I think the ideal model for a substantial MMORPG is a subscription based one
Unfortunately (for you anyway, I prefer B2P), more companies are moving away from subscriptions all the time. What's really left that has stayed a sub game for more than a year or two? WoW and EVE. Nothing else stays that way, even if it starts that way.
A subscription model does not provide game stability. What it does provide is no way for the developer to recoup income when a player cancels his subscription. Subscription models are no more stable than FTP models because players can and do cancel their subscriptions at any time. With a dual sub/FTP model, the developer at least has a revenue stream if subs drop.
Games like Neverwinter have just about perfected the pure FTP model. They have learned the hard way through STO trials on the best way to provide a game for free by using the player base to farm for whales. You can best bet that any newer subscription games coming out already have contingency plans for a FTP conversion. And they won’t hesitate when the subs drop.
Thing is the other day I almost fell of my chair when I found out in The Repop Website that the payment model was to be Free to Play based.
Why would you fall off your chair? I would fall off my chair if it had been announced as subscription only. There hasn't been an MMO released in the past couple years which has survived a subscription model. So as disappointed as you might be, I'm sure you'd be more disappointed if you subbed for 8 months and then they shut it down. F2P is the most sustainable model at the moment. B2P is another good model to achieve high initial sales, but it's the maintenance that suffers down the road, so cash shops usually come in anyway. Subs are like horror stories these days. There isn't a single subscription sweetheart I can think of in years upon years. Who would be your subscription posterchild? Dont' say WoW or EVE.
Look at the feature-list of The Repopulation and then tell me that it's not going to be a P2W-game if it isn't subscription based but F2P instead.
Another game down the drain before it even went live.
Competitive PvP, especially in a sandbox title with territorial warfare etc, you need a leveled playingground, which is only achievable by giving everyone the same access to the game. PvP turns into P2W as soon as you make the game F2P and sell items like potions or gear in the cashshop. The Repopulation FAQ states that they won't sell such items, but you can be 100% certain that there will be, as they have been in every F2P-title so far.
For an indie title, getting people to try the game is half the battle. You don't have a large marketing budget. You spread through word of mouth. It's much easier to gain players in a free to play title because there is no barrier of entry. If someone tells their friend to try a game, it's easy for them to hop right in and play together.
It's tough for any game to maintain a healthy audience long-term as a subscription title with so many free options out there these days. The result is games generally sell well, then die off more quickly than they did in the days when there were few options and trying each had a price tag.
Players generally will cancel old subscriptions to try new ones, which takes players out of your world and worsens the experience for everyone else. Free to play titles allow players to play other games, but check in from time to time, which aids the community as a whole.
Many titles now ship with subscription to get their box sales and initial profit, and then switch to free to play later when it's clear that they are hemmoraghing players. The problem in that case is that the perception is then that they are doing poorly which hurts customer opinion. Server merges create a similar problem.
I'm not saying that the subscription model doesn't work. It definitely does. But there is also a reason the bulk of upcoming titles are going the free to play (or the box price and no subscription) route. It's simply a healthier model for most games.
I think a lot of players dislike F2P simply because of the implementations in certain games they have played previously. It is annoying to have paid a box price and subscription for a game, to see it later turn free to play and you notice that you would have spent so much more to unlock all the classes, races or content than if you had just paid the box price and subscription. To see that it's free to play but the only way to unlock everything is to still pay a subscription. Or to find that the only way to play competitively is to spend money.
Those are problems with the implementation though and not the model. Developers are still trying to find what they can and can't do, and some are still trying to nickel and dime players for as much as they can get. That's certainly not the approach being taken with Repop though. We value free players. And the membership options are similar to just a box price with no subscription (with the lower end ones being cheaper). Aside from some skill gain bonus potions (which give a much smaller bonus than in many of the other titles out there), there really won't be any performance gain from cash shop items. You'll be unlocking perks (more bank space, more inventory space, more mission slots, etc), purchasing cosmetic items (purely cosmetic/no stat differences), and the like.
The difference really just comes in how developers perceive free players. A common way early on of treating non-paying players was to make their lives difficult so that they either quit or paid. Some games still use that same approach. But the approach Repop (and numerous other free to play titles) is taking is that free players are valuable to the game. Sure you need paying customers to stay afloat. But when you create a game where only paying customers can play effectively, you drive away free players. And that is a bad thing. Those players add to the community. Maybe one day they turn into a paying customer, maybe not. But maybe they introduce someone else to the game who does. Maybe they have or become friends with players who are and their being around makes the other players happy.
Noone enjoys an empty world. MMOs are about being social. We'd rather have 50,000 players with only 5,000 of them paying than we would to have 5,000 subscribers. And the reality is with free to play, if you build it they will come. Getting a large number of players to try your game isn't difficult with a free to play title. They have nothing to lose except for download time. Free to play gets them in the door, and then it's up to developers to create a product that will keep them there. That's all you can really ask for.
That's not to say free to play is a perfect model. It is more difficult to get rid of problem players without a barrier of entry. But noone likes to use months (or years) of work. The problem players in free to play titles are generally gold spammers and things of that nature. You can circumvent them with ignore commands, report and auto-detection methods. Overall you just have to weigh the bad with the good. And there are more positive things to be gained from free to play than a subscription model for this title.
Stop posting, dammit. Every time you post here or update the KS project i want to throw money at your team. You're making me think irrationally, and I do not like it. ><
That said, PMing you with questions about bumping a pledge.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by CyclopsSlayer F2P is the death of Community. Players seem to feel much more dedicated to a P2P world, when it comes to things like Guilds and group activities. In every F2P game I have played so far guilds and such groups seem to fail time and time again as people feel little need to log on and work together. RP seems to be in need of a strong group and coordinated activity, F@P does not support such.
Aside from EVE and WoW name two communities of P2P games which are dedicated to their game more than the best F2P communities, until such a time keep your opinions under the format of opinions not facts.
FF11 comes to mind.
the "freemium" communities of LOTRO-Landroval and EQ2- Antonia Bayle as well.
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Damn bad news i thought this was gonna be a good game and they ruin it like this oh well . And to the guy who was talking about crfting stuff drop from mobs wont make it ptw well doh they can just make the combines fail untill you buy stuff from the shop.
