Honestly, it's completely understandable, being the F2P Column writer, that Richard does cheerleading for F2P. One wouldn't really expect him to do otherwise. What is a little annoying is that pretty much ALL his content is focused on that.
To use an analogy, one would expect a "Fly Fishing" columnest to be advocate for Fly Fishing. However in addition to the occasional "Rah Rah" stuff one would expect to see plenty of articles on tying knots and evaluations of particular gear and advice about casting techniques and pieces covering popular streams or areas. When every single piece boils down to "Rah Rah Fly Fishing!" and nothing more, one has to wonder what is going on.
Conversely if an issue is contentious and there are different sides to it.....one would think that editorialy a publication would choose to assign a writer to cover each side of the issue. No one expects Richard to write articles focusing on the negatives of F2P... but when there is a point...one usualy expects a counter-point somewhere.... not just point, point, point. Editorialy, what's going on here. Where are the Dan Akyroyd's to Richard's Jane Curtain? We see plenty of Jane.... and even some Jane lite's from other writers occasionaly... not seeing much in the way of Dan.
I'm sure advertising dollars are playing a factor in the editorial choices... most of us realize they must to some degree, since you guys aren't charging for site access and folks over there have to eat somehow....but it's getting pretty thick at this point.
P2P is a shift from everyone being on the same level (figuratively not litterally) towards whoever has the bigger wallet "wins". And by wins I mean faster leveling, easier leveling, having access to premium content and so on. And for someone who are competetive that is HUGE.
So if this kind of games continue to prosper then more and more MMORPGs will turn into this because all they care about is the profit (like almost all private corporations). And as a player we need to realise that MMORPGs as we know it might cease to exist and instead whoever has the biggest wallet is the one who has the upper hand.
In real life that is the case but does it really need to be in a GAME? Cant games be just games and not differentiate between the has and has nots?
Or to put it differently, F2P is like doping. Those who has access to it can do it and will get an edge, where as those who do not will not wont stand much of a chance. Fourtunately doping is not allowed but soon the equivalence will be common in MMORPGs. Do we as players really want that?
Great reply, says it all, Richard needs to be smacked upside the head with it.
With each financially successful F2P game it encourages more and more developers to follow the model which ultimately reduces my choices in games, and that is worth fighting over and resisting fully.
Selfish, sure is, but then I don't care right? I want games made to my tastes and not someone else's and no, I don't think we can all just get along.
Well, thats the nature of markets. If there is increasing demand for such things, absent government interference, that demand will be supplied (or even in spite of such interference, given past history). Self interest is involved in all sides of a market. If the Dev's think they can make more money from F2P games, then thats what they will develop. Our personal choice as gamers is to play the games that are available (if we enjoy them), or find another hobby.
Well it's a little more complicated then that. The Development Houses and Publishers don't have a perfect perception or understanding of the market or what demand actualy is. If they did, every product/project they produced would be insanely profitable...and they'd never have to worry about loosing capital. At best they can say X seems to be working, after something has already been released. Even the company that produces X and is able to do market surveys and get customer feedback often has a very imperfect understanding of exactly WHY X is working in that particular instance....and why (as often happens) when they or thier competitors try to reproduce X in a different instance or situation it flops.
The reality is more like 7 blind men all trying to describe an elephant. They all percieve some small part of it, but they don't get the whole picture...and often what they percieve is very different from what is actualy the case. Speaking from first hand experience, ALOT of the decision makers at these companies base thier decisions on nothing really more substantial then "buzz" or "hype". If that weren't the case...we would never have seen things like the .COM bubble. happen. Some-times that "buzz" or "hype" is driven by people with a particular agenda to sell or drive a particulal solution. In some cases it's driven by paid consultants or market analysts.... sometimes those people do have real insight as to what is going on driven by hard research....other times thier as clueless as anyone else and are just reaching for straws, because they are being paid to provide advice, and they've got to offer some answer other then "I don't really know" in order to justify a paycheck. Often times this perception IS driven by what industry journalists write... which brings us to articles like Richards.
Basicaly, companies make decisions not based upon actual market demand, but thier perception of market demand. Which brings us to what are real options are as consumers....which is not just simply "play what is offered or leave"... doing that pretty much assures that your preferences will never be reflected in the market...... because the decision makers won't ever know what those preferences are. As consumers, if we ever want to see our preferences reflected in the market, it's incumbant upon us to be pro-actively vocal about those prefences... so we don't surrender our influence over the PERCEPTION of market demand to those who are. People like Richard have a built in soap-box. The rest of us don't... but what we can do is post responses to articles such as these....make suggestions in feedback venues, send e-mail, make phone calls....and write letters. In fact of those, an actual snail mail.... politiely expressing your preferences.... typed out, spelled correctly and mailed to the company with a postage stamp on it..is one of the most powerfull things that you can do.
