Those non-paying F2P players don't play the game, they play a inferior version of it or labor to make the game more attractive to spenders. I call the mentioned statement a proven lie, because players thinking they will get to play the game for free and noticing it's not free after a while is a cheap sales tactic that relies on the sunk cost fallacy. Some think that "I have spent all this time on this game thinking it's completely free and now I see it isn't, so the time I spent will go to waste if I don't start paying to make it worthwhile." You won't find free-to-watch movies letting you watch the first half for free, and then asking you to pay for the other or letting you "watch" the movie but charging you for "sound". Only gamers are stupid enough to get scammed again and again and they are also the only people noone bothers to protect through laws.
Sure there are systems in place intended to entice you to spend money. I'm pretty sure that's the whole reason that they created the game in the first place, was to make money. I'll even go as far as to say that recent reports show that the number of people paying SOMETHING in a F2P game has increased over the years. However, the percentage is still extremely low.
What you're displaying is an anecdotal fallacy. You're stating your own experience with F2P games and casting your opinion of them as fact based on your own subjective experience. Let me be quite clear, take a look at @Axehilt numbers. See, that's an actual, factual article with real numbers from real industry sources based on a collection of data.
You are not a unique and beautiful snowflake. You don't have some supreme intellect which allows you to see past these tactics that publishers put out there. People who aren't paying money are quite aware of what they are missing out on, but the time sink fallacy doesn't apply here since they haven't actually spent any money. Once someone has spent money, yes, that money is viewed as being wasted if you don't play. However, playing hours of something for free is viewed as value. Therefore, someone playing WoW might feel as though they must keep paying a subscription, but that's because they've already invested hundreds or thousands of dollars, plus time. Someone playing for free can easily justify leaving a game because they have zero financial investment. Hence, this is why F2P games show such a low conversion rate, people won't spend money until they absolutely must (in their eyes).
... take a look at @Axehilt numbers. See, that's an actual, factual article with real numbers from real industry sources based on a collection of data.
Just wanted to point out that those numbers run counter to the claim Axe was trying to make of the primary success of F2P as a business model, which if you look up at the links above that give numbers on how 1 in 10,000 F2P products are going to turn a profit at all while only the top ~100 F2P titles even earn anything, you're talking about a market inundated by volume chasing the success of the few.
Not saying Eadan is right, but more so saying, don't support incomplete data either.
"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
... take a look at @Axehilt numbers. See, that's an actual, factual article with real numbers from real industry sources based on a collection of data.
Just wanted to point out that those numbers run counter to the claim Axe was trying to make of the primary success of F2P as a business model, which if you look up at the links above that give numbers on how 1 in 10,000 F2P products are going to turn a profit at all while only the top ~100 F2P titles even earn anything, you're talking about a market inundated by volume chasing the success of the few.
Not saying Eadan is right, but more so saying, don't support incomplete data either.
I will concede on that, yes. However, I think it further dilutes the notion that these companies are scamming gamers at large. I was simply making the point that people aren't as stupid as @Eadan would have you believe.
... take a look at @Axehilt numbers. See, that's an actual, factual article with real numbers from real industry sources based on a collection of data.
Just wanted to point out that those numbers run counter to the claim Axe was trying to make of the primary success of F2P as a business model, which if you look up at the links above that give numbers on how 1 in 10,000 F2P products are going to turn a profit at all while only the top ~100 F2P titles even earn anything, you're talking about a market inundated by volume chasing the success of the few.
Not saying Eadan is right, but more so saying, don't support incomplete data either.
I will concede on that, yes. However, I think it further dilutes the notion that these companies are scamming gamers at large. I was simply making the point that people aren't as stupid as @Eadan would have you believe.
~ish
The ones that are runaway successful are so for areason, and the strategies that work for the big successes tend to either be underhanded or unrepeatable.
Eadan just went conspiracy theorist on the idea instead of giving a reasonable level of critical analysis.
