For me the money isn't an issue, I won't play a bad game for free. If a game is worth playing then it's worth 15€ per month.
That is a false dilemma.
The question is: will you play a SHORT good game for free? Tons of F2P games can be viewed as such .. GOOD till you hit the pay wall .. hence a good short game.
For me the money isn't an issue, I won't play a bad game for free. If a game is worth playing then it's worth 15€ per month.
That is a false dilemma.
The question is: will you play a SHORT good game for free? Tons of F2P games can be viewed as such .. GOOD till you hit the pay wall .. hence a good short game.
Actually, the dilemma is more like this:
A. Game is Free. Game is Good. Pay for it B. Game is Free. Game is Bad. Dont Pay for it C. Game is not Free. Game is Good. Pay for it. D. Game is not Free. Game is Bad. Pay for it.
The only scenario where you pay for a bad game, is if the game is not free. So, they should have said:
For me the money isn't an issue. I will pay for a bad game, but will not play a bad game for free.
For me the money isn't an issue, I won't play a bad game for free. If a game is worth playing then it's worth 15€ per month.
That is a false dilemma.
The question is: will you play a SHORT good game for free? Tons of F2P games can be viewed as such .. GOOD till you hit the pay wall .. hence a good short game.
For me the question is: do I find the game worth spending time on? if yes then it's worth 15€ per month as long as the answer remains yes. There are no free games, someone has to pay and most monetizations for so called "free to play" games take away from the experience for me.
A. Game is Free. Game is Good. Pay for it B. Game is Free. Game is Bad. Dont Pay for it C. Game is not Free. Game is Good. Pay for it. D. Game is not Free. Game is Bad. Pay for it.
The only scenario where you pay for a bad game, is if the game is not free. So, they should have said:
For me the money isn't an issue. I will pay for a bad game, but will not play a bad game for free.
This is an impressively succinct way of saying what I've been saying in this thread. Well put!
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
For me the money isn't an issue, I won't play a bad game for free. If a game is worth playing then it's worth 15€ per month.
That is a false dilemma.
The question is: will you play a SHORT good game for free? Tons of F2P games can be viewed as such .. GOOD till you hit the pay wall .. hence a good short game.
For me the question is: do I find the game worth spending time on? if yes then it's worth 15€ per month as long as the answer remains yes. There are no free games, someone has to pay and most monetizations for so called "free to play" games take away from the experience for me.
hmm .. i just played warframe for 15 min .. and i did not pay a single dime .. what do you call that? .. yeah .. FREE.
Games are free for most players .. just not the whales, dolphins and minnows.
And why would that take away experiences from you? If you ignore the cash shop, just play the game until it is "finished" (by hitting a wall), it is no different than any other short games.
A. Game is Free. Game is Good. Pay for it B. Game is Free. Game is Bad. Dont Pay for it C. Game is not Free. Game is Good. Pay for it. D. Game is not Free. Game is Bad. Pay for it.
The only scenario where you pay for a bad game, is if the game is not free. So, they should have said:
For me the money isn't an issue. I will pay for a bad game, but will not play a bad game for free.
This is an impressively succinct way of saying what I've been saying in this thread. Well put!
lol .. yeah.
It is silly to think that people will pay for, or stick with, games that they do not like.
For me the money isn't an issue, I won't play a bad game for free. If a game is worth playing then it's worth 15€ per month.
That is a false dilemma.
The question is: will you play a SHORT good game for free? Tons of F2P games can be viewed as such .. GOOD till you hit the pay wall .. hence a good short game.
For me the question is: do I find the game worth spending time on? if yes then it's worth 15€ per month as long as the answer remains yes. There are no free games, someone has to pay and most monetizations for so called "free to play" games take away from the experience for me.
hmm .. i just played warframe for 15 min .. and i did not pay a single dime .. what do you call that? .. yeah .. FREE.
Games are free for most players .. just not the whales, dolphins and minnows.
And why would that take away experiences from you? If you ignore the cash shop, just play the game until it is "finished" (by hitting a wall), it is no different than any other short games.
If I play the game I want the full experience on equal in-game terms as everyone else, I'm willing to pay a fixed amount for that each month. Ignoring the cash shop while being disadvantaged in various ways and cannon fodder for people who are willing to pay, without a spending cap, to get ahead does not appeal to me.
As I said earlier, I am not opposed to people being able to try a game out for free to see if it's interesting, if a game is good then that seems like the best way to attract players. Someone has to pay for the game however and that's why I proposed a spending cap of 15€ each month, since the traditional "free to play" model of being able to pay for advantages without a spending cap doesn't appeal to me.
If I play the game I want the full experience on equal in-game terms as everyone else, I'm willing to pay a fixed amount for that each month. Ignoring the cash shop while being disadvantaged in various ways and cannon fodder for people who are willing to pay, without a spending cap, to get ahead does not appeal to me.
