Lot of hatred towards F2P mmorpgs sprung from the mmorpg community. But I believe this hatred is really linked to fear. Why do you fear F2P mmorpg games? Why,,,,,,
I hate how they maniplulate the game in order to suck money from you. For instance, when they sell warehouse space or inventory space and force it on you by making your default inventories and warehouses far too small. Or when they make equipment break when upgrading unless you buy the protection items. Or lower xp rates on everything then sell xp items.
Or how they allow big spenders extra advantages.
So they make the game fustrating, then sell you items to remove those fustrations.
Also the games are terribly boring and weak, sure they are fun for 20 or 30 levels thats the part that really can be free. Then you hit a grind wall, after a while you question why your grinding (killing mobs over and over for hours for xp and for only that reason) if the endgame is low population and theres not much to do.
In a month or two a new f2p pops up using a similair engin with similair gameplay and general setup. Diffrent look and a new gimmick. It will be the next big thing your told. Rinse and repeat.
Or you can play on a level playing field for a flat fee, for a game thats more then killing goofy looking mobs at nausea as fast as you can (although you usually can do that if you wish). You usually get more for your money with p2p games and spend less over time. You f2p player are suckers if you spend money on those games.
People should stop citing DDO as an example of a F2P that is "good". It started off as a P2P, with the development time and relative level of quality that goes with that. Having said that, it was not a particularly successful MMO, and its sub base had bottomed out to the point that the people running that game felt they were not losing much by going to that model. Many people felt it was too restricted, with too many instances, especially considering what fans of the IP expected. DDO was never designed to go F2P, and I doubt the devs were happy it did.
Of course they are. Search the thread. There is a post about an article saying that DDO's revenue growth by 500% since it turns F2P and its sub based increased 2x (the rest of the increase by the item shop).
It is used as the poster child of how going F2P to be a successful business move. The developers are VERY pleased.
And yet, you say nothing about the main point, DDO is better than other F2Ps, BECAUSE it was not developed as a F2P. Had it been, it would have come out in much different shape. I guarantee it was not funded for development with that in mind.
As to how much their revenue has gone up, 500% revenue increase over a base of not much, is not much to brag about. Estimates for active subs before they went F2P ranged from 3-7k, so it not like they were risking much. In the MMO market, that's nothing, unless you are SOE and you have 5 games all doing that.
The developers are pleased they are getting anything. If you think that they are happy that their game was not good enough to compete in the P2P market, and going F2P was anything but a last ditch effort to break even before closure, I am sure they would disagree.
They are happy to get any revenue whatsoever... too much longer and they'd have been getting none.
"it not like they were risking much"? Uh, the F2P transition didn't magically happen on its own -- it incurred non-trivial dev costs. Spent on a floundering product. Investing more money in a floudering product is a risk.
But from a certain angle I agree it wasn't a "risk" because (to me) it was clearly a smart business move. Personally I think every non-WOW P2P (possibly even WOW) are crazy to not follow the same strategy. For any high-quality game, F2P is a money explosion waiting to happen.
And for that reason, most of your "counterarguments" are totally inconsequential. Yeah, it was developed P2P. So what? If it'd been developed as a F2P from the start with the same quality bar, they would've saved all that money switching payment structures and still had the same high-quality good-revenue result.
F2Ps developed as high-quality games from the start are where it's at. This means every aspect of the game (including the types of purchases in the game's shop) is well-designed. The first company to put out a high-quality F2P is going to make a lot of money because everyone's going to try their game, everyone's going to be playing for free, the high-quality gameplay is going to keep people playing, so enough people will pay money to keep the game going strong.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
"And for that reason, most of your "counterarguments" are totally inconsequential. Yeah, it was developed P2P. So what? If it'd been developed as a F2P from the start with the same quality bar, they would've saved all that money switching payment structures and still had the same high-quality good-revenue result."
You don't get it. If it was designed as a F2P game from the start many of us would not even consider playing that game in the first place. Why? We don't trust F2P games because they tend to exploit ppl.
"F2Ps developed as high-quality games from the start are where it's at. This means every aspect of the game (including the types of purchases in the game's shop) is well-designed. The first company to put out a high-quality F2P is going to make a lot of money because everyone's going to try their game, everyone's going to be playing for free, the high-quality gameplay is going to keep people playing, so enough people will pay money to keep the game going strong."
I'm not going to try that "fantasy game". Why? I don't trust they will continue to have a well designed cash shop. F2P games can have that when they start and for players at lower levels, but sooner or later cash comes into place. If the game has such high quality they need to get ppl to spend lots of money right? It's very simple, they need your money. What happens is that the skilled/fair players will quit the game when they realize that you need to pay to be competitive. Also, please note that you can try most P2P games for free already. If you like it you subscribe and pay the same amount as everyone else - purrrfect.
Can F2P games be successful financially? Yes of course. Explotation of inexperienced ppl such as kids can be very profitable. Make someone think they can get something for free, get them into a virtual world and meet new friends, introduce more and more "cool" and also important in game items that can be bought for real money. It's a good business plan and Im sure we will see hundreds of such games, many of them successful financially. Is it a problem? Not for me personally, but if lots of kids spend lots of money on those games it might be regarded as a problem, for them and for their parents. (Just look at the adverts for those games and you will see that most of them target kids in their marketing).
Can F2P games be successful financially? Yes of course. Explotation of inexperienced ppl such as kids can be very profitable. Make someone think they can get something for free, get them into a virtual world and meet new friends, introduce more and more "cool" and also important in game items that can be bought for real money. It's a good business plan and Im sure we will see hundreds of such games, many of them successful financially. Is it a problem? Not for me personally, but if lots of kids spend lots of money on those games it might be regarded as a problem, for them and for their parents. (Just look at the adverts for those games and you will see that most of them target kids in their marketing).
Let's not forget, the average gamer is actually in their 30s and male so it wouldn't really be the kids that are exploited especially when they are without money. Most likely, those kids would be the ones playing it for free most of the time due to inaccessibility of money.
You can read it in some of these responses, people are just scared that they are taken advantage of because everything is being sold to them rather than just paying a monthly subscription which is outside of the norm. People don't like unfamiliar things and you partially can't blame them since you are paying for data and content.
The stigma behind F2P as being a money grubber as opposed to P2P is just plain old silly in the West and unjustified. P2P do similar things if not worse gimmicks and can be put in positions where trust can be compromised as well if not more so when people are binding their relationships with a regular monthly fee.
People want a balanced playing field with P2P but lets not forget that F2P does the same thing by providing parts of their game for free equally to everyone starting out as well. It just so happens that you don't have as much access because a good chunk of their game starts out as being free. Again, these developers spend lots of time on their respective games and have families to feed too. Everyone wants something for as little to nothing for everything and this a commonality amongst many in America.
Again, with the stigma behind F2P, the advantages you get out of any sort of money in most of them involve faster leveling, which is more a luxury and less of a necessity. If you are any good at video games, you shouldn't feel inclined to buy it unless you really love the game, then buying something from the cash shops and showing your support probably wouldn't even be an issue.
Again, I think its because F2P break the norm over here that people don't like the unfamiliarness of this model and are afraid that companies might find their way to separate money from their wallets in legitimate fashion. I do agree with the thread that it is somewhat built upon fear, this stigma.
You're disagreeing with a point I never made. I'm not discussing twitch versus button pushing. I'm discussing the concept some people have that it's "unfair" that someone else has more time than them to play a game and will make more progress.
And Im afraid I didnt make myself clear, that is exactly what Im disagreeing with, it IS unfair that someone who has more time to play a game will make more progress. imho time should never be directly proportional to progress. skill should.
How is that unfair? That is how life is.. the more time you put in something, the better chances you will get more rewards from it
Games that try to please everyone in that way generally tend to end up crappy.
actually you are wrong, in real life naturally talented people arent forced into dumping excruciatingly long hours doing a totally skippable (for them) training, and they usually get the most rewards.
and those without talent are the ones who have to spend more hours to catch up.
in nowaday's games it happens the inverse, naturally talented people are forced to go thru the same traning wheel stages as the rest, and those with no talent but more time will go ahead of them,instead of struggling to catch them, as if the talent gap didnt even exist.
You're misconstruing the situation, though.
First.. there are situations where a more skilled player would bypass a less skilled one. In terms of planning and executing strategy.. in terms of knowing the enemies better, in terms of understanding their character's abilities better, etc. etc. All those things can and do affect the pace at which people make progress through a MMO, and they do come into play in a progress-based MMO. I see it all the time.
That said... what I'm talking about, and others have echoed, is that no matter what the "skill level" there are things that everyone has to go through, regardless.. They all have to level. They all have to get gear. They all have to complete quests or missions to get the same rewards. The game doesn't cater more or less to either side but provides each the same exact experience.
Here's an example...
In FFXI, there's this series of level cap quests starting at 50. Every 5 levels you have to complete a quest to unlock the next set of 5 levels. The final quest/test is to beat this old mizerly guy named Maat in one-on-one combat. The guy is a sonuvabitch to beat. Skill and preparation - and some luck - all play a factor in how quickly you beat him. Some beat him on their first try and find it easy... for some it takes 10+ attempts and they find it extremely difficult. Skill and preparation and understanding of your skills, being able to create a strategy that works and then execute it successfully all come into play.
Here's where my point comes into play...
