How this website lists there games makes no difference. Please explain how this website gets to decide these things for us.
Please explain how that is different than some random posters trying to force their opinions on others?
At least the sys-op here went to the trouble of making a website, and let every else use it. How the website list here makes a difference ... well .. don't you think some newcomer may actually LOOK AT IT?
Please explain how you are being forced...LOL This website sells games, they'll call it whatever you want if it sells, but they don't decide what type of game they are.
Putting a few quests or some other MMO element into a FPS game does not make it an MMO. This is an old debate
And mobile & browser MMOs are not, factually, games?
I think you don't really know what a "fact" is.
You can market something as anything. You could market an emerald as a diamond. But if you're having a fact based argument/discussion on the properties or sales diamonds mentioning emeralds is pointless. That is to people who have the aspire to have intellectual discussion.
Seems like you just want to antagonize and derail the thought process and discussions.
Yes, you can. That is why The Division is a MMO. Overwatch is a MMO. And there are browser and mobile MMOs.
Aren't those facts, at least as the game list of this website has asserted?
Nah .. i just want to derail thought processes that are incomplete, narrow, and ignore much of reality. But hey, i got you to think about browser and mobile MMO, didn't I?
Again, it has nothing to do with the framework of the game and what people are discussing. This discussion is narrow because we are talking about something specific. Its not meant to be vague to the point of meaningless. Its where marketing and intellectual discussion diverge.
Since you're not being paid(I hope) to bring in marketing what's the point? I assume its to troll since you have admitted other times to forum PvP and understanding the concept of specific discussions.
B2P has certainly become more popular lately in the online gaming market.
That's why so many of the Korean imports come to NA/EU as B2P. They are F2P everywhere else in the world, but it seems that players in NA/EU like to pay upfront for the privilege of accessing the Cash Shop, lol
Because we are more stupid than Koreans apparently. We have the same games as the Koreans (Cash Shop included) but we pay to play the game on top of that as well. There is no B2P MMO on the market that doesn't have a Cash Shop in it.
The B2P model is the biggest con of the MMO industry.
And mobile & browser MMOs are not, factually, games?
I think you don't really know what a "fact" is.
You can market something as anything. You could market an emerald as a diamond. But if you're having a fact based argument/discussion on the properties or sales diamonds mentioning emeralds is pointless. That is to people who have the aspire to have intellectual discussion.
Seems like you just want to antagonize and derail the thought process and discussions.
Yes, you can. That is why The Division is a MMO. Overwatch is a MMO. And there are browser and mobile MMOs.
Aren't those facts, at least as the game list of this website has asserted?
Nah .. i just want to derail thought processes that are incomplete, narrow, and ignore much of reality. But hey, i got you to think about browser and mobile MMO, didn't I?
Overwatch is an MMO by who's definition? Yours or mine?
This website sells games, they'll call it whatever you want if it sells, but they don't decide what type of game they are.
what game does this site sell? I am not aware that this site own any game developer. And i don't know how you are confused about such a simple thing that selling game is different from running ads for games. And i thought you are here for literal and accurate interpretation of the English language?
And clearly they decided what to put into a game list. Just read it. It is done by them.
You can ignore it. But are you going to argue that every single visitor to the site ignore the list? That would be idiotic. So they did make a list, and it has some effect. Why is this so hard to grasp for some people is beyond me.
That was a great example of taking a piece of the article out of context and trying to use it to bolster your weak argument, kudos
This thread is "devs starting to move away from F2P".
The OP's examples aren't MMORPGs.
Your earlier statements didn't say MMORPGs ("Simple truth is, if F2P were working, we would be seeing more of them made like we did a few years back, but that's not happening because the F2P model blows, as I said it did years ago.")
In the context that things were actually being discussed, I'm right and you're wrong. The data shows F2P dominating the P2P market.
My context is the broader context of all games.
Your context appears to be shrinking down to just the very narrow set of data that supports your opinion (see also: Confirmation Bias)
So before tossing around people taking things out of context, let's keep in mind that my context is the broader set of facts surrounding the topic at hand, and you're the one trying to snipe a teeny-tiny context that you think supports your opinion (and it's important to mention you have no data actually supporting the idea it supports your opinion.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It is questionable if these games are MMOs, but good to see a move away from F2P in any area of gaming. The question though is do we now just have B2P plus cashshop? if B2P is just a revenue boost for a cash shop game not sure things have changed much.
