I understand what everyones saying, my only point is that these "f2p" games advertise as such, yet have a deep underlying system of getting lots of money. Since I have played every MMO, I can tell you that most "f2p" games dont allow you access to the most cruical elemts of the games for advancement. And I just feel that the quality of the gameplay is lacking in 90% of "f2p" titles I've played... Everyone has great points, I just feel the "f2p" industry is weak at the moment, even great 2d "f2p" games I have played dont really allow you to advance much furthur without a sub.
What games do you like? Have you tried RoM? It has quite a few of the features of many traditional P2P games, and there's quite a bit you can do in it without ever having to pay a dime. It definitely represents a step forward for the F2P genre, although it will probably attract the same amount of haters and detractors as most other games out there.
Since you make reference to a percentage, what percentage of P2P games have you found lacking? Many people who try to knock F2P generally as a genre use arguments that would apply equally well to P2P.
I never said they wernt MMO's, of course thats your only argument? That I said something I in fact did not? NAME A F2P TITLE, I DARE YOU, WITHOUT ITEM MALLS, AND WITH DEPTH - EDIT: Excuse me....INNOVATION remember bloodworth you have to NAME one...no atlantica doesnt count cause thats pure item mall
There is an MMO out there that's free to play and no items malls. Guild wars will forever be free to play without items malls. Anarchy online doesn't have any items malls either unless they added them after I quite playing. Guild wars also has plenty of depth to it.
You listed guild wars? Yes, while a good deal. to get anything new you have to shell out 60$.
---------- "Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
IMHO, I see the free vs. pay argument as more of a social issue.
From the time we are born (especially in the U.S.), we are socialized to think that "bigger" and "more expensive" is better.
There is a multitude of generic products on the market that are less expensive, but the majority of people still buy the name-brand. Even the term 'generic' has a certain stigma attached to it. The grocery store doesn't market generic items in the same way as the name-brand stuff. We are lead to believe that it's less effective just by the way it's presented to us.
I challenge anyone reading this to look at two products, one you pay for and one that's free, and HONESTLY say their first reaction isn't to assume the free (or cheaper) product is of lower quality. If you can, then you are better than most people, but I suspect there are very few of you.
I guess I see this because the last few MMOs I purchased were so abysmal that I've gotten to the point that I refuse to pay for MMOs any longer. I still play GW because I purchased it a long time ago and there is no monthly fee and LOTRO because I started playing on day one and I purchased a lifetime sub. If I had to pay a monthly fee for either of them, I wouldn't play. They are just not that good, IMO.
I think that the number of good free MMOs is just as high as the number of good pay MMOs and I'd rather sift through them without shelling out my hard earned cash until I find something I like. But that's just me.
I think of FtP games more as "pay as much s you feel like paying" rather than trully free.
I was pretty skeptical of them until recently, haveing tried some pretty terrible ones a few years back. About the only one I really enjoyed much was Shot Online, and even that got stale quickly (a golf MMO can only hold my attention so long).
However the good press that Wizard 101 finally tempted me to get my feet wet again, and I'm glad that I did. You have the option to unlock everything with a small sub, or buy permanent access to zones as you go (it runs about a dollar or two per zone you want to unlock). I went the latter route and I'd guess I've spent about ten bucks in the last two months buying new zones. The combat system has quite a bit of depth to it at higher levels. It's a very nice change of pace from the nearly identical turn based combat systems that so many other MMOs use. Since getting my feet wet in Wizard 101, I've tried out a few other modern FtP MMOs and been impressed at how much the quality of the better ones has improved from what I remember a few years back.
But really, if you are convinced that FtP MMOs are "teh suk" and always will be nothing anyone else writes is going to change your mind. All that really matters is whether an MMO is fun, and "fun" is subjective. WoW bores the hell out of me, it's gotten way too easy (to my tastes) with recent updates. However millions of other peaple think it's the most fun MMO on the market. None of us is "right or wrong," we just have different tastes.
I don't want to write this, and you don't want to read it. But now it's too late for both of us.