No matter how skilled you are, you will still have to fight Maat if you want to progress in the game. Period. No exceptions. Now, being more skilled and more prepared than other players will allow you to beat him more readily and in fewer tries... so skill also comes into play. The two are not mutually exclusive. It's time *and* skill, not time *or* skill.
Using the Maat example to illustrate what I'm against is that there are those who would say (and I have seen people say it) "It's not fair that people who started before us already finished their level cap quests and beat Maat and now we have to go through that. They should take that out completely and just let you go straight to level cap so we can catch up".
I don't care how it's colored or spun or defended... something like that would be utter and complete BS.
You're arguing skill versus time... I'm not arguing against the skill aspect. I will say that there are likely MMOs out there where skill is more important than time. I'd also argue that time and skill are not mutually exclusive (as per the Maat example).
However, what I'm getting at are the people who want everything in the game made faster/easier/more convenient so they can get through it faster and "catch up" to people who have been playing longer and *did* have to go through all that. They characterize it as them "being punished for not starting with everyone else" - and that's just a load of entitled, whiny crap as far as I'm concerned. And I hold that mindset whether I'm the "experienced vet" having already gone through all that... or the day 1 newbie in a game who still has to go through it all. It's part of playing the game.
In my opinion, all games - MMO or otherwise - are designed to provide a certain kind of experience - or series of experiences - for their players. For some to say "I don't care that it took others a year or longer to get where they are and that they had to go through all that content to get there. I should be given an easy pass to get there sooner with less time and effort because I chose to start the game later" or "because I don't have as much time to play as they do" is just plain self-centered.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
But look at Guild Wars. they are balanced. So your arguement is flawed here buddy
Guild Wars is not an MMO. The devs have stated this themselves, and players still continue to bring the game into discussions.
MMO qualifications aside, Guild Wars is only subscription free, you have to buy the box so it doesn't qualify in any way in the realm of F2P games. That said, I do think the Guild Wars model is far, far more acceptable than the traditional F2P MMO with a cash shop.
I'd like to think that the players who inhabit F2P's are trying to get by on skill, but usually that's not the case. I hate the ability to buy content with real money, because it means that the players with fatter wallets will get all the good stuff, instead of genuinely playing the game. It just takes the fun out of it.
That, and usually F2P's are:
1) Not very fun, or are facades of completed games
2) Are poorly maintained/monitored
3) Are sparsely inhabited
4) Just plain boring
But that's just from my experiences. I'm not going to claim to have played every single F2P out there, but that's the generality of the ones I have tried out.
Originally posted by drsteffo I'm not going to try that "fantasy game". Why? I don't trust they will continue to have a well designed cash shop. F2P games can have that when they start and for players at lower levels, but sooner or later cash comes into place. If the game has such high quality they need to get ppl to spend lots of money right? It's very simple, they need your money. What happens is that the skilled/fair players will quit the game when they realize that you need to pay to be competitive. Also, please note that you can try most P2P games for free already. If you like it you subscribe and pay the same amount as everyone else - purrrfect. Can F2P games be successful financially? Yes of course. Explotation of inexperienced ppl such as kids can be very profitable. Make someone think they can get something for free, get them into a virtual world and meet new friends, introduce more and more "cool" and also important in game items that can be bought for real money. It's a good business plan and Im sure we will see hundreds of such games, many of them successful financially. Is it a problem? Not for me personally, but if lots of kids spend lots of money on those games it might be regarded as a problem, for them and for their parents. (Just look at the adverts for those games and you will see that most of them target kids in their marketing).
Inconsequential!
All PC games used to be B2P. These same arguments came up durign the transition to P2P. The minority of stubborn gamers proved inconsequential in the overall scheme of things, because look where we're at now: probably the majority of PC game revenue is from P2P games at this point!
Also you're obsessing over pay2compete purchases when I specifically stated that item mall purchase types also have to be well-designed. Games like DDO and LoL have been some of the stronger success stories in the F2P market and part of this success is not screwing their gameplay over with their shop. Purchases unlock new playstyles and new content, they don't make you overtly more powerful.
But yeah, if all you've seen are bad item shops I can't fault you for not understanding the good ways to do item shops which don't compromise gameplay.
I stand by my statement though. DDO, while fun, is still on the lower end of the overall fun of MMORPG games. As soon as a truly high-quality game gets released F2P it's going to do amazing. And the minority of stubborn gamers is going to get sucked into it too when everyone is playing the game and having a great time.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'd like to think that the players who inhabit F2P's are trying to get by on skill, but usually that's not the case. I hate the ability to buy content with real money, because it means that the players with fatter wallets will get all the good stuff, instead of genuinely playing the game. It just takes the fun out of it. That, and usually F2P's are: 1) Not very fun, or are facades of completed games 2) Are poorly maintained/monitored 3) Are sparsely inhabited 4) Just plain boring But that's just from my experiences. I'm not going to claim to have played every single F2P out there, but that's the generality of the ones I have tried out.
Perhaps traditionally the case, but I think there is a new crop that may bust that traditional stigma. That is why I focus my objection to F2P games on what I described, the difference between a developer making money based on how many people play their game verse how many people they can coax in to purchasing cash shop items.
Yes I fear F2P, I am a P2P snob and whatever other crap you think is needed to explain a perfectly rational dislike of an exploitative revenue model.
If thinking I am afraid of F2P lets you get to sleep at night without worrying your little head with difficult concepts like scam, play to win and pay to level, then I am happy for you.
better keep those f2p game hidden from your computer then because if some hear about f2p game they ll be like ,wtf why you pay to play game there are some very good one free .i faced this questionning and you know what
i coulnt justify paying all the money i paid in p2p game when the f2p game is cheapper in price .
sad reality !f2p game are just getting too good .so on the long run i ll have to do like asian go f2p or leave gameing market
because i wasnt allowed anymore ,aoc,war fiasco!cant blame there.i did spent a lot on game i never almost didnt play.
Can F2P games be successful financially? Yes of course. Explotation of inexperienced ppl such as kids can be very profitable. Make someone think they can get something for free, get them into a virtual world and meet new friends, introduce more and more "cool" and also important in game items that can be bought for real money. It's a good business plan and Im sure we will see hundreds of such games, many of them successful financially. Is it a problem? Not for me personally, but if lots of kids spend lots of money on those games it might be regarded as a problem, for them and for their parents. (Just look at the adverts for those games and you will see that most of them target kids in their marketing).
Let's not forget, the average gamer is actually in their 30s and male so it wouldn't really be the kids that are exploited especially when they are without money. Most likely, those kids would be the ones playing it for free most of the time due to inaccessibility of money.
You can read it in some of these responses, people are just scared that they are taken advantage of because everything is being sold to them rather than just paying a monthly subscription which is outside of the norm. People don't like unfamiliar things and you partially can't blame them since you are paying for data and content.
The stigma behind F2P as being a money grubber as opposed to P2P is just plain old silly in the West and unjustified. P2P do similar things if not worse gimmicks and can be put in positions where trust can be compromised as well if not more so when people are binding their relationships with a regular monthly fee.
Care to share some specific examples of how P2P subscribers are "compromised as well if not more so"? I mean specific examples.. not theoretical or hypothetical scenarios.. but real ones that actually prove out that assertion?
"Binding your relationship"? Really? Is that how you're going to characterize it? "Binding a relationship"? Interesting euphemism. I call it a typical subscription setup; you pay for a service... you're provided that service.
I pay a monthly sub of ~$15, and get to play the game as much or little as I want, do what I want and have access to everything the game has to offer for 30 days of service. Everything is available in-game. Every "obstacle" that's presented to me has an in-game way of getting over/around it - without having to pull out the credit card each time.
I know that whether now, tomorrow or 5 months down the road, everything I could want to do in the game will be available to me for the same consistent subscription price. As long as I'm enjoying myself, I continue subscribing. If I cease to enjoy myself, I cancel my subscription. I'm not "bound" by anything.
But still, you left that assertion dangling there, unsupported. Care to provide some specific examples of how P2P players are "compromised"?
People want a balanced playing field with P2P but lets not forget that F2P does the same thing by providing parts of their game for free equally to everyone starting out as well. It just so happens that you don't have as much access because a good chunk of their game starts out as being free. Again, these developers spend lots of time on their respective games and have families to feed too. Everyone wants something for as little to nothing for everything and this a commonality amongst many in America.
What a disingenuous load of nonsense... you go from making an absurd and completely false statement, and end it with a plea to emotion with the whole "they have families to feed, too". I'll get to each in turn.
The key words in your statement... "equally to everyone starting out". Bingo.
You can play for free for a while and not need a cash shop... this is how they provide the illusion to players (many of whom are easily convinced) that you can play and enjoy the game without spending a dime. Then you hit that inevitable "wall" where everything ramps up and the only way to remain competitive, or even "keep up" is to grind endlessly without spending money, or... ya know... buy some of those nifty xp potions they offer... or some of those HP/MP charms that provide a huge reserve of auto-replenishing HP/MP... or extra temporary inventory space to carry all those extra items they're going to need to carry around... or for that mount that they're going to want/need to get around the world with any degree of efficiency.. and on and on...
You said it yourself... the beginning of the game is a level playing field - until the wall is hit and the credit cards come out. Then it all goes out the window. P2P MMOs, on the other hand, are level playing fields from level 1 to level cap, including all content, all consumables, all items, all gear, etc. etc. Everything is equally available to all players for the same monthly cost. Period.
As for the "they have families to feed too" statement...