Individualy, those don't mean much.... but if a company starts recieving them in volume, you can bet it starts to take notice.
You know, thats one of the more fascinating aspects (and major problems) of economics. In terms of markets, the phrase "perfect knowledge" is not only a fallacy, but its an assumption that has made economics one of the more damaging aspects of policy. Have you studied the works of Mise and Hayek?
Perception as you state, is all too often confused with reality. Then resources are committed based upon those flawed perceptions, with the results we've seen all around us, in all walks of life. Such errors lead to market crashes, political instability and war.
Mix in propaganda and marketing(or do I repeat myself? ^^) and the stage is set for some classic examples of malinvestment. Look at Warhammer online, Age of Conan and Aion to name but a few of the more recent examples.
All could have been MUCH better games if the Dev's hadn't been so blinded by The Vision(tm), and their publishers/investors/shareholders hadn't had such a short term focus that it seriously impacted the development cycle.
I very much like your suggestion about direct contact. Especially in the internet age, it can provide a priceless insight into a section of the player demographics. Of course, keeping in mind that its only a self selected section of the player base.
I'm just waiting for the day that other genre's start following the F2P system.
CoD8 - Now free to play!
- Lock n' Load with a single Standard Weapon of your choosing (3 weapons in all!), and get up to 15 bullets per clip, with up to two clips of ammunition! Want more weapons? Head on over to the Kill Shop and purchase anything from the Slightly Better Than Standard Pistol for $0.99 to the Rapid Firing One-Shot-Kill Machine Gun for only $15.99! While you're there, complement your new weapon purchase with more ammo with our Extended Ammunition Packs. Get extra clips for only $1.99 per clip, and more bullets per clip for only $0.99 a bullet!
- Kill up to 5 people per match! Not enough killin' for you? Visit the Kill Shop and purchase the "Terrorist Killer" pack for only $5.99 to upgrade that number to 10 kills per match, for up to 20 matches! Still not enough killin' for you? Buy the "Terrorist Slayer" pack for up to 20 kills per match, for up to 40 matches, for only $9.99! Hell yeah!
- Access nearly 50% of the playable area of 2 different maps! Not enough maps for you? Head on over to the Kill Shop and puchase more for only $2.99 a map. Sniper killing you from outside your playable area? Buy the "Extended Area of Engagement" pack for only $1.99 per locked area of each map!
I'd prefer to play F2P, but it usually becomes impossible,difficult and/or unfair because of the way the game needs to make venue and unbalances the game. Or what happens is you feel like your playing half a game because you lack the benefits you get from opening your wallet. Either way the best games are pay to play.
... if you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss will also gaze into you.-Friedrich Nietzsche
I'd prefer to play F2P, but it usually becomes impossible,difficult and/or unfair because of the way the game needs to make venue and unbalances the game. Or what happens is you feel like your playing half a game because you lack the benefits you get from opening your wallet. Either way the best games are pay to play.
Every drug-dealer gives first shots for ya free. But later ya will bring all ya money and treasures to him. That logic is used by F2P too, and so it is biggest lie - we are FREE when really for free ya eat shit and even for that they found how to tax ya.
There are really some excellent posts in this thread. Some of these responses show a lot of thought being put into them.
I still think the f2p moniker is a misnomer. Not one of these games are free to play, They are free to try and pay to play and boy do you pay in many of them. If you want to experience what the game offers you cannot avoid paying and if pvp is involved you can bet it will be quite expensive to be competitive. Some like ROM are expensive to just do pve.
So whenever I see the "Free to Play" expression, I know for a fact that they are just hiding the charges to play in an item shop economy.
My problem with and from what I read most other posters problems with this section of the genre is that many of these games are far more expensive than a normal subscription based game and the investment is never ending.
Take ROM for example, I know of a lot of high end players who invested 100's of dollars for their level 50 and then 55 gear. Now they have to do the same for the level 60 gear. Woe to the player who tries to do the end game content without it. My view is that ROM is the most expensive game on the market and it is far less content than many of the subscription games.
Not picking on ROM here, it is just one of many games in this section of the genre that do this.
So there is definitely nothing free about any of these games, if you want to experience what little content there is, especially at the upper end, you had better expect to pay for all the free time you had at the lower end.
To set the record straight, Turbine does not really use the f2p model. They have created a model where you pay to open content to your character(s). They also don't have much pvp content in either of the titles they have released this model for. So don't try to confuse Turbine in with the rest of the f2p games. It has set itself apart with a model that makes more sense.
Turbine's model makes perfect sense for the player who does not a large amount of time to play. You can buy content as you need it and not have to worry about the constant cost of a subscription. SOE's model with EQ II, on the other hand, is just a idiotic money grab and you don't have the option of converting the account to a subscription account on the regular servers, unless of course you want to start over from scratch.