I just don't like the fairly standard F2P model of item malls. Most all of those games have a progression such that it is highly desirable to purchase certain items for gameplay via the mall. Add to that things such as multiple content "boxes" you purchase where you have a certain percentage chance to get the item(s) you want and it's very easy to spend $200-300 or more in a week trying to get items that facilitate gameplay.
In one week you just spent more than what you would for an entire year (roughly 12 months * $15= $180) for your typical P2P game. In your typical P2P game you have access to all of those desirable items and have only to put in the time and effort, and possibly grab a few people to help you, to achieve them.
Based on that, I don't think I'd have much interest in playing something that I know I'm not going to be content playing because they have designed the gameplay to enhance the appeal of the items in the item mall. If this still comes off as a "F2P suck" answer, well, sorry. Seems like a very legitimate reason to me. Oh, and yes, I've played a couple of them, lol.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Add to that things such as multiple content "boxes" you purchase where you have a certain percentage chance to get the item(s) you want and it's very easy to spend $200-300 or more in a week trying to get items that facilitate gameplay.
Wow, that's again, YOUR CHOICE. Is there something about video games that removes common money Sense from people?
Your blaming developers, because people are dumb? Looks to me like they gave that person just what they wanted.
---------- "Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
It's not just the quality of the coding and quest lines and so forth that determines whether a game is fun to play. The business model has a big impact, too. It's not fun to lose because someone else paid more to buy from the item mall than you. It's not so fun to win just because you bought more from the item mall than someone else, either, though I guess it at least beats losing for the opposite reason. Winning and losing should depend primarily on what the player does in the game, not on how much he paid.
Even looking back at some of the best games ever made, if they had used the "free to lose"/item mall approach, I probably wouldn't have liked them. About the only reason I have to say "probably" rather than "definitely" there is that I'm not sure what that business model would mean for a single player offline game. There are almost certainly games that do use the "free to lose"/item mall business model that I'd have liked if they used a straight subscription model.
It's not just the quality of the coding and quest lines and so forth that determines whether a game is fun to play. The business model has a big impact, too. It's not fun to lose because someone else paid more to buy from the item mall than you. It's not so fun to win just because you bought more from the item mall than someone else, either, though I guess it at least beats losing for the opposite reason. Winning and losing should depend primarily on what the player does in the game, not on how much he paid. Even looking back at some of the best games ever made, if they had used the "free to lose"/item mall approach, I probably wouldn't have liked them. About the only reason I have to say "probably" rather than "definitely" there is that I'm not sure what that business model would mean for a single player offline game. There are almost certainly games that do use the "free to lose"/item mall business model that I'd have liked if they used a straight subscription model.
You know what? I actually like the idea of winning because you pay more money. Why? Because in that arena I'm very competitive, I'd say I can afford to shell out enough to keep me in the top third of the competitive tier.
Contrast that with most standard MMORPG's that reward players who have lots of free time on their hands to play. Time is a precious commodity for me and I can never put in enough time to bring myself out of the bottom third tier.
So for me, paying to win is a feasible model. Understandable that some folks might not want to compete in the manner, but for me, it works out well.
EVEs another great game for me. My training happens even when I'm logged off, and if I need ISK, I can buy what I want to fill the gaps that my lack of farming time might leave. (hasn't really been a problem once I got past the starting 6 months or so)
Back on topic. I tried a number of free to play games. (lets say 10 or). I didn't like them. I felt they were either simplistic rip-offs that used the Lineage 2 engine, or badly translated, and poorly implemented.
Then I found Runes of Magic, and changed my mind completely about the model. Finally I found a quality game in the "F2P" genre. (but boy, is F2P truly a misnomer in that game)
Never the less, I grouped with 2 players (level 33 or so) that had not spent a cent on the game, so it is possible to do so.(but they've been living w/o a mount, which I find to be their real accomplishment, because the game sucks w/o a mount)
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Originally posted by Kyleran Contrast that with most standard MMORPG's that reward players who have lots of free time on their hands to play. Time is a precious commodity for me and I can never put in enough time to bring myself out of the bottom third tier.