"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
Those non-paying F2P players don't play the game, they play a inferior version of it or labor to make the game more attractive to spenders. I call the mentioned statement a proven lie, because players thinking they will get to play the game for free and noticing it's not free after a while is a cheap sales tactic that relies on the sunk cost fallacy. Some think that "I have spent all this time on this game thinking it's completely free and now I see it isn't, so the time I spent will go to waste if I don't start paying to make it worthwhile." You won't find free-to-watch movies letting you watch the first half for free, and then asking you to pay for the other or letting you "watch" the movie but charging you for "sound". Only gamers are stupid enough to get scammed again and again and they are also the only people noone bothers to protect through laws.
The mentioned statement was "they get to play a game free". A free TF2 player plays TF2. TF2 is the game. The free player plays the game. They get to play a game free.
You've chose to call this obviously true statement a "proven lie". You cannot change the truth with an internet post. Calling it a proven lie, and then making this second post where you try (and fail) to show that it's a lie doesn't change the fact that free TF2 players do get to play the game for free. Free players in nearly every F2P game out there get to play the game for free, because the games called F2P let you play most of the game for free by definition (if you don't get most of the game for free, we call that "shareware", "trial", or "demo". While the model is similar, it's distinguished in terms of the amount of free gameplay you get...but worth noting is that even in those more limited versions you're still playing a game for free.)
Your movie analogy is therefore flawed. A free TF2 player doesn't 'watch half the movie free', they get the entire movie. Paying players get the deleted scenes (things which improve the overall experience, but which aren't a critical part of the base product.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I will concede on that, yes. However, I think it further dilutes the notion that these companies are scamming gamers at large. I was simply making the point that people aren't as stupid as @Eadan would have you believe.
Keep in mind, Deivos' consistent lack of a valid point is why you're better off simply blocking him. Here's the logic behind why this latest invalid point of his isn't valid.
The proportion of profitable F2P games in isolation tells us nothing. It's like pointing to some crappy coffee producer that doesn't turn a profit, and claiming you can't make a profit selling coffee.
My claim, which I stand by, is that any given game will make more as F2P than B2P.
To actually compare this, we'd need data on what proportion of B2P games are profitable. Presumably he didn't present that data along with his claims that it debunked my claim.
And to actually compare it fairly, you'd need data on games at specific production values. It's a safe assumption that fewer low-production-cost games are profitable (compared with high-production-cost games.) It's a nearly-as-safe assumption that a greater proportion of F2P games are low-production-cost compared with low-production-cost B2P titles. So you'd want to actually compare the high-production-cost F2P games with high-production-cost B2P games. He definitely didn't present that data along with his claims.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You agree the full game isn't f2p by this statement, while the f2p label makes it sound like it is. And I don't care what dishonest new definitions for milennia-old words these scamming companies try to push.
See, this is why you should value rational behavior.
Instead of rationally reading "free to play" and assuming it means free to play (which it does), you irrationally assumed it meant "every part of this game is free" (which obviously isn't true.)
Don't you understand how this is a direct case where behaving rationally would've directly benefitted you? Instead of being frustrated when your false expectations failed to be met, you would've known immediately that when a game claims to be free to play, it's just free to play.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
because the games called F2P let you play most of the game for
free by definition
You agree the full game isn't f2p by this statement, while the f2p label makes it sound like it is. And I don't care what dishonest new definitions for milennia-old words these scamming companies try to push.
No it's not. If you actually show me one game which is labeled F2P and isn't free to play, then I'll say you win. Do you walk around taking interpreting everything you see literally? There is absolutely nothing that says F2P indicates that the entire game is free to play. In fact, if you google it, the definition is quite clear.
because the games called F2P let you play most of the game for
free by definition
You agree the full game isn't f2p by this statement, while the f2p label makes it sound like it is. And I don't care what dishonest new definitions for milennia-old words these scamming companies try to push.
so? Your box price does not include DLC and expansion either. Why the obsession of a "full game"?
Is any player in the world under the illusion that f2p means free-to-play-the-whole-game? I doubt it. It is certainly true that some part of the game can be played for any f2p game .. and you can also simply leave and play another game after the free content is gone.