Well at least we have EQnext coming at that gonna be freemium so i can get my sub and not wory about bag space and other silly stuff.
Originally posted by JC-Smith The three largest reasons: For an indie title, getting people to try the game is half the battle. You don't have a large marketing budget. You spread through word of mouth. It's much easier to gain players in a free to play title because there is no barrier of entry. If someone tells their friend to try a game, it's easy for them to hop right in and play together. It's tough for any game to maintain a healthy audience long-term as a subscription title with so many free options out there these days. The result is games generally sell well, then die off more quickly than they did in the days when there were few options and trying each had a price tag. Players generally will cancel old subscriptions to try new ones, which takes players out of your world and worsens the experience for everyone else. Free to play titles allow players to play other games, but check in from time to time, which aids the community as a whole. Many titles now ship with subscription to get their box sales and initial profit, and then switch to free to play later when it's clear that they are hemmoraghing players. The problem in that case is that the perception is then that they are doing poorly which hurts customer opinion. Server merges create a similar problem. I'm not saying that the subscription model doesn't work. It definitely does. But there is also a reason the bulk of upcoming titles are going the free to play (or the box price and no subscription) route. It's simply a healthier model for most games. I think a lot of players dislike F2P simply because of the implementations in certain games they have played previously. It is annoying to have paid a box price and subscription for a game, to see it later turn free to play and you notice that you would have spent so much more to unlock all the classes, races or content than if you had just paid the box price and subscription. To see that it's free to play but the only way to unlock everything is to still pay a subscription. Or to find that the only way to play competitively is to spend money.Those are problems with the implementation though and not the model. Developers are still trying to find what they can and can't do, and some are still trying to nickel and dime players for as much as they can get. That's certainly not the approach being taken with Repop though. We value free players. And the membership options are similar to just a box price with no subscription (with the lower end ones being cheaper). Aside from some skill gain bonus potions (which give a much smaller bonus than in many of the other titles out there), there really won't be any performance gain from cash shop items. You'll be unlocking perks (more bank space, more inventory space, more mission slots, etc), purchasing cosmetic items (purely cosmetic/no stat differences), and the like.The difference really just comes in how developers perceive free players. A common way early on of treating non-paying players was to make their lives difficult so that they either quit or paid. Some games still use that same approach. But the approach Repop (and numerous other free to play titles) is taking is that free players are valuable to the game. Sure you need paying customers to stay afloat. But when you create a game where only paying customers can play effectively, you drive away free players. And that is a bad thing. Those players add to the community. Maybe one day they turn into a paying customer, maybe not. But maybe they introduce someone else to the game who does. Maybe they have or become friends with players who are and their being around makes the other players happy.Noone enjoys an empty world. MMOs are about being social. We'd rather have 50,000 players with only 5,000 of them paying than we would to have 5,000 subscribers. And the reality is with free to play, if you build it they will come. Getting a large number of players to try your game isn't difficult with a free to play title. They have nothing to lose except for download time. Free to play gets them in the door, and then it's up to developers to create a product that will keep them there. That's all you can really ask for.That's not to say free to play is a perfect model. It is more difficult to get rid of problem players without a barrier of entry. But noone likes to use months (or years) of work. The problem players in free to play titles are generally gold spammers and things of that nature. You can circumvent them with ignore commands, report and auto-detection methods. Overall you just have to weigh the bad with the good. And there are more positive things to be gained from free to play than a subscription model for this title.
There's a solution to the problem you identified....
FREE or EXTENDED TRIALS.
Give everyone a 21day free trial-time with only a very few restrictions necessary to fight gold-sellers and voilá, everyone can extensively try your game without paying. Or for a level-based MMO, simply let everyone play for free until LvL (50% of max).
F2P simply isn't going to cut it for a competitive MMO with lot's of PvP. It'll be P2W in the end, no matter how hard you try not to.
Look at the feature-list of The Repopulation and then tell me that it's not going to be a P2W-game if it isn't subscription based but F2P instead.
Another game down the drain before it even went live.
Competitive PvP, especially in a sandbox title with territorial warfare etc, you need a leveled playingground, which is only achievable by giving everyone the same access to the game. PvP turns into P2W as soon as you make the game F2P and sell items like potions or gear in the cashshop. The Repopulation FAQ states that they won't sell such items, but you can be 100% certain that there will be, as they have been in every F2P-title so far.
Bad decision is bad...
Not if you make cash shop currency available for trade for in-game currency, a la Neverwinter most recently. After that, if people complain then what can you do. The only fact in the matter is that if you believe that the game could survive as a subscription game then you're delusional. Although, maybe the company behind the game has seen success with subscription in their previous games..........
Originally posted by CrazKanuk Originally posted by YalexyLook at the feature-list of The Repopulation and then tell me that it's not going to be a P2W-game if it isn't subscription based but F2P instead.Another game down the drain before it even went live.Competitive PvP, especially in a sandbox title with territorial warfare etc, you need a leveled playingground, which is only achievable by giving everyone the same access to the game. PvP turns into P2W as soon as you make the game F2P and sell items like potions or gear in the cashshop. The Repopulation FAQ states that they won't sell such items, but you can be 100% certain that there will be, as they have been in every F2P-title so far.Bad decision is bad...
Not if you make cash shop currency available for trade for in-game currency, a la Neverwinter most recently. After that, if people complain then what can you do. The only fact in the matter is that if you believe that the game could survive as a subscription game then you're delusional. Although, maybe the company behind the game has seen success with subscription in their previous games..........
A MMO can easily survive with a subscription. The problem is the greedy developers and publishers, who want more and more.
Look at EvE Online and how it started and where it is today. EvE never had millions of subscribers or anything like that. But CCP kept going as it was still making a profit, even when it just had some 100k subscriptions.
For a MMO to be succesful and make a profit you don't need anymore then some 100k subscriptions, and 100k subscriptins is quiet easily achievable for The Repop.
Originally posted by Loktofeit Stop posting, dammit. Every time you post here or update the KS project i want to throw money at your team. You're making me think irrationally, and I do not like it. ><That said, PMing you with questions about bumping a pledge.