... And? Should I be feeling some sense of empathy here?
They could have gone subscription. They could have gone free with advertising in-game. They could have gone F2P with Item Shops. They could have gone one-time purchase with no sub (a la GW)... They chose F2P with Item Malls. How well or poorly they do is their problem... not the players'.
Again, with the stigma behind F2P, the advantages you get out of any sort of money in most of them involve faster leveling, which is more a luxury and less of a necessity. If you are any good at video games, you shouldn't feel inclined to buy it unless you really love the game, then buying something from the cash shops and showing your support probably wouldn't even be an issue.
Another naive and/or disingenuous statement.
People are competitive animals. To them, being able to keep up *is* a "necessity"... in almost anything.
People are often impatient animals... getting what they want ASAP if not sooner is deemed a "necessity" by many, and they wrap themselves up in all these "important sounding" limitations that make "getting there faster and easier with less hassle" seem mandatory.
People are also often envious animals and want to have the cool shiny stuff "that guy over there" has... but they don't want to have to earn it the way that person did. They'd rather just buy their way to "equality".
All those tendencies - and others - have led to people purchasing in-game gold, power-leveling, items, and fully leveled characters - for 100s if not 1000s of dollars in other MMOs for years now. The people behind F2P are aware of this and they've tapped into that market where they can provide "on-demand" fixes to all those "obstacles" many players deal with... and the real kick is, those "obstacles" are placed there - by design - by the F2P developers.
It's really a pretty obvious scenario when you step back and look at it. When you strip away the identity of who's selling the items, what do item shops resemble? RMT. It's a pretty short leap of logic from that point to put 2 and 2 together. To state the obvious: Item Shops are nothing but sanctioned RMT. The F2P will plaster the word "free" all over their marketing and PR.. But they have no intention of people playing their game for any length of time without spending money. For sure, those who play without spending money in the item mall are not their intended market, and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who could honestly claim otherwise.
Again, I think its because F2P break the norm over here that people don't like the unfamiliarness of this model and are afraid that companies might find their way to separate money from their wallets in legitimate fashion. I do agree with the thread that it is somewhat built upon fear, this stigma.
"companies might find their way to separate money from their wallets in a legitimate fashion"
/facepalm
Oh FFS. Could you be any more ironic than with that statement?
Subscriptions are *legitimate*.
- You know exactly what you're paying for, you know exactly what you'll have access to and you know exactly how far your money will go based on how much you can play.
- You know exactly how much you will be paying, month-by-month without having to worry if some additional item you need will put you "over budget" or what-not. It's a flat sub fee, every month, like clockwork.
- You don't have to worry about some change to the game design, or the addition of some new items affecting your wallet in any way, because no matter what they add, you pay no more than you did last month.
- You know for a fact that what you see "that guy over there" wearing is within your reach for no more than your time - if you're willing to invest in it - because "that guy over there" spent no more to get where he is than you did.
- You know that no matter what obstacle you run into, there's an in-game way to deal with it that won't cost you any more out-of-pocket than you're already spending.
Subscription fees are a simple, straight-forward, honest and consistent payment model. There's no need to wonder "if you're going to have to spend more money on something because you already know the answer is "No", because it's all included for the same flat rate.
P2P MMOs provide an equal playing field to all players because everyone pays the same, everyone has access to the same content, everyone has to face the same challenges/obstacles to get what/where they want - gold-buying / rmt notwithstanding.
And what's worse... for those who continue to play so-called F2P MMOs and do use the item shops regularly, they are typically paying *more* than a normal subscription fee... for only a miniscule fraction of the overall game content.
I have played F2P MMOs and had conversations with long-time players who were deep into the game, to see if they were really something I would want to invest in long-term. What better way to find out than to ask a variety of people who had been doing just that?
The *least* any of them payed was around $30 a month... most of them payed upwards of $50 or more per month... just to keep playing at the level they wanted to play at (equally to most everyone else around them). They noted some paying 100s per month and added "they're playing their own game. We can't touch them".
Each of them has stated that there's no way they could realistically play at the level they play at, much less enjoy themselves, if they didn't spend around that much for upkeep. And this isn't coming from "haters"... this is coming from people who played and enjoyed the game - but at least were *honest* about the deal and didn't try spinning it as something else.
Sorry... I don't care what light you put it in, how you spin it or how much you plead for "people having to feed their families"... that is *far* from "free to play" as far as I'm concerned.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Originally posted by drsteffo I'm not going to try that "fantasy game". Why? I don't trust they will continue to have a well designed cash shop. F2P games can have that when they start and for players at lower levels, but sooner or later cash comes into place. If the game has such high quality they need to get ppl to spend lots of money right? It's very simple, they need your money. What happens is that the skilled/fair players will quit the game when they realize that you need to pay to be competitive. Also, please note that you can try most P2P games for free already. If you like it you subscribe and pay the same amount as everyone else - purrrfect. Can F2P games be successful financially? Yes of course. Explotation of inexperienced ppl such as kids can be very profitable. Make someone think they can get something for free, get them into a virtual world and meet new friends, introduce more and more "cool" and also important in game items that can be bought for real money. It's a good business plan and Im sure we will see hundreds of such games, many of them successful financially. Is it a problem? Not for me personally, but if lots of kids spend lots of money on those games it might be regarded as a problem, for them and for their parents. (Just look at the adverts for those games and you will see that most of them target kids in their marketing).
Inconsequential!
All PC games used to be B2P. These same arguments came up durign the transition to P2P. The minority of stubborn gamers proved inconsequential in the overall scheme of things, because look where we're at now: probably the majority of PC game revenue is from P2P games at this point!
Also you're obsessing over pay2compete purchases when I specifically stated that item mall purchase types also have to be well-designed. Games like DDO and LoL have been some of the stronger success stories in the F2P market and part of this success is not screwing their gameplay over with their shop. Purchases unlock new playstyles and new content, they don't make you overtly more powerful.
But yeah, if all you've seen are bad item shops I can't fault you for not understanding the good ways to do item shops which don't compromise gameplay.
I stand by my statement though. DDO, while fun, is still on the lower end of the overall fun of MMORPG games. As soon as a truly high-quality game gets released F2P it's going to do amazing. And the minority of stubborn gamers is going to get sucked into it too when everyone is playing the game and having a great time.
I wasn't talking about the history of the gaming industry so I don't see how anything I said was inconsequential.
Did I say F2P games cannot do well? (see above). Would I play that game? No. Call me cynical but I would not assume this was the odd exception where some billionaires and fantastic game designers have come together for some MMO charity and provide the gaming community with a great game almost free of charge. I would assume they want people to use the cash shop frequently because that's how they earn their money. It would only be rational for them to start out with a "well-designed" cash shop to draw players into the game and then successively add more important items to the cash shop, similar to the "foot in the door" strategy often used by salespeople. My response is the "door in the face" strategy since I prefer and enjoy playing P2P games.
Maybe I've had bad luck with the F2P games I have tried and those experiences have shaped my attitude towards F2P games in general. However, even pure logic for me says that a flat fee is more fair than having cash shops. I sure hope there are better F2P games out there but I see no need to check them out since I already have fun playing some P2P games.
Originally posted by WSIMike Originally posted by Jairoe03 Care to share some specific examples of how P2P subscribers are "compromised as well if not more so"? I mean specific examples.. not theoretical or hypothetical scenarios.. but real ones that actually prove out that assertion? "Binding your relationship"? Really? Is that how you're going to characterize it? "Binding a relationship"? Interesting euphemism. I call it a typical subscription setup; you pay for a service... you're provided that service.I pay a monthly sub of ~$15, and get to play the game as much or little as I want, do what I want and have access to everything the game has to offer for 30 days of service. Everything is available in-game. Every "obstacle" that's presented to me has an in-game way of getting over/around it - without having to pull out the credit card each time. I know that whether now, tomorrow or 5 months down the road, everything I could want to do in the game will be available to me for the same consistent subscription price. As long as I'm enjoying myself, I continue subscribing. If I cease to enjoy myself, I cancel my subscription. I'm not "bound" by anything.
First, let's start with a little forum posting 101, please have the consideration to organize your thoughts and leave it in a fashion where people can quickly read it and effectively respond to it. I just cut out a portion and respond to a portion because long essays of a post is inconsiderate of everyone's time despite the thoughtfulness of the response. Much of the things appear repeated anyway where you seem to address my "families being fed" expression twice along with many points about why you prefer P2P. I would like to also clarify that you should read between the lines and its my way of saying that these types of things aren't part-time jobs to these people and they need to make a living too like everyone else. It wasn't a call for empathy, it was something to consider amongst the idea of F2P.
In regards to my response, if you have an ounce of business sense, you subscribing to an MMO is a binding agreement hence the legalities and that easily-forgotten agreement you ACCEPT every time you first-time log onto the game and for every patch there-after. Me paying an amount monthly is binding me to at the very least a month of gameplay. I don't see it as outrageous of a statement than what its made out to be.
In regards to some examples of P2P compromising people's trust, let's start with Cryptic on two counts, life-time subs for Champions and Star Trek Online, utilizing closed beta promises for obvious marketing attempts, the very idea of RTM combined with subs make some people's blood boil in itself, expansions on top of box sales AND subs isn't some form of exploitation? You would hope your subs would cover the amount of the additional content with expansions but maybe you were trained to accept these already from the beginning hence "subscriptions appearing to cover less and less of what they used to". Whats the cost of entry to play something as established as LOTR Online or WoW these days? I guess the P2P companies aren't in it for the money...