It's really hard to take a subjective marketing term like "F2P". Originally it referred to subscriptions and being able to play for free without a subscription. That's why I like to use terms like "mandatory sub" "optional sub" "cash shop" "box/entry fee". Does it have those things? That tells me more about what the game costs than "F2P" or "P2P" or even "B2P"
After that it all depends on how expensive it is to maintain playing the game and how fun the game is to play. All the other moralizing rhetoric means nothing to me.
First off I totally agree with your statement as usual.
The following statement is my opinion not gospel and I could be wrong so Nerd Police chill.
The F2P model if it is a model, does vary from game to game. F2P has no standardmodel that it follows. For instance Lotro a great game in my opinion. One of the few real masterpieces still around and playable. Their model is Free but you need to buy the expansions to enjoy the full game. Also VIP access is also needed to be able to benefit without restrictions. Sure you can earn Turbine points but it would take you massive amounts of time to gain enough to unlock everything. So is it free? No (In my opinion)
Take your avg sub game and compare. First off I need to buy the game. That costs anywhere from 30$ to 60$, and maybe even more if you count expansion packs etc. Plus a monthly sub of 15$ a month which in some games vary. So if I take a game like Lotro just as an example and compare it to a sub game. I can say their about even in terms of costs. Even though in my opinion the game (Lotro) is lying to the consumer; I would say this type of model is decent. I'm not even talking about the Buy to play model so Nerd Police relax. Which could be the best way to go about all of this, but that's another story.
In the end is the F2P model so evil ? Answer yes yes and yes.Your average F2P run of the mill game unfortunately is more sinister than Lotro. They say they are Free to play, but in the end to be competitive with the other addicted poor souls who play with their wallet not their skills; many players end up spending much more money than they ever would with a sub or buy to play game. Or even games like the aforementioned Lotro. Some people could argue well it allows me to try the game first to see if I like it. OK that's nice but if you really like it good luck; it will cost a fortune to be competitive in most scenarios.Some F2P games are OK and do not cost that much if anything to play, but they are in the minority.
It's really hard to take a subjective marketing term like "F2P". Originally it referred to subscriptions and being able to play for free without a subscription. That's why I like to use terms like "mandatory sub" "optional sub" "cash shop" "box/entry fee". Does it have those things? That tells me more about what the game costs than "F2P" or "P2P" or even "B2P"
After that it all depends on how expensive it is to maintain playing the game and how fun the game is to play. All the other moralizing rhetoric means nothing to me.
Well the only subjective part is the distinction between F2P and Shareware, to be honest. That's a pretty small difference. I wouldn't disagree if someone wanted to claim that technically Shareware games are F2P, but when it comes to discussing the business model the term never actually gets used that way -- it's always used to reference games where the majority of gameplay is free. (Where you might say the game is free...to play.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
They say they are Free to play, but in the end to be competitive with the other addicted poor souls who play with their wallet not their skills; many players end up spending much more money than they ever would with a sub or buy to play game.
Only if you care to "be competitive with the other addicted poor souls". That wouldn't matter a bit in pve games, or solo content.
Sure, pvp focus game will have that issue, but if you want fair pvp, you can simply play MOBAs, or OW.
Can the supporters of the misused f2p term care to tell me what else one can do with a game other than playing? f2p with regards to a game means free game, but f2p games aren't actually free.
Sure they are, you are able to download them and play them for free. Which are you looking at? I have 4 kids and they play a significant number of games for which they've never spent a dime on.
Keep in mind, Deivos' consistent lack of a valid point is why you're better off simply blocking him. Here's the logic behind why this latest invalid point of his isn't valid.
I made a very clear and valid argument. Denial does not make you right, that just makes you wrong and obstinate.
For example, lets break down your bullet points.
This one starts off incorrect because the proportion of profitable F2P games was not provided in isolation, it was stated alongside the full scale of the market as well as the projections given for the market as a whole so that we can see where the breakdown happens and the disparity is created in profit.
Your claim is anecdotal in it's nature and relies on the example case of only the few games that have succeeded, while you ignore any counter-example such as the continuing to fail Wildstar and other shuttered titles that have followed after F2P conversion due to no income.
I gave a couple links to B2P game listings for that already, so you are wrong here too.