As I said earlier, I am not opposed to people being able to try a game out for free to see if it's interesting, if a game is good then that seems like the best way to attract players. Someone has to pay for the game however and that's why I proposed a spending cap of 15€ each month, since the traditional "free to play" model of being able to pay for advantages without a spending cap doesn't appeal to me.
hmm .. how is it possible to have an "advantage" by me or anyone else if I am playing warframe as a single player game? Not all MMOs are pvp, you know.
And while it is true that i don't get the whole game, it is a reason why i should not enjoy part of the game? Just view it as a shorter game with less content. If it is fun, i don't see a problem.
And why do i *have* to pay for the game? I did not, in this particular case. Are bad things going to happen to me? To the game? To other players (whom i don't even interact with)? .. i don't think so.
The misconception on most who argue against free to play is that B2P/P2P is not or less P2W or Pay to advance faster. Truth is though that it's possible to pay to win in almost every single multiplayer game out there, all you have to do is put on google "buy x for money"
This will remain as long as laws are as they are and the only losers are the players because producers too attempt to stop them from having a choice if they want to "win" in real life or in the game, while in same time allow and do not nothing for other 3rd party sites to prosper and thrive.
I know tons of MMO's over the last 5 years that failed to take $ from me, which could've if they didn't have pay wall restrictions. Time is also of the essence and the longer a MMORPG is out the less appealing/hyped it becomes and then also it competes with far newer products that coming with better tech or more content/features.
As long as paying to win exist I always advocate for freedom to the players to be in control, so at least they can choose if they want to win more in real life or in the game. The good part is today we have more options than ever and if there aren't as many quality products out there, at least I'm not spending $ like I used to.
hmm .. how is it possible to have an "advantage" by me or anyone else if I am playing warframe as a single player game? Not all MMOs are pvp, you know.
And while it is true that i don't get the whole game, it is a reason why i should not enjoy part of the game? Just view it as a shorter game with less content. If it is fun, i don't see a problem.
And why do i *have* to pay for the game? I did not, in this particular case. Are bad things going to happen to me? To the game? To other players (whom i don't even interact with)? .. i don't think so.
I am not judging you or how you play MMO's, everything I have written is from my perspective and what I enjoy or do not enjoy.
Would you have anything against a monetization model where you could play for free, with a spending cap of 15€ per month and if you spend that you are on equal terms with anyone else who spends 15€/month? Is there any downside to that monetization model compared to "free to play" with no spending cap from your perspective?
hmm .. how is it possible to have an "advantage" by me or anyone else if I am playing warframe as a single player game? Not all MMOs are pvp, you know.
And while it is true that i don't get the whole game, it is a reason why i should not enjoy part of the game? Just view it as a shorter game with less content. If it is fun, i don't see a problem.
And why do i *have* to pay for the game? I did not, in this particular case. Are bad things going to happen to me? To the game? To other players (whom i don't even interact with)? .. i don't think so.
I am not judging you or how you play MMO's, everything I have written is from my perspective and what I enjoy or do not enjoy.
Would you have anything against a monetization model where you could play for free, with a spending cap of 15€ per month and if you spend that you are on equal terms with anyone else who spends 15€/month? Is there any downside to that monetization model compared to "free to play" with no spending cap from your perspective?
Of course not.
But the model you just mentioned is no different than f2p with an option to sub ... so it is not new.
And btw, from my perspective, your model (f2p + option to sub) is really no different from f2p + cash shop. But again, i have no problem with that model because the sub part won't affect me at all.
But the model you just mentioned is no different than f2p with an option to sub ... so it is not new.
And btw, from my perspective, your model (f2p + option to sub) is really no different from f2p + cash shop. But again, i have no problem with that model because the sub part won't affect me at all.
To me it is very different to the f2p games I've looked at, it allows playing on equal terms for a fixed fee of 15€ /month instead of whoever spends the most gets the biggest advantage/most content. Developers would lose out on the money from big spenders but they would gain a lot of people who despise pay to win. I would like to see a game try the model but the game still has to be good for me to pay the 15€/month.
But the model you just mentioned is no different than f2p with an option to sub ... so it is not new.
And btw, from my perspective, your model (f2p + option to sub) is really no different from f2p + cash shop. But again, i have no problem with that model because the sub part won't affect me at all.
To me it is very different to the f2p games I've looked at, it allows playing on equal terms for a fixed fee of 15€ /month instead of whoever spends the most gets the biggest advantage/most content. Developers would lose out on the money from big spenders but they would gain a lot of people who despise pay to win. I would like to see a game try the model but the game still has to be good for me to pay the 15€/month.
Why would developers NOT want to offer both a sub and a cash shop. They get more users by offering both, than they would by just offering one. This applies to both F2P and P2P. There isnt really any downside (from their end) to offering both of these.