I'm all for choice and couldn't care less what anybody else plays or how they pay for it. I choose the subscription model for myself.
The anger comes into play when I choose to buy a game and several expansions, invest a couple of years playing and getting involved in the community only to have the publisher turn around and change the entire ruleset, world, advancement parameters and give something that I invested hundreds of dollars in to everyone else for free.
Turbine really, really pissed in my koolaid. I feel swindled and believe that those who feel the same should band together and sue them for breach of contract.
I may try some F2P games that look interesting in the future, but Turbine will never see another dime of my money.
I'm all for choice and couldn't care less what anybody else plays or how they pay for it. I choose the subscription model for myself.
The anger comes into play when I choose to buy a game and several expansions, invest a couple of years playing and getting involved in the community only to have the publisher turn around and change the entire ruleset, world, advancement parameters and give something that I invested hundreds of dollars in to everyone else for free.
Turbine really, really pissed in my koolaid. I feel swindled and believe that those who feel the same should band together and sue them for breach of contract.
I may try some F2P games that look interesting in the future, but Turbine will never see another dime of my money.
Good luck with that. If you look at the TOS/EULA you will see that such things are more than covered. I've spent almost 6 years in WoW now, and seen them do endless changes. The only reason I'm still playing is that its still a good game, and I enjoy aspects of it. If that changes, I'll find another game.
Lord of the Rings was fun, but some time in the last two years, they've made some graphic change that always results in a BSOD 116 error (conflict with Nvdia sys file). No matter what version of the drivers I use, its the same. That also applies to DnD online. I've spent quite a bit of time in both games before that, but left them when they became boring.
Turbine is just another example of a company thats looking at the F2P business model. Companies(like people) will usually do whats in their self interest. At this point, that seems to be looking at the F2P business model, or some hybrid.
Turbine really, really pissed in my koolaid. I feel swindled and believe that those who feel the same should band together and sue them for breach of contract.
Good luck with that. If you look at the TOS/EULA you will see that such things are more than covered.
Yeah, I know, but the TOS/EULA texts are so filled with junk that we're probably all breaking them by just commenting about games in this forum. Plus, they probably changed it up early in the planning stages of this move anyways.
Originally posted by markt50 I've quickly come to the conclussion that I don't think F2P and subscription systems can co-exist in the same game, certainly not without having an impact on gameplay design.
Well I supose your theory will be put to the test with the new path that SOE is taking with EQ2. All though they are only going to co-exist in a manner of F2P servers and the P2P servers.I for one am on the fence on this subject. If the game is good I am going to play it plain and simple regardless if it is P2P or F2P.
Comments
Honestly, it's completely understandable, being the F2P Column writer, that Richard does cheerleading for F2P. One wouldn't really expect him to do otherwise. What is a little annoying is that pretty much ALL his content is focused on that.
To use an analogy, one would expect a "Fly Fishing" columnest to be advocate for Fly Fishing. However in addition to the occasional "Rah Rah" stuff one would expect to see plenty of articles on tying knots and evaluations of particular gear and advice about casting techniques and pieces covering popular streams or areas. When every single piece boils down to "Rah Rah Fly Fishing!" and nothing more, one has to wonder what is going on.
Conversely if an issue is contentious and there are different sides to it.....one would think that editorialy a publication would choose to assign a writer to cover each side of the issue. No one expects Richard to write articles focusing on the negatives of F2P... but when there is a point...one usualy expects a counter-point somewhere.... not just point, point, point. Editorialy, what's going on here. Where are the Dan Akyroyd's to Richard's Jane Curtain? We see plenty of Jane.... and even some Jane lite's from other writers occasionaly... not seeing much in the way of Dan.
I'm sure advertising dollars are playing a factor in the editorial choices... most of us realize they must to some degree, since you guys aren't charging for site access and folks over there have to eat somehow....but it's getting pretty thick at this point.
You know, thats one of the more fascinating aspects (and major problems) of economics. In terms of markets, the phrase "perfect knowledge" is not only a fallacy, but its an assumption that has made economics one of the more damaging aspects of policy. Have you studied the works of Mise and Hayek?
Perception as you state, is all too often confused with reality. Then resources are committed based upon those flawed perceptions, with the results we've seen all around us, in all walks of life. Such errors lead to market crashes, political instability and war.
Mix in propaganda and marketing(or do I repeat myself? ^^) and the stage is set for some classic examples of malinvestment. Look at Warhammer online, Age of Conan and Aion to name but a few of the more recent examples.
All could have been MUCH better games if the Dev's hadn't been so blinded by The Vision(tm), and their publishers/investors/shareholders hadn't had such a short term focus that it seriously impacted the development cycle.
