat window in a mmo is copying wow, but anyhow the market have room for good games but not the wow breaker numbers people are looking for, there only so many people on the planet that play games or mmo in general to have so many mmo with numbers like that.
Not at all, meaning the best gear should not locked away if you can't be part the ranking or the system that is for the 1% not saying should get it at the same level rate, but give people a option not 1 option you do it or you don't if people like it that way, wonder why mmo's in general are going f2p:)
What is my "sweeping generalization" that takes the cake here? My stance that a game with absolutely no cost to enter is more conducive to players that like to break the rules? Is that even debatable as being false? Do you even know what a barrier to entry is?
You're making some pretty big errors in your logic here. The only reason honorbuddy usage was so high is because no action was ever taken, unless you did something ridiculous like leave your bot running for 4 days straight. Wow has also been out for so long that people are just bored of the old content, no one wants to spend the time leveling their 8th character through the same content again or grinding the same battlegrounds while they have no gear and just get stomped. If Blizzard had been better about detecting and banning people for using honorbuddy, do you think it would still have been so widespread? And do you think people would keep paying the box price + sub fee to create a new account and get banned again? I highly doubt it. If there was no barrier to entry however...
Cheating actually IS pretty uncommon, once again as long as action is being taken. Someone is FAR less likely to cheat if they need to pay to get back into the game after being banned. You've also kind of made my point and then tried to refute it in the same 2 sentences. You say it's a bigger deal if you get caught but there's no difference between the 2 models? That IS the difference.
As far as the content issue, all I'm saying is that a sub based game motivates the company to retain their players for a longer duration of time. I think it's pretty self explanatory why that's a good thing for the player.
The majority of players play games for the gameplay. While providing an interesting, internally-consistent world is always a plus for most players, it's not the main reason players tend to like these games. This is visible in the stark difference in popularity between early games which were (sorta) just worlds vs. the later games that provided far superior gameplay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
the word "gameplay" is so obscure to what the underlying premises is. im sure you mean gameplay is alternative routes you can take at any given time, and by that you are right. but what i mean is you get to do something thing you cant do in real life, but you can, for the most part, do it in that virtual reality; no matter if it's a sandbox (early games) or a themepark(the streamline new-age type).
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
That's a good point, and to also touch on what the other guy was trying to say.. How can anyone claim that the payment model doesn't affect communities? A game that is completely free is always going to attract players that wouldn't have bought the game if the price tag was still in play. Now, you can debate whether or not it affects it negatively but there will always be an effect.
You make a good point. I tried (and sadly gave money to a couple of F2P games) over the past few years before I learned my lesson. Archeage burnt me big time and I refuse to ever play a F2P game again. It is impacting the industry when companies like SOE go F2p and Blizzard brings in the WoW token. Many of us only want to pay a sub with no other cash grabs and would gladly pay more to do so.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Their belief that they can make money that way is based on the overwhelming evidence around us that people can and do make money off a few whales. It seems questionable (if not outright wrong) to call them stupid for believing something supported by clear evidence instead of believing your opinion (which isn't.)
That's not to say trust isn't valuable of course. You're sort of implying you can't have trust and whales, and that's not true (and is somewhat the opposite of reality, actually.)
Your closing statements seem to lack any rational thought or evidence. Are you seriously implying that you ESO's community is "destroyed" because you can't create a free Imperial character? I have the race unlocked and thus far have been completely fine without using it for a single character. It's basically a balanced lateral character creation choice and yet you're making a strong implication that not only is that a destructive business practice but has "destroyed" the community. The community seems fine.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Not enough.
Hackers, gold spammers, and bots have been around longer than F2P. They have always been a part of the MMO crowd.Not sure why F2P gets the blame here
When I seen Trion pick up arche age, I was like hope they know what there doing, I didn't even go with the flow how much how good arche age is all over the froums, youtube, and streams even web site, as I seen it a over sea game, and games come over sea and see the US dollors coming in and go crazy. Next is blade and soul, how much thats going get hype up soon how great it is then people get burn later:) , is the part don't follow the hype is bad news, in any game.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I'm not trying to say they don't exist in sub games. They are just more abundant in f2p games because there is absolutely no barrier to entry. You can get banned for spamming and be right back at it for free in 5 minutes. F2p is just more conducive to this type of person.
Very popular mmo sub or free to play, gold spammer will not stop there way even if there entry unless there system in play from low level can't really do much unless there in a higher level in the game. Gold spammer target money makers for them.
Gold spammers have no business if the cash shop also sells gold, and certainly they cannot sell p2w items.
Hacks, bots, asshats .. may be a problem .. but i don't think gold spammer is that big of a deal in f2p games. In fact, the worse gold spammer i have seen is in wow when a lot of people are subbing ... because there is a market there.
Apparently you haven't played a good free 2 play model. Seriously you are using a very bad free 2 play model.
And Archeage isn't a great free 2 play model.
Yeah "alternative routes you can take at any given time" is basically right. And also broad and vague (because aiming 2 degrees more to the left in a FPS in the direction your victim is sprinting is one of those "routes" you can take.) But it hits upon the core pattern-mastery which is the most common way players enjoy games (Koster, 2003). And it establishes the fact that plenty of games go gameplay-first and yet still manage to provide that fantasy (there's plenty of immersion in Bioshock, System Shock 2, X-Wing, and other great games, without sacrificing gameplay to achieve it.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
or that communities are not that good because most players don't care much .. .and payment model, or even the game has little to do with it.
Well they damage it by limiting how many players have access to the game, but many would argue this self-selects for players with money and who have invested into a product (both factors are at least a little likely to make players better-behaved.)
But the payment model tends to be minor compared with how players interact and affect each other. When someone tags a boss before me and the game doesn't give me quest credit for helping kill that boss, then other players are detrimental to my experience and that creates friction. In team-based games when my team isn't pulling their weight, that creates friction. In PVP where outright failure is a common result of a bad team, that creates more friction. In games where bad teammates not only fail to contribute but actively contribute to the enemy (feeding XP/gold to the enemy in MOBA), there's even more friction.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Just because you have money, it doesnt make you a good member of the community. Sure, someone may feel entitled because you have paid, but it doesnt make them a (potentially) better member than someone that wanted to see the product before paying.