Google a bit and you can find plenty of numbers out there on it, as it's been pretty consistent numbers for a few years now. Many links have been posted around here, too. Approx 80% or more of most F2P players never pay anything.
If this is true then it is pretty depressing to consider.
I've seen some articles suggesting 40% of F2P players pay, but of course as it's been said that might just be a single purchase at some point, not 40% are paying in the same game. They just did pay for something in some F2P game at some point in their lives.
At least that's what I'm getting from it.
Either way, it's unfortunate that the model is abused when it could be a good alternative to P2P.
Personally I prefer B2P with microtransactions, that way even if I don't spend much later in a cash shop I do feel I've contributed to the game.
Why do you feel that it is being abused and not that the business model is designed that way?
Also, if you take a step back and look at it objectively, you'll realize that "B2P with microtransaction" is "F2P with box fee" which makes it interesting that you would favor that one.
Why do people always do that?
B2P is F2P with box fee? The box fee is what makes it different.
A 5 dollar bill is 1 dollar that is worth 5. The worth is what makes it a 5 dollar bill. It's what makes it different.
A lion is a cat only bigger. This one is not the best example since there are actually many differences. However, it's pretty much doing the same thing.
My point is that it's a silly statement. B2P is F2P with box fee.
To tell someone something is the same and then to state the difference of the 2 ... is just ... funny. Which is it, different or the same? I guess I am just being picky here and a smartass. But still, I have heard that statement to much, like as if people think it really means something.
No, what you are doing is pretending that calling a game "Free To Play" is the same thing as calling a game "Free" and this is not the case. Maybe when the very first "Free To Play" game came out there was some confusion about what was going on, but it's been years since that first game came out. Everyone knows what the term "Free To Play" means. You're trying to make an issue where none exists.
In that case, why do I still see people accusing F2P players as cheapskates who only play F2P because they want everything for free?
Because there are people who will only ever play the game without spending a dime, relying on others (the so-called "whales" especially) to pick up the bill. Many are quite unabashedly open about this fact. They're happy to let someone else subsidize their hobby.
With your opening post, especially, you're citing a contradiction where none exists. Within the F2P community there are those who feel entitled to play as much as they want without spending a dime (the so-called 'freeloaders'), and there are those who will spend copious amounts of cash (far beyond any standard sub fee) to "get a bit more" out of the experience (the so-called "whales" or at least "spenders").
Both groups co-exist in any given F2P MMO as completely separate entities. There is no contradiction there, as you attempt to illustrate in your OP.
Each group of people is addressed individually, as its own group, separate from the other. Consequently, arguments are made to address/illustrate the different aspects and inherent issues in each aspect (the "freeloader" experience versus the "spender" experience, and the various imbalances between them in gameplay terms).
This was my original point. If you're telling me you've never seen anyone make this argument against F2P then you apparently don't look around the forums very often.
People have made that argument, and again, they're addressing one specific group of people in F2P MMOs (the "freeloaders"), which co-exists with the others (the "spenders").
Again, there is no issue here. You seem to be missing the difference between the two and are seeing them as one group, continuously contradicting itself. That's not the case.
Google a bit and you can find plenty of numbers out there on it, as it's been pretty consistent numbers for a few years now. Many links have been posted around here, too. Approx 80% or more of most F2P players never pay anything.
If this is true then it is pretty depressing to consider.
I've seen some articles suggesting 40% of F2P players pay, but of course as it's been said that might just be a single purchase at some point, not 40% are paying in the same game. They just did pay for something in some F2P game at some point in their lives.
At least that's what I'm getting from it.
Either way, it's unfortunate that the model is abused when it could be a good alternative to P2P.
Personally I prefer B2P with microtransactions, that way even if I don't spend much later in a cash shop I do feel I've contributed to the game.
Why do you feel that it is being abused and not that the business model is designed that way?
Also, if you take a step back and look at it objectively, you'll realize that "B2P with microtransaction" is "F2P with box fee" which makes it interesting that you would favor that one.
Why do people always do that?
B2P is F2P with box fee? The box fee is what makes it different.
A 5 dollar bill is 1 dollar that is worth 5. The worth is what makes it a 5 dollar bill. It's what makes it different.
A lion is a cat only bigger. This one is not the best example since there are actually many differences. However, it's pretty much doing the same thing.