Heh. One of the better posts today. :-)
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by CyclopsSlayer F2P is the death of Community. Players seem to feel much more dedicated to a P2P world, when it comes to things like Guilds and group activities. In every F2P game I have played so far guilds and such groups seem to fail time and time again as people feel little need to log on and work together. RP seems to be in need of a strong group and coordinated activity, F@P does not support such.
Aside from EVE and WoW name two communities of P2P games which are dedicated to their game more than the best F2P communities, until such a time keep your opinions under the format of opinions not facts.
Almost every p2p game that's gone f2p had a much better community before. Just because a game can't survive anymore on p2p doesn't mean the community doesn't suffer for it.
If you can name a single one where the community got better not worse I'll agree it's just an opinion.
My idea of a filling and fun MMORPG is one that ideally provides with a virtual world with a high degree of freedom and interaction. In this sense, The Repopulation looks very interesting, and the more I read and see about its features and current status, the more convincing I find it.
Thing is the other day I almost fell of my chair when I found out in The Repop Website that the payment model was to be Free to Play based.
I think the ideal model for a substantial MMORPG is a subscription based one: it gives a sense of exclusivity to the gamer, very especially when a particular MMORPG looks oriented to a niche public that looks for a long-term gaming experience. In addition to this, I think the subscription model in certain way ensures customer’s tranquility with regards to maintenance, missions updates, dev run events and the so. No need to mention that, in my opinion, a subscription model discourages undesirable MMO fauna (trolls, kids, MMO tourists…).
For the reasons given above, I have the sensation that FTP might not be the best model for The Repop. Anyway, this could be a personal prejudice or perhaps there’s something I’m not getting.
What is your opinion about this?
Thanks in advance!
I'm not opposed to a sub model in a game as I sub to EQ2 but it has to be a really good game to hold my sub for more than a month or two and I don't tend to go back to sub games after I let them drop like I might F2P or B2P games.
I think repopulation could look to Perpetuum and ask themselves if that's the level of success they wanted? If it was then a sub might work if they are setting their sights higher than F2P is probably a better way to get people in your world and playing even though the rough patches that game is sure to experience given how small budget it is.
Free to Play instead of Free Trial. Sigh.Oh well. Another game filed into the "could have been decent" bin.Guess I won't be taking a break from EVE after all.
My feelings the same. I was following the development of this game with interest, but no longer. Never played a "F2P" game worth my time, let alone my money. If "barrier to entry" was the problem, offer the box at $20-30 and offer a cheaper sub fee (if you think a $15 sub is a bad thing). F2P is exactly the wrong thing for a game like this... "sandbox" (or a game trying to have good crafting) and cash shop don't mix.
F2p is used as an excuse and eliminates the worry of relying on subs and everyone gets a charge back.
There is no question at least in my mind that as soon as you see F2p,you know A the game will be released half ass and early and B never expect the depth or quality in design and C the graphics and detail will be low end.
point being that if you had high hopes don't, better to wait until you can test it for yourself.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Originally posted by YalexyLook at the feature-list of The Repopulation and then tell me that it's not going to be a P2W-game if it isn't subscription based but F2P instead.Another game down the drain before it even went live.Competitive PvP, especially in a sandbox title with territorial warfare etc, you need a leveled playingground, which is only achievable by giving everyone the same access to the game. PvP turns into P2W as soon as you make the game F2P and sell items like potions or gear in the cashshop. The Repopulation FAQ states that they won't sell such items, but you can be 100% certain that there will be, as they have been in every F2P-title so far.Bad decision is bad...
Not if you make cash shop currency available for trade for in-game currency, a la Neverwinter most recently. After that, if people complain then what can you do. The only fact in the matter is that if you believe that the game could survive as a subscription game then you're delusional. Although, maybe the company behind the game has seen success with subscription in their previous games..........
A MMO can easily survive with a subscription. The problem is the greedy developers and publishers, who want more and more.
Look at EvE Online and how it started and where it is today. EvE never had millions of subscribers or anything like that. But CCP kept going as it was still making a profit, even when it just had some 100k subscriptions.
For a MMO to be succesful and make a profit you don't need anymore then some 100k subscriptions, and 100k subscriptins is quiet easily achievable for The Repop.
1) You can't make a claim like that without knowing what their expenses, target reach, etc are, especially for an indie game that simply doesn't have the budget for a full-fledged marketing campaign. In today's market, barring flukes which no sane business would bank on, to get 100k in the door at release for a subscription game, a dev would need to throw a bunch of money at marketing, either to advertise the game or to sell the box/client or both.
2) EVE wasn't released in a sea of a hundred or so free to play alternatives.
3) Another claim that you, someone that doesn't do the books, simply can't make.
I don't think you realize the money that needs to be spent (again, barring flukes) to get 100k subscription at release.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Look at the feature-list of The Repopulation and then tell me that it's not going to be a P2W-game if it isn't subscription based but F2P instead.
Your certainly entitled to your opinion, but our vision from the get go is very much against Pay To Win, which we've stated time and time again. We feel that free players are important to a games success. Because some other developers don't feel that way, the F2P model often gets a bad reputation.
There's really two ways that developers approach free to play.
1) They cater to the paying players and make it difficult enough on the free players that the free players either start spending money or move on to another game. This maximizes the amount of money you make on each player, while not having to foot as much of a bill for players who are not paying as most non-paying customers will find another game. This method often involves a lot of locked content that you can subscribe in order to unlock, and the free to play is a mechanism to get you to subscribe.
2) They view free customers as being important. Not only can they convert into paying customers, but they can bring in other players to the game, some of them who may become paying customers. They understand that while these players may be costing them a tad of money, they may also be making the game more enjoyable for others as they may be friends, family members, etc of paying customers, and because the more players they have the more enjoyable the game will be for those playing (its no fun in a barren world).
