The problem is they insist on the f2p term because they can make the argument that "Everyone knows f2p doesn't mean free" when challenged. But when they think they will get away with it, they try to advertise f2p as free, as seen in this thread. I have no idea why saying "free" isn't acceptable but "free-to-play" is, when they literally mean the same thing, and they are both lies.
Perhaps you should google "There's no such thing as a free lunch." The essential premise is that nothing that someone says is free is actually free. I would contend that any software that is marketed as free isn't free under your definition. Adobe Acrobat Reader, Skype, Gmail. Anything that is developed by people who are actually paid to write those lines of code isn't free. You can get a basic version, but not full versions. For those which you do have full versions you need to compromise your privacy or give up some sort of information as payment in order to receive the software and, therefore, it isn't free since information is the currency of the future.
So, in actuality, free has been a lie for decades, probably centuries. If you haven't figured that out yet then you should probably start thinking about what you're sacrificing to get things for "free".
I'll add my pointless comment that sums up what I think of F2P. If a game is F2P, there's a 99.99% chance I won't even bother giving it a try. I have yet to have a positive experience in a F2P game.
That is all, continue on with your semantics over what exactly is "free" and blah blah blah.
The problem is they insist on the f2p term because they can make the argument that "Everyone knows f2p doesn't mean free" when challenged. But when they think they will get away with it, they try to advertise f2p as free, as seen in this thread. I have no idea why saying "free" isn't acceptable but "free-to-play" is, when they literally mean the same thing, and they are both lies.
Free to play games are free to play.
That's it. It's not algebra.
It's not quantum mechanics.
It's not rocket surgery.
Free to play games are free to play.
When you bought that car advertised as "drives well" and drove it into the ocean, you weren't being clever when you sent the angry email to the seller telling them it failed to drive well in the ocean. They never promised you that. The obvious implication was that the vehicle drove well generally under normal circumstances.
So when we accurately call these games free, we're not saying "everything in your life from this point forward will be free!" When you go to a free lunch you can't actually walk back into the kitchen and grab their most expensive bottle of wine -- they never promised you that.
You're obviously capable of stringing letters into words into sentences into paragraphs and moving a mouse to click a post button. Knowing this, I have every confidence that you're also able to understand a simple, straightforward, literal three-word phrase. You can do it!
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The problem is they insist on the f2p term because they can make the argument that "Everyone knows f2p doesn't mean free" when challenged. But when they think they will get away with it, they try to advertise f2p as free, as seen in this thread. I have no idea why saying "free" isn't acceptable but "free-to-play" is, when they literally mean the same thing, and they are both lies.
Perhaps you should google "There's no such thing as a free lunch." The essential premise is that nothing that someone says is free is actually free. I would contend that any software that is marketed as free isn't free under your definition. Adobe Acrobat Reader, Skype, Gmail. Anything that is developed by people who are actually paid to write those lines of code isn't free. You can get a basic version, but not full versions. For those which you do have full versions you need to compromise your privacy or give up some sort of information as payment in order to receive the software and, therefore, it isn't free since information is the currency of the future.
So, in actuality, free has been a lie for decades, probably centuries. If you haven't figured that out yet then you should probably start thinking about what you're sacrificing to get things for "free".
Exactly, but those software make it clear the one you are downlaoding is a "free version" or a "trial version", and if they don't or the trial version comes bundled with spyware etc, they rightfully get a bad reputation. I have no issues with someone giving you a trial version and detailing every difference it has with the full version.
You just admitted that you're wrong. There is no difference between a "free version" and "free to play". A free version of software gives you access to either time bombed functionality or a limited feature set. Similarly, free to play games give you access to either a limited set of game features or a limited section of the game.
With regards to being up-front about features, the main reason for detailing differences in software is only to entice you to make a purchase. For instance, AVG makes sure to tell me what I'm NOT getting by not paying and how I'm putting my system at risk. Some software essentially holds my system hostage (Thanks Norton and McAfee), others give me stuff under the guise of "free" when they're really tracking everything I do (looking at you Google).