My point is that it's a silly statement. B2P is F2P with box fee.
To tell someone something is the same and then to state the difference of the 2 ... is just ... funny. Which is it, different or the same? I guess I am just being picky here and a smartass. But still, I have heard that statement to much, like as if people think it really means something.
It mean exactly what was said. If you have trouble comprehending the difference that's your problem.
2) It is moot anyway. The OP Is not going to change how language is used on the internet. There is really nothing he can do if people keep using the term "f2P".
Google a bit and you can find plenty of numbers out there on it, as it's been pretty consistent numbers for a few years now. Many links have been posted around here, too. Approx 80% or more of most F2P players never pay anything.
If this is true then it is pretty depressing to consider.
I've seen some articles suggesting 40% of F2P players pay, but of course as it's been said that might just be a single purchase at some point, not 40% are paying in the same game. They just did pay for something in some F2P game at some point in their lives.
At least that's what I'm getting from it.
Either way, it's unfortunate that the model is abused when it could be a good alternative to P2P.
Personally I prefer B2P with microtransactions, that way even if I don't spend much later in a cash shop I do feel I've contributed to the game.
Why do you feel that it is being abused and not that the business model is designed that way?
Also, if you take a step back and look at it objectively, you'll realize that "B2P with microtransaction" is "F2P with box fee" which makes it interesting that you would favor that one.
Why do people always do that?
B2P is F2P with box fee? The box fee is what makes it different.
A 5 dollar bill is 1 dollar that is worth 5. The worth is what makes it a 5 dollar bill. It's what makes it different.
A lion is a cat only bigger. This one is not the best example since there are actually many differences. However, it's pretty much doing the same thing.
My point is that it's a silly statement. B2P is F2P with box fee.
To tell someone something is the same and then to state the difference of the 2 ... is just ... funny. Which is it, different or the same? I guess I am just being picky here and a smartass. But still, I have heard that statement to much, like as if people think it really means something.
It mean exactly what was said. If you have trouble comprehending the difference that's your problem.
lol, I am not stupid. I know exactly what it means. The point I was trying to make was that it's stupid to even say something like that.
All the person is doing is pointing out what is different while saying it's the same at the same time. It's just plain silly.
Google a bit and you can find plenty of numbers out there on it, as it's been pretty consistent numbers for a few years now. Many links have been posted around here, too. Approx 80% or more of most F2P players never pay anything.
If this is true then it is pretty depressing to consider.
I've seen some articles suggesting 40% of F2P players pay, but of course as it's been said that might just be a single purchase at some point, not 40% are paying in the same game. They just did pay for something in some F2P game at some point in their lives.
At least that's what I'm getting from it.
Either way, it's unfortunate that the model is abused when it could be a good alternative to P2P.
Personally I prefer B2P with microtransactions, that way even if I don't spend much later in a cash shop I do feel I've contributed to the game.
Why do you feel that it is being abused and not that the business model is designed that way?
Also, if you take a step back and look at it objectively, you'll realize that "B2P with microtransaction" is "F2P with box fee" which makes it interesting that you would favor that one.
Why do people always do that?
B2P is F2P with box fee? The box fee is what makes it different.
A 5 dollar bill is 1 dollar that is worth 5. The worth is what makes it a 5 dollar bill. It's what makes it different.
A lion is a cat only bigger. This one is not the best example since there are actually many differences. However, it's pretty much doing the same thing.
My point is that it's a silly statement. B2P is F2P with box fee.
To tell someone something is the same and then to state the difference of the 2 ... is just ... funny. Which is it, different or the same? I guess I am just being picky here and a smartass. But still, I have heard that statement to much, like as if people think it really means something.
It mean exactly what was said. If you have trouble comprehending the difference that's your problem.
lol, I am not stupid. I know exactly what it means. The point I was trying to make was that it's stupid to even say something like that.
All the person is doing is pointing out what is different while saying it's the same at the same time. It's just plain silly.
Sort of like using the word "free" in F2P? "It's free but then you pay."
Your literal-minded schtick to defend B2P as the ideal model when the only B2P MMO anyone has ever heard of has a prominent cash shop is getting old.
EDIT: and if you don't want to quibble too much about the definition of MMO, take a look at the newly released GTA Online. A B2P console title that made $1 billion in just 3 days... guess what, they also have microtransactions in the game... there goes another potential pure B2P title down the F2P cash shop route... one that has no financial need to do so.