We fall into category #2. Your not going to find stats items in the cash shop or require to spend cash to unlock a chest or wear good gear. Too many people make assumptions based on some other game they played which tried to nickel and dime their customers with 200% experience potions, gear for cash, lockboxes that you can buy an unlock for, purchasable rare resources, and making game mechanics stacked so that it's miserable to play without paying. It's true that most F2P games to date fell into category #1, but not all. Because that is the route the majority of developers have taken, players often erroneously assume that's all there is. I think in the coming years we're going to see a lot more developers go to option #2. We're already seeing a lot of games that went with the first option slowly shifting towards #2.
This game was designed as free to play. It's been a free to play title since before the Kickstarter campaign, so there is no reason for anyone to act surprised by this. It was clearly mentioned on the Kickstarter page. For the sake of argument, let's say for a minute we agreed and decided F2P was a bad idea, we wouldn't be able to change the model after it was already a selling point on Kickstarter. Now we certainly don't feel that way, we feel strongly that F2P is the correct approach for Repop. But it's pointless to try to convince us otherwise at this stage, it's in writing. Once you start leaving promises unfulfilled your heading down a slippery slope. The business model isn't something that we took lightly. We put a lot of thought into the direction we wanted to take, what we did and did not want to support as part of the memberships and cash shop, and at our overall approach to not create a huge gap between free and paying customers.
My advice for anyone who is against the idea of free to play would be wait until the game opens, and then make your judgments.
So OP your saying that a cash shop isn't a sand box feature?
In what I would call a sand box nirvana which allows players to build and destroy most things in the game, I don't believe the F2P model is the best choice. With a F2P game where the company needs people to continue spending money, you can only sell so many convenience items before players no longer need them and that's when you reach the pay for advantage cliff. You only have to look at most F2P cash shops to see over time they had to start selling items which gave advantage in one form or another and some definitely worse than others.
I hope they do succeed because we need more sand box type games, but I just can't see the payment model being sustainable over the long run.
I am fine with F2P. I can play/test a game without paying money, playerbase is much higher than with a sub model (especially later compared with a sub model where many players saying bye after the first free month) and devs might earn more money (if they can deliver a good and fair ingame shop). So, I am open for F2P at any time for any game. That's the way in modern times. Sub models are out.
Originally posted by JC-Smith Originally posted by YalexyLook at the feature-list of The Repopulation and then tell me that it's not going to be a P2W-game if it isn't subscription based but F2P instead.
Your certainly entitled to your opinion, but our vision from the get go is very much against Pay To Win, which we've stated time and time again. We feel that free players are important to a games success. Because some other developers don't feel that way, the F2P model often gets a bad reputation.
There's really two ways that developers approach free to play.
1) They cater to the paying players and make it difficult enough on the free players that the free players either start spending money or move on to another game. This maximizes the amount of money you make on each player, while not having to foot as much of a bill for players who are not paying as most non-paying customers will find another game. This method often involves a lot of locked content that you can subscribe in order to unlock, and the free to play is a mechanism to get you to subscribe.
2) They view free customers as being important. Not only can they convert into paying customers, but they can bring in other players to the game, some of them who may become paying customers. They understand that while these players may be costing them a tad of money, they may also be making the game more enjoyable for others as they may be friends, family members, etc of paying customers, and because the more players they have the more enjoyable the game will be for those playing (its no fun in a barren world).
We fall into category #2. Your not going to find stats items in the cash shop or require to spend cash to unlock a chest or wear good gear. Too many people make assumptions based on some other game they played which tried to nickel and dime their customers with 200% experience potions, gear for cash, lockboxes that you can buy an unlock for, purchasable rare resources, and making game mechanics stacked so that it's miserable to play without paying. It's true that most F2P games to date fell into category #1, but not all. Because that is the route the majority of developers have taken, players often erroneously assume that's all there is. I think in the coming years we're going to see a lot more developers go to option #2. We're already seeing a lot of games that went with the first option slowly shifting towards #2.
This game was designed as free to play. It's been a free to play title since before the Kickstarter campaign, so there is no reason for anyone to act surprised by this. It was clearly mentioned on the Kickstarter page. For the sake of argument, let's say for a minute we agreed and decided F2P was a bad idea, we wouldn't be able to change the model after it was already a selling point on Kickstarter. Now we certainly don't feel that way, we feel strongly that F2P is the correct approach for Repop. But it's pointless to try to convince us otherwise at this stage, it's in writing. Once you start leaving promises unfulfilled your heading down a slippery slope. The business model isn't something that we took lightly. We put a lot of thought into the direction we wanted to take, what we did and did not want to support as part of the memberships and cash shop, and at our overall approach to not create a huge gap between free and paying customers.
My advice for anyone who is against the idea of free to play would be wait until the game opens, and then make your judgments.
Too many developers in the past have made claims, that their cashshop won't have any influence in PvE or PvP and is only there for fluff and convenience. History so far has shown, that not a single F2P-title could live up to this claim.
Because of the history with F2P-titles I'm not even considering downloading the client for a game that is F2P.
And then there's the MMOs that were released as P2P and changed to F2P afterwards. I've played titles like AoC, STO, SWTOR and TSW, but as soon as they announced to change into F2P I left them and never looked back.
F2P simply has a negative touch for people like me, who have no problem spending $15/month as it's pocketchange compared to what I spend for cigarettes each month for example. Or if I spend a night out at the club, I'm spending the money worth of an annual subscription in a single night.
For me it's really simple. Tell me what the game costs, all inclusive, and I'll pay. If there's no fixed price however, then you've lost a possible customer. I simply don't want to bother with microtransactions as this is inconvenient for me.
Some people protesting free2play are the first ones to complain about server merges and empty servers. WOW and EVE are pretty much the only AAA successful mmos from that era that still require a monthly subscription options. WOW came out in 2004, EVE came out in 2003, which is the reason they can continue to charge subscription. But a new mmo franchise (Star Wars couldn't either) entering this day and age cannot survive off subscription model or realizes monthly subscriptions yield much lower profits. All of the other mmos moved away from subscription for a reason,more players more profits, not just a little but a 300% increase in some cases. Just to prove this, Rift is going free to play as we speak. Who want's empty servers? Worse than that who wants to shutdown their mmo. Free2Play is the future, get use to it. Also
Note: Don't bring up Darkfall, as they already failed and had to reboot the game because they do not want to embrace Free2play.