Well first I'd love to point out that what you're saying here you were just a page or two ago damning another person for. I can directly quote you as saying "My context is the broader context of all games." in response to dividing out games according to small scale mobile apps, large scale MMOS, etc. What you are doing right now is going right against your previous stance to now claim that separating out the content (which I did do back on page 5) is what should have been done. Which as I just pointed out, I actually did already, and even gave the point "Categorizing the type of games helps to understand thew differences in production scale, budget, and standards that the games are being produced for while matching them to their respective business models.".
In short, I presented a lot of data and information with my arguments. For you to believe otherwise is nothing short of rejection of reality. But we already know you seek only to support your opinions and if something runs counter to that then you deny it.
Post edited by Deivos on
"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
Can the supporters of the misused f2p term care to tell me what else one can do with a game other than playing? f2p with regards to a game means free game, but f2p games aren't actually free.
Is English not your native tongue?
Why are you concerned about what you can do in games other than playing? The term is not "free to play and washes your car". The term is just "free to play".
A car is advertised as "drives well". You buy it. You drive it over 200,000 miles on roads. It drives well. You attempt to drive it offroad up a rocky incline. The tires pop, and it fails to drive well.
Are you able to understand that simple statements like "drives well" isn't promisingyou the ability to drive well everywhere under every circumstance? Can you also understand that simple statements like "free to play" don't promise you you'll be able to experience every form of play known to man, or even just every form of play that exists within that game?
This isn't rocket surgery.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Can the supporters of the misused f2p term care to tell me what else one can do with a game other than playing? f2p with regards to a game means free game, but f2p games aren't actually free.
Sure they are, you are able to download them and play them for free. Which are you looking at? I have 4 kids and they play a significant number of games for which they've never spent a dime on.
yeh, I just played Devilian for a little while, and I did not spend a nickle ... so if that is not "free to play", what is?
Can the supporters of the misused f2p term care to tell me what else one can do with a game other than playing? f2p with regards to a game means free game, but f2p games aren't actually free.
Sure they are, you are able to download them and play them for free. Which are you looking at? I have 4 kids and they play a significant number of games for which they've never spent a dime on.
yeh, I just played Devilian for a little while, and I did not spend a nickle ... so if that is not "free to play", what is?
An entire game that is actually free. The term should have been "free to try" or "Some of the game is free" but that wouldn't have been a wise marketing strategy.
It's funny reading through the thread though, you can really detect a subtle nervous defensiveness coming from the "F2P" crowd. This particular ride was never destined to last forever and I think everyone realizes this even if that awareness still lies in the subconscious.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
An entire game that is actually free. The term should have been "free to try" or "Some of the game is free" but that wouldn't have been a wise marketing strategy.
Where does "f2p" say "free to play the entire game"? It just say free-to-play and does not specify how much.
And i thought you are one of those who like to use accurate language. I guess I was wrong.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
An entire game that is actually free. The term should have been "free to try" or "Some of the game is free" but that wouldn't have been a wise marketing strategy.
It's funny reading through the thread though, you can really detect a subtle nervous defensiveness coming from the "F2P" crowd. This particular ride was never destined to last forever and I think everyone realizes this even if that awareness still lies in the subconscious.
There is already a term for completely free games and software: freeware. Someone wanting a completely free game can easily search for that. F2P means something different. You may or may not like F2P games (I certainly don't), but their definition is quite clear and widely accepted.
Just like P2P or B2P or freeware, it has advantages and disadvantages that you have to evaluate for yourself. There is no universal good or bad, just "what fits my preferences".
because the games called F2P let you play most of the game for
free by definition
You agree the full game isn't f2p by this statement, while the f2p label makes it sound like it is. And I don't care what dishonest new definitions for milennia-old words these scamming companies try to push.
No it's not. If you actually show me one game which is labeled F2P and isn't free to play, then I'll say you win. Do you walk around taking interpreting everything you see literally? There is absolutely nothing that says F2P indicates that the entire game is free to play. In fact, if you google it, the definition is quite clear.
EA's Dungeon Keeper Online?