A game where winning and losing is strictly based on how much free time you have isn't fun either. I'm aware that a lot of MMORPGs go that route, both subscription and otherwise, and I don't like those games, either.
Let me start off by saying that I do admire the fact that you, Richard Aihoshi, are willing to intelligently debate this subject. I do understand that there are a lot of subscription players with the attitude you described in your column, and I am sure you understand that not all of us subscription MMORPG players have the same attitude. While I do not agree with the free to play business model, I do not feel that all free to play games are the bane of the industry.
One of the first subjects you covered in your column was how many players make broad and sweeping generalizations about the revenue model as a whole, and attack the developers and games for making "suck-y" games. While I do not feel that all free to play games "suck", I will say that there are a lot of free to play games that mimic eachother, and often have only minute differences in gameplay experiences. There is a severe lack of innovation, in my opinion, with games that subscribe to that business model. Even if the game is free to play, there is no excuse for a lack of quality; it is just accepted by free to play gamers because they are not paying subscription fees.
However, when most subscription MMORPG players state that free to play games "suck", I think the general consensus is that people do not agree with the revenue model. The game relies on microtransactions, or "cash shops", to remain profitable. Often as a way to incentivise purchasing items for a character, these microtransactions sacrifice the integrity of the legitimacy of a character's progression, namely by providing items that give these paying players an edge over non-paying players. It turns into a battle of dollars, and thus becomes not a game of who plays better, but who spends more money to beef up their character.
It is not that subscription MMORPG players are against the practice of microtransactions in a game, it is that it is far too reminiscent of real money trading, or gold selling, which has plagued subscription MMORPGs for many years. It is often that subscription MMORPG players associate spending extra money on a game with cheating, and that is essentially why the free to play model is often demeaned within those circles.
The challenge free to play games face today is trying to separate themselves from the stigma of real money trading, and trying to display that while they may be free to play, the game quality is not sacrificed to provide that revenue model. It is going to take a phenomenal title to help break that stigma, and a bastion of hope for that revenue model is The Old Republic. When these titles begin distancing themselves from the current notions held by a large section of the gaming community, you will see a lot less resistance and uproar when a game does decide to use that revenue model.
As a side note, I have written a column on my own fan site regarding my personal opinion on the two revenue models, which you can find here: www.globalagendamc.com/forums/showthread.php.
Finally, I'd like to say thank you to you, Richard, for providing an outlet for a healthy discussion on the subject.
This is by far the worst written article on MMORPG I have seen over all the years I have been a member for.
Disagreeing with someone's topic doesn't make it poorly written. If you have any technical complaints about the writing, feel free to send them over. From a purely written point of view, I don't see what you have to complain about.
Dana Massey Formerly of MMORPG.com Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
I never said they wernt MMO's, of course thats your only argument? That I said something I in fact did not? NAME A F2P TITLE, I DARE YOU, WITHOUT ITEM MALLS, AND WITH DEPTH - EDIT: Excuse me....INNOVATION remember bloodworth you have to NAME one...no atlantica doesnt count cause thats pure item mall
There is an MMO out there that's free to play and no items malls. Guild wars will forever be free to play without items malls. Anarchy online doesn't have any items malls either unless they added them after I quite playing. Guild wars also has plenty of depth to it.
You listed guild wars? Yes, while a good deal. to get anything new you have to shell out 60$.
That's no different than buying an expasion pack and the price goes down just like any other expansion, I've seen one for 20 dollars in stores. You have to buy expansion packs when you play subscription based games as well. The only difference is that with guild wars you don't pay a subscription fee.
This is by far the worst written article on MMORPG I have seen over all the years I have been a member for.
Disagreeing with someone's topic doesn't make it poorly written. If you have any technical complaints about the writing, feel free to send them over. From a purely written point of view, I don't see what you have to complain about.