This is what I'm talking about. We've been dealing with "free" as a marketing ploy for ages now. I think that most people have adapted to understand that "free" implies some level of commitment from the consumer. If you don't believe me, feel free to throw out a couple games you would classify as "Free to Play" and I'll be more than happy to tear them down as to why they aren't free. Oh, and I'm not talking about someone's college class project, I'm talking about real games from real companies.
I am actually enjoying the Asian Market exploiting the US market and it's desire to spend Mmoney at things because spending means quality.
Seriously it's about time Asia got some kind of love in the US market away from handheld devices and TV's.
I say more power to em.
I prefer b2p but I don't play mmorpg's anymore. I play mostly esport based games. Mostly because I'm mindless as fuck and I need a leaderboard to race. *EARLY 80's* gamer here. Leaderboards are my levels.
MMORPG's were a solid generation thing but truly if one thing murdered them it was the f2p obsession. With so much we heard any trope possible, any class, combination of classes, craft roles, we have read any form of quest ever and that could ever be made hence why most of us content skip dialog from HERO_Priest#33 on needing bread for tonight's supper.
b2p can solve so many problems however importing a f2p as b2p with same shit as f2p ? Same price types?
Well how well is black desert online doing again? Any white knights have numbers?
You just admitted that you're wrong. There is no difference between a "free version" and "free to play". A free version of software gives you access to either time bombed functionality or a limited feature set. Similarly, free to play games give you access to either a limited set of game features or a limited section of the game.
Free to play implies you get the full version for free, "free version" implies you don't get the "full version" but a limited "free version".
CrazKanuk said: If you don't believe me, feel free to throw out a couple games you would classify as "Free to Play" and I'll be more than happy to tear them down as to why they aren't free.
This is what I have been suggesting all along, free to play games aren't free. Practically, this is true even if you don't pay money since you are spending time and effort to make the game more appealing to cash shop users.
No, free to play implies that there is a catch. However, humans have adapted beyond believing that "free" means anything other than that, so it's an expectation that there is something to be bought. There is no implication that anything is fully free. Also, I think that with the proliferation of F2P games across mobile devices, etc. there is little or no ambiguity surrounding the term.
To your other point, you're not saying that free to play games aren't free. If that's what you were saying I don't think you would get any disagreement, especially not from me. What you've been saying is that free to play cannot be played without paying into them and, also, that they are scams and, also, that people who buy into this are idiots.What I'm saying is that my kids have played many games completely free, including SWTOR which might be one of the more heavily monetized F2P games. So games CAN be played completely F2P. Games DO advertise their restrictions, if not through their website directly then via the items they're selling in their cash shop. If you see an option to buy an expansion for your bag slots, then you obviously know there is a restriction. Generally speaking, F2P games are not scams at all. They're quite transparent about what you're NOT getting because it's in their best interest to sell that to you. In fact, and I can't find the stats for it right now (so sue me), if users spend money it's generally in the first week of playing. After that time there is a significant drop off in probability of converting that free user. So you'll get a pretty damn good idea about spending requirements up-front.
I can respect if you don't like F2P games, but just because you don't like F2P games doesn't mean that people who play them are idiots. It doesn't mean that people are unaware about what they are being sold. I'm quite aware and I'll spend money quite often if I feel like playing through a game with my kids, for instance. I subbed to SWTOR on and off for a while for the added XP, etc. It allowed me to keep pace with my kids with their progression.
So, in the end, "free" is not a lie, it's "free", just as it's always been. If this is your first experience with something "free" then I can certainly understand your confusion.
You just admitted that you're wrong. There is no difference between a "free version" and "free to play". A free version of software gives you access to either time bombed functionality or a limited feature set. Similarly, free to play games give you access to either a limited set of game features or a limited section of the game.
Free to play implies you get the full version for free, "free version" implies you don't get the "full version" but a limited "free version".
CrazKanuk said: If you don't believe me, feel free to throw out a couple games you would classify as "Free to Play" and I'll be more than happy to tear them down as to why they aren't free.
This is what I have been suggesting all along, free to play games aren't free. Practically, this is true even if you don't pay money since you are spending time and effort while putting up with the "free version" to make other versions more appealing to cash shop users.
