That being said there are many f2p games out there that IMO are better than many p2p games.
I'm using all f2p, not just ones that started f2p as that is another red herring argument.
Good f2p games
EQ, EQ2, Swtor, Age of Wushu, PS2, LoL, Istaria (can play as human free), Aion, DDO, Lotro, FE, DCUO
Apart from PS2 did any of those great "F2P" MMO's you mention start as a F2P game? When are you lot going to accept that a P2P MMO which has better funding for launch tends to have higher production values and that makes it "better" MMO in your eyes when it goes F2P?
Have a check of a MMO review some time, the ratings for Graphics, Sound and Polish. This costs serious funding which F2P MMOs lack.
We have even had some of you guys trying to make out that F2P is getting more funding, take your head out of the sand, F2P MMO's look cheaper, sound cheaper and have less polish.
Now with that limitation F2P MMOs can still innovate, have good gameplay and so on. But money is a huge factor. If we were to follow your argument to the Solo game world, are you saying big budget is worse? B3, CoD and so on are worse because they have more staff and more resources?
Of course you can spend a lot of money and get a flop. But big budget usually works better in any area of life. But not for F2P MMO's...right.
Well ps2, lol and age of wushu started as f2p.
with regards to your other statement it just isn't true.
there are many p2p games that are bad and had poor funding. There are several f2p games that are good and have had more funding than p2p games.
So the idea that a p2p game or a game that started as p2p and switched to f2p had more funding therefore better quality is demonstrably false.
F2p have jsut as much quality, content, depth and polish as p2p. There are good p2p, good f2p, bad p2p and bad f2p.
"Of course you can spend a lot of money and get a flop. But big budget usually works better in any area of life. But not for F2P MMO's...right."
The last 7 years or so have again shown that to be demonstrably false, the big budget MMO's have flopped. It is the same in every industry, many big budget have flopped, e.g movies After earth so far is doing very poor, John Carter, Mars needs Moms, The Alamo 2004, Adventures of Pluto Nash. Many small budget movies have done great. e.g Blair witch, Chronicle.
For every f2p that has bad polish and low budget I can point out a p2p (at least that started that) with just as much bad polish and low funding. For every good f2p there are good p2p. Again there are good funded p2p and f2p and bad funded p2p and free, and good polished p2p and f2p and bad polished p2p and f2p.
Lots of funding doesn't mean success as the last many years have shown, big budgets don't guarantee quality.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
That being said there are many f2p games out there that IMO are better than many p2p games.
I'm using all f2p, not just ones that started f2p as that is another red herring argument.
Good f2p games
EQ, EQ2, Swtor, Age of Wushu, PS2, LoL, Istaria (can play as human free), Aion, DDO, Lotro, FE, DCUO
Apart from PS2 did any of those great "F2P" MMO's you mention start as a F2P game? When are you lot going to accept that a P2P MMO which has better funding for launch tends to have higher production values and that makes it "better" MMO in your eyes when it goes F2P?
Have a check of a MMO review some time, the ratings for Graphics, Sound and Polish. This costs serious funding which F2P MMOs lack.
We have even had some of you guys trying to make out that F2P is getting more funding, take your head out of the sand, F2P MMO's look cheaper, sound cheaper and have less polish.
Now with that limitation F2P MMOs can still innovate, have good gameplay and so on. But money is a huge factor. If we were to follow your argument to the Solo game world, are you saying big budget is worse? B3, CoD and so on are worse because they have more staff and more resources?
Of course you can spend a lot of money and get a flop. But big budget usually works better in any area of life. But not for F2P MMO's...right.
Well ps2, lol and age of wushu started as f2p.
with regards to your other statement it just isn't true.
there are many p2p games that are bad and had poor funding. There are several f2p games that are good and have had more funding than p2p games.
So the idea that a p2p game or a game that started as p2p and switched to f2p had more funding therefore better quality is demonstrably false.
F2p have jsut as much quality, content, depth and polish as p2p. There are good p2p, good f2p, bad p2p and bad f2p.
"Of course you can spend a lot of money and get a flop. But big budget usually works better in any area of life. But not for F2P MMO's...right."
The last 7 years or so have again shown that to be demonstrably false, the big budget MMO's have flopped. It is the same in every industry, many big budget have flopped, e.g movies After earth so far is doing very poor, John Carter, Mars needs Moms, The Alamo 2004, Adventures of Pluto Nash. Many small budget movies have done great. e.g Blair witch, Chronicle.
For every f2p that has bad polish and low budget I can point out a p2p (at least that started that) with just as much bad polish and low funding. For every good f2p there are good p2p. Again there are good funded p2p and f2p and bad funded p2p and free, and good polished p2p and f2p and bad polished p2p and f2p.
Lots of funding doesn't mean success as the last many years have shown, big budgets don't guarantee quality.
You know what..!! It's really admirable that some of you guys really tries to defend this statement,, what games that started as PTP has less funding than any FTP game ? I have no clue what that game could be , could you give me a link and an example because I'm curious ..:)
So the great examples of FTP games that started as FTP games are ....PS2 and Age Of Wushu and lol.
I can't answer anything about Age of Wushu (haven't played It) I hear It's rather good thou and maybe the FTP that really breaks the mold. But I also hear bad things about this in form of PTW and that is hardly no coincidence since it's well FTP that is FTP from the get go:)
But Planetside2 is hardly a game with as many features as a full blown MMO, It has nothing else going for it than an endless battle of other players, nothing wrong or bad with that..But I highly doubt that this game had a very large production value. Besides it's made by SOE and they have rather good budget for creating games already and can take a few risks without damaging themselves to much..
lol ..Does this game really belong in the MMO section of games..Nevertheless It's gameplay circles around the purchasing of unique heroes so that you can purchase a hero tailored to your liking..It's pruduction value isn't very high and there is no singleplayer options and no direct story,,
Furthermore , that these games flopped or not has nothing to do about their payment model as you say, greater funding doesn't guarantee a success, It increases it's chances however, same with movies and anything really..
Apart from PS2 did any of those great "F2P" MMO's you mention start as a F2P game? When are you lot
For every f2p that has bad polish and low budget I can point out a p2p (at least that started that) with just as much bad polish and low funding. For every good f2p there are good p2p. Again there are good funded p2p and f2p and bad funded p2p and free, and good polished p2p and f2p and bad polished p2p and f2p.
Lots of funding doesn't mean success as the last many years have shown, big budgets don't guarantee quality.
You know what..!! It's really admirable that some of you guys really tries to defend this statement,, what games that started as PTP has less funding than any FTP game ? I have no clue what that game could be , could you give me a link and an example because I'm curious ..:)
So the great examples of FTP games that started as FTP games are ....PS2 and Age Of Wushu and lol.