If paying attention people would notice that devs have always been looking for new marketing angles,new ways to get their product noticed.Since so many now using f2p as their gimmick,it is no longer a gimmick since everyone is doing it. B2p is really all these games are worth because they do not offer enough MMO aspect to warrant a login screen.99% of these games are played solo,with pretty much the ONLY MMO reason is to do some instance that again is removed from other players,so WHY even bother with login screens?
So in reality we see single player games and devs trying to milk more money from a single player game than it is worth. DLC's are a newish gimmick,deliver LESS of a game,leave out ideas that are suppose to be in a released game and sell them after the fact to in essence get 2/3/4/5x the worth from a non finished single player game.
It won't end with these ideas,they will always be looking for a new angle to mislead consumers and get more money out of a game than it is worth.Even some of the best single player games are usually around 30-60 hours of game play,for many that is like one week worth of gaming.MMO's should NOT have definitive time lines like that,they should be ever evolving.Devs of mmo's should be delivering constant content "related" to the LORE of the game and not just cheesy cheap content that is easy to make.The login screen should be warranted by constant ever evolving game and not just some reason to run a cash shop or DLC's.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
It is questionable if these games are MMOs, but good to see a move away from F2P in any area of gaming. The question though is do we now just have B2P plus cashshop? if B2P is just a revenue boost for a cash shop game not sure things have changed much.
Now that F2P games have become B2P games (same monetization, just with added entry fee), things have arguably gotten WORSE, lol
Because we are more stupid than Koreans apparently. We have the same games as the Koreans (Cash Shop included) but we pay to play the game on top of that as well. There is no B2P MMO on the market that doesn't have a Cash Shop in it.
The B2P model is the biggest con of the MMO industry.
So B2P is a rip off because (some) have cash shops. Hmm. In that case F2P is also a rip off because they have cash shops. Hmm. And sub based games are rip offs because (some) have cash shops. Hmm.
I suggest you either don't play any games or - maybe - there is a little more to it.
That a key factor is "what you have to pay in order to play". And it varies.
As far as any one game goes if you have to pay more in one region (after allowing for costs) than another reason then sure it may well be that the term rip-off (or over priced) is applicable. To apply any one game to a business model as a whole though - nah.
It is questionable if these games are MMOs, but good to see a move away from F2P in any area of gaming. The question though is do we now just have B2P plus cashshop? if B2P is just a revenue boost for a cash shop game not sure things have changed much.
Now that F2P games have become B2P games (same monetization, just with added entry fee), things have arguably gotten WORSE, lol
Again sweeping generalizations don't work. Individual publishers absolutely "want" to move away from f2p sure but they are competing with each other. And if one adopts a more expensive model than others they may find themselves isolated and abandoned (game specific of course).
Well nothing wrong with b2p..... oh wait there is. Current b2p is usually a f2p model that you pay once for. B2p and access the cash shop that holds mostly the same bonus shit f2p games have.
Its not B2p really, its buy to play a game you need to use the cash shop for to get access to the entire game.
I am fine with games that have purely cosmetic items, but those are like 1/1000. Most have xp pots, mounts/pets that add buffs, buffs. Really its wrong imo to charge for a game and then restrict content in anyway, other than maybe expansions.
I dunno...Maybe its just me but I like trying things for free....If I paid $50 for every game Ive played I'd have been broke years ago.
Almost all P2P games had a free trial so that was usuallly only a problem if you felt you must play the game just after release but missed the beta. Even B2P games often have some kind of beta, GW2 even give you the entire base game and only charge you for the latest expansion.
As I see it is the important thing not really how you pay but if paying more money mess up the gameplay or not. In most F2P games it sadly does. Having whales pay thousands of dollars to gain severe advantages might be an extreme but it happens in more than a few games and that makes the game boring to me at least.
I don't really know what kind of model will be the most common 5 or 10 years from now, P2P was the standard model until 2010 or so, now it is freemium (F2P with "optional" sub") but it seems like B2P is getting some popularity. Anything can happen including some new kind of model we havn't seen before. Hopefully will whatever that becomes popular in the future not be pay2win.
So B2P is a rip off because (some) have cash shops. Hmm. In that case F2P is also a rip off because they have cash shops. Hmm. And sub based games are rip offs because (some) have cash shops. Hmm.