No. It has never implied that. It has always implied that you can download for free pay no sub and play a significant portion free. It has never meant or implied that everything was free. That's on you.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Eadan1 said:
I am not saying people are idiots for playing these games but they are idiots if after they have had enough experience with the model, they still don't understand that they are laboring for free to make the game more appealing for paying users.
...or they are just having fun playing the game, for free.
@Axehilt Why are you advising posters to block other posters? This is a forum community not Twitter. Here we debate with others no matter what we think of their arguments. I am surprised that you, who I regard as solid contributor of long standing would advise such a thing.
Do any of us want our forum to become like Twitter? Groups only speaking to those who hold the same opinion? Everyone with their head stuck in the sand?
This is not meant to be a back slapping exercise, I come here to be challenged not lauded. As usual we don't agree on what F2P means, but that's how it should be.
The problem is they insist on the f2p term because they can make the argument that "Everyone knows f2p doesn't mean free" when challenged. But when they think they will get away with it, they try to advertise f2p as free, as seen in this thread. I have no idea why saying "free" isn't acceptable but "free-to-play" is, when they literally mean the same thing, and they are both lies.
Free to play games are free to play.
That's it. It's not algebra.
It's not quantum mechanics.
It's not rocket surgery.
Free to play games are free to play.
When you bought that car advertised as "drives well" and drove it into the ocean, you weren't being clever when you sent the angry email to the seller telling them it failed to drive well in the ocean. They never promised you that. The obvious implication was that the vehicle drove well generally under normal circumstances.
So when we accurately call these games free, we're not saying "everything in your life from this point forward will be free!" When you go to a free lunch you can't actually walk back into the kitchen and grab their most expensive bottle of wine -- they never promised you that.
You're obviously capable of stringing letters into words into sentences into paragraphs and moving a mouse to click a post button. Knowing this, I have every confidence that you're also able to understand a simple, straightforward, literal three-word phrase. You can do it!
Free-to-play originally meant Free Access to their servers without a subscription. Some people think it means free stuff in cash shops or for other features and unlocks. It has never meant anything more.
What you've been saying is that free to play cannot be played without paying into them and, also, that they are scams and, also, that people who buy into this are idiots.
I am not saying people are idiots for playing these games but they are idiots if after they have had enough experience with the model, they still don't understand that they are laboring for free to make the game more appealing for paying users.
Yup, I totally agree. People who don't understand that F2P implies that you can play it for free, but there will be items that you can pay for, are idiots. For me it ranks right up there with people who think it's McDonald's fault for making them fat, people who sue coffee shops because they haven't grasped the concept of holding on their cup, and people who feel that lawnmowers necessitate a warning label instructing the user to not lift the lawnmower and to not stick your fingers underneath.
For the vast majority, F2P is quite self-explanatory. Yes, for those 1% of people, F2P might be a surprise, I agree. Perhaps the real discussion should be what to do with that 1% should natural selection not take care of them.
Oh, and just to further support this. When my youngest was 5 years-old he wanted us to get him an iTunes card for his birthday so he could buy stuff in his free game. He was quite aware that he didn't need it to play, but wanted it so he could get some shiny new toy in a game he played often and, at 5, he expressed it to us quite well. He was not confused in the least.
Free to play implies you get the full version for free
No, it implies the game is free to play.
"The Game" is inclusive - i.e. the whole game
Really comes down to the wording / advertising. I don't think @Eadan1 is under any illusions that free2play is actually free in the majority of cases, but that it should be, otherwise they should change the wording.
Some examples:
Candy Crush Saga - This game is free to play. I can download it to my phone and play 100% of the content for free. The game makes money by selling conveniences - extra lives / powerups etc.
League Of Legends - I've only briefly trialed this game (i dont like mobas) but this seems to be legitimately free 2 play. I can access 100% of the content for free. It might take a while until certain heroes come up for free in the rotation, but they will eventually get there and I will, at some point, be able to access 100% of the content for free.
SW:TOR - This game is advertised as free to play, but isn't. I can play parts of the game for free, but not "the game". This may have changed since I quit, but as a free player I couldn't participate in PvP - I would have had to spend money to unlock a week long pass and (when I was playing) there was no way around it.