I can't answer anything about Age of Wushu (haven't played It) I hear It's rather good thou and maybe the FTP that really breaks the mold. But I also hear bad things about this in form of PTW and that is hardly no coincidence since it's well FTP that is FTP from the get go:)
But Planetside2 is hardly a game with as many features as a full blown MMO, It has nothing else going for it than an endless battle of other players, nothing wrong or bad with that..But I highly doubt that this game had a very large production value. Besides it's made by SOE and they have rather good budget for creating games already and can take a few risks without damaging themselves to much..
lol ..Does this game really belong in the MMO section of games..Nevertheless It's gameplay circles around the purchasing of unique heroes so that you can purchase a hero tailored to your liking..It's pruduction value isn't very high and there is no singleplayer options and no direct story,,
Furthermore , that these games flopped or not has nothing to do about their payment model as you say, greater funding doesn't guarantee a success, It increases it's chances however, same with movies and anything really..
Those are just the ones that I know of, other people know other games.
Age of Wushu has better production value, quality, content is better IMO than darkfall, dark and light, shadowbane, EQ on release, Istari, Ryzom and many many many other games that are or were p2p.
PS2 has the pvp, territory control, vehicles, factions, classs, pretty much as much content as any mmo, and more than many.
Does greater funding increase the chances of success? I'd like to see a stat that echoes that because IMO it doesn't.
It's really admirable that you guys keep defending p2p as superior but with each new f2p or freemium title, your arguments just don't hold up and are shown to be false.
edit - I will give you that the more content you have the more it will cost, but that does not translate into quality or success. And there are several f2p now with higher budgets than some p2p.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Apart from PS2 did any of those great "F2P" MMO's you mention start as a F2P game? When are you lot
For every f2p that has bad polish and low budget I can point out a p2p (at least that started that) with just as much bad polish and low funding. For every good f2p there are good p2p. Again there are good funded p2p and f2p and bad funded p2p and free, and good polished p2p and f2p and bad polished p2p and f2p.
Lots of funding doesn't mean success as the last many years have shown, big budgets don't guarantee quality.
You know what..!! It's really admirable that some of you guys really tries to defend this statement,, what games that started as PTP has less funding than any FTP game ? I have no clue what that game could be , could you give me a link and an example because I'm curious ..:)
So the great examples of FTP games that started as FTP games are ....PS2 and Age Of Wushu and lol.
I can't answer anything about Age of Wushu (haven't played It) I hear It's rather good thou and maybe the FTP that really breaks the mold. But I also hear bad things about this in form of PTW and that is hardly no coincidence since it's well FTP that is FTP from the get go:)
But Planetside2 is hardly a game with as many features as a full blown MMO, It has nothing else going for it than an endless battle of other players, nothing wrong or bad with that..But I highly doubt that this game had a very large production value. Besides it's made by SOE and they have rather good budget for creating games already and can take a few risks without damaging themselves to much..
lol ..Does this game really belong in the MMO section of games..Nevertheless It's gameplay circles around the purchasing of unique heroes so that you can purchase a hero tailored to your liking..It's pruduction value isn't very high and there is no singleplayer options and no direct story,,
Furthermore , that these games flopped or not has nothing to do about their payment model as you say, greater funding doesn't guarantee a success, It increases it's chances however, same with movies and anything really..
Those are just the ones that I know of, other people know other games.
Age of Wushu has better production value, quality, content is better IMO than darkfall, dark and light, shadowbane, EQ on release, Istari, Ryzom and many many many other games that are or were p2p.
PS2 has the pvp, territory control, vehicles, factions, classs, pretty much as much content as any mmo, and more than many.
Does greater funding increase the chances of success? I'd like to see a stat that echoes that because IMO it doesn't.
It's really admirable that you guys keep defending p2p as superior but with each new f2p or freemium title, your arguments just don't hold up and are shown to be false.
edit - I will give you that the more content you have the more it will cost, but that does not translate into quality or success. And there are several f2p now with higher budgets than some p2p.
I guess we are two different brand, I played most of those game longer than I lasted in AoW, and I think all of em except dark and light were better. We will have to agree to disagree.
Apart from PS2 did any of those great "F2P" MMO's you mention start as a F2P game? When are you lot
For every f2p that has bad polish and low budget I can point out a p2p (at least that started that) with just as much bad polish and low funding. For every good f2p there are good p2p. Again there are good funded p2p and f2p and bad funded p2p and free, and good polished p2p and f2p and bad polished p2p and f2p.
Lots of funding doesn't mean success as the last many years have shown, big budgets don't guarantee quality.
You know what..!! It's really admirable that some of you guys really tries to defend this statement,, what games that started as PTP has less funding than any FTP game ? I have no clue what that game could be , could you give me a link and an example because I'm curious ..:)
So the great examples of FTP games that started as FTP games are ....PS2 and Age Of Wushu and lol.
I can't answer anything about Age of Wushu (haven't played It) I hear It's rather good thou and maybe the FTP that really breaks the mold. But I also hear bad things about this in form of PTW and that is hardly no coincidence since it's well FTP that is FTP from the get go:)
But Planetside2 is hardly a game with as many features as a full blown MMO, It has nothing else going for it than an endless battle of other players, nothing wrong or bad with that..But I highly doubt that this game had a very large production value. Besides it's made by SOE and they have rather good budget for creating games already and can take a few risks without damaging themselves to much..
lol ..Does this game really belong in the MMO section of games..Nevertheless It's gameplay circles around the purchasing of unique heroes so that you can purchase a hero tailored to your liking..It's pruduction value isn't very high and there is no singleplayer options and no direct story,,
Furthermore , that these games flopped or not has nothing to do about their payment model as you say, greater funding doesn't guarantee a success, It increases it's chances however, same with movies and anything really..
Those are just the ones that I know of, other people know other games.
Age of Wushu has better production value, quality, content is better IMO than darkfall, dark and light, shadowbane, EQ on release, Istari, Ryzom and many many many other games that are or were p2p.
PS2 has the pvp, territory control, vehicles, factions, classs, pretty much as much content as any mmo, and more than many.
Does greater funding increase the chances of success? I'd like to see a stat that echoes that because IMO it doesn't.
It's really admirable that you guys keep defending p2p as superior but with each new f2p or freemium title, your arguments just don't hold up and are shown to be false.
edit - I will give you that the more content you have the more it will cost, but that does not translate into quality or success. And there are several f2p now with higher budgets than some p2p.
I guess we are two different brand, I played most of those game longer than I lasted in AoW, and I think all of em except dark and light were better. We will have to agree to disagree.
That's completely fair people have their own individual tastes.
It's just blanket statements such as less funding (which can be shown false)
or subjective statements made as blanket statement I have issues with.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Apart from PS2 did any of those great "F2P" MMO's you mention start as a F2P game? When are you lot
For every f2p that has bad polish and low budget I can point out a p2p (at least that started that) with just as much bad polish and low funding. For every good f2p there are good p2p. Again there are good funded p2p and f2p and bad funded p2p and free, and good polished p2p and f2p and bad polished p2p and f2p.