While I wouldn't call it the worst article I've seen, the whole thing is one lengthy logical fallacy. It goes after a couple of absurd strawman arguments that aren't what people commonly say, and then criticizes players for not liking a business model without ever considering the reasons why players don't like the business model.
If it's so subjective then why does he bring it up at all? He was implicitly asking for an opinion. Dont ask for an opinion if you dont want to hear it.
I've never seen a F2P game I thought was as appealing as most P2P games. That may change eventually (not holding my breath, but anything is possible), but right now they all look pretty ameturish compared to the P2P stuff to me. Thats my "subjective" opinion. And it appears I'm not alone.
However, when most subscription MMORPG players state that free to play games "suck", I think the general consensus is that people do not agree with the revenue model. The game relies on microtransactions, or "cash shops", to remain profitable. Often as a way to incentivise purchasing items for a character, these microtransactions sacrifice the integrity of the legitimacy of a character's progression, namely by providing items that give these paying players an edge over non-paying players.
That too, although the lower quality/support is the main problem I have with F2P personally. But yeah, I dont like the idea of being able to "buy" victory or advancement. Kinda defeats the whole point of playing doesnt it?
This is by far the worst written article on MMORPG I have seen over all the years I have been a member for.
Disagreeing with someone's topic doesn't make it poorly written. If you have any technical complaints about the writing, feel free to send them over. From a purely written point of view, I don't see what you have to complain about.
This is true, but I believe it's quite obvious that writing Diry instead of Dirty and then writing a sentence like this.
Many people "free to play" is a dirty word.
Which says enough for me, it's poorly written english. Please.. read it and patch it up.
OH NOZ! a typo, this invalidates EVERYTHING he said!
---------- "Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
OH NOZ! a typo, this invalidates EVERYTHING he said!
What I replied to has nothing to do with what he said, seems you have nothing better to do then flame people. Without even knowing what I am talking about in the first place.
This is true, but I believe it's quite obvious that writing Diry instead of Dirty and then writing a sentence like this. Many people "free to play" is a dirty word. Which says enough for me, it's poorly written english. Please.. read it and patch it up.
You only get whatever enjoyment you get from a F2P game be it using items to help advance your toon or just the knowledge that you reached the end game with no items from the mall. As is truely stated in various posts it's not totally free to play, it does cost you something in the end, which sometimes is a big headache.
All games are worthy, whether they are free to play or not. If people have fun in those games- it doesn't matte if it costs $15 a month or it's free.
I pay for LoTRO and my brother pays for WoW. My daughter plays Neopets for free and my friend Becky ( a Veterinarien, no less!) plays Gaia for free. All 4 of us have fun in our respective games. It's all good. Any game beats watching TV every night:)
This is by far the worst written article on MMORPG I have seen over all the years I have been a member for.
Disagreeing with someone's topic doesn't make it poorly written. If you have any technical complaints about the writing, feel free to send them over. From a purely written point of view, I don't see what you have to complain about.
This is true, but I believe it's quite obvious that writing Diry instead of Dirty and then writing a sentence like this.
Many people "free to play" is a dirty word.
Which says enough for me, it's poorly written english. Please.. read it and patch it up.
Oh the news item, that is far from his fault. I must have rushed through it, both typos were exclusively mine. Neither of those typos appear in the actual article, apologies.
Dana Massey Formerly of MMORPG.com Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
This is by far the worst written article on MMORPG I have seen over all the years I have been a member for.
Disagreeing with someone's topic doesn't make it poorly written. If you have any technical complaints about the writing, feel free to send them over. From a purely written point of view, I don't see what you have to complain about.
This is true, but I believe it's quite obvious that writing Diry instead of Dirty and then writing a sentence like this.
Many people "free to play" is a dirty word.
Which says enough for me, it's poorly written english. Please.. read it and patch it up.
Oh the news item, that is far from his fault. I must have rushed through it, both typos were exclusively mine. Neither of those typos appear in the actual article, apologies.
This is by far the worst written article on MMORPG I have seen over all the years I have been a member for.