Thanks for your feedback, very especially to JC-Smith, and sorry about my late response.
As I say, my position against F2P comes mainly from prejudice, as I haven't played any F2P game and therefore I haven't any basis for comparison with P2P or B2P models.
I understand what you say in terms of marketing. Anyway, not going to conceal that I'm still skeptic.
I question why a niche game like The Repopulation should open its gates to everybody through a F2P model. I suspect that this game is going to cater to many UO, EVE, SWG and pen&paper RPG veterans, a mature public who know what they want and who know where to look after what they want. This game is not for the mainstream, is not for the casuals - they are just gonna be a source of problems and whining if they get to touch this game, even if it's technically impeccable.
Wouldn't be better to focus on this niche public from the very beginning? I may be wrong but I think it may have been better to market this product as an exclusivity for this niche public and capitalize it with a Box-Price and a dynamic subscription based on number of hours played. Personally, a Box-Price and dynamic P2P would have given me more security that you have faith in your product, that you're 100% committed.
Not to mention that, even if you don't want it now, there's a risk of going P2W if your expectations with F2P flop...
In any case, I will definitely try this game. Sincerely, hope all you F2P supporters are right.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
We feel like the market has expanded over the years. There are more people playing MMOs than ever before. But many of those players are tired of the theme park treadmill. I don't think we're alone in those thoughts, there's a number of sandboxes on their way now. That wasn't the case when we began development though.
Repop is a very different game. It certainly isn't going to be for everyone, and we're not trying to make it be. Much of the PvE game is driven by our generated mission system which is very different from any of the other quest systems to date. Some are going to enjoy that some will not. While public quest type systems have become more prominent, we're doing a lot of different things with our engagement system which may or may not appeal to some players. Longer term content shifts based on player reactions and such. Crafting is very complex and intertwined into multiple trees, which will also not appeal to everyone as it is very different from the crafting in most other titles.
The fact that we don't have a large budget combined with those things definitely points to a more niche audience. We're not hoping for 15 million players. But at the same time we're be disappointed to only have 2000 players. The market has expanded over the years, so that a tiny percentage of it is still a reasonable sized number. Yet if you go through the sandbox titles in that time the only one which has been able to sustain any substantial numbers is Eve Online. Eve is certainly a niche title. But that niche is larger than what would have been the market leader pre-WoW, in the west at least. But Eve grew slowly over many years, and with less competition. Star Wars Galaxies also fell in that category before closing, though it never really recovered from the NGE. Most other sandbox titles have had under 10,000 players. We feel that is a mixture of a few things. One being that the games are generally a lot more hardcore and don't appeal to most players (a very small niche) and the second is that most of them are subscription only and players aren't willing to pay money when there are so many free alternatives.
We feel we have a product that can appeal to more than just a few thousand players. I think there's a lot of old school players who miss games that were a bit more social oriented, and not on rails. We also think there are a lot of new school players who are simply looking for something different. There is a huge number of MMO gamers who have never played anything other than Wow-style theme park treadmills. But many of those players wouldn't be willing to try the game with a barrier of entry. A free trial is one way to go about that, but it's not the same. Players don't look at it in the same way. Some players simply are unwilling or unable to pay, but that doesn't make them bad for the community.
So we feel we can hook enough players who will enjoy a very difference experience. But in order to maximize that we need to get those players to try the game. We do that with true free to play. There aren't level restrictions or caps for free players. You can play and do almost everything that a paying player can do. There's a few small restrictions such as you can not form or lead a nation without paying a one time fee or membership, and it's not going to be as convenient (free players have less bank slots, inventory slots, mission slots, etc). But you are able to play and be competitive without ever spending a penny. That's our pitch to players. Why not try it. If you don't enjoy the game, move on with no risk, and no credit card entry to sign up for your free trial.
So our hope is that players will do just that. Give the game a try. And even if it only appeals to 1% of MMO gamers, that's still a significantly larger number of players than what we could expect from a subscription game.
It should also be noted, that while Repop is certainly going to be very different than your average MMO in a lot of ways, we've made a lot of design decisions that are meant to appeal to a more casual audience than your typical sandbox. We do a lot to encourage grouping and make it easier for players to find groups, but it's not forced on them. We also use a lot of generated content so players who need something to keep them focused and moving forward (probably a large percentage) will always have those opportunities. Where most recent sandboxes catered primarily to more hardcore, old school gameplay mechanics, we've taken a middle ground with most of ours. We want to expose players to sandbox features, social content, non-combat options, and the like, but we are also trying to appeal to a more casual fan base than most of the other sandbox titles in recent years. We do feel that more casual players will be able to enjoy the game, but also think that the only way to prove that to them is to get them to try it in the first place.
Vanguard:SoH - Even though it was on life support with no real dev tem for years, it had several vibrant guilds raiding and grouping. Went F2P and a few months later most all the big raiding guilds have packed up and moved on. The existng ones can't even reliably form 6 man groups. The F2P cash shop model eliminated the need for end game content as BIS gear now drops from L10 boxes you need to buy a key to open.
Lineage 2 - Went F2P about a year ago, now no one raids, no one seiges, no one PvP's, pure casual heaven. The guild there went from 20-50 online in any single night, to often <5 on in prime time. The Dragon raids that required 100+ people never seem to happen.
Aion - Alliances would form everytime a Fortress would go vulnerable, they regularly changed hands. Went F2P and it went from 2 fortress attack/defenses a night to 1 maybe 2 nights a week. Same number of people around, the Season boss would get mobbed, just no one cared to work to own a fortress any more.
EQ1, EQ2, DDO, went Freemium so are only technically F2P, you need to pay to get full content. Age of Wushu is looking to be the same. Allods is pure P2W.
Games that are designed F2P from scratch may fair better, as GW1/2. I cannot speak about SWTOR as I left long before F2P and refuse to look back.
everything you said here has little to do with players and much to do with badly implemented cash milking shops...
Lineage 2 was pretty much dead already when it went to F2P, so was aion, eq1,2 and DDO... (I'm thinking about western market)
But again, you're talking about how cash shops ruined the gameplay, not how F2P attracted horrible group...