Lots of funding doesn't mean success as the last many years have shown, big budgets don't guarantee quality.
You know what..!! It's really admirable that some of you guys really tries to defend this statement,, what games that started as PTP has less funding than any FTP game ? I have no clue what that game could be , could you give me a link and an example because I'm curious ..:)
So the great examples of FTP games that started as FTP games are ....PS2 and Age Of Wushu and lol.
I can't answer anything about Age of Wushu (haven't played It) I hear It's rather good thou and maybe the FTP that really breaks the mold. But I also hear bad things about this in form of PTW and that is hardly no coincidence since it's well FTP that is FTP from the get go:)
But Planetside2 is hardly a game with as many features as a full blown MMO, It has nothing else going for it than an endless battle of other players, nothing wrong or bad with that..But I highly doubt that this game had a very large production value. Besides it's made by SOE and they have rather good budget for creating games already and can take a few risks without damaging themselves to much..
lol ..Does this game really belong in the MMO section of games..Nevertheless It's gameplay circles around the purchasing of unique heroes so that you can purchase a hero tailored to your liking..It's pruduction value isn't very high and there is no singleplayer options and no direct story,,
Furthermore , that these games flopped or not has nothing to do about their payment model as you say, greater funding doesn't guarantee a success, It increases it's chances however, same with movies and anything really..
Those are just the ones that I know of, other people know other games.
Age of Wushu has better production value, quality, content is better IMO than darkfall, dark and light, shadowbane, EQ on release, Istari, Ryzom and many many many other games that are or were p2p.
PS2 has the pvp, territory control, vehicles, factions, classs, pretty much as much content as any mmo, and more than many.
Does greater funding increase the chances of success? I'd like to see a stat that echoes that because IMO it doesn't.
It's really admirable that you guys keep defending p2p as superior but with each new f2p or freemium title, your arguments just don't hold up and are shown to be false.
edit - I will give you that the more content you have the more it will cost, but that does not translate into quality or success. And there are several f2p now with higher budgets than some p2p.
PLease explain how the arguments are false..Because I have been in this thread since the beginning and haven't seen a single one that holds any ground or is valid at all..sorry..
But I will add too your defence the only title that may hold some ground to some of the AAA titles that has gone FTP the last couple of years ..
.and thats Neverwinter, It has a fairly high quality and it's FTP from the get go..But it's not even half the MMO (quality vise) as let's say Age of Conan or TSW..
Apart from PS2 did any of those great "F2P" MMO's you mention start as a F2P game? When are you lot
For every f2p that has bad polish and low budget I can point out a p2p (at least that started that) with just as much bad polish and low funding. For every good f2p there are good p2p. Again there are good funded p2p and f2p and bad funded p2p and free, and good polished p2p and f2p and bad polished p2p and f2p.
Lots of funding doesn't mean success as the last many years have shown, big budgets don't guarantee quality.
You know what..!! It's really admirable that some of you guys really tries to defend this statement,, what games that started as PTP has less funding than any FTP game ? I have no clue what that game could be , could you give me a link and an example because I'm curious ..:)
So the great examples of FTP games that started as FTP games are ....PS2 and Age Of Wushu and lol.
I can't answer anything about Age of Wushu (haven't played It) I hear It's rather good thou and maybe the FTP that really breaks the mold. But I also hear bad things about this in form of PTW and that is hardly no coincidence since it's well FTP that is FTP from the get go:)
But Planetside2 is hardly a game with as many features as a full blown MMO, It has nothing else going for it than an endless battle of other players, nothing wrong or bad with that..But I highly doubt that this game had a very large production value. Besides it's made by SOE and they have rather good budget for creating games already and can take a few risks without damaging themselves to much..
lol ..Does this game really belong in the MMO section of games..Nevertheless It's gameplay circles around the purchasing of unique heroes so that you can purchase a hero tailored to your liking..It's pruduction value isn't very high and there is no singleplayer options and no direct story,,
Furthermore , that these games flopped or not has nothing to do about their payment model as you say, greater funding doesn't guarantee a success, It increases it's chances however, same with movies and anything really..
Those are just the ones that I know of, other people know other games.
Age of Wushu has better production value, quality, content is better IMO than darkfall, dark and light, shadowbane, EQ on release, Istari, Ryzom and many many many other games that are or were p2p.
PS2 has the pvp, territory control, vehicles, factions, classs, pretty much as much content as any mmo, and more than many.
Does greater funding increase the chances of success? I'd like to see a stat that echoes that because IMO it doesn't.
It's really admirable that you guys keep defending p2p as superior but with each new f2p or freemium title, your arguments just don't hold up and are shown to be false.
edit - I will give you that the more content you have the more it will cost, but that does not translate into quality or success. And there are several f2p now with higher budgets than some p2p.
PLease explain how the arguments are false..Because I have been in this thread since the beginning and haven't seen a single one that holds any ground or is valid at all..sorry..
But I will add too your defence the only title that may hold some ground to some of the AAA titles that has gone FTP the last couple of years ..
.and thats Neverwinter, It has a fairly high quality and it's FTP from the get go..But it's not even half the MMO (quality vise) as let's say Age of Conan or TSW..
Because I have stated games that are f2p that have higher production value than p2p. Dark and light, istaria, ryzom, darkfall... allwwave lower production value, polish and budges than lol, ps2, aow and even defiance now.
So it is a false statement to say that p2p has better production value and higher budgets than f2p. The above examples show that.
There are good f2p and bad f2p, good p2p and bad p2p, expensive f2p and expensive f2p, cheap p2p and f2p. To say that one is always better is false.
The statement that p2p always has a better budget and better quality because of that budget is proven false by finding either one f2p with a higher budget than one p2p (aow and ryzom) or one game that has high budget and very low quality (swtor). Done.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Apart from PS2 did any of those great "F2P" MMO's you mention start as a F2P game? When are you lot
For every f2p that has bad polish and low budget I can point out a p2p (at least that started that) with just as much bad polish and low funding. For every good f2p there are good p2p. Again there are good funded p2p and f2p and bad funded p2p and free, and good polished p2p and f2p and bad polished p2p and f2p.
Lots of funding doesn't mean success as the last many years have shown, big budgets don't guarantee quality.
You know what..!! It's really admirable that some of you guys really tries to defend this statement,, what games that started as PTP has less funding than any FTP game ? I have no clue what that game could be , could you give me a link and an example because I'm curious ..:)
So the great examples of FTP games that started as FTP games are ....PS2 and Age Of Wushu and lol.