I suggest you either don't play any games or - maybe - there is a little more to it.
Do you even read what you are replying to? I am answering to a specific comment and you took my post completely out of context because you either didn't bother to read the quote or simply you have reading problem. This is the comment I was replying to:
B2P has certainly become more popular lately in the online gaming market.
That's why so many of the Korean imports come to NA/EU as B2P. They are F2P everywhere else in the world, but it seems that players in NA/EU like to pay upfront for the privilege of accessing the Cash Shop, lol
He is referring to games like BDO which in Korea are pure F2P but here in the West become B2P though they don't lose the Cash Shop. I sarcastically quipped that we are more stupid (and proud) than Koreans since we seem totally fine to pay a one off fee on top of the Cash Shop while in Korea the same identical game is Free to Play. I wasn't talking about the state of the whole industry, it was very specific. So when I say that B2P is the biggest con in the industry I am stating what should be the obvious but very few people acknowledge which is that most Korean MMOs when brought to the West are slapped with the B2P label (and added cost) to make it more appealing to us, because in the West F2P games have a bad reputation.
So I suggest that before you start rolling your face on the keyboard you learn how to read what you are replying to. It avoids lots of pointless controversy.
In related news, devs are moving away from mmorpg's all together.
It is not that "related"
There are lots of f2p MMOs, mobile, shooters .... not just mmorpgs.
But yes, western devs are not interested in AAA classical mmorpg anymore. Best example is Blizz, who scrapped a mmorpg, titan, to make OW. With great success, i may add.
That was a great example of taking a piece of the article out of context and trying to use it to bolster your weak argument, kudos
This thread is "devs starting to move away from F2P".
The OP's examples aren't MMORPGs.
Your earlier statements didn't say MMORPGs ("Simple truth is, if F2P were working, we would be seeing more of them made like we did a few years back, but that's not happening because the F2P model blows, as I said it did years ago.")
In the context that things were actually being discussed, I'm right and you're wrong. The data shows F2P dominating the P2P market.
My context is the broader context of all games.
Your context appears to be shrinking down to just the very narrow set of data that supports your opinion (see also: Confirmation Bias)
So before tossing around people taking things out of context, let's keep in mind that my context is the broader set of facts surrounding the topic at hand, and you're the one trying to snipe a teeny-tiny context that you think supports your opinion (and it's important to mention you have no data actually supporting the idea it supports your opinion.)
To talk about confirmation bias, we are running headlong into the irony of you doing the very thing you are projecting upon them.
Notably, ignoring any evidence that expands on the central premise of your claim to in turn invalidate it with the use of complete information. (It's interesting you say "have no data", kinda implies you actively refuse to acknowledge any of the multiple linked and very tangible information and articles provided.)
Your claim being that F2P is a more dominant and profitable market.
The example being the global revenue for F2P.
The reality being that the global revenue is mostly absorbed by a few games while the vast bulk of F2P earns little to nothing.
In the context of complete information, F2P is a model that has been chased down because a few games proved they could be successful with it. It has not worked out any better in the long-term for many developers, especially if we extend the logic to account for an ever growing population of tech users meaning that the gaming userbase continues to grow, extending the margin of error when trying to estimate the impact of a particular business model.
So as freedom of speech is certainly your right, just realize that you are a prime example of the term you are attempting to wield against another right now.
The "right" of the matter is what you get if you look for the whole of the data and what it illustrates for the whole business. And that is, as explained prior, the reality that the majority of F2P lives as mobile/apps that make very little money, while there is a heavy curve in profit to the top earners in the F2P market. This goes along with the already sheer volume of F2P titles (since we're including mobile/apps) that exist many times more than there are in B2P equivalents already.
When you start looking at all the information and organize the details, you can much more clearly see that the bulk of the F2P market is under-performing. It's making more money than B2P at present, but only because the top earners garner a vast sum of profit and the low end is simply massive in volume even with minimal earnings.
What we have, is a market flooded with F2P as consequence that is not earning nearly as much of the market percentage as they should be for the amount of titles they have churned out. If F2P was performing well it'd already have 75% of the market or greater, but a group much larger that three times the size of B2P earning less than three times the profit is the reality.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
It is questionable if these games are MMOs, but good to see a move away from F2P in any area of gaming. The question though is do we now just have B2P plus cashshop? if B2P is just a revenue boost for a cash shop game not sure things have changed much.