You demand examples from me in regards to P2P but failed to provide any example of how F2P would be considered an unfair income model for MMO's, sounds a little hypocritical in a sense. Many things in many F2P are actually accessible in-game as well, DDO which is a good example (and also a great example of a hybrid income model, which I believe has potential for the future). Most of my experience with cash shops with most F2P are nothing game-breaking and is provided purely out of convenience and fluff (which some P2P's charge even).
Since you were so adamant about your stance on P2P and F2P, let me end asking this: How many F2P games have you tried as opposed to P2P games before even making these statements?
With the cost of entry being vastly cheaper for F2P compared to P2P, you would hope a person would have tried more F2P compared to P2P before even formulating over-exaggerated negative/positive opinions over F2P/P2P respectively, but its easy to see the ignorance and the lack of support and facts (despite the length and consideration which I entirely respect of the opinions) behind how informed people are between the two.
I decided to try Fallen Earth. I went to their website and downloaded the free trial. I tried the game and I liked it. I subscribed and will pay until I don't want to play any longer. No cash shop in game. Is it too expensive? Personally I dont think so. Is it the perfect game? No, that's not what I'm saying. Just saying this normal P2P payment model works best for me.
Care to share some specific examples of how P2P subscribers are "compromised as well if not more so"? I mean specific examples.. not theoretical or hypothetical scenarios.. but real ones that actually prove out that assertion? "Binding your relationship"? Really? Is that how you're going to characterize it? "Binding a relationship"? Interesting euphemism. I call it a typical subscription setup; you pay for a service... you're provided that service. I pay a monthly sub of ~$15, and get to play the game as much or little as I want, do what I want and have access to everything the game has to offer for 30 days of service. Everything is available in-game. Every "obstacle" that's presented to me has an in-game way of getting over/around it - without having to pull out the credit card each time. I know that whether now, tomorrow or 5 months down the road, everything I could want to do in the game will be available to me for the same consistent subscription price. As long as I'm enjoying myself, I continue subscribing. If I cease to enjoy myself, I cancel my subscription. I'm not "bound" by anything.
First, let's start with a little forum posting 101, please have the consideration to organize your thoughts and leave it in a fashion where people can quickly read it and effectively respond to it. I just cut out a portion and respond to a portion because long essays of a post is inconsiderate of everyone's time despite the thoughtfulness of the response. Much of the things appear repeated anyway where you seem to address my "families being fed" expression twice along with many points about why you prefer P2P. I would like to also clarify that you should read between the lines and its my way of saying that these types of things aren't part-time jobs to these people and they need to make a living too like everyone else. It wasn't a call for empathy, it was something to consider amongst the idea of F2P.
Forum etiquette? I post what I want to post to make my point. If it's "too much for you to read", then don't read it. Simple.
Oh yeah, just a suggestion... Get over yourself.
In regards to my response, if you have an ounce of business sense, you subscribing to an MMO is a binding agreement hence the legalities and that easily-forgotten agreement you ACCEPT every time you first-time log onto the game and for every patch there-after. Me paying an amount monthly is binding me to at the very least a month of gameplay. I don't see it as outrageous of a statement than what its made out to be.
So now deciding to play a MMO as recreation requires "business sense"? I don't think so.
How about some plain old common sense instead?
You're paying a monthly fee for the ability to access the online service portion of the game. That's the agreement. That's the way subscriptions work... just like with cable, just like with music services, just like with anything that requires a subscription fee. If you want to play, it's there. That's what you're paying for.
When I sub'd for Internet Access, I had to pay for the modem separately...plus pay the monthly internet fee. That wasn't "exploitation". That's the deal. At least the company was up front about what I would be paying... and that's the difference. When I signed up for cable, there was a fee for the cable box, plus the monthly fee. I knew this up-front. If it were set up as a F2P, it would be "Free To Watch!" and then they'd nickel and dime you for every "feature" that you'd get standard with a normal monthly subscription rate, all while making it sound like it's a great deal.
In regards to some examples of P2P compromising people's trust, let's start with Cryptic on two counts, life-time subs for Champions and Star Trek Online, utilizing closed beta promises for obvious marketing attempts, the very idea of RTM combined with subs make some people's blood boil in itself, expansions on top of box sales AND subs isn't some form of exploitation? You would hope your subs would cover the amount of the additional content with expansions but maybe you were trained to accept these already from the beginning hence "subscriptions appearing to cover less and less of what they used to". Whats the cost of entry to play something as established as LOTR Online or WoW these days? I guess the P2P companies aren't in it for the money...
First... Lifetime Subscriptions are an option the individual is free to opt for, or choose not to. If you do, you do so full-knowing that you may not get your money's worth... That's the risk the individual takes when purchasing a life-time sub, and they are fully accountable to no one but themself if they find the purchase not worth it in the long run. The company offered you life-time of service to the product - they didn't guarantee you'd enjoy it. That's where personal accountability comes in.
However, whether you choose lifetime sub or normal sub fee, the game is no different than it would be otherwise.
At the end of the day, though, they got what they paid for. They paid a one-time fee for a lifetime sub and they got exactly that. The game is accessible to them any time they want to play it so long a the game is in service.
Second... You pay a one-time fee for the product itself - the code, the packaging, etc. etc. The subscription fee covers the ongoing online support of said product... you know there's things like employees, bandwidth, electricity and so forth that needs to be covered. Interestingly... many times the fees for the box sales *and* the ongoing sub fee also is applied to ongoing development and maintenance of added content. Not all added content is in the form of paid expansions. Are expansions and sub fees exploitation? Nope. Again, you're paying for the development of brand-new content - often times a considerable amount of it - and the subscription fee continues to cover the ongoing support of said product.
I don't know about the entry fee for something WoW or LoTRO these days.. .but I know you can get the Ultimate Edition of FFXI for about $20 - that's the original game and all expansions, including the recent 3 mini-expansions they released. I'm not sure you'll find better bargain for the money out there than that.
Those developers are absolutely in it for the money... They're just up-front about it and don't wrap it up in disingenuous "Free To Play!" marketing campaigns, while designing the game in ways that all but guarantee that people will pay the equivalent of a sub in item mall items and then some to continue playing it.
The examples have been listed, I believe even in this very thread, by others and myself. If it's not "too much for you to read", and doesn't violate your "refined sense of forum etiquette", you might do well to back and peruse those posts.
You demand examples from me in regards to P2P but failed to provide any example of how F2P would be considered an unfair income model for MMO's, sounds a little hypocritical in a sense. Many things in many F2P are actually accessible in-game as well, DDO which is a good example (and also a great example of a hybrid income model, which I believe has potential for the future). Most of my experience with cash shops with most F2P are nothing game-breaking and is provided purely out of convenience and fluff (which some P2P's charge even).
Umm... I gave several examples. I guess you were too lazy to read my post enough to find them. Or maybe you need to take your own advice and "read between the lines" in my post... maybe then you'll get it. And, ahh yes... DDO. The F2P fan's "Golden Boy" when it comes to defending the F2P market.
Funny how folks always ingore two key things...
1. DDO started out as a subscription-based game.
2. It became F2P because it wasn't doing well as a subscription-based game.
A MMO that wasn't good enough to justify a monthly sub for enough people has risen as a "champion" of the F2P market... I think that speaks volumes right there of the F2P market overall. When one of the best examples you can put up in defense of F2P is a MMO that was failing as a sub-based game before it went F2P, you might want to reconsider the strength of your position.
Since you were so adamant about your stance on P2P and F2P, let me end asking this: How many F2P games have you tried as opposed to P2P games before even making these statements?
Perfect World, Runes of Magic, Shaiya, Archlord, Atlantica, Last Chaos, Rappelz and a handful of others whose names I can't remember... So, at least 7 that I can name, and at least 4 or 5 others that I can't atm.
I played each of them anywhere from a few weeks to a few months, and had plenty of conversations with experienced players, trying to find out what kind of a value they would be, compared to monthly sub; because I *was* open to the idea of playing them at one point. Everyone I spoke to stated the same thing, unequivicolly... If you intend to play the game for the long term, remain competitive or "keep up"... you will spend more per month in the item mall on average than you would for a subscription to a P2P MMO.
I decided F2P was not the better deal in the long-term, and as time went on and I learned more of the lame tactics used by F2P devs, I realized that not only were they not a good deal... they, in many cases, were a sham.
With the cost of entry being vastly cheaper for F2P compared to P2P, you would hope a person would have tried more F2P compared to P2P before even formulating over-exaggerated negative/positive opinions over F2P/P2P respectively, but its easy to see the ignorance and the lack of support and facts (despite the length and consideration which I entirely respect of the opinions) behind how informed people are between the two.
Support of facts? I have the facts, friend. Hands on. You choose to ignore them or pretend they don't exist.... that's your problem. I've done the math. I've seen how much I spend per day on a monthly sub fee compared to what others spend *per item* in a F2P/Item Mall game. I've had the discussions with people who actively play these games and use the Item Malls.
Want specifics? Okay.
1. Perfect World has "megaphones" that must be purchased from the Cash Shop (or from players reselling them for obnoxious prices) in order to use the global chat channel. Bad enough to have that restriction in a social game... What's worse is - at least when I was playing it - the only way to get GM support was by requesting it in the global chat channel.