Why would developers NOT want to offer both a sub and a cash shop. They get more users by offering both, than they would by just offering one. This applies to both F2P and P2P. There isnt really any downside (from their end) to offering both of these.
If they have a cash shop selling advantages/content and no spending cap then they lose people who consider it pay to win.
Who besides people that want to pay to win and developers wanting to cash in on them loses out in a game with a spending cap?
Why would developers NOT want to offer both a sub and a cash shop. They get more users by offering both, than they would by just offering one. This applies to both F2P and P2P. There isnt really any downside (from their end) to offering both of these.
If they have a cash shop selling advantages/content and no spending cap then they lose people who consider it pay to win.
Who besides people that want to pay to win and developers wanting to cash in on them loses out in a game with a spending cap?
Yes, but it is a numbers game. You lose a small group, but gain a larger group. Publishers are in it for the money, so they should reasonably choose what makes them the most.
As for cashing in, well that happens as soon as they take their first dollar. I have yet to see any developer/publisher cap spending, regardless of model.
But the model you just mentioned is no different than f2p with an option to sub ... so it is not new.
And btw, from my perspective, your model (f2p + option to sub) is really no different from f2p + cash shop. But again, i have no problem with that model because the sub part won't affect me at all.
To me it is very different to the f2p games I've looked at, it allows playing on equal terms for a fixed fee of 15€ /month instead of whoever spends the most gets the biggest advantage/most content. Developers would lose out on the money from big spenders but they would gain a lot of people who despise pay to win. I would like to see a game try the model but the game still has to be good for me to pay the 15€/month.
Yes, i can see that it is different for YOU. It is not for me .. so again, i don't care either way.
And you have to consider what devs want to. They have no obligation to give you what you want. May be they want the whales and don't want to cap their spending. Who can blame the devs wanting to fleece the whales more?
A. Game is Free. Game is Good. Pay for it B. Game is Free. Game is Bad. Dont Pay for it C. Game is not Free. Game is Good. Pay for it. D. Game is not Free. Game is Bad. Pay for it.
The only scenario where you pay for a bad game, is if the game is not free. So, they should have said:
For me the money isn't an issue. I will pay for a bad game, but will not play a bad game for free.
This is an impressively succinct way of saying what I've been saying in this thread. Well put!
The trouble, though, is the assumption that no research goes in before buying any game. For me, I will neither play NOR pay for a "bad game." Where is this choice in the "succinct" argument?
The trouble, though, is the assumption that no research goes in before buying any game. For me, I will neither play NOR pay for a "bad game." Where is this choice in the "succinct" argument?
actually you don't need research if you buy from steam. They have a money back guarantee.
The trouble, though, is the assumption that no research goes in before buying any game. For me, I will neither play NOR pay for a "bad game." Where is this choice in the "succinct" argument?
You're the only one assuming things. I freely admit that research exists in both types of games, but that blatantly superior research exists with F2P games (where you can play the majority of gameplay firsthand to know exactly how fun you find it.) Which means in the long run any given person will give more money to B2P games they disliked than F2P games they disliked.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I won't play a game for free because I will not be a freeloader. Those that "pay" while I take advantage of their lack of self control is, to me, not right. Likewise, I will not "pay" for a f2p game by purchasing content or perks or whatnot simply to subsidize those unwilling to spend money themselves.
A. Game is Free. Game is Good. Pay for it B. Game is Free. Game is Bad. Dont Pay for it C. Game is not Free. Game is Good. Pay for it. D. Game is not Free. Game is Bad. Pay for it.
The only scenario where you pay for a bad game, is if the game is not free. So, they should have said:
For me the money isn't an issue. I will pay for a bad game, but will not play a bad game for free.
This is an impressively succinct way of saying what I've been saying in this thread. Well put!
The trouble, though, is the assumption that no research goes in before buying any game. For me, I will neither play NOR pay for a "bad game." Where is this choice in the "succinct" argument?
People research products, buy them, and are unhappy with them every day. Why would games be any different?
There is a reason why marketing is effective in making sales...
You can charge me a sub if your game is brilliant and I like it. You could even get me to pay £50 ($75) a month if you make the best thing ever that I wouldn't want to miss - but if you deliver F2P and it's crap, I won't go near it because I value my time more than I value your sub fee.
You can charge me a sub if your game is brilliant and I like it. You could even get me to pay £50 ($75) a month if you make the best thing ever that I wouldn't want to miss - but if you deliver F2P and it's crap, I won't go near it because I value my time more than I value your sub fee.
That is a false dilemma.
What about a F2P game and it is brilliant? Or brilliant for the first 10 hours of free gameplay?
You can charge me a sub if your game is brilliant and I like it. You could even get me to pay £50 ($75) a month if you make the best thing ever that I wouldn't want to miss - but if you deliver F2P and it's crap, I won't go near it because I value my time more than I value your sub fee.