"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
Google a bit and you can find plenty of numbers out there on it, as it's been pretty consistent numbers for a few years now. Many links have been posted around here, too. Approx 80% or more of most F2P players never pay anything.
If this is true then it is pretty depressing to consider.
I've seen some articles suggesting 40% of F2P players pay, but of course as it's been said that might just be a single purchase at some point, not 40% are paying in the same game. They just did pay for something in some F2P game at some point in their lives.
At least that's what I'm getting from it.
Either way, it's unfortunate that the model is abused when it could be a good alternative to P2P.
Personally I prefer B2P with microtransactions, that way even if I don't spend much later in a cash shop I do feel I've contributed to the game.
Why do you feel that it is being abused and not that the business model is designed that way?
Also, if you take a step back and look at it objectively, you'll realize that "B2P with microtransaction" is "F2P with box fee" which makes it interesting that you would favor that one.
Why do people always do that?
B2P is F2P with box fee? The box fee is what makes it different.
A 5 dollar bill is 1 dollar that is worth 5. The worth is what makes it a 5 dollar bill. It's what makes it different.
A lion is a cat only bigger. This one is not the best example since there are actually many differences. However, it's pretty much doing the same thing.
My point is that it's a silly statement. B2P is F2P with box fee.
To tell someone something is the same and then to state the difference of the 2 ... is just ... funny. Which is it, different or the same? I guess I am just being picky here and a smartass. But still, I have heard that statement to much, like as if people think it really means something.
It mean exactly what was said. If you have trouble comprehending the difference that's your problem.
lol, I am not stupid. I know exactly what it means. The point I was trying to make was that it's stupid to even say something like that.
All the person is doing is pointing out what is different while saying it's the same at the same time. It's just plain silly.
Sort of like using the word "free" in F2P? "It's free but then you pay."
Your literal-minded schtick to defend B2P as the ideal model when the only B2P MMO anyone has ever heard of has a prominent cash shop is getting old.
Not really, because F2P can actually be free if you do not pay. It depends on the person. F2P is free for some and not free for others. It's a sort of odd thing.
I defend B2P ... because I personally believe it's a great payment model. It just isn't used very often for MMO games, which is sad.
I find it even more funny how you always seem to find my comments on this matter XD. I may have to start assuming if I mention this topic under any circumstance, a comment from you will follow.
Edit: In response to your edit ... ya ... I know. Companies are in it to make money, so they will milk as much money they can. That makes the companies bad .. not the payment model. XD
Google a bit and you can find plenty of numbers out there on it, as it's been pretty consistent numbers for a few years now. Many links have been posted around here, too. Approx 80% or more of most F2P players never pay anything.
If this is true then it is pretty depressing to consider.
I've seen some articles suggesting 40% of F2P players pay, but of course as it's been said that might just be a single purchase at some point, not 40% are paying in the same game. They just did pay for something in some F2P game at some point in their lives.
At least that's what I'm getting from it.
Either way, it's unfortunate that the model is abused when it could be a good alternative to P2P.
Personally I prefer B2P with microtransactions, that way even if I don't spend much later in a cash shop I do feel I've contributed to the game.
Why do you feel that it is being abused and not that the business model is designed that way?
Also, if you take a step back and look at it objectively, you'll realize that "B2P with microtransaction" is "F2P with box fee" which makes it interesting that you would favor that one.
Why do people always do that?
B2P is F2P with box fee? The box fee is what makes it different.
A 5 dollar bill is 1 dollar that is worth 5. The worth is what makes it a 5 dollar bill. It's what makes it different.
A lion is a cat only bigger. This one is not the best example since there are actually many differences. However, it's pretty much doing the same thing.
My point is that it's a silly statement. B2P is F2P with box fee.
To tell someone something is the same and then to state the difference of the 2 ... is just ... funny. Which is it, different or the same? I guess I am just being picky here and a smartass. But still, I have heard that statement to much, like as if people think it really means something.
It mean exactly what was said. If you have trouble comprehending the difference that's your problem.
lol, I am not stupid. I know exactly what it means. The point I was trying to make was that it's stupid to even say something like that.
All the person is doing is pointing out what is different while saying it's the same at the same time. It's just plain silly.