2. A few games have HP and MP charms that replenish large quantities of HP over time automatically. These are necessary if you want to be out grinding mobs (the only way to level in many of them) or want to have a fighting chance against another player in PvP.... Unless you want to go around " PvP without charms only please!" - yeah, that would happen. Those cost money and are an on-going consumable. A single one can be easily depleted within a few hours of active gameplay.
3. Inventory space "rental" - this is completely lame. In a type of game where inventory space is almost always tight due to items, gear, quest items, etc. etc. you're *charged* to have inventory space that's only temporary and must be continuously paid for.
4. Mounts - in MMOs, a game type typically featuring vast open worlds to explore, you have to pay considerable prices - I've seen them as high as $20 for a normal mount - just to be able to travel around faster than walking speed. Once the time runs out, you have to get another one. $20 for a mount alone is more than I spend on the subscription for an entire *game*.
... I can continue.
If you're okay with spending potentially far more than a sub fee on item malls, as long as "the game is free to play", then more power to you. I prefer to get more value for my money.
At $13 a month for FFXI, I can play a total of 16 hours in a month, and pay about 80 cents per hour. Considering I play at least 10 hours a week on average - typically more - I'm paying at most 32 cents per hour, per month. And for that, I have equal access to all content in the game - I don't have to purchase temporary inventory space, or a mount... etc. From my perspective, I'm getting the far better deal.
Just because someone doesn't see things from your point-of-view, doesn't mean their views aren't informed.
Again... Get over yourself.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
The problem is that people think that F2P= Korean grinder becaause most of the market is made up of thoose crappy games.
But DDO have showed a buisness model that benefits everyone and can be profitable at the same time. A new big release with a similar model could be a huge sucess.
Personally Im more afraid of crappy P2P MMOs with item shops lik CO/STO....
If WoW = The Beatles and WAR = Led Zeppelin Then LotrO = Pink Floyd
Without going into a wall of text. There are two very simple reasons why you should fear F2P.
1: It gives far too much power to the publisher/developer. The can modify the game to force the CS on you as much as the want, and charge outrageous prices. Additionally, they can do this whenever they want, so say you invested a good amount of time when things were"fair" then suddenly some "emergency maintenance" happens and suddenly mobs hit for 4x and there is a "potion for armor" for just $30 a pack 8D!
The problem is that people think that F2P= Korean grinder becaause most of the market is made up of thoose crappy games. But DDO have showed a buisness model that benefits everyone and can be profitable at the same time. A new big release with a similar model could be a huge sucess.
Personally Im more afraid of crappy P2P MMOs with item shops lik CO/STO....
I find P2P with Item Shops to be worse than F2P... in that case, they're double-dipping by charging a sub fee and then charging extra for content that would normally have been included with the purchase/sub fee. That's pure unmitigated greed right there.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
I don't fear them there are just an awful lot of them that suck horribly. That of course isn't much different from the subscription or upfront cost model for games. Most games suck because for the most part everyone is piss pants afraid of trying anything innovative.
Comments
I hate how they maniplulate the game in order to suck money from you. For instance, when they sell warehouse space or inventory space and force it on you by making your default inventories and warehouses far too small. Or when they make equipment break when upgrading unless you buy the protection items. Or lower xp rates on everything then sell xp items.
Or how they allow big spenders extra advantages.
So they make the game fustrating, then sell you items to remove those fustrations.
Also the games are terribly boring and weak, sure they are fun for 20 or 30 levels thats the part that really can be free. Then you hit a grind wall, after a while you question why your grinding (killing mobs over and over for hours for xp and for only that reason) if the endgame is low population and theres not much to do.
In a month or two a new f2p pops up using a similair engin with similair gameplay and general setup. Diffrent look and a new gimmick. It will be the next big thing your told. Rinse and repeat.
Or you can play on a level playing field for a flat fee, for a game thats more then killing goofy looking mobs at nausea as fast as you can (although you usually can do that if you wish). You usually get more for your money with p2p games and spend less over time. You f2p player are suckers if you spend money on those games.
Of course they are. Search the thread. There is a post about an article saying that DDO's revenue growth by 500% since it turns F2P and its sub based increased 2x (the rest of the increase by the item shop).
It is used as the poster child of how going F2P to be a successful business move. The developers are VERY pleased.
And yet, you say nothing about the main point, DDO is better than other F2Ps, BECAUSE it was not developed as a F2P. Had it been, it would have come out in much different shape. I guarantee it was not funded for development with that in mind.
As to how much their revenue has gone up, 500% revenue increase over a base of not much, is not much to brag about. Estimates for active subs before they went F2P ranged from 3-7k, so it not like they were risking much. In the MMO market, that's nothing, unless you are SOE and you have 5 games all doing that.
The developers are pleased they are getting anything. If you think that they are happy that their game was not good enough to compete in the P2P market, and going F2P was anything but a last ditch effort to break even before closure, I am sure they would disagree.
They are happy to get any revenue whatsoever... too much longer and they'd have been getting none.
"it not like they were risking much"? Uh, the F2P transition didn't magically happen on its own -- it incurred non-trivial dev costs. Spent on a floundering product. Investing more money in a floudering product is a risk.
But from a certain angle I agree it wasn't a "risk" because (to me) it was clearly a smart business move. Personally I think every non-WOW P2P (possibly even WOW) are crazy to not follow the same strategy. For any high-quality game, F2P is a money explosion waiting to happen.
And for that reason, most of your "counterarguments" are totally inconsequential. Yeah, it was developed P2P. So what? If it'd been developed as a F2P from the start with the same quality bar, they would've saved all that money switching payment structures and still had the same high-quality good-revenue result.
F2Ps developed as high-quality games from the start are where it's at. This means every aspect of the game (including the types of purchases in the game's shop) is well-designed. The first company to put out a high-quality F2P is going to make a lot of money because everyone's going to try their game, everyone's going to be playing for free, the high-quality gameplay is going to keep people playing, so enough people will pay money to keep the game going strong.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by Axehilt
"And for that reason, most of your "counterarguments" are totally inconsequential. Yeah, it was developed P2P. So what? If it'd been developed as a F2P from the start with the same quality bar, they would've saved all that money switching payment structures and still had the same high-quality good-revenue result."
You don't get it. If it was designed as a F2P game from the start many of us would not even consider playing that game in the first place. Why? We don't trust F2P games because they tend to exploit ppl.
"F2Ps developed as high-quality games from the start are where it's at. This means every aspect of the game (including the types of purchases in the game's shop) is well-designed. The first company to put out a high-quality F2P is going to make a lot of money because everyone's going to try their game, everyone's going to be playing for free, the high-quality gameplay is going to keep people playing, so enough people will pay money to keep the game going strong."
I'm not going to try that "fantasy game". Why? I don't trust they will continue to have a well designed cash shop. F2P games can have that when they start and for players at lower levels, but sooner or later cash comes into place. If the game has such high quality they need to get ppl to spend lots of money right? It's very simple, they need your money. What happens is that the skilled/fair players will quit the game when they realize that you need to pay to be competitive. Also, please note that you can try most P2P games for free already. If you like it you subscribe and pay the same amount as everyone else - purrrfect.
Can F2P games be successful financially? Yes of course. Explotation of inexperienced ppl such as kids can be very profitable. Make someone think they can get something for free, get them into a virtual world and meet new friends, introduce more and more "cool" and also important in game items that can be bought for real money. It's a good business plan and Im sure we will see hundreds of such games, many of them successful financially. Is it a problem? Not for me personally, but if lots of kids spend lots of money on those games it might be regarded as a problem, for them and for their parents. (Just look at the adverts for those games and you will see that most of them target kids in their marketing).
For me, "F2P" is almost synonymous with "shoddy".
Let's not forget, the average gamer is actually in their 30s and male so it wouldn't really be the kids that are exploited especially when they are without money. Most likely, those kids would be the ones playing it for free most of the time due to inaccessibility of money.
You can read it in some of these responses, people are just scared that they are taken advantage of because everything is being sold to them rather than just paying a monthly subscription which is outside of the norm. People don't like unfamiliar things and you partially can't blame them since you are paying for data and content.
The stigma behind F2P as being a money grubber as opposed to P2P is just plain old silly in the West and unjustified. P2P do similar things if not worse gimmicks and can be put in positions where trust can be compromised as well if not more so when people are binding their relationships with a regular monthly fee.
People want a balanced playing field with P2P but lets not forget that F2P does the same thing by providing parts of their game for free equally to everyone starting out as well. It just so happens that you don't have as much access because a good chunk of their game starts out as being free. Again, these developers spend lots of time on their respective games and have families to feed too. Everyone wants something for as little to nothing for everything and this a commonality amongst many in America.
Again, with the stigma behind F2P, the advantages you get out of any sort of money in most of them involve faster leveling, which is more a luxury and less of a necessity. If you are any good at video games, you shouldn't feel inclined to buy it unless you really love the game, then buying something from the cash shops and showing your support probably wouldn't even be an issue.
Again, I think its because F2P break the norm over here that people don't like the unfamiliarness of this model and are afraid that companies might find their way to separate money from their wallets in legitimate fashion. I do agree with the thread that it is somewhat built upon fear, this stigma.
And Im afraid I didnt make myself clear, that is exactly what Im disagreeing with, it IS unfair that someone who has more time to play a game will make more progress. imho time should never be directly proportional to progress. skill should.