I very much like your suggestion about direct contact. Especially in the internet age, it can provide a priceless insight into a section of the player demographics. Of course, keeping in mind that its only a self selected section of the player base.
I'm just waiting for the day that other genre's start following the F2P system.
CoD8 - Now free to play!
- Lock n' Load with a single Standard Weapon of your choosing (3 weapons in all!), and get up to 15 bullets per clip, with up to two clips of ammunition! Want more weapons? Head on over to the Kill Shop and purchase anything from the Slightly Better Than Standard Pistol for $0.99 to the Rapid Firing One-Shot-Kill Machine Gun for only $15.99! While you're there, complement your new weapon purchase with more ammo with our Extended Ammunition Packs. Get extra clips for only $1.99 per clip, and more bullets per clip for only $0.99 a bullet!
- Kill up to 5 people per match! Not enough killin' for you? Visit the Kill Shop and purchase the "Terrorist Killer" pack for only $5.99 to upgrade that number to 10 kills per match, for up to 20 matches! Still not enough killin' for you? Buy the "Terrorist Slayer" pack for up to 20 kills per match, for up to 40 matches, for only $9.99! Hell yeah!
- Access nearly 50% of the playable area of 2 different maps! Not enough maps for you? Head on over to the Kill Shop and puchase more for only $2.99 a map. Sniper killing you from outside your playable area? Buy the "Extended Area of Engagement" pack for only $1.99 per locked area of each map!
I'd prefer to play F2P, but it usually becomes impossible,difficult and/or unfair because of the way the game needs to make venue and unbalances the game. Or what happens is you feel like your playing half a game because you lack the benefits you get from opening your wallet. Either way the best games are pay to play.
... if you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss will also gaze into you.-Friedrich Nietzsche
Every drug-dealer gives first shots for ya free. But later ya will bring all ya money and treasures to him. That logic is used by F2P too, and so it is biggest lie - we are FREE when really for free ya eat shit and even for that they found how to tax ya.
There are really some excellent posts in this thread. Some of these responses show a lot of thought being put into them.
I still think the f2p moniker is a misnomer. Not one of these games are free to play, They are free to try and pay to play and boy do you pay in many of them. If you want to experience what the game offers you cannot avoid paying and if pvp is involved you can bet it will be quite expensive to be competitive. Some like ROM are expensive to just do pve.
So whenever I see the "Free to Play" expression, I know for a fact that they are just hiding the charges to play in an item shop economy.
My problem with and from what I read most other posters problems with this section of the genre is that many of these games are far more expensive than a normal subscription based game and the investment is never ending.
Take ROM for example, I know of a lot of high end players who invested 100's of dollars for their level 50 and then 55 gear. Now they have to do the same for the level 60 gear. Woe to the player who tries to do the end game content without it. My view is that ROM is the most expensive game on the market and it is far less content than many of the subscription games.
Not picking on ROM here, it is just one of many games in this section of the genre that do this.
So there is definitely nothing free about any of these games, if you want to experience what little content there is, especially at the upper end, you had better expect to pay for all the free time you had at the lower end.
To set the record straight, Turbine does not really use the f2p model. They have created a model where you pay to open content to your character(s). They also don't have much pvp content in either of the titles they have released this model for. So don't try to confuse Turbine in with the rest of the f2p games. It has set itself apart with a model that makes more sense.
Turbine's model makes perfect sense for the player who does not a large amount of time to play. You can buy content as you need it and not have to worry about the constant cost of a subscription. SOE's model with EQ II, on the other hand, is just a idiotic money grab and you don't have the option of converting the account to a subscription account on the regular servers, unless of course you want to start over from scratch.
I'm all for choice and couldn't care less what anybody else plays or how they pay for it. I choose the subscription model for myself.
The anger comes into play when I choose to buy a game and several expansions, invest a couple of years playing and getting involved in the community only to have the publisher turn around and change the entire ruleset, world, advancement parameters and give something that I invested hundreds of dollars in to everyone else for free.
Turbine really, really pissed in my koolaid. I feel swindled and believe that those who feel the same should band together and sue them for breach of contract.
I may try some F2P games that look interesting in the future, but Turbine will never see another dime of my money.
Good luck with that. If you look at the TOS/EULA you will see that such things are more than covered. I've spent almost 6 years in WoW now, and seen them do endless changes. The only reason I'm still playing is that its still a good game, and I enjoy aspects of it. If that changes, I'll find another game.
Lord of the Rings was fun, but some time in the last two years, they've made some graphic change that always results in a BSOD 116 error (conflict with Nvdia sys file). No matter what version of the drivers I use, its the same. That also applies to DnD online. I've spent quite a bit of time in both games before that, but left them when they became boring.
Turbine is just another example of a company thats looking at the F2P business model. Companies(like people) will usually do whats in their self interest. At this point, that seems to be looking at the F2P business model, or some hybrid.