I can't answer anything about Age of Wushu (haven't played It) I hear It's rather good thou and maybe the FTP that really breaks the mold. But I also hear bad things about this in form of PTW and that is hardly no coincidence since it's well FTP that is FTP from the get go:)
But Planetside2 is hardly a game with as many features as a full blown MMO, It has nothing else going for it than an endless battle of other players, nothing wrong or bad with that..But I highly doubt that this game had a very large production value. Besides it's made by SOE and they have rather good budget for creating games already and can take a few risks without damaging themselves to much..
lol ..Does this game really belong in the MMO section of games..Nevertheless It's gameplay circles around the purchasing of unique heroes so that you can purchase a hero tailored to your liking..It's pruduction value isn't very high and there is no singleplayer options and no direct story,,
Furthermore , that these games flopped or not has nothing to do about their payment model as you say, greater funding doesn't guarantee a success, It increases it's chances however, same with movies and anything really..
Those are just the ones that I know of, other people know other games.
Age of Wushu has better production value, quality, content is better IMO than darkfall, dark and light, shadowbane, EQ on release, Istari, Ryzom and many many many other games that are or were p2p.
PS2 has the pvp, territory control, vehicles, factions, classs, pretty much as much content as any mmo, and more than many.
Does greater funding increase the chances of success? I'd like to see a stat that echoes that because IMO it doesn't.
It's really admirable that you guys keep defending p2p as superior but with each new f2p or freemium title, your arguments just don't hold up and are shown to be false.
edit - I will give you that the more content you have the more it will cost, but that does not translate into quality or success. And there are several f2p now with higher budgets than some p2p.
PLease explain how the arguments are false..Because I have been in this thread since the beginning and haven't seen a single one that holds any ground or is valid at all..sorry..
But I will add too your defence the only title that may hold some ground to some of the AAA titles that has gone FTP the last couple of years ..
.and thats Neverwinter, It has a fairly high quality and it's FTP from the get go..But it's not even half the MMO (quality vise) as let's say Age of Conan or TSW..
Because I have stated games that are f2p that have higher production value than p2p. Dark and light, istaria, ryzom, darkfall... allwwave lower production value, polish and budges than lol, ps2, aow and even defiance now.
So it is a false statement to say that p2p has better production value and higher budgets than f2p. The above examples show that.
There are good f2p and bad f2p, good p2p and bad p2p, expensive f2p and expensive f2p, cheap p2p and f2p. To say that one is always better is false.
The statement that p2p always has a better budget and better quality because of that budget is proven false by finding either one f2p with a higher budget than one p2p (aow and ryzom) or one game that has high budget and very low quality (swtor). Done.
I have looked into AoW so I can say the graphics are not up to what you get in most P2P MMOs. You talk about AoW's production values, you may be right. I would ask could this be because most MMO's from "the east" are not P2P, so investors there are more ready to fund F2P MMO's? LoL is more Diablo than a MMO, it really is questionable to put that on a list of MMOs, they even call themselves an "online game".
PS2 is a MMOFPS, I think that sort of "MMO" is easier to make to be honest. Not so much competition in genre, limited progression, no issues about end game. MMO's have to square the circle, that is a lot harder...and all those extra staff in a P2P MMO really help.
So sorry Vengesunsolars, with the exception of AoW your list of great F2P MMO's all started as P2P or are not really MMO's.
And come on you are putting the likes of Dark and Light and Istaria into your list of sub standard P2P MMO's? We know they suffered financial issues before launch, that's what a lack of funding can do to you.
Also I have noticed you are taking P2P MMOs that launched years ago and comparing them to F2P MMOs that launched in the last year. Nice try there. Obviously older MMO's (especially those who had trouble with funding) have a handicap when compared to newer MMOs in terms of production values. The graphics are behind and so on.
Like Thark I find it a bit mind boggeling you guys are trying to defend this. We are not saying because F2P gets less funding they are crap games, we are just saying it is easier to make a great MMO when someone drops millions of dollars on top of your head to develop it.
Ask the guys at left Defiance if they think their chances of putting out great new content were enhanced by the loss of staff. What happens when you have less staff, from design to content updates, is that game development becomes more difficult.
You pointed out some Hollywood blockbusters that failed. They do, I mentioned that. But will you accept that the main reason Hollywood is the leading film making region in the world is they attract funding on scale that makes others look like paupers? Funding counts, films or games.
Apart from PS2 did any of those great "F2P" MMO's you mention start as a F2P game? When are you lot
For every f2p that has bad polish and low budget I can point out a p2p (at least that started that) with just as much bad polish and low funding. For every good f2p there are good p2p. Again there are good funded p2p and f2p and bad funded p2p and free, and good polished p2p and f2p and bad polished p2p and f2p.
Lots of funding doesn't mean success as the last many years have shown, big budgets don't guarantee quality.
You know what..!! It's really admirable that some of you guys really tries to defend this statement,, what games that started as PTP has less funding than any FTP game ? I have no clue what that game could be , could you give me a link and an example because I'm curious ..:)
So the great examples of FTP games that started as FTP games are ....PS2 and Age Of Wushu and lol.
I can't answer anything about Age of Wushu (haven't played It) I hear It's rather good thou and maybe the FTP that really breaks the mold. But I also hear bad things about this in form of PTW and that is hardly no coincidence since it's well FTP that is FTP from the get go:)
But Planetside2 is hardly a game with as many features as a full blown MMO, It has nothing else going for it than an endless battle of other players, nothing wrong or bad with that..But I highly doubt that this game had a very large production value. Besides it's made by SOE and they have rather good budget for creating games already and can take a few risks without damaging themselves to much..
lol ..Does this game really belong in the MMO section of games..Nevertheless It's gameplay circles around the purchasing of unique heroes so that you can purchase a hero tailored to your liking..It's pruduction value isn't very high and there is no singleplayer options and no direct story,,
Furthermore , that these games flopped or not has nothing to do about their payment model as you say, greater funding doesn't guarantee a success, It increases it's chances however, same with movies and anything really..
Those are just the ones that I know of, other people know other games.
Age of Wushu has better production value, quality, content is better IMO than darkfall, dark and light, shadowbane, EQ on release, Istari, Ryzom and many many many other games that are or were p2p.
PS2 has the pvp, territory control, vehicles, factions, classs, pretty much as much content as any mmo, and more than many.
Does greater funding increase the chances of success? I'd like to see a stat that echoes that because IMO it doesn't.
It's really admirable that you guys keep defending p2p as superior but with each new f2p or freemium title, your arguments just don't hold up and are shown to be false.
edit - I will give you that the more content you have the more it will cost, but that does not translate into quality or success. And there are several f2p now with higher budgets than some p2p.
PLease explain how the arguments are false..Because I have been in this thread since the beginning and haven't seen a single one that holds any ground or is valid at all..sorry..
But I will add too your defence the only title that may hold some ground to some of the AAA titles that has gone FTP the last couple of years ..
.and thats Neverwinter, It has a fairly high quality and it's FTP from the get go..But it's not even half the MMO (quality vise) as let's say Age of Conan or TSW..
Because I have stated games that are f2p that have higher production value than p2p. Dark and light, istaria, ryzom, darkfall... allwwave lower production value, polish and budges than lol, ps2, aow and even defiance now.