How is that unfair? That is how life is.. the more time you put in something, the better chances you will get more rewards from it
Games that try to please everyone in that way generally tend to end up crappy.
actually you are wrong, in real life naturally talented people arent forced into dumping excruciatingly long hours doing a totally skippable (for them) training, and they usually get the most rewards.
and those without talent are the ones who have to spend more hours to catch up.
in nowaday's games it happens the inverse, naturally talented people are forced to go thru the same traning wheel stages as the rest, and those with no talent but more time will go ahead of them,instead of struggling to catch them, as if the talent gap didnt even exist.
You're misconstruing the situation, though.
First.. there are situations where a more skilled player would bypass a less skilled one. In terms of planning and executing strategy.. in terms of knowing the enemies better, in terms of understanding their character's abilities better, etc. etc. All those things can and do affect the pace at which people make progress through a MMO, and they do come into play in a progress-based MMO. I see it all the time.
That said... what I'm talking about, and others have echoed, is that no matter what the "skill level" there are things that everyone has to go through, regardless.. They all have to level. They all have to get gear. They all have to complete quests or missions to get the same rewards. The game doesn't cater more or less to either side but provides each the same exact experience.
Here's an example...
In FFXI, there's this series of level cap quests starting at 50. Every 5 levels you have to complete a quest to unlock the next set of 5 levels. The final quest/test is to beat this old mizerly guy named Maat in one-on-one combat. The guy is a sonuvabitch to beat. Skill and preparation - and some luck - all play a factor in how quickly you beat him. Some beat him on their first try and find it easy... for some it takes 10+ attempts and they find it extremely difficult. Skill and preparation and understanding of your skills, being able to create a strategy that works and then execute it successfully all come into play.
Here's where my point comes into play...
No matter how skilled you are, you will still have to fight Maat if you want to progress in the game. Period. No exceptions. Now, being more skilled and more prepared than other players will allow you to beat him more readily and in fewer tries... so skill also comes into play. The two are not mutually exclusive. It's time *and* skill, not time *or* skill.
Using the Maat example to illustrate what I'm against is that there are those who would say (and I have seen people say it) "It's not fair that people who started before us already finished their level cap quests and beat Maat and now we have to go through that. They should take that out completely and just let you go straight to level cap so we can catch up".
I don't care how it's colored or spun or defended... something like that would be utter and complete BS.
You're arguing skill versus time... I'm not arguing against the skill aspect. I will say that there are likely MMOs out there where skill is more important than time. I'd also argue that time and skill are not mutually exclusive (as per the Maat example).
However, what I'm getting at are the people who want everything in the game made faster/easier/more convenient so they can get through it faster and "catch up" to people who have been playing longer and *did* have to go through all that. They characterize it as them "being punished for not starting with everyone else" - and that's just a load of entitled, whiny crap as far as I'm concerned. And I hold that mindset whether I'm the "experienced vet" having already gone through all that... or the day 1 newbie in a game who still has to go through it all. It's part of playing the game.
In my opinion, all games - MMO or otherwise - are designed to provide a certain kind of experience - or series of experiences - for their players. For some to say "I don't care that it took others a year or longer to get where they are and that they had to go through all that content to get there. I should be given an easy pass to get there sooner with less time and effort because I chose to start the game later" or "because I don't have as much time to play as they do" is just plain self-centered.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
i don't...look at my profile.
Guild Wars is not an MMO. The devs have stated this themselves, and players still continue to bring the game into discussions.
MMO qualifications aside, Guild Wars is only subscription free, you have to buy the box so it doesn't qualify in any way in the realm of F2P games. That said, I do think the Guild Wars model is far, far more acceptable than the traditional F2P MMO with a cash shop.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
I never felt I was afraid of a free to play mmorpg, just never found one I really liked.
Im not a big fan of paying for things in a F2P game.
I'd like to think that the players who inhabit F2P's are trying to get by on skill, but usually that's not the case. I hate the ability to buy content with real money, because it means that the players with fatter wallets will get all the good stuff, instead of genuinely playing the game. It just takes the fun out of it.
That, and usually F2P's are:
1) Not very fun, or are facades of completed games
2) Are poorly maintained/monitored
3) Are sparsely inhabited
4) Just plain boring
But that's just from my experiences. I'm not going to claim to have played every single F2P out there, but that's the generality of the ones I have tried out.
Inconsequential!
All PC games used to be B2P. These same arguments came up durign the transition to P2P. The minority of stubborn gamers proved inconsequential in the overall scheme of things, because look where we're at now: probably the majority of PC game revenue is from P2P games at this point!
Also you're obsessing over pay2compete purchases when I specifically stated that item mall purchase types also have to be well-designed. Games like DDO and LoL have been some of the stronger success stories in the F2P market and part of this success is not screwing their gameplay over with their shop. Purchases unlock new playstyles and new content, they don't make you overtly more powerful.
But yeah, if all you've seen are bad item shops I can't fault you for not understanding the good ways to do item shops which don't compromise gameplay.
I stand by my statement though. DDO, while fun, is still on the lower end of the overall fun of MMORPG games. As soon as a truly high-quality game gets released F2P it's going to do amazing. And the minority of stubborn gamers is going to get sucked into it too when everyone is playing the game and having a great time.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Perhaps traditionally the case, but I think there is a new crop that may bust that traditional stigma. That is why I focus my objection to F2P games on what I described, the difference between a developer making money based on how many people play their game verse how many people they can coax in to purchasing cash shop items.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
Yes I fear F2P, I am a P2P snob and whatever other crap you think is needed to explain a perfectly rational dislike of an exploitative revenue model.
If thinking I am afraid of F2P lets you get to sleep at night without worrying your little head with difficult concepts like scam, play to win and pay to level, then I am happy for you.
I'm afraid F2P games are more fun.
So I'm forced to play those rip off item shop game.
Which I'm already doing now. I rather play other p2p games, but Atlantica online is just the best mmorpg I ever played.
better keep those f2p game hidden from your computer then because if some hear about f2p game they ll be like ,wtf why you pay to play game there are some very good one free .i faced this questionning and you know what
i coulnt justify paying all the money i paid in p2p game when the f2p game is cheapper in price .
sad reality !f2p game are just getting too good .so on the long run i ll have to do like asian go f2p or leave gameing market
because i wasnt allowed anymore ,aoc,war fiasco!cant blame there.i did spent a lot on game i never almost didnt play.
thats the issue i faced here.
Let's not forget, the average gamer is actually in their 30s and male so it wouldn't really be the kids that are exploited especially when they are without money. Most likely, those kids would be the ones playing it for free most of the time due to inaccessibility of money.
You can read it in some of these responses, people are just scared that they are taken advantage of because everything is being sold to them rather than just paying a monthly subscription which is outside of the norm. People don't like unfamiliar things and you partially can't blame them since you are paying for data and content.
The stigma behind F2P as being a money grubber as opposed to P2P is just plain old silly in the West and unjustified. P2P do similar things if not worse gimmicks and can be put in positions where trust can be compromised as well if not more so when people are binding their relationships with a regular monthly fee.
Care to share some specific examples of how P2P subscribers are "compromised as well if not more so"? I mean specific examples.. not theoretical or hypothetical scenarios.. but real ones that actually prove out that assertion?
"Binding your relationship"? Really? Is that how you're going to characterize it? "Binding a relationship"? Interesting euphemism. I call it a typical subscription setup; you pay for a service... you're provided that service.
I pay a monthly sub of ~$15, and get to play the game as much or little as I want, do what I want and have access to everything the game has to offer for 30 days of service. Everything is available in-game. Every "obstacle" that's presented to me has an in-game way of getting over/around it - without having to pull out the credit card each time.
I know that whether now, tomorrow or 5 months down the road, everything I could want to do in the game will be available to me for the same consistent subscription price. As long as I'm enjoying myself, I continue subscribing. If I cease to enjoy myself, I cancel my subscription. I'm not "bound" by anything.
But still, you left that assertion dangling there, unsupported. Care to provide some specific examples of how P2P players are "compromised"?
People want a balanced playing field with P2P but lets not forget that F2P does the same thing by providing parts of their game for free equally to everyone starting out as well. It just so happens that you don't have as much access because a good chunk of their game starts out as being free. Again, these developers spend lots of time on their respective games and have families to feed too. Everyone wants something for as little to nothing for everything and this a commonality amongst many in America.
What a disingenuous load of nonsense... you go from making an absurd and completely false statement, and end it with a plea to emotion with the whole "they have families to feed, too". I'll get to each in turn.
The key words in your statement... "equally to everyone starting out". Bingo.
You can play for free for a while and not need a cash shop... this is how they provide the illusion to players (many of whom are easily convinced) that you can play and enjoy the game without spending a dime. Then you hit that inevitable "wall" where everything ramps up and the only way to remain competitive, or even "keep up" is to grind endlessly without spending money, or... ya know... buy some of those nifty xp potions they offer... or some of those HP/MP charms that provide a huge reserve of auto-replenishing HP/MP... or extra temporary inventory space to carry all those extra items they're going to need to carry around... or for that mount that they're going to want/need to get around the world with any degree of efficiency.. and on and on...
You said it yourself... the beginning of the game is a level playing field - until the wall is hit and the credit cards come out. Then it all goes out the window. P2P MMOs, on the other hand, are level playing fields from level 1 to level cap, including all content, all consumables, all items, all gear, etc. etc. Everything is equally available to all players for the same monthly cost. Period.
As for the "they have families to feed too" statement...