Disagreeing with someone's topic doesn't make it poorly written. If you have any technical complaints about the writing, feel free to send them over. From a purely written point of view, I don't see what you have to complain about.
This is true, but I believe it's quite obvious that writing Diry instead of Dirty and then writing a sentence like this.
Many people "free to play" is a dirty word.
Which says enough for me, it's poorly written english. Please.. read it and patch it up.
Oh the news item, that is far from his fault. I must have rushed through it, both typos were exclusively mine. Neither of those typos appear in the actual article, apologies.
So you were slacking..tsk..tsk..tsk.
I prefer the term "Mondays" to "slacking"
Dana Massey Formerly of MMORPG.com Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
OH NOZ! a typo, this invalidates EVERYTHING he said!
What I replied to has nothing to do with what he said, seems you have nothing better to do then flame people. Without even knowing what I am talking about in the first place.
Your saying a few typos make this the "worst article ever". I was just matching your extremes. you also, need to read more MMORPG.com articles.
---------- "Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
Comments
What games do you like? Have you tried RoM? It has quite a few of the features of many traditional P2P games, and there's quite a bit you can do in it without ever having to pay a dime. It definitely represents a step forward for the F2P genre, although it will probably attract the same amount of haters and detractors as most other games out there.
Since you make reference to a percentage, what percentage of P2P games have you found lacking? Many people who try to knock F2P generally as a genre use arguments that would apply equally well to P2P.
There is an MMO out there that's free to play and no items malls. Guild wars will forever be free to play without items malls. Anarchy online doesn't have any items malls either unless they added them after I quite playing. Guild wars also has plenty of depth to it.
You listed guild wars? Yes, while a good deal. to get anything new you have to shell out 60$.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
IMHO, I see the free vs. pay argument as more of a social issue.
From the time we are born (especially in the U.S.), we are socialized to think that "bigger" and "more expensive" is better.
There is a multitude of generic products on the market that are less expensive, but the majority of people still buy the name-brand. Even the term 'generic' has a certain stigma attached to it. The grocery store doesn't market generic items in the same way as the name-brand stuff. We are lead to believe that it's less effective just by the way it's presented to us.
I challenge anyone reading this to look at two products, one you pay for and one that's free, and HONESTLY say their first reaction isn't to assume the free (or cheaper) product is of lower quality. If you can, then you are better than most people, but I suspect there are very few of you.
I guess I see this because the last few MMOs I purchased were so abysmal that I've gotten to the point that I refuse to pay for MMOs any longer. I still play GW because I purchased it a long time ago and there is no monthly fee and LOTRO because I started playing on day one and I purchased a lifetime sub. If I had to pay a monthly fee for either of them, I wouldn't play. They are just not that good, IMO.
I think that the number of good free MMOs is just as high as the number of good pay MMOs and I'd rather sift through them without shelling out my hard earned cash until I find something I like. But that's just me.
I think of FtP games more as "pay as much s you feel like paying" rather than trully free.
I was pretty skeptical of them until recently, haveing tried some pretty terrible ones a few years back. About the only one I really enjoyed much was Shot Online, and even that got stale quickly (a golf MMO can only hold my attention so long).
However the good press that Wizard 101 finally tempted me to get my feet wet again, and I'm glad that I did. You have the option to unlock everything with a small sub, or buy permanent access to zones as you go (it runs about a dollar or two per zone you want to unlock). I went the latter route and I'd guess I've spent about ten bucks in the last two months buying new zones. The combat system has quite a bit of depth to it at higher levels. It's a very nice change of pace from the nearly identical turn based combat systems that so many other MMOs use. Since getting my feet wet in Wizard 101, I've tried out a few other modern FtP MMOs and been impressed at how much the quality of the better ones has improved from what I remember a few years back.
But really, if you are convinced that FtP MMOs are "teh suk" and always will be nothing anyone else writes is going to change your mind. All that really matters is whether an MMO is fun, and "fun" is subjective. WoW bores the hell out of me, it's gotten way too easy (to my tastes) with recent updates. However millions of other peaple think it's the most fun MMO on the market. None of us is "right or wrong," we just have different tastes.