LotRO - This game is advertised as free to play, but sits in the grey area. Most of the game isn't free2play on the surface (past lvl20 most content requires payment) however Turbine offer you ways to earn TP in game which can be used to purchase content. There have been proven cases of people managing to unlock 100% of the game without ever paying a penny - though it was a long and torturous road.
So, it really depends on the marketing emphasis. Free 2 play should mean that 100% of "the game" is available for free and the developer makes its money through cosmetics / convenience items / new dlc / expansions. The meaning has been warped to now just mean "unlimited free trial". Thats fine, those of us in the real world understand the new meaning, but it doesn't change the fact that developers are lying.
Also, please note: I am making the assumption that expansions are not part of "the game" - they have always been considered as extra, have always included additional costs and so I'd never expect expansions to be included for free.
Also, I hate F2P as a business model, regardless of whether the game is actually f2p, or never-ending free trial, so the literal definition, actual definition, commonly accepted definition or whatever doesn't matter. Its unethical and has done nothing beneficial for the genre in my eyes, it has only made things worse.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr80 Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr5X Shaman
cameltosis said:
Really comes down to the wording / advertising.
It doesn't.
No payment in order to play the game. Period. There is no more in that.
It is only people injecting arbitraty qualifiers where there are none because the term does not fit their bias or any other errornous or rigid train of thoughts...
Free-to-play originally meant Free Access to their servers without a subscription. Some people think it means free stuff in cash shops or for other features and unlocks. It has never meant anything more.
Er, free to play just means a game is free to play. It's unecessary at best and misleading at worst to imply it relates to "free access to servers" (as though games without servers can't be free to play). And it's not even worth bringing up the mistaken assumptions of wrong players. They're just wrong, why mention them?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Free to play implies you get the full version for free
No, it implies the game is free to play.
"The Game" is inclusive - i.e. the whole game
Really comes down to the wording / advertising. I don't think @Eadan1 is under any illusions that free2play is actually free in the majority of cases, but that it should be, otherwise they should change the wording.
Some examples:
Candy Crush Saga - This game is free to play. I can download it to my phone and play 100% of the content for free. The game makes money by selling conveniences - extra lives / powerups etc.
League Of Legends - I've only briefly trialed this game (i dont like mobas) but this seems to be legitimately free 2 play. I can access 100% of the content for free. It might take a while until certain heroes come up for free in the rotation, but they will eventually get there and I will, at some point, be able to access 100% of the content for free.
SW:TOR - This game is advertised as free to play, but isn't. I can play parts of the game for free, but not "the game". This may have changed since I quit, but as a free player I couldn't participate in PvP - I would have had to spend money to unlock a week long pass and (when I was playing) there was no way around it.
LotRO - This game is advertised as free to play, but sits in the grey area. Most of the game isn't free2play on the surface (past lvl20 most content requires payment) however Turbine offer you ways to earn TP in game which can be used to purchase content. There have been proven cases of people managing to unlock 100% of the game without ever paying a penny - though it was a long and torturous road.
So, it really depends on the marketing emphasis. Free 2 play should mean that 100% of "the game" is available for free and the developer makes its money through cosmetics / convenience items / new dlc / expansions. The meaning has been warped to now just mean "unlimited free trial". Thats fine, those of us in the real world understand the new meaning, but it doesn't change the fact that developers are lying.
Also, please note: I am making the assumption that expansions are not part of "the game" - they have always been considered as extra, have always included additional costs and so I'd never expect expansions to be included for free.
Also, I hate F2P as a business model, regardless of whether the game is actually f2p, or never-ending free trial, so the literal definition, actual definition, commonly accepted definition or whatever doesn't matter. Its unethical and has done nothing beneficial for the genre in my eyes, it has only made things worse.
See, this is the thing, though. So Candy Crush you say is free to play. However, getting to the end is, arguably, as long and torturous as LotRO. That is unless you spend money in it. Once you pass level 100 or so it becomes more and more brutal to progress. Oh, and there are only 500 levels.