... And? Should I be feeling some sense of empathy here?
They could have gone subscription. They could have gone free with advertising in-game. They could have gone F2P with Item Shops. They could have gone one-time purchase with no sub (a la GW)... They chose F2P with Item Malls. How well or poorly they do is their problem... not the players'.
Again, with the stigma behind F2P, the advantages you get out of any sort of money in most of them involve faster leveling, which is more a luxury and less of a necessity. If you are any good at video games, you shouldn't feel inclined to buy it unless you really love the game, then buying something from the cash shops and showing your support probably wouldn't even be an issue.
Another naive and/or disingenuous statement.
People are competitive animals. To them, being able to keep up *is* a "necessity"... in almost anything.
People are often impatient animals... getting what they want ASAP if not sooner is deemed a "necessity" by many, and they wrap themselves up in all these "important sounding" limitations that make "getting there faster and easier with less hassle" seem mandatory.
People are also often envious animals and want to have the cool shiny stuff "that guy over there" has... but they don't want to have to earn it the way that person did. They'd rather just buy their way to "equality".
All those tendencies - and others - have led to people purchasing in-game gold, power-leveling, items, and fully leveled characters - for 100s if not 1000s of dollars in other MMOs for years now. The people behind F2P are aware of this and they've tapped into that market where they can provide "on-demand" fixes to all those "obstacles" many players deal with... and the real kick is, those "obstacles" are placed there - by design - by the F2P developers.
It's really a pretty obvious scenario when you step back and look at it. When you strip away the identity of who's selling the items, what do item shops resemble? RMT. It's a pretty short leap of logic from that point to put 2 and 2 together. To state the obvious: Item Shops are nothing but sanctioned RMT. The F2P will plaster the word "free" all over their marketing and PR.. But they have no intention of people playing their game for any length of time without spending money. For sure, those who play without spending money in the item mall are not their intended market, and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who could honestly claim otherwise.
Again, I think its because F2P break the norm over here that people don't like the unfamiliarness of this model and are afraid that companies might find their way to separate money from their wallets in legitimate fashion. I do agree with the thread that it is somewhat built upon fear, this stigma.
"companies might find their way to separate money from their wallets in a legitimate fashion"
/facepalm
Oh FFS. Could you be any more ironic than with that statement?
Subscriptions are *legitimate*.
- You know exactly what you're paying for, you know exactly what you'll have access to and you know exactly how far your money will go based on how much you can play.
- You know exactly how much you will be paying, month-by-month without having to worry if some additional item you need will put you "over budget" or what-not. It's a flat sub fee, every month, like clockwork.
- You don't have to worry about some change to the game design, or the addition of some new items affecting your wallet in any way, because no matter what they add, you pay no more than you did last month.
- You know for a fact that what you see "that guy over there" wearing is within your reach for no more than your time - if you're willing to invest in it - because "that guy over there" spent no more to get where he is than you did.
- You know that no matter what obstacle you run into, there's an in-game way to deal with it that won't cost you any more out-of-pocket than you're already spending.
Subscription fees are a simple, straight-forward, honest and consistent payment model. There's no need to wonder "if you're going to have to spend more money on something because you already know the answer is "No", because it's all included for the same flat rate.
P2P MMOs provide an equal playing field to all players because everyone pays the same, everyone has access to the same content, everyone has to face the same challenges/obstacles to get what/where they want - gold-buying / rmt notwithstanding.
And what's worse... for those who continue to play so-called F2P MMOs and do use the item shops regularly, they are typically paying *more* than a normal subscription fee... for only a miniscule fraction of the overall game content.
I have played F2P MMOs and had conversations with long-time players who were deep into the game, to see if they were really something I would want to invest in long-term. What better way to find out than to ask a variety of people who had been doing just that?
The *least* any of them payed was around $30 a month... most of them payed upwards of $50 or more per month... just to keep playing at the level they wanted to play at (equally to most everyone else around them). They noted some paying 100s per month and added "they're playing their own game. We can't touch them".
Each of them has stated that there's no way they could realistically play at the level they play at, much less enjoy themselves, if they didn't spend around that much for upkeep. And this isn't coming from "haters"... this is coming from people who played and enjoyed the game - but at least were *honest* about the deal and didn't try spinning it as something else.
Sorry... I don't care what light you put it in, how you spin it or how much you plead for "people having to feed their families"... that is *far* from "free to play" as far as I'm concerned.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Inconsequential!
All PC games used to be B2P. These same arguments came up durign the transition to P2P. The minority of stubborn gamers proved inconsequential in the overall scheme of things, because look where we're at now: probably the majority of PC game revenue is from P2P games at this point!
Also you're obsessing over pay2compete purchases when I specifically stated that item mall purchase types also have to be well-designed. Games like DDO and LoL have been some of the stronger success stories in the F2P market and part of this success is not screwing their gameplay over with their shop. Purchases unlock new playstyles and new content, they don't make you overtly more powerful.
But yeah, if all you've seen are bad item shops I can't fault you for not understanding the good ways to do item shops which don't compromise gameplay.
I stand by my statement though. DDO, while fun, is still on the lower end of the overall fun of MMORPG games. As soon as a truly high-quality game gets released F2P it's going to do amazing. And the minority of stubborn gamers is going to get sucked into it too when everyone is playing the game and having a great time.
I wasn't talking about the history of the gaming industry so I don't see how anything I said was inconsequential.
Did I say F2P games cannot do well? (see above). Would I play that game? No. Call me cynical but I would not assume this was the odd exception where some billionaires and fantastic game designers have come together for some MMO charity and provide the gaming community with a great game almost free of charge. I would assume they want people to use the cash shop frequently because that's how they earn their money. It would only be rational for them to start out with a "well-designed" cash shop to draw players into the game and then successively add more important items to the cash shop, similar to the "foot in the door" strategy often used by salespeople. My response is the "door in the face" strategy since I prefer and enjoy playing P2P games.
Maybe I've had bad luck with the F2P games I have tried and those experiences have shaped my attitude towards F2P games in general. However, even pure logic for me says that a flat fee is more fair than having cash shops. I sure hope there are better F2P games out there but I see no need to check them out since I already have fun playing some P2P games.
First, let's start with a little forum posting 101, please have the consideration to organize your thoughts and leave it in a fashion where people can quickly read it and effectively respond to it. I just cut out a portion and respond to a portion because long essays of a post is inconsiderate of everyone's time despite the thoughtfulness of the response. Much of the things appear repeated anyway where you seem to address my "families being fed" expression twice along with many points about why you prefer P2P. I would like to also clarify that you should read between the lines and its my way of saying that these types of things aren't part-time jobs to these people and they need to make a living too like everyone else. It wasn't a call for empathy, it was something to consider amongst the idea of F2P.
In regards to my response, if you have an ounce of business sense, you subscribing to an MMO is a binding agreement hence the legalities and that easily-forgotten agreement you ACCEPT every time you first-time log onto the game and for every patch there-after. Me paying an amount monthly is binding me to at the very least a month of gameplay. I don't see it as outrageous of a statement than what its made out to be.
In regards to some examples of P2P compromising people's trust, let's start with Cryptic on two counts, life-time subs for Champions and Star Trek Online, utilizing closed beta promises for obvious marketing attempts, the very idea of RTM combined with subs make some people's blood boil in itself, expansions on top of box sales AND subs isn't some form of exploitation? You would hope your subs would cover the amount of the additional content with expansions but maybe you were trained to accept these already from the beginning hence "subscriptions appearing to cover less and less of what they used to". Whats the cost of entry to play something as established as LOTR Online or WoW these days? I guess the P2P companies aren't in it for the money...
You demand examples from me in regards to P2P but failed to provide any example of how F2P would be considered an unfair income model for MMO's, sounds a little hypocritical in a sense. Many things in many F2P are actually accessible in-game as well, DDO which is a good example (and also a great example of a hybrid income model, which I believe has potential for the future). Most of my experience with cash shops with most F2P are nothing game-breaking and is provided purely out of convenience and fluff (which some P2P's charge even).
Since you were so adamant about your stance on P2P and F2P, let me end asking this: How many F2P games have you tried as opposed to P2P games before even making these statements?
With the cost of entry being vastly cheaper for F2P compared to P2P, you would hope a person would have tried more F2P compared to P2P before even formulating over-exaggerated negative/positive opinions over F2P/P2P respectively, but its easy to see the ignorance and the lack of support and facts (despite the length and consideration which I entirely respect of the opinions) behind how informed people are between the two.
Things don't have to be so complicated.
I decided to try Fallen Earth. I went to their website and downloaded the free trial. I tried the game and I liked it. I subscribed and will pay until I don't want to play any longer. No cash shop in game. Is it too expensive? Personally I dont think so. Is it the perfect game? No, that's not what I'm saying. Just saying this normal P2P payment model works best for me.
First, let's start with a little forum posting 101, please have the consideration to organize your thoughts and leave it in a fashion where people can quickly read it and effectively respond to it. I just cut out a portion and respond to a portion because long essays of a post is inconsiderate of everyone's time despite the thoughtfulness of the response. Much of the things appear repeated anyway where you seem to address my "families being fed" expression twice along with many points about why you prefer P2P. I would like to also clarify that you should read between the lines and its my way of saying that these types of things aren't part-time jobs to these people and they need to make a living too like everyone else. It wasn't a call for empathy, it was something to consider amongst the idea of F2P.