I don't want to write this, and you don't want to read it. But now it's too late for both of us.
I just don't like the fairly standard F2P model of item malls. Most all of those games have a progression such that it is highly desirable to purchase certain items for gameplay via the mall. Add to that things such as multiple content "boxes" you purchase where you have a certain percentage chance to get the item(s) you want and it's very easy to spend $200-300 or more in a week trying to get items that facilitate gameplay.
In one week you just spent more than what you would for an entire year (roughly 12 months * $15= $180) for your typical P2P game. In your typical P2P game you have access to all of those desirable items and have only to put in the time and effort, and possibly grab a few people to help you, to achieve them.
Based on that, I don't think I'd have much interest in playing something that I know I'm not going to be content playing because they have designed the gameplay to enhance the appeal of the items in the item mall. If this still comes off as a "F2P suck" answer, well, sorry. Seems like a very legitimate reason to me. Oh, and yes, I've played a couple of them, lol.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
Wow, that's again, YOUR CHOICE. Is there something about video games that removes common money Sense from people?
Your blaming developers, because people are dumb? Looks to me like they gave that person just what they wanted.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
It's not just the quality of the coding and quest lines and so forth that determines whether a game is fun to play. The business model has a big impact, too. It's not fun to lose because someone else paid more to buy from the item mall than you. It's not so fun to win just because you bought more from the item mall than someone else, either, though I guess it at least beats losing for the opposite reason. Winning and losing should depend primarily on what the player does in the game, not on how much he paid.
Even looking back at some of the best games ever made, if they had used the "free to lose"/item mall approach, I probably wouldn't have liked them. About the only reason I have to say "probably" rather than "definitely" there is that I'm not sure what that business model would mean for a single player offline game. There are almost certainly games that do use the "free to lose"/item mall business model that I'd have liked if they used a straight subscription model.
This is by far the worst written article on MMORPG I have seen over all the years I have been a member for.
Twitter @Phantium
You know what? I actually like the idea of winning because you pay more money. Why? Because in that arena I'm very competitive, I'd say I can afford to shell out enough to keep me in the top third of the competitive tier.
Contrast that with most standard MMORPG's that reward players who have lots of free time on their hands to play. Time is a precious commodity for me and I can never put in enough time to bring myself out of the bottom third tier.
So for me, paying to win is a feasible model. Understandable that some folks might not want to compete in the manner, but for me, it works out well.
EVEs another great game for me. My training happens even when I'm logged off, and if I need ISK, I can buy what I want to fill the gaps that my lack of farming time might leave. (hasn't really been a problem once I got past the starting 6 months or so)
Back on topic. I tried a number of free to play games. (lets say 10 or). I didn't like them. I felt they were either simplistic rip-offs that used the Lineage 2 engine, or badly translated, and poorly implemented.
Then I found Runes of Magic, and changed my mind completely about the model. Finally I found a quality game in the "F2P" genre. (but boy, is F2P truly a misnomer in that game)
Never the less, I grouped with 2 players (level 33 or so) that had not spent a cent on the game, so it is possible to do so.(but they've been living w/o a mount, which I find to be their real accomplishment, because the game sucks w/o a mount)
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
A game where winning and losing is strictly based on how much free time you have isn't fun either. I'm aware that a lot of MMORPGs go that route, both subscription and otherwise, and I don't like those games, either.
Let me start off by saying that I do admire the fact that you, Richard Aihoshi, are willing to intelligently debate this subject. I do understand that there are a lot of subscription players with the attitude you described in your column, and I am sure you understand that not all of us subscription MMORPG players have the same attitude. While I do not agree with the free to play business model, I do not feel that all free to play games are the bane of the industry.