SWTOR, as far as I was aware, was entirely free. My kids have been able to unlock everything through auction house purchases. It is a long process, based on my understanding, but if you're looking to play the game, the story, then it's actually a great deal. We're talking about hundreds of hours of free content, yes free.
Note: I have no problem with people who hate the F2P model. I don't disagree that there are some games which are more ridiculous than others. I actually subscribed to SWTOR for the sole purpose that the F2P grind was too much more me. I do that with nearly any F2P game that offers a sub option. The only games I generally don't pay into are mobile games. Even with that I WOULD if they would allow me to instead of charging like $50 for some low-rate RNG box. Sorry, I'm too cheap for that. I do play a mobile game, right now, with some buddies from work, though. I play free and I would drop $10-20 a month on it f they ONLY offered me something of value for that price. Shit, if they offered me anything for that price.
Anyway, /rant, as far as ethics go, I would suggest that F2P games have no worse ethics than anyone else. I would challenge you on the ethics issue because in a day and age when a game releases with $250 worth of DLC (Evolve), the last thing that should be a concern for us is a game that charges us nothing.
@Axehilt Why are you advising posters to block other posters? This is a forum community not Twitter. Here we debate with others no matter what we think of their arguments. I am surprised that you, who I regard as solid contributor of long standing would advise such a thing.
Do any of us want our forum to become like Twitter? Groups only speaking to those who hold the same opinion? Everyone with their head stuck in the sand?
This is not meant to be a back slapping exercise, I come here to be challenged not lauded. As usual we don't agree on what F2P means, but that's how it should be.
When a group with a certain set of ideas seals itself off from any outside ideas, that's an echo chamber. Echo chambers are bad.
Whereas if someone is making harassing posts to one or two individuals consistently, and yet simultaneously doesn't make valid points backed by objective evidence, then that's just harassment. Communities are healthier when they eliminate harassers, since harassers aren't actually contributing any useful information.
I never advise blocking people just because they disagree with ideas. I only advise it when someone's ideas consistently fail to be relevant to the discussion, and are made with an underlying intent of harassment.
Post edited by Axehilt on
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I just bought my girl some monster in her game she plays on the android/facebook the other day. He eyes lit up like golden saucers of goldenness.
I've bought her necklaces, flowers of course candy and of all the things that showed reaction.
It's the freaking digital monster I got her because it changes colors of blocks or something. I don't know man I just say "take my money" because I'm smart and western like that.
cameltosis said:
Really comes down to the wording / advertising.
It doesn't.
No payment in order to play the game. Period. There is no more in that.
It is only people injecting arbitraty qualifiers where there are none because the term does not fit their bias or any other errornous or rigid train of thoughts...
Pretty much this.
I play. I pay nothing. Pretty much just that. f2p has no specification of whether it is for the whole game, part-game, 10% of the game ... so it covers all cases.
It is actually pretty simple. In fact, just ask any random gamer. Is anyone under the impression that f2p is for the whole game? I don't think you can find anyone who would be that bone-headed.
@Axehilt Why are you advising posters to block other posters? This is a forum community not Twitter. Here we debate with others no matter what we think of their arguments. I am surprised that you, who I regard as solid contributor of long standing would advise such a thing.
Do any of us want our forum to become like Twitter? Groups only speaking to those who hold the same opinion? Everyone with their head stuck in the sand?
This is not meant to be a back slapping exercise, I come here to be challenged not lauded. As usual we don't agree on what F2P means, but that's how it should be.
When a group with a certain set of ideas seals itself off from any outside ideas, that's an echo chamber. Echo chambers are bad.
Whereas if someone is making harassing posts to one or two individuals consistently, and yet simultaneously doesn't make valid points backed by objective evidence, then that's just harassment.
I have provided you andeveryone else with multiple links, references, and objective statistics that support the arguments that I have made. Clicking on those two links right there will lead people to prior posts of mine in this thread with multiple links and objective evidence even referencing game statistics with plenty of valid points on this threads very topic.
For you to claim otherwise is the rejection of truth that anyone can see is the case by clicking on any of the links in my previous posts. You are at this point very simply lying to promote the protection of your opinions.
"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
@Axehilt Why are you advising posters to block other posters? This is a forum community not Twitter. Here we debate with others no matter what we think of their arguments. I am surprised that you, who I regard as solid contributor of long standing would advise such a thing.