GW1 and 2 aren't designed to be F2P! When will people learn the difference, it's B2P, you still have to buy the box if you want to play the damn game. It does have cash shop but it's fluff only and it has no influence on your gameplay and gives no real advantage.
I've played alot of P2P games and alot of F2P, freemium and those few B2P games...
Community experience was as follows: B2P = P2P => F2P > Freemium...
Every coomunity has it's douchebags, but F2P games tend to attract larger scale of people so it's only logical that it has more douchebags... :P
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life." -------------------------------
Comments
Unfortunately (for you anyway, I prefer B2P), more companies are moving away from subscriptions all the time. What's really left that has stayed a sub game for more than a year or two? WoW and EVE. Nothing else stays that way, even if it starts that way.
A subscription model does not provide game stability. What it does provide is no way for the developer to recoup income when a player cancels his subscription. Subscription models are no more stable than FTP models because players can and do cancel their subscriptions at any time. With a dual sub/FTP model, the developer at least has a revenue stream if subs drop.
Games like Neverwinter have just about perfected the pure FTP model. They have learned the hard way through STO trials on the best way to provide a game for free by using the player base to farm for whales. You can best bet that any newer subscription games coming out already have contingency plans for a FTP conversion. And they won’t hesitate when the subs drop.
Why would you fall off your chair? I would fall off my chair if it had been announced as subscription only. There hasn't been an MMO released in the past couple years which has survived a subscription model. So as disappointed as you might be, I'm sure you'd be more disappointed if you subbed for 8 months and then they shut it down. F2P is the most sustainable model at the moment. B2P is another good model to achieve high initial sales, but it's the maintenance that suffers down the road, so cash shops usually come in anyway. Subs are like horror stories these days. There isn't a single subscription sweetheart I can think of in years upon years. Who would be your subscription posterchild? Dont' say WoW or EVE.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Look at the feature-list of The Repopulation and then tell me that it's not going to be a P2W-game if it isn't subscription based but F2P instead.
Another game down the drain before it even went live.
Competitive PvP, especially in a sandbox title with territorial warfare etc, you need a leveled playingground, which is only achievable by giving everyone the same access to the game. PvP turns into P2W as soon as you make the game F2P and sell items like potions or gear in the cashshop. The Repopulation FAQ states that they won't sell such items, but you can be 100% certain that there will be, as they have been in every F2P-title so far.
Bad decision is bad...
Stop posting, dammit. Every time you post here or update the KS project i want to throw money at your team. You're making me think irrationally, and I do not like it. ><
That said, PMing you with questions about bumping a pledge.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
FF11 comes to mind.
the "freemium" communities of LOTRO-Landroval and EQ2- Antonia Bayle as well.
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Dwight D Eisenhower
My optimism wears heavy boots and is loud.
Henry Rollins
Damn bad news i thought this was gonna be a good game and they ruin it like this oh well . And to the guy who was talking about crfting stuff drop from mobs wont make it ptw well doh they can just make the combines fail untill you buy stuff from the shop.
Well at least we have EQnext coming at that gonna be freemium so i can get my sub and not wory about bag space and other silly stuff.
There's a solution to the problem you identified....
FREE or EXTENDED TRIALS.
Give everyone a 21day free trial-time with only a very few restrictions necessary to fight gold-sellers and voilá, everyone can extensively try your game without paying. Or for a level-based MMO, simply let everyone play for free until LvL (50% of max).
F2P simply isn't going to cut it for a competitive MMO with lot's of PvP. It'll be P2W in the end, no matter how hard you try not to.
Not if you make cash shop currency available for trade for in-game currency, a la Neverwinter most recently. After that, if people complain then what can you do. The only fact in the matter is that if you believe that the game could survive as a subscription game then you're delusional. Although, maybe the company behind the game has seen success with subscription in their previous games..........
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
A MMO can easily survive with a subscription. The problem is the greedy developers and publishers, who want more and more.
Look at EvE Online and how it started and where it is today. EvE never had millions of subscribers or anything like that. But CCP kept going as it was still making a profit, even when it just had some 100k subscriptions.
For a MMO to be succesful and make a profit you don't need anymore then some 100k subscriptions, and 100k subscriptins is quiet easily achievable for The Repop.
Heh. One of the better posts today. :-)
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Almost every p2p game that's gone f2p had a much better community before. Just because a game can't survive anymore on p2p doesn't mean the community doesn't suffer for it.
If you can name a single one where the community got better not worse I'll agree it's just an opinion.
I'm not opposed to a sub model in a game as I sub to EQ2 but it has to be a really good game to hold my sub for more than a month or two and I don't tend to go back to sub games after I let them drop like I might F2P or B2P games.
I think repopulation could look to Perpetuum and ask themselves if that's the level of success they wanted? If it was then a sub might work if they are setting their sights higher than F2P is probably a better way to get people in your world and playing even though the rough patches that game is sure to experience given how small budget it is.
My feelings the same. I was following the development of this game with interest, but no longer. Never played a "F2P" game worth my time, let alone my money. If "barrier to entry" was the problem, offer the box at $20-30 and offer a cheaper sub fee (if you think a $15 sub is a bad thing). F2P is exactly the wrong thing for a game like this... "sandbox" (or a game trying to have good crafting) and cash shop don't mix.F2p is used as an excuse and eliminates the worry of relying on subs and everyone gets a charge back.
There is no question at least in my mind that as soon as you see F2p,you know A the game will be released half ass and early and B never expect the depth or quality in design and C the graphics and detail will be low end.
point being that if you had high hopes don't, better to wait until you can test it for yourself.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
1) You can't make a claim like that without knowing what their expenses, target reach, etc are, especially for an indie game that simply doesn't have the budget for a full-fledged marketing campaign. In today's market, barring flukes which no sane business would bank on, to get 100k in the door at release for a subscription game, a dev would need to throw a bunch of money at marketing, either to advertise the game or to sell the box/client or both.
2) EVE wasn't released in a sea of a hundred or so free to play alternatives.
3) Another claim that you, someone that doesn't do the books, simply can't make.