What I don't know however is what impact the UK's Advertising Standard's Industry ruling - which was basically read across to the rest of the EU - has had on the definition of the term "f2p".
For those unfamiliar EA released a "f2p" version of the (classic) Dungeon Keeper games. The ASA subsequently ruled that it wasn't f2p and that EA had to stop using the term. Even though it was theoretically possible to play the entire game for free! Their decision was made because it was deemed impossible to "play" unless people spent money e.g.imp(s) with no cash shop boost took a week for example to dig a room.
So nothing to do with how much of a game a player had access to - which I just see as extra content behind paywalls - same as expansions, dlc etc. Everything to do with "how much timesink was acceptable".
There was also the UK Trading Standards report and guidelines on "f2p, children and gambling" as well. They were the lead for the EU on this issue as well so I assume their guidelines will have been adopted EU wide.
An entire game that is actually free. The term should have been "free to try" or "Some of the game is free" but that wouldn't have been a wise marketing strategy.
Where does "f2p" say "free to play the entire game"? It just say free-to-play and does not specify how much.
And i thought you are one of those who like to use accurate language. I guess I was wrong.
Its the way marketing works.
Marketing material comes out and says "Game X is free to play".
By saying the game's name, they are implying the whole of the game is free to play. Thats how the English language works. Of course, the vast majority of us know the marketing department is lying and that "free to play" actually means "free to try" in 80% of cases and "free to play parts of it" in the other 20%.
There probably are some games that are 100% free-to-play right from the get go. Most mobile games that I've played are actually 100% free-to-play, there are usually just time restrictions in place to encourage you to spend money. MMOs seem to be different - they are often a long way from free-to-play and force you to spend money in order to play the whole of the game.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr80 Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr5X Shaman
An entire game that is actually free. The term should have been "free to try" or "Some of the game is free" but that wouldn't have been a wise marketing strategy.
Where does "f2p" say "free to play the entire game"? It just say free-to-play and does not specify how much.
And i thought you are one of those who like to use accurate language. I guess I was wrong.
Its the way marketing works.
Marketing material comes out and says "Game X is free to play".
By saying the game's name, they are implying the whole of the game is free to play. Thats how the English language works. Of course, the vast majority of us know the marketing department is lying and that "free to play" actually means "free to try" in 80% of cases and "free to play parts of it" in the other 20%.
There probably are some games that are 100% free-to-play right from the get go. Most mobile games that I've played are actually 100% free-to-play, there are usually just time restrictions in place to encourage you to spend money. MMOs seem to be different - they are often a long way from free-to-play and force you to spend money in order to play the whole of the game.
F2P marketing and monetization often use terms and phrases that would make even Bill Clinton blush.
In a genre where many terms and definitions are vague and slippery to start with, these guys have a field day. Combine that with the fact that people's reactions and attitudes to games are more emotional than logical (just try defining "fun"), and you have incredibly fertile ground for "creative marketing"...
Comments
It's nonsense to claim that playing the game free is a "proven lie". (See article above.)
Why do you believe there's a benefit to calling the truth a "proven lie"?
"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
Sure there are systems in place intended to entice you to spend money. I'm pretty sure that's the whole reason that they created the game in the first place, was to make money. I'll even go as far as to say that recent reports show that the number of people paying SOMETHING in a F2P game has increased over the years. However, the percentage is still extremely low.
What you're displaying is an anecdotal fallacy. You're stating your own experience with F2P games and casting your opinion of them as fact based on your own subjective experience. Let me be quite clear, take a look at @Axehilt numbers. See, that's an actual, factual article with real numbers from real industry sources based on a collection of data.
You are not a unique and beautiful snowflake. You don't have some supreme intellect which allows you to see past these tactics that publishers put out there. People who aren't paying money are quite aware of what they are missing out on, but the time sink fallacy doesn't apply here since they haven't actually spent any money. Once someone has spent money, yes, that money is viewed as being wasted if you don't play. However, playing hours of something for free is viewed as value. Therefore, someone playing WoW might feel as though they must keep paying a subscription, but that's because they've already invested hundreds or thousands of dollars, plus time. Someone playing for free can easily justify leaving a game because they have zero financial investment. Hence, this is why F2P games show such a low conversion rate, people won't spend money until they absolutely must (in their eyes).