Do any of us want our forum to become like Twitter? Groups only speaking to those who hold the same opinion? Everyone with their head stuck in the sand?
This is not meant to be a back slapping exercise, I come here to be challenged not lauded. As usual we don't agree on what F2P means, but that's how it should be.
When a group with a certain set of ideas seals itself off from any outside ideas, that's an echo chamber. Echo chambers are bad.
Whereas if someone is making harassing posts to one or two individuals consistently, and yet simultaneously doesn't make valid points backed by objective evidence, then that's just harassment. Communities are healthier when they eliminate harassers, since harassers aren't actually contributing any useful information.
I never advise blocking people just because they disagree with ideas. I only advise it when someone's ideas consistently fail to be relevant to the discussion, and are made with an underlying intent of harassment.
Lol. He isn't harassing you, he makes a lot of good points that you happen to disagree with and do not like. Big difference.
Got to have a much thicker skin if you want to play in this playground.
"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
Comments
Perhaps you should google "There's no such thing as a free lunch." The essential premise is that nothing that someone says is free is actually free. I would contend that any software that is marketed as free isn't free under your definition. Adobe Acrobat Reader, Skype, Gmail. Anything that is developed by people who are actually paid to write those lines of code isn't free. You can get a basic version, but not full versions. For those which you do have full versions you need to compromise your privacy or give up some sort of information as payment in order to receive the software and, therefore, it isn't free since information is the currency of the future.
So, in actuality, free has been a lie for decades, probably centuries. If you haven't figured that out yet then you should probably start thinking about what you're sacrificing to get things for "free".
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
----------------
That is all, continue on with your semantics over what exactly is "free" and blah blah blah.
- Every free to play game is free to play.
- Every free to play game isn't a bait and switch.
The current term is way more accurate."What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
That's it.
It's not algebra.
It's not quantum mechanics.
It's not rocket surgery.
Free to play games are free to play.
When you bought that car advertised as "drives well" and drove it into the ocean, you weren't being clever when you sent the angry email to the seller telling them it failed to drive well in the ocean. They never promised you that. The obvious implication was that the vehicle drove well generally under normal circumstances.
So when we accurately call these games free, we're not saying "everything in your life from this point forward will be free!" When you go to a free lunch you can't actually walk back into the kitchen and grab their most expensive bottle of wine -- they never promised you that.
You're obviously capable of stringing letters into words into sentences into paragraphs and moving a mouse to click a post button. Knowing this, I have every confidence that you're also able to understand a simple, straightforward, literal three-word phrase. You can do it!
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You just admitted that you're wrong. There is no difference between a "free version" and "free to play". A free version of software gives you access to either time bombed functionality or a limited feature set. Similarly, free to play games give you access to either a limited set of game features or a limited section of the game.
With regards to being up-front about features, the main reason for detailing differences in software is only to entice you to make a purchase. For instance, AVG makes sure to tell me what I'm NOT getting by not paying and how I'm putting my system at risk. Some software essentially holds my system hostage (Thanks Norton and McAfee), others give me stuff under the guise of "free" when they're really tracking everything I do (looking at you Google).
This is what I'm talking about. We've been dealing with "free" as a marketing ploy for ages now. I think that most people have adapted to understand that "free" implies some level of commitment from the consumer. If you don't believe me, feel free to throw out a couple games you would classify as "Free to Play" and I'll be more than happy to tear them down as to why they aren't free. Oh, and I'm not talking about someone's college class project, I'm talking about real games from real companies.
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
----------------
Seriously it's about time Asia got some kind of love in the US market away from handheld devices and TV's.
I say more power to em.
I prefer b2p but I don't play mmorpg's anymore. I play mostly esport based games. Mostly because I'm mindless as fuck and I need a leaderboard to race. *EARLY 80's* gamer here. Leaderboards are my levels.
MMORPG's were a solid generation thing but truly if one thing murdered them it was the f2p obsession.