I don't think you realize the money that needs to be spent (again, barring flukes) to get 100k subscription at release.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Your certainly entitled to your opinion, but our vision from the get go is very much against Pay To Win, which we've stated time and time again. We feel that free players are important to a games success. Because some other developers don't feel that way, the F2P model often gets a bad reputation.
There's really two ways that developers approach free to play.
1) They cater to the paying players and make it difficult enough on the free players that the free players either start spending money or move on to another game. This maximizes the amount of money you make on each player, while not having to foot as much of a bill for players who are not paying as most non-paying customers will find another game. This method often involves a lot of locked content that you can subscribe in order to unlock, and the free to play is a mechanism to get you to subscribe.
2) They view free customers as being important. Not only can they convert into paying customers, but they can bring in other players to the game, some of them who may become paying customers. They understand that while these players may be costing them a tad of money, they may also be making the game more enjoyable for others as they may be friends, family members, etc of paying customers, and because the more players they have the more enjoyable the game will be for those playing (its no fun in a barren world).
We fall into category #2. Your not going to find stats items in the cash shop or require to spend cash to unlock a chest or wear good gear. Too many people make assumptions based on some other game they played which tried to nickel and dime their customers with 200% experience potions, gear for cash, lockboxes that you can buy an unlock for, purchasable rare resources, and making game mechanics stacked so that it's miserable to play without paying. It's true that most F2P games to date fell into category #1, but not all. Because that is the route the majority of developers have taken, players often erroneously assume that's all there is. I think in the coming years we're going to see a lot more developers go to option #2. We're already seeing a lot of games that went with the first option slowly shifting towards #2.
This game was designed as free to play. It's been a free to play title since before the Kickstarter campaign, so there is no reason for anyone to act surprised by this. It was clearly mentioned on the Kickstarter page. For the sake of argument, let's say for a minute we agreed and decided F2P was a bad idea, we wouldn't be able to change the model after it was already a selling point on Kickstarter. Now we certainly don't feel that way, we feel strongly that F2P is the correct approach for Repop. But it's pointless to try to convince us otherwise at this stage, it's in writing. Once you start leaving promises unfulfilled your heading down a slippery slope. The business model isn't something that we took lightly. We put a lot of thought into the direction we wanted to take, what we did and did not want to support as part of the memberships and cash shop, and at our overall approach to not create a huge gap between free and paying customers.
My advice for anyone who is against the idea of free to play would be wait until the game opens, and then make your judgments.
https://www.therepopulation.com - Sci Fi Sandbox.
So OP your saying that a cash shop isn't a sand box feature?
In what I would call a sand box nirvana which allows players to build and destroy most things in the game, I don't believe the F2P model is the best choice. With a F2P game where the company needs people to continue spending money, you can only sell so many convenience items before players no longer need them and that's when you reach the pay for advantage cliff. You only have to look at most F2P cash shops to see over time they had to start selling items which gave advantage in one form or another and some definitely worse than others.
I hope they do succeed because we need more sand box type games, but I just can't see the payment model being sustainable over the long run.
There's really two ways that developers approach free to play.
1) They cater to the paying players and make it difficult enough on the free players that the free players either start spending money or move on to another game. This maximizes the amount of money you make on each player, while not having to foot as much of a bill for players who are not paying as most non-paying customers will find another game. This method often involves a lot of locked content that you can subscribe in order to unlock, and the free to play is a mechanism to get you to subscribe.
2) They view free customers as being important. Not only can they convert into paying customers, but they can bring in other players to the game, some of them who may become paying customers. They understand that while these players may be costing them a tad of money, they may also be making the game more enjoyable for others as they may be friends, family members, etc of paying customers, and because the more players they have the more enjoyable the game will be for those playing (its no fun in a barren world).
We fall into category #2. Your not going to find stats items in the cash shop or require to spend cash to unlock a chest or wear good gear. Too many people make assumptions based on some other game they played which tried to nickel and dime their customers with 200% experience potions, gear for cash, lockboxes that you can buy an unlock for, purchasable rare resources, and making game mechanics stacked so that it's miserable to play without paying. It's true that most F2P games to date fell into category #1, but not all. Because that is the route the majority of developers have taken, players often erroneously assume that's all there is. I think in the coming years we're going to see a lot more developers go to option #2. We're already seeing a lot of games that went with the first option slowly shifting towards #2.
This game was designed as free to play. It's been a free to play title since before the Kickstarter campaign, so there is no reason for anyone to act surprised by this. It was clearly mentioned on the Kickstarter page. For the sake of argument, let's say for a minute we agreed and decided F2P was a bad idea, we wouldn't be able to change the model after it was already a selling point on Kickstarter. Now we certainly don't feel that way, we feel strongly that F2P is the correct approach for Repop. But it's pointless to try to convince us otherwise at this stage, it's in writing. Once you start leaving promises unfulfilled your heading down a slippery slope. The business model isn't something that we took lightly. We put a lot of thought into the direction we wanted to take, what we did and did not want to support as part of the memberships and cash shop, and at our overall approach to not create a huge gap between free and paying customers.
My advice for anyone who is against the idea of free to play would be wait until the game opens, and then make your judgments.
Too many developers in the past have made claims, that their cashshop won't have any influence in PvE or PvP and is only there for fluff and convenience. History so far has shown, that not a single F2P-title could live up to this claim.
Because of the history with F2P-titles I'm not even considering downloading the client for a game that is F2P.
And then there's the MMOs that were released as P2P and changed to F2P afterwards. I've played titles like AoC, STO, SWTOR and TSW, but as soon as they announced to change into F2P I left them and never looked back.
F2P simply has a negative touch for people like me, who have no problem spending $15/month as it's pocketchange compared to what I spend for cigarettes each month for example. Or if I spend a night out at the club, I'm spending the money worth of an annual subscription in a single night.
For me it's really simple. Tell me what the game costs, all inclusive, and I'll pay. If there's no fixed price however, then you've lost a possible customer. I simply don't want to bother with microtransactions as this is inconvenient for me.