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
----------------
Not saying Eadan is right, but more so saying, don't support incomplete data either.
"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
I will concede on that, yes. However, I think it further dilutes the notion that these companies are scamming gamers at large. I was simply making the point that people aren't as stupid as @Eadan would have you believe.
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
----------------
The ones that are runaway successful are so for a reason, and the strategies that work for the big successes tend to either be underhanded or unrepeatable.
Eadan just went conspiracy theorist on the idea instead of giving a reasonable level of critical analysis.
"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
You've chose to call this obviously true statement a "proven lie". You cannot change the truth with an internet post. Calling it a proven lie, and then making this second post where you try (and fail) to show that it's a lie doesn't change the fact that free TF2 players do get to play the game for free. Free players in nearly every F2P game out there get to play the game for free, because the games called F2P let you play most of the game for free by definition (if you don't get most of the game for free, we call that "shareware", "trial", or "demo". While the model is similar, it's distinguished in terms of the amount of free gameplay you get...but worth noting is that even in those more limited versions you're still playing a game for free.)
Your movie analogy is therefore flawed. A free TF2 player doesn't 'watch half the movie free', they get the entire movie. Paying players get the deleted scenes (things which improve the overall experience, but which aren't a critical part of the base product.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Instead of rationally reading "free to play" and assuming it means free to play (which it does), you irrationally assumed it meant "every part of this game is free" (which obviously isn't true.)
Don't you understand how this is a direct case where behaving rationally would've directly benefitted you? Instead of being frustrated when your false expectations failed to be met, you would've known immediately that when a game claims to be free to play, it's just free to play.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
No it's not. If you actually show me one game which is labeled F2P and isn't free to play, then I'll say you win. Do you walk around taking interpreting everything you see literally? There is absolutely nothing that says F2P indicates that the entire game is free to play. In fact, if you google it, the definition is quite clear.
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? Your box price does not include DLC and expansion either. Why the obsession of a "full game"?
Is any player in the world under the illusion that f2p means free-to-play-the-whole-game? I doubt it. It is certainly true that some part of the game can be played for any f2p game .. and you can also simply leave and play another game after the free content is gone.
The following statement is my opinion not gospel and I could be wrong so Nerd Police chill.
The F2P model if it is a model, does vary from game to game. F2P has no standard model that it follows. For instance Lotro a great game in my opinion. One of the few real masterpieces still around and playable. Their model is Free but you need to buy the expansions to enjoy the full game. Also VIP access is also needed to be able to benefit without restrictions. Sure you can earn Turbine points but it would take you massive amounts of time to gain enough to unlock everything. So is it free? No (In my opinion)
Take your avg sub game and compare. First off I need to buy the game. That costs anywhere from 30$ to 60$, and maybe even more if you count expansion packs etc. Plus a monthly sub of 15$ a month which in some games vary. So if I take a game like Lotro just as an example and compare it to a sub game. I can say their about even in terms of costs. Even though in my opinion the game (Lotro) is lying to the consumer; I would say this type of model is decent. I'm not even talking about the Buy to play model so Nerd Police relax. Which could be the best way to go about all of this, but that's another story.
In the end is the F2P model so evil ? Answer yes yes and yes.Your average F2P run of the mill game unfortunately is more sinister than Lotro. They say they are Free to play, but in the end to be competitive with the other addicted poor souls who play with their wallet not their skills; many players end up spending much more money than they ever would with a sub or buy to play game. Or even games like the aforementioned Lotro. Some people could argue well it allows me to try the game first to see if I like it. OK that's nice but if you really like it good luck; it will cost a fortune to be competitive in most scenarios.Some F2P games are OK and do not cost that much if anything to play, but they are in the minority.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Sure, pvp focus game will have that issue, but if you want fair pvp, you can simply play MOBAs, or OW.
Sure they are, you are able to download them and play them for free. Which are you looking at? I have 4 kids and they play a significant number of games for which they've never spent a dime on.