With so much we heard any trope possible, any class, combination of classes, craft roles, we have read any form of quest ever and that could ever be made hence why most of us content skip dialog from HERO_Priest#33 on needing bread for tonight's supper.
b2p can solve so many problems however importing a f2p as b2p with same shit as f2p ? Same price types?
Well how well is black desert online doing again?
Any white knights have numbers?
No, free to play implies that there is a catch. However, humans have adapted beyond believing that "free" means anything other than that, so it's an expectation that there is something to be bought. There is no implication that anything is fully free. Also, I think that with the proliferation of F2P games across mobile devices, etc. there is little or no ambiguity surrounding the term.
To your other point, you're not saying that free to play games aren't free. If that's what you were saying I don't think you would get any disagreement, especially not from me. What you've been saying is that free to play cannot be played without paying into them and, also, that they are scams and, also, that people who buy into this are idiots.What I'm saying is that my kids have played many games completely free, including SWTOR which might be one of the more heavily monetized F2P games. So games CAN be played completely F2P. Games DO advertise their restrictions, if not through their website directly then via the items they're selling in their cash shop. If you see an option to buy an expansion for your bag slots, then you obviously know there is a restriction. Generally speaking, F2P games are not scams at all. They're quite transparent about what you're NOT getting because it's in their best interest to sell that to you. In fact, and I can't find the stats for it right now (so sue me), if users spend money it's generally in the first week of playing. After that time there is a significant drop off in probability of converting that free user. So you'll get a pretty damn good idea about spending requirements up-front.
I can respect if you don't like F2P games, but just because you don't like F2P games doesn't mean that people who play them are idiots. It doesn't mean that people are unaware about what they are being sold. I'm quite aware and I'll spend money quite often if I feel like playing through a game with my kids, for instance. I subbed to SWTOR on and off for a while for the added XP, etc. It allowed me to keep pace with my kids with their progression.
So, in the end, "free" is not a lie, it's "free", just as it's always been. If this is your first experience with something "free" then I can certainly understand your confusion.
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
----------------
@Axehilt Why are you advising posters to block other posters? This is a forum community not Twitter. Here we debate with others no matter what we think of their arguments. I am surprised that you, who I regard as solid contributor of long standing would advise such a thing.
Do any of us want our forum to become like Twitter? Groups only speaking to those who hold the same opinion? Everyone with their head stuck in the sand?
This is not meant to be a back slapping exercise, I come here to be challenged not lauded. As usual we don't agree on what F2P means, but that's how it should be.
Yup, I totally agree. People who don't understand that F2P implies that you can play it for free, but there will be items that you can pay for, are idiots. For me it ranks right up there with people who think it's McDonald's fault for making them fat, people who sue coffee shops because they haven't grasped the concept of holding on their cup, and people who feel that lawnmowers necessitate a warning label instructing the user to not lift the lawnmower and to not stick your fingers underneath.
For the vast majority, F2P is quite self-explanatory. Yes, for those 1% of people, F2P might be a surprise, I agree. Perhaps the real discussion should be what to do with that 1% should natural selection not take care of them.
Oh, and just to further support this. When my youngest was 5 years-old he wanted us to get him an iTunes card for his birthday so he could buy stuff in his free game. He was quite aware that he didn't need it to play, but wanted it so he could get some shiny new toy in a game he played often and, at 5, he expressed it to us quite well. He was not confused in the least.
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
----------------
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Really comes down to the wording / advertising. I don't think @Eadan1 is under any illusions that free2play is actually free in the majority of cases, but that it should be, otherwise they should change the wording.
Some examples:
Candy Crush Saga - This game is free to play. I can download it to my phone and play 100% of the content for free. The game makes money by selling conveniences - extra lives / powerups etc.
League Of Legends - I've only briefly trialed this game (i dont like mobas) but this seems to be legitimately free 2 play. I can access 100% of the content for free. It might take a while until certain heroes come up for free in the rotation, but they will eventually get there and I will, at some point, be able to access 100% of the content for free.
SW:TOR - This game is advertised as free to play, but isn't. I can play parts of the game for free, but not "the game". This may have changed since I quit, but as a free player I couldn't participate in PvP - I would have had to spend money to unlock a week long pass and (when I was playing) there was no way around it.