Some people protesting free2play are the first ones to complain about server merges and empty servers. WOW and EVE are pretty much the only AAA successful mmos from that era that still require a monthly subscription options. WOW came out in 2004, EVE came out in 2003, which is the reason they can continue to charge subscription. But a new mmo franchise (Star Wars couldn't either) entering this day and age cannot survive off subscription model or realizes monthly subscriptions yield much lower profits. All of the other mmos moved away from subscription for a reason,more players more profits, not just a little but a 300% increase in some cases. Just to prove this, Rift is going free to play as we speak. Who want's empty servers? Worse than that who wants to shutdown their mmo. Free2Play is the future, get use to it. Also
Note: Don't bring up Darkfall, as they already failed and had to reboot the game because they do not want to embrace Free2play.
Thanks for your feedback, very especially to JC-Smith, and sorry about my late response.
As I say, my position against F2P comes mainly from prejudice, as I haven't played any F2P game and therefore I haven't any basis for comparison with P2P or B2P models.
I understand what you say in terms of marketing. Anyway, not going to conceal that I'm still skeptic.
I question why a niche game like The Repopulation should open its gates to everybody through a F2P model. I suspect that this game is going to cater to many UO, EVE, SWG and pen&paper RPG veterans, a mature public who know what they want and who know where to look after what they want. This game is not for the mainstream, is not for the casuals - they are just gonna be a source of problems and whining if they get to touch this game, even if it's technically impeccable.
Wouldn't be better to focus on this niche public from the very beginning? I may be wrong but I think it may have been better to market this product as an exclusivity for this niche public and capitalize it with a Box-Price and a dynamic subscription based on number of hours played. Personally, a Box-Price and dynamic P2P would have given me more security that you have faith in your product, that you're 100% committed.
Not to mention that, even if you don't want it now, there's a risk of going P2W if your expectations with F2P flop...
In any case, I will definitely try this game. Sincerely, hope all you F2P supporters are right.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
@Akerbeltz:
We feel like the market has expanded over the years. There are more people playing MMOs than ever before. But many of those players are tired of the theme park treadmill. I don't think we're alone in those thoughts, there's a number of sandboxes on their way now. That wasn't the case when we began development though.
Repop is a very different game. It certainly isn't going to be for everyone, and we're not trying to make it be. Much of the PvE game is driven by our generated mission system which is very different from any of the other quest systems to date. Some are going to enjoy that some will not. While public quest type systems have become more prominent, we're doing a lot of different things with our engagement system which may or may not appeal to some players. Longer term content shifts based on player reactions and such. Crafting is very complex and intertwined into multiple trees, which will also not appeal to everyone as it is very different from the crafting in most other titles.
The fact that we don't have a large budget combined with those things definitely points to a more niche audience. We're not hoping for 15 million players. But at the same time we're be disappointed to only have 2000 players. The market has expanded over the years, so that a tiny percentage of it is still a reasonable sized number. Yet if you go through the sandbox titles in that time the only one which has been able to sustain any substantial numbers is Eve Online. Eve is certainly a niche title. But that niche is larger than what would have been the market leader pre-WoW, in the west at least. But Eve grew slowly over many years, and with less competition. Star Wars Galaxies also fell in that category before closing, though it never really recovered from the NGE. Most other sandbox titles have had under 10,000 players. We feel that is a mixture of a few things. One being that the games are generally a lot more hardcore and don't appeal to most players (a very small niche) and the second is that most of them are subscription only and players aren't willing to pay money when there are so many free alternatives.
We feel we have a product that can appeal to more than just a few thousand players. I think there's a lot of old school players who miss games that were a bit more social oriented, and not on rails. We also think there are a lot of new school players who are simply looking for something different. There is a huge number of MMO gamers who have never played anything other than Wow-style theme park treadmills. But many of those players wouldn't be willing to try the game with a barrier of entry. A free trial is one way to go about that, but it's not the same. Players don't look at it in the same way. Some players simply are unwilling or unable to pay, but that doesn't make them bad for the community.
So we feel we can hook enough players who will enjoy a very difference experience. But in order to maximize that we need to get those players to try the game. We do that with true free to play. There aren't level restrictions or caps for free players. You can play and do almost everything that a paying player can do. There's a few small restrictions such as you can not form or lead a nation without paying a one time fee or membership, and it's not going to be as convenient (free players have less bank slots, inventory slots, mission slots, etc). But you are able to play and be competitive without ever spending a penny. That's our pitch to players. Why not try it. If you don't enjoy the game, move on with no risk, and no credit card entry to sign up for your free trial.
So our hope is that players will do just that. Give the game a try. And even if it only appeals to 1% of MMO gamers, that's still a significantly larger number of players than what we could expect from a subscription game.
It should also be noted, that while Repop is certainly going to be very different than your average MMO in a lot of ways, we've made a lot of design decisions that are meant to appeal to a more casual audience than your typical sandbox. We do a lot to encourage grouping and make it easier for players to find groups, but it's not forced on them. We also use a lot of generated content so players who need something to keep them focused and moving forward (probably a large percentage) will always have those opportunities. Where most recent sandboxes catered primarily to more hardcore, old school gameplay mechanics, we've taken a middle ground with most of ours. We want to expose players to sandbox features, social content, non-combat options, and the like, but we are also trying to appeal to a more casual fan base than most of the other sandbox titles in recent years. We do feel that more casual players will be able to enjoy the game, but also think that the only way to prove that to them is to get them to try it in the first place.
https://www.therepopulation.com - Sci Fi Sandbox.
everything you said here has little to do with players and much to do with badly implemented cash milking shops...
Lineage 2 was pretty much dead already when it went to F2P, so was aion, eq1,2 and DDO... (I'm thinking about western market)
But again, you're talking about how cash shops ruined the gameplay, not how F2P attracted horrible group...
GW1 and 2 aren't designed to be F2P! When will people learn the difference, it's B2P, you still have to buy the box if you want to play the damn game. It does have cash shop but it's fluff only and it has no influence on your gameplay and gives no real advantage.
I've played alot of P2P games and alot of F2P, freemium and those few B2P games...
Community experience was as follows: B2P = P2P => F2P > Freemium...
Every coomunity has it's douchebags, but F2P games tend to attract larger scale of people so it's only logical that it has more douchebags... :P
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life."
-------------------------------