So it is a false statement to say that p2p has better production value and higher budgets than f2p. The above examples show that.
There are good f2p and bad f2p, good p2p and bad p2p, expensive f2p and expensive f2p, cheap p2p and f2p. To say that one is always better is false.
The statement that p2p always has a better budget and better quality because of that budget is proven false by finding either one f2p with a higher budget than one p2p (aow and ryzom) or one game that has high budget and very low quality (swtor). Done.
I have looked into AoW so I can say the graphics are not up to what you get in most P2P MMOs. You talk about AoW's production values, you may be right. I would ask could this be because most MMO's from "the east" are not P2P, so investors there are more ready to fund F2P MMO's? LoL is more Diablo than a MMO, it really is questionable to put that on a list of MMOs, they even call themselves an "online game".
PS2 is a MMOFPS, I think that sort of "MMO" is easier to make to be honest. Not so much competition in genre, limited progression, no issues about end game. MMO's have to square the circle, that is a lot harder...and all those extra staff in a P2P MMO really help.
So sorry Vengesunsolars, with the exception of AoW your list of great F2P MMO's all started as P2P or are not really MMO's.
And come on you are putting the likes of Dark and Light and Istaria into your list of sub standard P2P MMO's? We know they suffered financial issues before launch, that's what a lack of funding can do to you.
Also I have noticed you are taking P2P MMOs that launched years ago and comparing them to F2P MMOs that launched in the last year. Nice try there. Obviously older MMO's (especially those who had trouble with funding) have a handicap when compared to newer MMOs in terms of production values. The graphics are behind and so on.
Like Thark I find it a bit mind boggeling you guys are trying to defend this. We are not saying because F2P gets less funding they are crap games, we are just saying it is easier to make a great MMO when someone drops millions of dollars on top of your head to develop it.
Ask the guys at left Defiance if they think their chances of putting out great new content were enhanced by the loss of staff. What happens when you have less staff, from design to content updates, is that game development becomes more difficult.
You pointed out some Hollywood blockbusters that failed. They do, I mentioned that. But will you accept that the main reason Hollywood is the leading film making region in the world is they attract funding on scale that makes others look like paupers? Funding counts, films or games.
Again I agree... Good post Scot
Those substandard PTP games are either very old and from a time there wasn't even a single FTP game to talk about, they are bad and of course worse than most games, not a surprise..But really really BAD examples to support the case at hand.
The one game that is rather new is Darkfall and that game is developed by a small greek company (Aventurine ?) that had trouble releasing their game for years because of lack of funding etc. It's however a good attempt in making a game with small funds, but can anyone deny the fact that this game woudn't be much greater if they had more money making it ?
It's not false statements ..It's ignoring the obvious If you ask me..
LoL is more Diablo than a MMO, it really is questionable to put that on a list of MMOs, they even call themselves an "online game".
No. LoL is an arena pvp game, miles away from Diablo, which is mainly a pve dungeon farming game. Heck, you even have minions in LoL. The only thing LoL share with Diablo is the isometric view, which is also used in many Chinese MMOs.
And LoL is close enough .. it is essentially the "arena" part of MMOs.
Oh, Diablo is also close enough .. it is essentially the dungeon run part of MMOs.
Originally posted by Scot ...I find it a bit mind boggeling you guys are trying to defend this...
Welcome to the site! Where F2P pushers are more than happy to tell you how stupid and wrong you are.
Game monetization, present in all F2P, is being pushed hard by publishers because it gets them a lot of money. When they can sucker players into paying $60/month for less gameplay that a $15/month sub game provides, you can bet they will ride that money train while it lasts.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Originally posted by Scot ...I find it a bit mind boggeling you guys are trying to defend this...
Welcome to the site! Where F2P pushers are more than happy to tell you how stupid and wrong you are.
Game monetization, present in all F2P, is being pushed hard by publishers because it gets them a lot of money. When they can sucker players into paying $60/month for less gameplay that a $15/month sub game provides, you can bet they will ride that money train while it lasts.
And you forget all the players who enjoying the free entertainment whales are subsidizing.
Of course he has wrong. How can you not defend free fun?
Originally posted by thark Again I agree... Good post Scot :)Those substandard PTP games are either very old and from a time there wasn't even a single FTP game to talk about, they are bad and of course worse than most games, not a surprise..But really really BAD examples to support the case at hand. The one game that is rather new is Darkfall and that game is developed by a small greek company (Aventurine ?) that had trouble releasing their game for years because of lack of funding etc. It's however a good attempt in making a game with small funds, but can anyone deny the fact that this game woudn't be much greater if they had more money making it ?It's not false statements ..It's ignoring the obvious If you ask me..
That's not all you're saying. You're tying that into the idea that F2P games are worse games than P2P games. If that was all you were saying, you wouldn't feel the need to say it in a thread where the topic is F2P vs P2P. Stop trying to be clever and actually say what you mean instead of trying to create a philosophical high ground that doesn't exist.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I love F2P games with all their in-game cash shops and advertising ("specialkx just unlocked a nightmare steed!") for the same reason I loved hearing the words "ATTENTION KMART SHOPPERS!" and then looked around for the magical Blue Light of Savings.
Ahh...the memories...
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Originally posted by thark Again I agree... Good post Scot
Those substandard PTP games are either very old and from a time there wasn't even a single FTP game to talk about, they are bad and of course worse than most games, not a surprise..But really really BAD examples to support the case at hand.
The one game that is rather new is Darkfall and that game is developed by a small greek company (Aventurine ?) that had trouble releasing their game for years because of lack of funding etc. It's however a good attempt in making a game with small funds, but can anyone deny the fact that this game woudn't be much greater if they had more money making it ?
It's not false statements ..It's ignoring the obvious If you ask me..
That's not all you're saying. You're tying that into the idea that F2P games are worse games than P2P games. If that was all you were saying, you wouldn't feel the need to say it in a thread where the topic is F2P vs P2P. Stop trying to be clever and actually say what you mean instead of trying to create a philosophical high ground that doesn't exist.
lol , There is nothing philosophical about it..It's rather easy to understand even..
But I won't go trough the route of trying to explain it yet again ..There is several of players that agrees with me as well so It's good enough for me.
Originally posted by thark Again I agree... Good post Scot
Those substandard PTP games are either very old and from a time there wasn't even a single FTP game to talk about, they are bad and of course worse than most games, not a surprise..But really really BAD examples to support the case at hand.
The one game that is rather new is Darkfall and that game is developed by a small greek company (Aventurine ?) that had trouble releasing their game for years because of lack of funding etc. It's however a good attempt in making a game with small funds, but can anyone deny the fact that this game woudn't be much greater if they had more money making it ?
It's not false statements ..It's ignoring the obvious If you ask me..
That's not all you're saying. You're tying that into the idea that F2P games are worse games than P2P games. If that was all you were saying, you wouldn't feel the need to say it in a thread where the topic is F2P vs P2P. Stop trying to be clever and actually say what you mean instead of trying to create a philosophical high ground that doesn't exist.