One of the first subjects you covered in your column was how many players make broad and sweeping generalizations about the revenue model as a whole, and attack the developers and games for making "suck-y" games. While I do not feel that all free to play games "suck", I will say that there are a lot of free to play games that mimic eachother, and often have only minute differences in gameplay experiences. There is a severe lack of innovation, in my opinion, with games that subscribe to that business model. Even if the game is free to play, there is no excuse for a lack of quality; it is just accepted by free to play gamers because they are not paying subscription fees.
However, when most subscription MMORPG players state that free to play games "suck", I think the general consensus is that people do not agree with the revenue model. The game relies on microtransactions, or "cash shops", to remain profitable. Often as a way to incentivise purchasing items for a character, these microtransactions sacrifice the integrity of the legitimacy of a character's progression, namely by providing items that give these paying players an edge over non-paying players. It turns into a battle of dollars, and thus becomes not a game of who plays better, but who spends more money to beef up their character.
It is not that subscription MMORPG players are against the practice of microtransactions in a game, it is that it is far too reminiscent of real money trading, or gold selling, which has plagued subscription MMORPGs for many years. It is often that subscription MMORPG players associate spending extra money on a game with cheating, and that is essentially why the free to play model is often demeaned within those circles.
The challenge free to play games face today is trying to separate themselves from the stigma of real money trading, and trying to display that while they may be free to play, the game quality is not sacrificed to provide that revenue model. It is going to take a phenomenal title to help break that stigma, and a bastion of hope for that revenue model is The Old Republic. When these titles begin distancing themselves from the current notions held by a large section of the gaming community, you will see a lot less resistance and uproar when a game does decide to use that revenue model.
As a side note, I have written a column on my own fan site regarding my personal opinion on the two revenue models, which you can find here: www.globalagendamc.com/forums/showthread.php.
Finally, I'd like to say thank you to you, Richard, for providing an outlet for a healthy discussion on the subject.
Disagreeing with someone's topic doesn't make it poorly written. If you have any technical complaints about the writing, feel free to send them over. From a purely written point of view, I don't see what you have to complain about.
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
There is an MMO out there that's free to play and no items malls. Guild wars will forever be free to play without items malls. Anarchy online doesn't have any items malls either unless they added them after I quite playing. Guild wars also has plenty of depth to it.
You listed guild wars? Yes, while a good deal. to get anything new you have to shell out 60$.
That's no different than buying an expasion pack and the price goes down just like any other expansion, I've seen one for 20 dollars in stores. You have to buy expansion packs when you play subscription based games as well. The only difference is that with guild wars you don't pay a subscription fee.
Disagreeing with someone's topic doesn't make it poorly written. If you have any technical complaints about the writing, feel free to send them over. From a purely written point of view, I don't see what you have to complain about.
While I wouldn't call it the worst article I've seen, the whole thing is one lengthy logical fallacy. It goes after a couple of absurd strawman arguments that aren't what people commonly say, and then criticizes players for not liking a business model without ever considering the reasons why players don't like the business model.
"suck" is subjective.
If it's so subjective then why does he bring it up at all? He was implicitly asking for an opinion. Dont ask for an opinion if you dont want to hear it.
I've never seen a F2P game I thought was as appealing as most P2P games. That may change eventually (not holding my breath, but anything is possible), but right now they all look pretty ameturish compared to the P2P stuff to me. Thats my "subjective" opinion. And it appears I'm not alone.
However, when most subscription MMORPG players state that free to play games "suck", I think the general consensus is that people do not agree with the revenue model. The game relies on microtransactions, or "cash shops", to remain profitable. Often as a way to incentivise purchasing items for a character, these microtransactions sacrifice the integrity of the legitimacy of a character's progression, namely by providing items that give these paying players an edge over non-paying players.
That too, although the lower quality/support is the main problem I have with F2P personally. But yeah, I dont like the idea of being able to "buy" victory or advancement. Kinda defeats the whole point of playing doesnt it?
Disagreeing with someone's topic doesn't make it poorly written. If you have any technical complaints about the writing, feel free to send them over. From a purely written point of view, I don't see what you have to complain about.
This is true, but I believe it's quite obvious that writing Diry instead of Dirty and then writing a sentence like this.