Sort of like using the word "free" in F2P? "It's free but then you pay."
Your literal-minded schtick to defend B2P as the ideal model when the only B2P MMO anyone has ever heard of has a prominent cash shop is getting old.
Not really, because F2P can actually be free if you do not pay. It depends on the person. F2P is free for some and not free for others. It's a sort of odd thing.
I defend B2P ... because I personally believe it's a great payment model. It just isn't used very often for MMO games, which is sad.
I find it even more funny how you always seem to find my comments on this matter XD. I may have to start assuming if I mention this topic under any circumstance, a comment from you will follow.
Don't flatter yourself. We seem to share an interest in MMO economic models so we often end up reading and commenting on the same threads... that's about all we share
"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
There are truly F2P games and "pseudo" F2P games and "time-unlimited demos" that call themselves F2Ps.
First is, for example, Dota 2/CS:GO (which in the near future will be F2P)
Second is most of the stuff that calls itself F2P
Third is, for example, Killer Instinct (fighting game where 1 char is free, others you have to buy)
So yes, there are true F2P games. In CS:GO / Dota 2 you can get ZERO advantage by paying. Everything is available to you from the get go - heroes/weapons, all you pay for cosmetics. Only cosmetics. This means that the game is absoultely free to play and you do not have any incentitive whatsoever to spend even a copper. However, this does not mean of course that the game won't seduce you into doing so - cases/boxes dropping that require a key to open, other stuff - they know how to make you want to pay, and honestly, you should finance a game you like, so it's fine.
But then, games like MMO F2Ps where you gain a clear advantage by paying money, or "social" games where you pay to skip grind/access more content, or games like LoL where you have to pay for new champions (or grind for them for a long time) - those are not truly F2P.
lol, I am not stupid. I know exactly what it means. The point I was trying to make was that it's stupid to even say something like that.
All the person is doing is pointing out what is different while saying it's the same at the same time. It's just plain silly.
To a regular person it seems silly to call something different because it costs a fee to install it. Both games still require a player to make a microtransaction to obtain parts of the game.
The terms " freemium ", " buy to play ", and " free to play " don't really have any meanings. They are strictly marketing terms used to misrepresent the possible costs of a game. Nobody would play these games if they had to tell you the total cost to access every part of the game, or even share the costs to maximize a players enjoyment at any given instance.
I don't know about everyone else, but one of my major pet peeves is becoming the fact that so many people refer to Free to Play as Free to Play.
Why? Because it isn't FREE. Not that I expect it to be, but P2P players are constantly using this misconception as an excuse to bash F2P players. "Nothing in life is free, stop being a cheapskate and pay a sub you freeloaders!" How many times I have heard this, and it's completely ridiculous.
Personally I believe we should put an end to this farce and begin, collectively, to refer to F2P as M2P, and P2P as S2P. Microtransactions to Play and Subscription to Play, respectively. People who are serious M2P players are going to pay money, they're just going about it in a different way. Many M2P players will actually pay MORE than those who pay a subscription.
Ironically, many S2P players do know this. I've seen people, in the same argument mind you, make the argument that M2P is bad because of freeloaders, and it is bad because it costs too much. Wait... what? Make up your mind, is M2P more or less expensive than S2P? You feel a sense of superiority paying $15/mo, over those who try to play for free, but you don't like the idea that someone who pays $50 a month is inevitably going to surpass you in an M2P game? I don't really understand this mentality.
Don't get me wrong, I don't really support one model over the other, but I get tired of S2P players blatantly ignoring the fact that M2P isn't F2P. I also don't believe M2P should be written off as a bad model when properly executed. S2P players tend to conveniently overlook the fact that many S2P games are actually S+M2P. No, I'm not talking about bondage. They are actually Subscription + Microtransactions to Play. If I pay a subscription, I expect to get all content (save for boxed expansion) as part of that. Otherwise, what am I paying for? Just to play a game I already bought? It's ludicrous.
Anyway, that's my two cents. Referring to the models as P2P and F2P is outdated.
dont know what you are on about.. i play many F2P games, without spending a dime.. F2P works for me
Don't flatter yourself. We seem to share an interest in MMO economic models so we often end up reading and commenting on the same threads... that's about all we share
Hmmm .. yaaa ... I suppose you make a good point.