You know I am not a fan of the F2P cash shop but we are just talking about production values here. I have been talking about production values on a couple of threads, not just this one.
Darkfall was mentioned, that was a P2P MMO and as has been said it was by a small company that ran into funding problems. I am sure if they had got a cash injection that DF would have launched as a more fully rounded MMO. This is not just about F2P, it can effect any MMO. But as F2P has the least funding, it effects them the most.
I also brought up the question, "are Asian F2P MMO's getting more funding than their Western counterparts?" In "the east" they do not seem to produce as many P2P MMO's as we do. I would imagine that would incline their gaming industry and investors to give more funding to F2P MMO's. I have no evidence to support this, it just occurred to me that not all MMO markets may work like ours.
If you give a F2P MMO more funding for launch, it is going to be better, who can doubt that? That's just not the situation though, they get relatively poor funding and that makes making a top graphics, lots of content and features MMO very hard.
Originally posted by thark Again I agree... Good post Scot
Those substandard PTP games are either very old and from a time there wasn't even a single FTP game to talk about, they are bad and of course worse than most games, not a surprise..But really really BAD examples to support the case at hand.
The one game that is rather new is Darkfall and that game is developed by a small greek company (Aventurine ?) that had trouble releasing their game for years because of lack of funding etc. It's however a good attempt in making a game with small funds, but can anyone deny the fact that this game woudn't be much greater if they had more money making it ?
It's not false statements ..It's ignoring the obvious If you ask me..
That's not all you're saying. You're tying that into the idea that F2P games are worse games than P2P games. If that was all you were saying, you wouldn't feel the need to say it in a thread where the topic is F2P vs P2P. Stop trying to be clever and actually say what you mean instead of trying to create a philosophical high ground that doesn't exist.
You know I am not a fan of the F2P cash shop but we are just talking about production values here. I have been talking about production values on a couple of threads, not just this one.
Darkfall was mentioned, that was a P2P MMO and as has been said it was by a small company that ran into funding problems. I am sure if they had got a cash injection that DF would have launched as a more fully rounded MMO. This is not just about F2P, it can effect any MMO. But as F2P has the least funding, it effects them the most.
I also brought up the question, "are Asian F2P MMO's getting more funding than their Western counterparts?" In "the east" they do not seem to produce as many P2P MMO's as we do. I would imagine that would incline their gaming industry and investors to give more funding to F2P MMO's. I have no evidence to support this, it just occurred to me that not all MMO markets may work like ours.
If you give a F2P MMO more funding for launch, it is going to be better, who can doubt that? That's just not the situation though, they get relatively poor funding and that makes making a top graphics, lots of content and features MMO very hard.
This is precise what I'm saying as well. I do Not see what Is so hard to understand about it really.. Ohh well..:)
If I decide to take a break from a f2p game I'm not paying for something I'm not using.
I only play when I feel like it, not because I want to make it "worth" what I spent.
It leaves me open to trying other games as well, rather than committed to a single game. Some people may feel this is a bad thing, but I think it allows me to focus on the games themselves. If I continue to play a game, it'll be simple because I enjoy it, not just because that's where my money has gone.
The company has to work harder to keep me logging in, meaning more events and updates.
I enjoy cosmetic items and character customization, and f2p/b2p invest more heavily in these than sub games.
I like being able to tell a friend about a game I like and then seeing them in-game right away, rather than have to hear their regrets about not being able to afford it.
I like knowing that if a friend leaves the game, that they can come back easily instead of them having to decide if they want to resub or not.
There are things I don't like about certain cash shop systems that vary from game to game, and I've liked Rift as a sub game greatly, but overall f2p makes a game more accessible to a wider variety of people, including the ones I want to play with.
I don't understand the recent boom in popularity about the F2P model, Everyone's mom is talking about F2P. I ask, why?
Every F2P game I have played has been very under whelming.
- The graphics are "meh."
- The game play is always generic questing with the yellow Exclamation mark.
- Never more than 3-4 classes, usually genaric.
- Never anything new, always just recycled ideas done a billion times over.
- The combat and overall game feels like it was made in some ones garage.
Besides being a cheap @ss, what do people see in these games?
- people have differents standards. quality does mean also style? or no for you? anyway, human's brain is able to adapt in ten minutes to any graphics and then proceded as normal after some hours at max, graphic doesn't stop true players :'<
-again standards, plus generic isn't an accettable word. mmoRPG is a genre. play a roleplay game and find boring the roleplay part. any roleplay part, mean you're forcing yourself playing a game you don't really want
-very often is more than 3-4 classes, and when there are 3-4 classes only, they grow up having many specializations per class, and build and such, the fighter may ending be the berserker, the pladin, the dual blader, etc
-there are new ideas in each mmorpg you play, (maybe not for the chinese titles). BUT if you want revolutionary ideas you have to understand that such ideas, if successfull, will found another GENRE. (sandbox, rts, etc born in this way). we will have a new game genre and start over again. and revolutionary ideas become rarer each passage and remember: RPG is a genre (again)
-and istead no one of them was made in a garage. and you don't even know where to start
verdict: OP splat random statements whitout arguments, which oozing inexperience and prejudices
If I decide to take a break from a f2p game I'm not paying for something I'm not using.
I only play when I feel like it, not because I want to make it "worth" what I spent.
It leaves me open to trying other games as well, rather than committed to a single game. Some people may feel this is a bad thing, but I think it allows me to focus on the games themselves. If I continue to play a game, it'll be simple because I enjoy it, not just because that's where my money has gone.
The company has to work harder to keep me logging in, meaning more events and updates.
I enjoy cosmetic items and character customization, and f2p/b2p invest more heavily in these than sub games.
I like being able to tell a friend about a game I like and then seeing them in-game right away, rather than have to hear their regrets about not being able to afford it.
I like knowing that if a friend leaves the game, that they can come back easily instead of them having to decide if they want to resub or not.
There are things I don't like about certain cash shop systems that vary from game to game, and I've liked Rift as a sub game greatly, but overall f2p makes a game more accessible to a wider variety of people, including the ones I want to play with.
Good post
These are all the very best reasons to why anyone that plays FTP games likes them..They are accessible to anyone ..But the same time you say that It's great to know your friends can come back anytime with ease, they seem to disappear with ease just as easy.
Here I would like to say that "trying other games" all the time leaves you fragmented and not part of anything great, now we simply have to many games to choose from, the mass industry continues to create new ones, while at the same year releasing at least 10-15 new games. Of those 10-15 there is maybe 1-3 AAA titles released that has an uncertain future because of this fragmented gaming community. They play for maybe 1-3 months then they will hop on to the next big thing .
Also..The cosmetic reason I have to agree on that one..I like the cosmetic part of games aswell..To bad the cosmetic part mostly falls under the cash shop how ever.