Many people "free to play" is a dirty word.
Which says enough for me, it's poorly written english. Please.. read it and patch it up.
I am just giving my opinion, plain and simple.
source: http://www.mmorpg.com/newsRoom.cfm/read/13712/utm_campaign/MMORPG%20News%20Alert%20Email/utm_source/MMORPG/utm_medium/email
Twitter @Phantium
OH NOZ! a typo, this invalidates EVERYTHING he said!
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
What I replied to has nothing to do with what he said, seems you have nothing better to do then flame people. Without even knowing what I am talking about in the first place.
Twitter @Phantium
It's funny.
That's pretty much one of the main reasons I don't play F2P games. Poor English spelling and grammar.
You only get whatever enjoyment you get from a F2P game be it using items to help advance your toon or just the knowledge that you reached the end game with no items from the mall. As is truely stated in various posts it's not totally free to play, it does cost you something in the end, which sometimes is a big headache.
Any game> watching TV
All games are worthy, whether they are free to play or not. If people have fun in those games- it doesn't matte if it costs $15 a month or it's free.
I pay for LoTRO and my brother pays for WoW. My daughter plays Neopets for free and my friend Becky ( a Veterinarien, no less!) plays Gaia for free. All 4 of us have fun in our respective games. It's all good. Any game beats watching TV every night:)
Disagreeing with someone's topic doesn't make it poorly written. If you have any technical complaints about the writing, feel free to send them over. From a purely written point of view, I don't see what you have to complain about.
This is true, but I believe it's quite obvious that writing Diry instead of Dirty and then writing a sentence like this.
Many people "free to play" is a dirty word.
Which says enough for me, it's poorly written english. Please.. read it and patch it up.
I am just giving my opinion, plain and simple.
source: http://www.mmorpg.com/newsRoom.cfm/read/13712/utm_campaign/MMORPG%20News%20Alert%20Email/utm_source/MMORPG/utm_medium/email
Oh the news item, that is far from his fault. I must have rushed through it, both typos were exclusively mine. Neither of those typos appear in the actual article, apologies.
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
Disagreeing with someone's topic doesn't make it poorly written. If you have any technical complaints about the writing, feel free to send them over. From a purely written point of view, I don't see what you have to complain about.
This is true, but I believe it's quite obvious that writing Diry instead of Dirty and then writing a sentence like this.
Many people "free to play" is a dirty word.
Which says enough for me, it's poorly written english. Please.. read it and patch it up.
I am just giving my opinion, plain and simple.
source: http://www.mmorpg.com/newsRoom.cfm/read/13712/utm_campaign/MMORPG%20News%20Alert%20Email/utm_source/MMORPG/utm_medium/email
Oh the news item, that is far from his fault. I must have rushed through it, both typos were exclusively mine. Neither of those typos appear in the actual article, apologies.
So you were slacking..tsk..tsk..tsk.
Disagreeing with someone's topic doesn't make it poorly written. If you have any technical complaints about the writing, feel free to send them over. From a purely written point of view, I don't see what you have to complain about.
This is true, but I believe it's quite obvious that writing Diry instead of Dirty and then writing a sentence like this.
Many people "free to play" is a dirty word.
Which says enough for me, it's poorly written english. Please.. read it and patch it up.
I am just giving my opinion, plain and simple.
source: http://www.mmorpg.com/newsRoom.cfm/read/13712/utm_campaign/MMORPG%20News%20Alert%20Email/utm_source/MMORPG/utm_medium/email
Oh the news item, that is far from his fault. I must have rushed through it, both typos were exclusively mine. Neither of those typos appear in the actual article, apologies.
So you were slacking..tsk..tsk..tsk.
I prefer the term "Mondays" to "slacking"
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
What I replied to has nothing to do with what he said, seems you have nothing better to do then flame people. Without even knowing what I am talking about in the first place.
Your saying a few typos make this the "worst article ever". I was just matching your extremes. you also, need to read more MMORPG.com articles.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me