That is a false dilemma.
What about a F2P game and it is brilliant? Or brilliant for the first 10 hours of free gameplay?
If it's brilliant I'll play it, even F2P, but like I said, if it's not, then F2P won't get me interested. My point is that if someone produces an awesome game, they can decide how much to charge me.
You can charge me a sub if your game is brilliant and I like it. You could even get me to pay £50 ($75) a month if you make the best thing ever that I wouldn't want to miss - but if you deliver F2P and it's crap, I won't go near it because I value my time more than I value your sub fee.
That is a false dilemma.
What about a F2P game and it is brilliant? Or brilliant for the first 10 hours of free gameplay?
If it's brilliant I'll play it, even F2P, but like I said, if it's not, then F2P won't get me interested. My point is that if someone produces an awesome game, they can decide how much to charge me.
But it is THEM who decides? May be they decide your $15 is no where close to what whales can pay, and they are willing to give out the first 10 hours of that brilliant game for free (where afterwards we will all quit) to trap the whales?
They don't have to decide to charge you anything, do they?
Comments
The question is: will you play a SHORT good game for free? Tons of F2P games can be viewed as such .. GOOD till you hit the pay wall .. hence a good short game.
A. Game is Free. Game is Good. Pay for it
B. Game is Free. Game is Bad. Dont Pay for it
C. Game is not Free. Game is Good. Pay for it.
D. Game is not Free. Game is Bad. Pay for it.
The only scenario where you pay for a bad game, is if the game is not free. So, they should have said:
For me the money isn't an issue. I will pay for a bad game, but will not play a bad game for free.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Games are free for most players .. just not the whales, dolphins and minnows.
And why would that take away experiences from you? If you ignore the cash shop, just play the game until it is "finished" (by hitting a wall), it is no different than any other short games.
lol .. yeah.
It is silly to think that people will pay for, or stick with, games that they do not like.
As I said earlier, I am not opposed to people being able to try a game out for free to see if it's interesting, if a game is good then that seems like the best way to attract players. Someone has to pay for the game however and that's why I proposed a spending cap of 15€ each month, since the traditional "free to play" model of being able to pay for advantages without a spending cap doesn't appeal to me.
And while it is true that i don't get the whole game, it is a reason why i should not enjoy part of the game? Just view it as a shorter game with less content. If it is fun, i don't see a problem.
And why do i *have* to pay for the game? I did not, in this particular case. Are bad things going to happen to me? To the game? To other players (whom i don't even interact with)? .. i don't think so.
The misconception on most who argue against free to play is that B2P/P2P is not or less P2W or Pay to advance faster. Truth is though that it's possible to pay to win in almost every single multiplayer game out there, all you have to do is put on google "buy x for money"
This will remain as long as laws are as they are and the only losers are the players because producers too attempt to stop them from having a choice if they want to "win" in real life or in the game, while in same time allow and do not nothing for other 3rd party sites to prosper and thrive.
I know tons of MMO's over the last 5 years that failed to take $ from me, which could've if they didn't have pay wall restrictions. Time is also of the essence and the longer a MMORPG is out the less appealing/hyped it becomes and then also it competes with far newer products that coming with better tech or more content/features.
As long as paying to win exist I always advocate for freedom to the players to be in control, so at least they can choose if they want to win more in real life or in the game. The good part is today we have more options than ever and if there aren't as many quality products out there, at least I'm not spending $ like I used to.
Would you have anything against a monetization model where you could play for free, with a spending cap of 15€ per month and if you spend that you are on equal terms with anyone else who spends 15€/month?
Is there any downside to that monetization model compared to "free to play" with no spending cap from your perspective?
But the model you just mentioned is no different than f2p with an option to sub ... so it is not new.
And btw, from my perspective, your model (f2p + option to sub) is really no different from f2p + cash shop. But again, i have no problem with that model because the sub part won't affect me at all.
Developers would lose out on the money from big spenders but they would gain a lot of people who despise pay to win. I would like to see a game try the model but the game still has to be good for me to pay the 15€/month.
Who besides people that want to pay to win and developers wanting to cash in on them loses out in a game with a spending cap?
As for cashing in, well that happens as soon as they take their first dollar. I have yet to see any developer/publisher cap spending, regardless of model.
And you have to consider what devs want to. They have no obligation to give you what you want. May be they want the whales and don't want to cap their spending. Who can blame the devs wanting to fleece the whales more?
VG
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Let's party like it is 1863!
There is a reason why marketing is effective in making sales...
What about a F2P game and it is brilliant? Or brilliant for the first 10 hours of free gameplay?
If it's brilliant I'll play it, even F2P, but like I said, if it's not, then F2P won't get me interested. My point is that if someone produces an awesome game, they can decide how much to charge me.
They don't have to decide to charge you anything, do they?