Forum etiquette? I post what I want to post to make my point. If it's "too much for you to read", then don't read it. Simple.
Oh yeah, just a suggestion... Get over yourself.
In regards to my response, if you have an ounce of business sense, you subscribing to an MMO is a binding agreement hence the legalities and that easily-forgotten agreement you ACCEPT every time you first-time log onto the game and for every patch there-after. Me paying an amount monthly is binding me to at the very least a month of gameplay. I don't see it as outrageous of a statement than what its made out to be.
So now deciding to play a MMO as recreation requires "business sense"? I don't think so.
How about some plain old common sense instead?
You're paying a monthly fee for the ability to access the online service portion of the game. That's the agreement. That's the way subscriptions work... just like with cable, just like with music services, just like with anything that requires a subscription fee. If you want to play, it's there. That's what you're paying for.
When I sub'd for Internet Access, I had to pay for the modem separately...plus pay the monthly internet fee. That wasn't "exploitation". That's the deal. At least the company was up front about what I would be paying... and that's the difference. When I signed up for cable, there was a fee for the cable box, plus the monthly fee. I knew this up-front. If it were set up as a F2P, it would be "Free To Watch!" and then they'd nickel and dime you for every "feature" that you'd get standard with a normal monthly subscription rate, all while making it sound like it's a great deal.
In regards to some examples of P2P compromising people's trust, let's start with Cryptic on two counts, life-time subs for Champions and Star Trek Online, utilizing closed beta promises for obvious marketing attempts, the very idea of RTM combined with subs make some people's blood boil in itself, expansions on top of box sales AND subs isn't some form of exploitation? You would hope your subs would cover the amount of the additional content with expansions but maybe you were trained to accept these already from the beginning hence "subscriptions appearing to cover less and less of what they used to". Whats the cost of entry to play something as established as LOTR Online or WoW these days? I guess the P2P companies aren't in it for the money...
First... Lifetime Subscriptions are an option the individual is free to opt for, or choose not to. If you do, you do so full-knowing that you may not get your money's worth... That's the risk the individual takes when purchasing a life-time sub, and they are fully accountable to no one but themself if they find the purchase not worth it in the long run. The company offered you life-time of service to the product - they didn't guarantee you'd enjoy it. That's where personal accountability comes in.
However, whether you choose lifetime sub or normal sub fee, the game is no different than it would be otherwise.
At the end of the day, though, they got what they paid for. They paid a one-time fee for a lifetime sub and they got exactly that. The game is accessible to them any time they want to play it so long a the game is in service.
Second... You pay a one-time fee for the product itself - the code, the packaging, etc. etc. The subscription fee covers the ongoing online support of said product... you know there's things like employees, bandwidth, electricity and so forth that needs to be covered. Interestingly... many times the fees for the box sales *and* the ongoing sub fee also is applied to ongoing development and maintenance of added content. Not all added content is in the form of paid expansions. Are expansions and sub fees exploitation? Nope. Again, you're paying for the development of brand-new content - often times a considerable amount of it - and the subscription fee continues to cover the ongoing support of said product.
I don't know about the entry fee for something WoW or LoTRO these days.. .but I know you can get the Ultimate Edition of FFXI for about $20 - that's the original game and all expansions, including the recent 3 mini-expansions they released. I'm not sure you'll find better bargain for the money out there than that.
Those developers are absolutely in it for the money... They're just up-front about it and don't wrap it up in disingenuous "Free To Play!" marketing campaigns, while designing the game in ways that all but guarantee that people will pay the equivalent of a sub in item mall items and then some to continue playing it.
The examples have been listed, I believe even in this very thread, by others and myself. If it's not "too much for you to read", and doesn't violate your "refined sense of forum etiquette", you might do well to back and peruse those posts.
You demand examples from me in regards to P2P but failed to provide any example of how F2P would be considered an unfair income model for MMO's, sounds a little hypocritical in a sense. Many things in many F2P are actually accessible in-game as well, DDO which is a good example (and also a great example of a hybrid income model, which I believe has potential for the future). Most of my experience with cash shops with most F2P are nothing game-breaking and is provided purely out of convenience and fluff (which some P2P's charge even).
Umm... I gave several examples. I guess you were too lazy to read my post enough to find them. Or maybe you need to take your own advice and "read between the lines" in my post... maybe then you'll get it. And, ahh yes... DDO. The F2P fan's "Golden Boy" when it comes to defending the F2P market.
Funny how folks always ingore two key things...
1. DDO started out as a subscription-based game.
2. It became F2P because it wasn't doing well as a subscription-based game.
A MMO that wasn't good enough to justify a monthly sub for enough people has risen as a "champion" of the F2P market... I think that speaks volumes right there of the F2P market overall. When one of the best examples you can put up in defense of F2P is a MMO that was failing as a sub-based game before it went F2P, you might want to reconsider the strength of your position.
Since you were so adamant about your stance on P2P and F2P, let me end asking this: How many F2P games have you tried as opposed to P2P games before even making these statements?
Perfect World, Runes of Magic, Shaiya, Archlord, Atlantica, Last Chaos, Rappelz and a handful of others whose names I can't remember... So, at least 7 that I can name, and at least 4 or 5 others that I can't atm.
I played each of them anywhere from a few weeks to a few months, and had plenty of conversations with experienced players, trying to find out what kind of a value they would be, compared to monthly sub; because I *was* open to the idea of playing them at one point. Everyone I spoke to stated the same thing, unequivicolly... If you intend to play the game for the long term, remain competitive or "keep up"... you will spend more per month in the item mall on average than you would for a subscription to a P2P MMO.
I decided F2P was not the better deal in the long-term, and as time went on and I learned more of the lame tactics used by F2P devs, I realized that not only were they not a good deal... they, in many cases, were a sham.
With the cost of entry being vastly cheaper for F2P compared to P2P, you would hope a person would have tried more F2P compared to P2P before even formulating over-exaggerated negative/positive opinions over F2P/P2P respectively, but its easy to see the ignorance and the lack of support and facts (despite the length and consideration which I entirely respect of the opinions) behind how informed people are between the two.
Support of facts? I have the facts, friend. Hands on. You choose to ignore them or pretend they don't exist.... that's your problem. I've done the math. I've seen how much I spend per day on a monthly sub fee compared to what others spend *per item* in a F2P/Item Mall game. I've had the discussions with people who actively play these games and use the Item Malls.
Want specifics? Okay.
1. Perfect World has "megaphones" that must be purchased from the Cash Shop (or from players reselling them for obnoxious prices) in order to use the global chat channel. Bad enough to have that restriction in a social game... What's worse is - at least when I was playing it - the only way to get GM support was by requesting it in the global chat channel.
2. A few games have HP and MP charms that replenish large quantities of HP over time automatically. These are necessary if you want to be out grinding mobs (the only way to level in many of them) or want to have a fighting chance against another player in PvP.... Unless you want to go around " PvP without charms only please!" - yeah, that would happen. Those cost money and are an on-going consumable. A single one can be easily depleted within a few hours of active gameplay.
3. Inventory space "rental" - this is completely lame. In a type of game where inventory space is almost always tight due to items, gear, quest items, etc. etc. you're *charged* to have inventory space that's only temporary and must be continuously paid for.
4. Mounts - in MMOs, a game type typically featuring vast open worlds to explore, you have to pay considerable prices - I've seen them as high as $20 for a normal mount - just to be able to travel around faster than walking speed. Once the time runs out, you have to get another one. $20 for a mount alone is more than I spend on the subscription for an entire *game*.
... I can continue.
If you're okay with spending potentially far more than a sub fee on item malls, as long as "the game is free to play", then more power to you. I prefer to get more value for my money.
At $13 a month for FFXI, I can play a total of 16 hours in a month, and pay about 80 cents per hour. Considering I play at least 10 hours a week on average - typically more - I'm paying at most 32 cents per hour, per month. And for that, I have equal access to all content in the game - I don't have to purchase temporary inventory space, or a mount... etc. From my perspective, I'm getting the far better deal.
Just because someone doesn't see things from your point-of-view, doesn't mean their views aren't informed.
Again... Get over yourself.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
The problem is that people think that F2P= Korean grinder becaause most of the market is made up of thoose crappy games.
But DDO have showed a buisness model that benefits everyone and can be profitable at the same time. A new big release with a similar model could be a huge sucess.
Personally Im more afraid of crappy P2P MMOs with item shops lik CO/STO....
If WoW = The Beatles
and WAR = Led Zeppelin
Then LotrO = Pink Floyd
Without going into a wall of text. There are two very simple reasons why you should fear F2P.
1: It gives far too much power to the publisher/developer. The can modify the game to force the CS on you as much as the want, and charge outrageous prices. Additionally, they can do this whenever they want, so say you invested a good amount of time when things were"fair" then suddenly some "emergency maintenance" happens and suddenly mobs hit for 4x and there is a "potion for armor" for just $30 a pack 8D!
2: The "Pay To Win" issue.
Bans a perma, but so are sigs in necro posts.
EAT ME MMORPG.com!
I find P2P with Item Shops to be worse than F2P... in that case, they're double-dipping by charging a sub fee and then charging extra for content that would normally have been included with the purchase/sub fee. That's pure unmitigated greed right there.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
I don't fear them there are just an awful lot of them that suck horribly. That of course isn't much different from the subscription or upfront cost model for games. Most games suck because for the most part everyone is piss pants afraid of trying anything innovative.
Shadus