Originally posted by thinktank001
Originally posted by Brabbit1987
lol, I am not stupid. I know exactly what it means. The point I was trying to make was that it's stupid to even say something like that.
All the person is doing is pointing out what is different while saying it's the same at the same time. It's just plain silly.
To a regular person it seems silly to call something different because it costs a fee to install it. Both games still require a player to make a microtransaction to obtain parts of the game.
The terms " freemium ", " buy to play ", and " free to play " don't really have any meanings. They are strictly marketing terms used to misrepresent the possible costs of a game. Nobody would play these games if they had to tell you the total cost to access every part of the game, or even share the costs to maximize a players enjoyment at any given instance.
*shrugs*
The color pink is really just the color red with a little white in it.
I just don't know why people can't just call it what it is, instead of trying to make it more complicated rofl. Just call it what it is called. I am pretty sure just about everyone knows a B2P and F2P have a similar game experience. The models themselves still are not the same though.
The terms " freemium ", " buy to play ", and " free to play " don't really have any meanings. They are strictly marketing terms used to misrepresent the possible costs of a game. Nobody would play these games if they had to tell you the total cost to access every part of the game, or even share the costs to maximize a players enjoyment at any given instance.
And yet the most successful online games, with the most players, LoL, is F2P.
You really think "no one would play" if you tell LoL players how much heroes, and skin cost?
Sort of like using the word "free" in F2P? "It's free but then you pay."
Your literal-minded schtick to defend B2P as the ideal model when the only B2P MMO anyone has ever heard of has a prominent cash shop is getting old.
EDIT: and if you don't want to quibble too much about the definition of MMO, take a look at the newly released GTA Online. A B2P console title that made $1 billion in just 3 days... guess what, they also have microtransactions in the game... there goes another potential pure B2P title down the F2P cash shop route... one that has no financial need to do so.
The terminology is pretty subjective. I think of it like this: box fees, subscriptions, microtransactions (I usually lump dlc stuff and extra digital purchases into this). I'm fine paying all three, to an extent. I'm currently a subscriber to EQ2 and that uses all three payment types. Depending on what is mandatory and how that is implemented can affect whether or not I'll play the game.
I tend not to play games anymore that have mandatory subscriptions. I also like to try a game before I pony up a box fee, not always, but usually.
What other people do and how they pay generally isn't a concern to me. I don't think it is any of their business how I pay and none of mine how they do.
The terminology is not really subjective, just deliberately confusing. It's a good example of marketing double-speak designed to deliberately give you the wrong impression. It's hardly different than using cliched terms like "New" "improved" (or even "reborn" I guess ) or "On Sale" or pricing things at $4.99 instead of $5.00.
Despite the fact that I also would prefer a pure B2P model - if one really existed - I find all F2P and B2P MMOs to be less honest in their advertising than the stodgy old pure sub model.
I'm not really interested in other people's personal buying decisions- that's their business. But I, as a consumer, am put-off by deceptive practices. I've even written emails to Apple (ignored of course lol... just did it for my own satisfaction) telling them that they should have 3 app categories not just "free" and "pay". They need a 3rd one called "Pay inside app." To separate the truly free from just the marketing-motivated pseudo-free. It's even worse and more deceptive in iTunes than in the MMO world... not to mention that they're pitching to a generally younger audience.
"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
The terminology is not really subjective, just deliberately confusing. It's a good example of marketing double-speak designed to deliberately give you the wrong impression.
What wrong impression?
It says "free", and i paid nothing for these games. I would say that is pretty accurate .. for me.
Google a bit and you can find plenty of numbers out there on it, as it's been pretty consistent numbers for a few years now. Many links have been posted around here, too. Approx 80% or more of most F2P players never pay anything.
If this is true then it is pretty depressing to consider.
I've seen some articles suggesting 40% of F2P players pay, but of course as it's been said that might just be a single purchase at some point, not 40% are paying in the same game. They just did pay for something in some F2P game at some point in their lives.
At least that's what I'm getting from it.
Either way, it's unfortunate that the model is abused when it could be a good alternative to P2P.
Personally I prefer B2P with microtransactions, that way even if I don't spend much later in a cash shop I do feel I've contributed to the game.
Why do you feel that it is being abused and not that the business model is designed that way?