We will ´see what will happen to this market..It's uncertain for sure, creating a PURE FTP game will have less cash from the start to deal with the overall quality of the game, but will leave the doors open to anyone to try the game . But with less money to create said game you will have to have other great qualities to keep the players actually playing for longer periods and not just a few days or a couple of months at max.
I don't understand the recent boom in popularity about the F2P model, Everyone's mom is talking about F2P. I ask, why?
Every F2P game I have played has been very under whelming.
- The graphics are "meh."
- The game play is always generic questing with the yellow Exclamation mark.
- Never more than 3-4 classes, usually genaric.
- Never anything new, always just recycled ideas done a billion times over.
- The combat and overall game feels like it was made in some ones garage.
Besides being a cheap @ss, what do people see in these games?
You don't want to know why as your OP shows. You have an opinion and want to know why it yours is not being followed by everyone.
Plain and simple sub games are a dying breed. There will always be a few around but I think they will be few and far between. Why is that? People want to know what their money is going for and more than likely would prefer buying what they want rather than paying a fee and it going for something....
Comments
Well ps2, lol and age of wushu started as f2p.
with regards to your other statement it just isn't true.
there are many p2p games that are bad and had poor funding. There are several f2p games that are good and have had more funding than p2p games.
So the idea that a p2p game or a game that started as p2p and switched to f2p had more funding therefore better quality is demonstrably false.
F2p have jsut as much quality, content, depth and polish as p2p. There are good p2p, good f2p, bad p2p and bad f2p.
"Of course you can spend a lot of money and get a flop. But big budget usually works better in any area of life. But not for F2P MMO's...right."
The last 7 years or so have again shown that to be demonstrably false, the big budget MMO's have flopped. It is the same in every industry, many big budget have flopped, e.g movies After earth so far is doing very poor, John Carter, Mars needs Moms, The Alamo 2004, Adventures of Pluto Nash. Many small budget movies have done great. e.g Blair witch, Chronicle.
For every f2p that has bad polish and low budget I can point out a p2p (at least that started that) with just as much bad polish and low funding. For every good f2p there are good p2p. Again there are good funded p2p and f2p and bad funded p2p and free, and good polished p2p and f2p and bad polished p2p and f2p.
Lots of funding doesn't mean success as the last many years have shown, big budgets don't guarantee quality.
PoE, LoL, WoT, PS2 .. all launched as F2P and have devote following .. .who must think that the games are fun.
Marvel Heroes just launched, and it is some good free fun too.
You know what..!! It's really admirable that some of you guys really tries to defend this statement,, what games that started as PTP has less funding than any FTP game ? I have no clue what that game could be , could you give me a link and an example because I'm curious ..:)
So the great examples of FTP games that started as FTP games are ....PS2 and Age Of Wushu and lol.
I can't answer anything about Age of Wushu (haven't played It) I hear It's rather good thou and maybe the FTP that really breaks the mold. But I also hear bad things about this in form of PTW and that is hardly no coincidence since it's well FTP that is FTP from the get go:)
But Planetside2 is hardly a game with as many features as a full blown MMO, It has nothing else going for it than an endless battle of other players, nothing wrong or bad with that..But I highly doubt that this game had a very large production value. Besides it's made by SOE and they have rather good budget for creating games already and can take a few risks without damaging themselves to much..
lol ..Does this game really belong in the MMO section of games..Nevertheless It's gameplay circles around the purchasing of unique heroes so that you can purchase a hero tailored to your liking..It's pruduction value isn't very high and there is no singleplayer options and no direct story,,
Furthermore , that these games flopped or not has nothing to do about their payment model as you say, greater funding doesn't guarantee a success, It increases it's chances however, same with movies and anything really..
Those are just the ones that I know of, other people know other games.
Age of Wushu has better production value, quality, content is better IMO than darkfall, dark and light, shadowbane, EQ on release, Istari, Ryzom and many many many other games that are or were p2p.
PS2 has the pvp, territory control, vehicles, factions, classs, pretty much as much content as any mmo, and more than many.
Does greater funding increase the chances of success? I'd like to see a stat that echoes that because IMO it doesn't.
It's really admirable that you guys keep defending p2p as superior but with each new f2p or freemium title, your arguments just don't hold up and are shown to be false.
edit - I will give you that the more content you have the more it will cost, but that does not translate into quality or success. And there are several f2p now with higher budgets than some p2p.
flash news.. we are discussing mmorpg
I guess we are two different brand, I played most of those game longer than I lasted in AoW, and I think all of em except dark and light were better. We will have to agree to disagree.
That's completely fair people have their own individual tastes.
It's just blanket statements such as less funding (which can be shown false)
or subjective statements made as blanket statement I have issues with.
PLease explain how the arguments are false..Because I have been in this thread since the beginning and haven't seen a single one that holds any ground or is valid at all..sorry..
But I will add too your defence the only title that may hold some ground to some of the AAA titles that has gone FTP the last couple of years ..
.and thats Neverwinter, It has a fairly high quality and it's FTP from the get go..But it's not even half the MMO (quality vise) as let's say Age of Conan or TSW..
Because I have stated games that are f2p that have higher production value than p2p. Dark and light, istaria, ryzom, darkfall... allwwave lower production value, polish and budges than lol, ps2, aow and even defiance now.
So it is a false statement to say that p2p has better production value and higher budgets than f2p. The above examples show that.
There are good f2p and bad f2p, good p2p and bad p2p, expensive f2p and expensive f2p, cheap p2p and f2p. To say that one is always better is false.
The statement that p2p always has a better budget and better quality because of that budget is proven false by finding either one f2p with a higher budget than one p2p (aow and ryzom) or one game that has high budget and very low quality (swtor). Done.
I have looked into AoW so I can say the graphics are not up to what you get in most P2P MMOs. You talk about AoW's production values, you may be right. I would ask could this be because most MMO's from "the east" are not P2P, so investors there are more ready to fund F2P MMO's? LoL is more Diablo than a MMO, it really is questionable to put that on a list of MMOs, they even call themselves an "online game".
PS2 is a MMOFPS, I think that sort of "MMO" is easier to make to be honest. Not so much competition in genre, limited progression, no issues about end game. MMO's have to square the circle, that is a lot harder...and all those extra staff in a P2P MMO really help.
So sorry Vengesunsolars, with the exception of AoW your list of great F2P MMO's all started as P2P or are not really MMO's.
And come on you are putting the likes of Dark and Light and Istaria into your list of sub standard P2P MMO's? We know they suffered financial issues before launch, that's what a lack of funding can do to you.
Also I have noticed you are taking P2P MMOs that launched years ago and comparing them to F2P MMOs that launched in the last year. Nice try there.
Obviously older MMO's (especially those who had trouble with funding) have a handicap when compared to newer MMOs in terms of production values. The graphics are behind and so on.