Now that F2P games have become B2P games (same monetization, just with added entry fee), things have arguably gotten WORSE, lol
Again sweeping generalizations don't work. Individual publishers absolutely "want" to move away from f2p sure but they are competing with each other. And if one adopts a more expensive model than others they may find themselves isolated and abandoned (game specific of course).
This element is referred to as the "race to the bottom".
It's a general market trend that happens at times, but has become a staple in the gaming sphere because the nature of the F2P business model. As such, it's been causingdevelopersa lotofproblems (mostly talking about mobile/app in those articles, but as outlines in my prior post that where the bulk of F2P exists and since some are persistent on accounting for "all games" then it's fair to point out the trends here and also address that these trends bleed over into even the F2P PC market).
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
If paying attention people would notice that devs have always been looking for new marketing angles,new ways to get their product noticed.Since so many now using f2p as their gimmick,it is no longer a gimmick since everyone is doing it. B2p is really all these games are worth because they do not offer enough MMO aspect to warrant a login screen.99% of these games are played solo,with pretty much the ONLY MMO reason is to do some instance that again is removed from other players,so WHY even bother with login screens?
So in reality we see single player games and devs trying to milk more money from a single player game than it is worth. DLC's are a newish gimmick,deliver LESS of a game,leave out ideas that are suppose to be in a released game and sell them after the fact to in essence get 2/3/4/5x the worth from a non finished single player game.
It won't end with these ideas,they will always be looking for a new angle to mislead consumers and get more money out of a game than it is worth.Even some of the best single player games are usually around 30-60 hours of game play,for many that is like one week worth of gaming.MMO's should NOT have definitive time lines like that,they should be ever evolving.Devs of mmo's should be delivering constant content "related" to the LORE of the game and not just cheesy cheap content that is easy to make.The login screen should be warranted by constant ever evolving game and not just some reason to run a cash shop or DLC's.
It's nonsense to call the business model a "gimmick". Nobody cares if it's new or fresh: (a) players care that they get to play a game free and if they discover it isn't fun they don't have to pay anything ever, and (b) developers care that they get more money and a much larger playerbase. That's it. It's simply a fundamentally stronger model for everyone.
It's nonsense to say B2P is "all these games are worth." You're implying these games aren't even worth paying nothing (F2P), instead they're only worth paying something (B2P). That's nonsense. You also seem to think these games don't or can't offer additional ongoing content to warrant the F2P model, which is nonsense because Atlas Reactor already releases new content that way and both the other games could too; that content isn't free to produce, and players directly benefit from its implementation in the game, so charging for it is logical and justified.
It's nonsense to say "99% of these games are played solo." Neither the 3 games mentioned in the OP's article nor any other games being discussed here are singleplayer games.
It's nonsense to say these games "do not offer enough MMO aspect to warrant a login screen" because that implies 'providing MMO aspects' is the function of a login screen. It's not. The function of a login screen is to act as the gatekeeper for who can play the game, ensuring these games can't be pirated as easily. (Keeping in mind a metal detector in a store won't prevent all theft, but it'll prevent quite a lot of it.)
It's nonsense to mention singleplayer games in a thread where none of the games are singleplayer games.
Maybe try again with less nonsense? Try posting about real things that actually happen in real life, and in this thread.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I think it depends. Most of games are still F2P. It seems some b2p games are pretty awesome, but if the devs don't pay enough attention to the further development, design and so on. ppl would get tired of them pretty soon.
As we should all know, if they could get away with getting us to pay for the KS, pre-order, for the box, monthly fee, casino gameplay, cash shop pay to win, and a season pass for the same game they would.
How many times have I posted on here, while we type someone in a MMO company is thinking of ways to squeeze more out of us. Looks like "B2P" has been added to the list of cash shop shenanigans for games other than MMOs.
It's nonsense to call the business model a "gimmick". Nobody cares if it's new or fresh: (a) players care that they get to play a game free and if they discover it isn't fun they don't have to pay anything ever, and (b) developers care that they get more money and a much larger playerbase. That's it. It's simply a fundamentally stronger model for everyone.
Speak for yourself please. "They get to play a game free" is a proven lie.