LotRO - This game is advertised as free to play, but sits in the grey area. Most of the game isn't free2play on the surface (past lvl20 most content requires payment) however Turbine offer you ways to earn TP in game which can be used to purchase content. There have been proven cases of people managing to unlock 100% of the game without ever paying a penny - though it was a long and torturous road.
So, it really depends on the marketing emphasis. Free 2 play should mean that 100% of "the game" is available for free and the developer makes its money through cosmetics / convenience items / new dlc / expansions. The meaning has been warped to now just mean "unlimited free trial". Thats fine, those of us in the real world understand the new meaning, but it doesn't change the fact that developers are lying.
Also, please note: I am making the assumption that expansions are not part of "the game" - they have always been considered as extra, have always included additional costs and so I'd never expect expansions to be included for free.
Also, I hate F2P as a business model, regardless of whether the game is actually f2p, or never-ending free trial, so the literal definition, actual definition, commonly accepted definition or whatever doesn't matter. Its unethical and has done nothing beneficial for the genre in my eyes, it has only made things worse.
No payment in order to play the game. Period. There is no more in that.
It is only people injecting arbitraty qualifiers where there are none because the term does not fit their bias or any other errornous or rigid train of thoughts...
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
See, this is the thing, though. So Candy Crush you say is free to play. However, getting to the end is, arguably, as long and torturous as LotRO. That is unless you spend money in it. Once you pass level 100 or so it becomes more and more brutal to progress. Oh, and there are only 500 levels.
SWTOR, as far as I was aware, was entirely free. My kids have been able to unlock everything through auction house purchases. It is a long process, based on my understanding, but if you're looking to play the game, the story, then it's actually a great deal. We're talking about hundreds of hours of free content, yes free.
Note: I have no problem with people who hate the F2P model. I don't disagree that there are some games which are more ridiculous than others. I actually subscribed to SWTOR for the sole purpose that the F2P grind was too much more me. I do that with nearly any F2P game that offers a sub option. The only games I generally don't pay into are mobile games. Even with that I WOULD if they would allow me to instead of charging like $50 for some low-rate RNG box. Sorry, I'm too cheap for that. I do play a mobile game, right now, with some buddies from work, though. I play free and I would drop $10-20 a month on it f they ONLY offered me something of value for that price. Shit, if they offered me anything for that price.
Anyway, /rant, as far as ethics go, I would suggest that F2P games have no worse ethics than anyone else. I would challenge you on the ethics issue because in a day and age when a game releases with $250 worth of DLC (Evolve), the last thing that should be a concern for us is a game that charges us nothing.
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
----------------
Whereas if someone is making harassing posts to one or two individuals consistently, and yet simultaneously doesn't make valid points backed by objective evidence, then that's just harassment. Communities are healthier when they eliminate harassers, since harassers aren't actually contributing any useful information.
I never advise blocking people just because they disagree with ideas. I only advise it when someone's ideas consistently fail to be relevant to the discussion, and are made with an underlying intent of harassment.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I just bought my girl some monster in her game she plays on the android/facebook the other day.
He eyes lit up like golden saucers of goldenness.
I've bought her necklaces, flowers of course candy and of all the things that showed reaction.
It's the freaking digital monster I got her because it changes colors of blocks or something. I don't know man I just say "take my money" because I'm smart and western like that.
Pretty much this.
I play. I pay nothing. Pretty much just that. f2p has no specification of whether it is for the whole game, part-game, 10% of the game ... so it covers all cases.
It is actually pretty simple. In fact, just ask any random gamer. Is anyone under the impression that f2p is for the whole game? I don't think you can find anyone who would be that bone-headed.
Anyway this was @cameltosis pointing out "the game" isn't the entire game. Let's say Bob is a free player of TF2. He plays for an hour.
A. Has he played the game?
B. Has he paid?
(Answers: Yes, and no. Meaning he played for free. Meaning the game is a free to play game.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
For you to claim otherwise is the rejection of truth that anyone can see is the case by clicking on any of the links in my previous posts. You are at this point very simply lying to promote the protection of your opinions.
"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
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Got to have a much thicker skin if you want to play in this playground.
"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