Like Thark I find it a bit mind boggeling you guys are trying to defend this. We are not saying because F2P gets less funding they are crap games, we are just saying it is easier to make a great MMO when someone drops millions of dollars on top of your head to develop it.
Ask the guys at left Defiance if they think their chances of putting out great new content were enhanced by the loss of staff. What happens when you have less staff, from design to content updates, is that game development becomes more difficult.
You pointed out some Hollywood blockbusters that failed. They do, I mentioned that. But will you accept that the main reason Hollywood is the leading film making region in the world is they attract funding on scale that makes others look like paupers? Funding counts, films or games.
Again I agree... Good post Scot
Those substandard PTP games are either very old and from a time there wasn't even a single FTP game to talk about, they are bad and of course worse than most games, not a surprise..But really really BAD examples to support the case at hand.
The one game that is rather new is Darkfall and that game is developed by a small greek company (Aventurine ?) that had trouble releasing their game for years because of lack of funding etc. It's however a good attempt in making a game with small funds, but can anyone deny the fact that this game woudn't be much greater if they had more money making it ?
It's not false statements ..It's ignoring the obvious If you ask me..
No. LoL is an arena pvp game, miles away from Diablo, which is mainly a pve dungeon farming game. Heck, you even have minions in LoL. The only thing LoL share with Diablo is the isometric view, which is also used in many Chinese MMOs.
And LoL is close enough .. it is essentially the "arena" part of MMOs.
Oh, Diablo is also close enough .. it is essentially the dungeon run part of MMOs.
Welcome to the site! Where F2P pushers are more than happy to tell you how stupid and wrong you are.
Game monetization, present in all F2P, is being pushed hard by publishers because it gets them a lot of money. When they can sucker players into paying $60/month for less gameplay that a $15/month sub game provides, you can bet they will ride that money train while it lasts.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
And you forget all the players who enjoying the free entertainment whales are subsidizing.
Of course he has wrong. How can you not defend free fun?
That's not all you're saying. You're tying that into the idea that F2P games are worse games than P2P games. If that was all you were saying, you wouldn't feel the need to say it in a thread where the topic is F2P vs P2P. Stop trying to be clever and actually say what you mean instead of trying to create a philosophical high ground that doesn't exist.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I love F2P games with all their in-game cash shops and advertising ("specialkx just unlocked a nightmare steed!") for the same reason I loved hearing the words "ATTENTION KMART SHOPPERS!" and then looked around for the magical Blue Light of Savings.
Ahh...the memories...
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
lol , There is nothing philosophical about it..It's rather easy to understand even..
But I won't go trough the route of trying to explain it yet again ..There is several of players that agrees with me as well so It's good enough for me.
You know I am not a fan of the F2P cash shop but we are just talking about production values here. I have been talking about production values on a couple of threads, not just this one.
Darkfall was mentioned, that was a P2P MMO and as has been said it was by a small company that ran into funding problems. I am sure if they had got a cash injection that DF would have launched as a more fully rounded MMO. This is not just about F2P, it can effect any MMO. But as F2P has the least funding, it effects them the most.
I also brought up the question, "are Asian F2P MMO's getting more funding than their Western counterparts?" In "the east" they do not seem to produce as many P2P MMO's as we do. I would imagine that would incline their gaming industry and investors to give more funding to F2P MMO's. I have no evidence to support this, it just occurred to me that not all MMO markets may work like ours.
If you give a F2P MMO more funding for launch, it is going to be better, who can doubt that? That's just not the situation though, they get relatively poor funding and that makes making a top graphics, lots of content and features MMO very hard.
This is precise what I'm saying as well. I do Not see what Is so hard to understand about it really.. Ohh well..:)
If I decide to take a break from a f2p game I'm not paying for something I'm not using.
I only play when I feel like it, not because I want to make it "worth" what I spent.
It leaves me open to trying other games as well, rather than committed to a single game. Some people may feel this is a bad thing, but I think it allows me to focus on the games themselves. If I continue to play a game, it'll be simple because I enjoy it, not just because that's where my money has gone.
The company has to work harder to keep me logging in, meaning more events and updates.
I enjoy cosmetic items and character customization, and f2p/b2p invest more heavily in these than sub games.
I like being able to tell a friend about a game I like and then seeing them in-game right away, rather than have to hear their regrets about not being able to afford it.
I like knowing that if a friend leaves the game, that they can come back easily instead of them having to decide if they want to resub or not.
There are things I don't like about certain cash shop systems that vary from game to game, and I've liked Rift as a sub game greatly, but overall f2p makes a game more accessible to a wider variety of people, including the ones I want to play with.
- people have differents standards. quality does mean also style? or no for you? anyway, human's brain is able to adapt in ten minutes to any graphics and then proceded as normal after some hours at max, graphic doesn't stop true players :'<
-again standards, plus generic isn't an accettable word. mmoRPG is a genre. play a roleplay game and find boring the roleplay part. any roleplay part, mean you're forcing yourself playing a game you don't really want
-very often is more than 3-4 classes, and when there are 3-4 classes only, they grow up having many specializations per class, and build and such, the fighter may ending be the berserker, the pladin, the dual blader, etc
-there are new ideas in each mmorpg you play, (maybe not for the chinese titles). BUT if you want revolutionary ideas you have to understand that such ideas, if successfull, will found another GENRE. (sandbox, rts, etc born in this way). we will have a new game genre and start over again. and revolutionary ideas become rarer each passage and remember: RPG is a genre (again)
-and istead no one of them was made in a garage. and you don't even know where to start
verdict: OP splat random statements whitout arguments, which oozing inexperience and prejudices
how this discussion reach 10+ pages is a mistery
Good post
These are all the very best reasons to why anyone that plays FTP games likes them..They are accessible to anyone ..But the same time you say that It's great to know your friends can come back anytime with ease, they seem to disappear with ease just as easy.
Here I would like to say that "trying other games" all the time leaves you fragmented and not part of anything great, now we simply have to many games to choose from, the mass industry continues to create new ones, while at the same year releasing at least 10-15 new games. Of those 10-15 there is maybe 1-3 AAA titles released that has an uncertain future because of this fragmented gaming community. They play for maybe 1-3 months then they will hop on to the next big thing .
Also..The cosmetic reason
I have to agree on that one..I like the cosmetic part of games aswell..To bad the cosmetic part mostly falls under the cash shop how ever.
We will ´see what will happen to this market..It's uncertain for sure, creating a PURE FTP game will have less cash from the start to deal with the overall quality of the game, but will leave the doors open to anyone to try the game . But with less money to create said game you will have to have other great qualities to keep the players actually playing for longer periods and not just a few days or a couple of months at max.
You don't want to know why as your OP shows. You have an opinion and want to know why it yours is not being followed by everyone.
Plain and simple sub games are a dying breed. There will always be a few around but I think they will be few and far between. Why is that? People want to know what their money is going for and more than likely would prefer buying what they want rather than paying a fee and it going for something....
I would still play it if it was p2p.