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
----------------
I made a very clear and valid argument. Denial does not make you right, that just makes you wrong and obstinate.
For example, lets break down your bullet points.
- This one starts off incorrect because the proportion of profitable F2P games was not provided in isolation, it was stated alongside the full scale of the market as well as the projections given for the market as a whole so that we can see where the breakdown happens and the disparity is created in profit.
- Your claim is anecdotal in it's nature and relies on the example case of only the few games that have succeeded, while you ignore any counter-example such as the continuing to fail Wildstar and other shuttered titles that have followed after F2P conversion due to no income.
- I gave a couple links to B2P game listings for that already, so you are wrong here too.
- Well first I'd love to point out that what you're saying here you were just a page or two ago damning another person for. I can directly quote you as saying "My context is the broader context of all games." in response to dividing out games according to small scale mobile apps, large scale MMOS, etc. What you are doing right now is going right against your previous stance to now claim that separating out the content (which I did do back on page 5) is what should have been done. Which as I just pointed out, I actually did already, and even gave the point "Categorizing the type of games helps to understand thew differences in production scale, budget, and standards that the games are being produced for while matching them to their respective business models.".
In short, I presented a lot of data and information with my arguments. For you to believe otherwise is nothing short of rejection of reality. But we already know you seek only to support your opinions and if something runs counter to that then you deny it."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
Why are you concerned about what you can do in games other than playing? The term is not "free to play and washes your car". The term is just "free to play".
A car is advertised as "drives well". You buy it. You drive it over 200,000 miles on roads. It drives well. You attempt to drive it offroad up a rocky incline. The tires pop, and it fails to drive well.
Are you able to understand that simple statements like "drives well" isn't promising you the ability to drive well everywhere under every circumstance? Can you also understand that simple statements like "free to play" don't promise you you'll be able to experience every form of play known to man, or even just every form of play that exists within that game?
This isn't rocket surgery.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It's funny reading through the thread though, you can really detect a subtle nervous defensiveness coming from the "F2P" crowd. This particular ride was never destined to last forever and I think everyone realizes this even if that awareness still lies in the subconscious.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
And i thought you are one of those who like to use accurate language. I guess I was wrong.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Someone wanting a completely free game can easily search for that.
F2P means something different. You may or may not like F2P games (I certainly don't), but their definition is quite clear and widely accepted.
Just like P2P or B2P or freeware, it has advantages and disadvantages that you have to evaluate for yourself. There is no universal good or bad, just "what fits my preferences".
What I don't know however is what impact the UK's Advertising Standard's Industry ruling - which was basically read across to the rest of the EU - has had on the definition of the term "f2p".
For those unfamiliar EA released a "f2p" version of the (classic) Dungeon Keeper games. The ASA subsequently ruled that it wasn't f2p and that EA had to stop using the term. Even though it was theoretically possible to play the entire game for free! Their decision was made because it was deemed impossible to "play" unless people spent money e.g.imp(s) with no cash shop boost took a week for example to dig a room.
So nothing to do with how much of a game a player had access to - which I just see as extra content behind paywalls - same as expansions, dlc etc. Everything to do with "how much timesink was acceptable".
There was also the UK Trading Standards report and guidelines on "f2p, children and gambling" as well. They were the lead for the EU on this issue as well so I assume their guidelines will have been adopted EU wide.
Marketing material comes out and says "Game X is free to play".
By saying the game's name, they are implying the whole of the game is free to play. Thats how the English language works. Of course, the vast majority of us know the marketing department is lying and that "free to play" actually means "free to try" in 80% of cases and "free to play parts of it" in the other 20%.
There probably are some games that are 100% free-to-play right from the get go. Most mobile games that I've played are actually 100% free-to-play, there are usually just time restrictions in place to encourage you to spend money. MMOs seem to be different - they are often a long way from free-to-play and force you to spend money in order to play the whole of the game.
In a genre where many terms and definitions are vague and slippery to start with, these guys have a field day. Combine that with the fact that people's reactions and attitudes to games are more emotional than logical (just try defining "fun"), and you have incredibly fertile ground for "creative marketing"...