Speak for yourself please. "Proven lie" is a statement of fact, but the factual reality is that only a small percentage of people ever pay ANY money in a F2P game. That IS fact. You can find plenty of evidence of it online from plenty of different game developers. So, yes, people CAN play a F2P game for free in many, many, many, many instances (yup! that many manys).
Comments
This website sells games, they'll call it whatever you want if it sells, but they don't decide what type of game they are.
Putting a few quests or some other MMO element into a FPS game does not make it an MMO.
This is an old debate
Since you're not being paid(I hope) to bring in marketing what's the point? I assume its to troll since you have admitted other times to forum PvP and understanding the concept of specific discussions.
We have the same games as the Koreans (Cash Shop included) but we pay to play the game on top of that as well.
There is no B2P MMO on the market that doesn't have a Cash Shop in it.
The B2P model is the biggest con of the MMO industry.
And clearly they decided what to put into a game list. Just read it. It is done by them.
You can ignore it. But are you going to argue that every single visitor to the site ignore the list? That would be idiotic. So they did make a list, and it has some effect. Why is this so hard to grasp for some people is beyond me.
- This thread is "devs starting to move away from F2P".
- The OP's examples aren't MMORPGs.
- Your earlier statements didn't say MMORPGs ("Simple truth is, if F2P were working, we would be seeing more of them made like we did a few years back, but that's not happening because the F2P model blows, as I said it did years ago.")
In the context that things were actually being discussed, I'm right and you're wrong. The data shows F2P dominating the P2P market.My context is the broader context of all games.
Your context appears to be shrinking down to just the very narrow set of data that supports your opinion (see also: Confirmation Bias)
So before tossing around people taking things out of context, let's keep in mind that my context is the broader set of facts surrounding the topic at hand, and you're the one trying to snipe a teeny-tiny context that you think supports your opinion (and it's important to mention you have no data actually supporting the idea it supports your opinion.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
B2p is really all these games are worth because they do not offer enough MMO aspect to warrant a login screen.99% of these games are played solo,with pretty much the ONLY MMO reason is to do some instance that again is removed from other players,so WHY even bother with login screens?
So in reality we see single player games and devs trying to milk more money from a single player game than it is worth.
DLC's are a newish gimmick,deliver LESS of a game,leave out ideas that are suppose to be in a released game and sell them after the fact to in essence get 2/3/4/5x the worth from a non finished single player game.
It won't end with these ideas,they will always be looking for a new angle to mislead consumers and get more money out of a game than it is worth.Even some of the best single player games are usually around 30-60 hours of game play,for many that is like one week worth of gaming.MMO's should NOT have definitive time lines like that,they should be ever evolving.Devs of mmo's should be delivering constant content "related" to the LORE of the game and not just cheesy cheap content that is easy to make.The login screen should be warranted by constant ever evolving game and not just some reason to run a cash shop or DLC's.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
In that case F2P is also a rip off because they have cash shops. Hmm.
And sub based games are rip offs because (some) have cash shops. Hmm.
I suggest you either don't play any games or - maybe - there is a little more to it.
That a key factor is "what you have to pay in order to play". And it varies.
As far as any one game goes if you have to pay more in one region (after allowing for costs) than another reason then sure it may well be that the term rip-off (or over priced) is applicable. To apply any one game to a business model as a whole though - nah.
Its not B2p really, its buy to play a game you need to use the cash shop for to get access to the entire game.
I am fine with games that have purely cosmetic items, but those are like 1/1000. Most have xp pots, mounts/pets that add buffs, buffs. Really its wrong imo to charge for a game and then restrict content in anyway, other than maybe expansions.
As I see it is the important thing not really how you pay but if paying more money mess up the gameplay or not. In most F2P games it sadly does. Having whales pay thousands of dollars to gain severe advantages might be an extreme but it happens in more than a few games and that makes the game boring to me at least.
I don't really know what kind of model will be the most common 5 or 10 years from now, P2P was the standard model until 2010 or so, now it is freemium (F2P with "optional" sub") but it seems like B2P is getting some popularity. Anything can happen including some new kind of model we havn't seen before. Hopefully will whatever that becomes popular in the future not be pay2win.
I am answering to a specific comment and you took my post completely out of context because you either didn't bother to read the quote or simply you have reading problem.
This is the comment I was replying to:
He is referring to games like BDO which in Korea are pure F2P but here in the West become B2P though they don't lose the Cash Shop.
I sarcastically quipped that we are more stupid (and proud) than Koreans since we seem totally fine to pay a one off fee on top of the Cash Shop while in Korea the same identical game is Free to Play.
I wasn't talking about the state of the whole industry, it was very specific.
So when I say that B2P is the biggest con in the industry I am stating what should be the obvious but very few people acknowledge which is that most Korean MMOs when brought to the West are slapped with the B2P label (and added cost) to make it more appealing to us, because in the West F2P games have a bad reputation.
So I suggest that before you start rolling your face on the keyboard you learn how to read what you are replying to.
It avoids lots of pointless controversy.
There are lots of f2p MMOs, mobile, shooters .... not just mmorpgs.
But yes, western devs are not interested in AAA classical mmorpg anymore. Best example is Blizz, who scrapped a mmorpg, titan, to make OW. With great success, i may add.
Notably, ignoring any evidence that expands on the central premise of your claim to in turn invalidate it with the use of complete information. (It's interesting you say "have no data", kinda implies you actively refuse to acknowledge any of the multiple linked and very tangible information and articles provided.)
- Your claim being that F2P is a more dominant and profitable market.
- The example being the global revenue for F2P.
- The reality being that the global revenue is mostly absorbed by a few games while the vast bulk of F2P earns little to nothing.
In the context of complete information, F2P is a model that has been chased down because a few games proved they could be successful with it. It has not worked out any better in the long-term for many developers, especially if we extend the logic to account for an ever growing population of tech users meaning that the gaming userbase continues to grow, extending the margin of error when trying to estimate the impact of a particular business model.So as freedom of speech is certainly your right, just realize that you are a prime example of the term you are attempting to wield against another right now.
The "right" of the matter is what you get if you look for the whole of the data and what it illustrates for the whole business. And that is, as explained prior, the reality that the majority of F2P lives as mobile/apps that make very little money, while there is a heavy curve in profit to the top earners in the F2P market. This goes along with the already sheer volume of F2P titles (since we're including mobile/apps) that exist many times more than there are in B2P equivalents already.
When you start looking at all the information and organize the details, you can much more clearly see that the bulk of the F2P market is under-performing. It's making more money than B2P at present, but only because the top earners garner a vast sum of profit and the low end is simply massive in volume even with minimal earnings.
What we have, is a market flooded with F2P as consequence that is not earning nearly as much of the market percentage as they should be for the amount of titles they have churned out. If F2P was performing well it'd already have 75% of the market or greater, but a group much larger that three times the size of B2P earning less than three times the profit is the reality.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
It's a general market trend that happens at times, but has become a staple in the gaming sphere because the nature of the F2P business model. As such, it's been causing developers a lot of problems (mostly talking about mobile/app in those articles, but as outlines in my prior post that where the bulk of F2P exists and since some are persistent on accounting for "all games" then it's fair to point out the trends here and also address that these trends bleed over into even the F2P PC market).
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
It's nonsense to say B2P is "all these games are worth." You're implying these games aren't even worth paying nothing (F2P), instead they're only worth paying something (B2P). That's nonsense. You also seem to think these games don't or can't offer additional ongoing content to warrant the F2P model, which is nonsense because Atlas Reactor already releases new content that way and both the other games could too; that content isn't free to produce, and players directly benefit from its implementation in the game, so charging for it is logical and justified.
It's nonsense to say "99% of these games are played solo." Neither the 3 games mentioned in the OP's article nor any other games being discussed here are singleplayer games.
It's nonsense to say these games "do not offer enough MMO aspect to warrant a login screen" because that implies 'providing MMO aspects' is the function of a login screen. It's not. The function of a login screen is to act as the gatekeeper for who can play the game, ensuring these games can't be pirated as easily. (Keeping in mind a metal detector in a store won't prevent all theft, but it'll prevent quite a lot of it.)
It's nonsense to mention singleplayer games in a thread where none of the games are singleplayer games.
Maybe try again with less nonsense? Try posting about real things that actually happen in real life, and in this thread.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
As we should all know, if they could get away with getting us to pay for the KS, pre-order, for the box, monthly fee, casino gameplay, cash shop pay to win, and a season pass for the same game they would.
How many times have I posted on here, while we type someone in a MMO company is thinking of ways to squeeze more out of us. Looks like "B2P" has been added to the list of cash shop shenanigans for games other than MMOs.
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
----------------