Also, if you take a step back and look at it objectively, you'll realize that "B2P with microtransaction" is "F2P with box fee" which makes it interesting that you would favor that one.
Why do people always do that?
B2P is F2P with box fee? The box fee is what makes it different.
A 5 dollar bill is 1 dollar that is worth 5. The worth is what makes it a 5 dollar bill. It's what makes it different.
A lion is a cat only bigger. This one is not the best example since there are actually many differences. However, it's pretty much doing the same thing.
My point is that it's a silly statement. B2P is F2P with box fee.
To tell someone something is the same and then to state the difference of the 2 ... is just ... funny. Which is it, different or the same? I guess I am just being picky here and a smartass. But still, I have heard that statement to much, like as if people think it really means something.
It mean exactly what was said. If you have trouble comprehending the difference that's your problem.
lol, I am not stupid. I know exactly what it means. The point I was trying to make was that it's stupid to even say something like that.
All the person is doing is pointing out what is different while saying it's the same at the same time. It's just plain silly.
I don't think you read the whole thread. Either that or you're intentionally changing what was written in order to argue some odd point.
His argument in the OP was that he can't see paying a sub + MT because if he's already paying the sub "what am I paying for" regarding the MT, but he does not hold box + MT to the same standard. Actually, he prefers box + MT over no sub, no box fee and straight MT. I found it interesting that he had issue with paying the sub and then would choose a model with the same issue as he preferred model.
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
The terminology is not really subjective, just deliberately confusing. It's a good example of marketing double-speak designed to deliberately give you the wrong impression.
What wrong impression?
It says "free", and i paid nothing for these games. I would say that is pretty accurate .. for me.
The F2P titles where you can enjoy the game to the same extent without paying are few and far between. I can think of Path of Exile and a couple of others and that's about it.
If you're happy with the "B" sub-game instead of the "A" full game, well good for you. But they don't feature the "B" version in their ads do they? That would be the deception.
"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
The F2P titles where you can enjoy the game to the same extent without paying are few and far between. I can think of Path of Exile and a couple of others and that's about it.
If you're happy with the "B" sub-game instead of the "A" full game, well good for you. But they don't feature the "B" version in their ads do they? That would be the deception.
What deception? They said i can play for free .. not play everything for free. I did play. I got it free .. pretty accurately to me.
F2P titles i can enjoy .....
- PoE (as you have pointed out)
- Marvel Heroes
- STO
- PS2
.... and that is just what i have time for .. i also think Warframe is pretty good, and so is WoT. I will be playing WoWS when it comes out.
Free to play just means you can play for free. They are not play EVERYTHING for free, then they wouldn't make money.
If you can log in and experience ANY gameplay for free, then you are playing for free. It really is that simple. You are playing a video game for free.
Funny that you say that because most F2P games that I play, I'm able to play EVERYTHING for free.
Google a bit and you can find plenty of numbers out there on it, as it's been pretty consistent numbers for a few years now. Many links have been posted around here, too. Approx 80% or more of most F2P players never pay anything.
If this is true then it is pretty depressing to consider.
I've seen some articles suggesting 40% of F2P players pay, but of course as it's been said that might just be a single purchase at some point, not 40% are paying in the same game. They just did pay for something in some F2P game at some point in their lives.
At least that's what I'm getting from it.
Either way, it's unfortunate that the model is abused when it could be a good alternative to P2P.
Personally I prefer B2P with microtransactions, that way even if I don't spend much later in a cash shop I do feel I've contributed to the game.
Why do you feel that it is being abused and not that the business model is designed that way?
Also, if you take a step back and look at it objectively, you'll realize that "B2P with microtransaction" is "F2P with box fee" which makes it interesting that you would favor that one.
Why do people always do that?
B2P is F2P with box fee? The box fee is what makes it different.
A 5 dollar bill is 1 dollar that is worth 5. The worth is what makes it a 5 dollar bill. It's what makes it different.
A lion is a cat only bigger. This one is not the best example since there are actually many differences. However, it's pretty much doing the same thing.
My point is that it's a silly statement. B2P is F2P with box fee.
To tell someone something is the same and then to state the difference of the 2 ... is just ... funny. Which is it, different or the same? I guess I am just being picky here and a smartass. But still, I have heard that statement to much, like as if people think it really means something.
It mean exactly what was said. If you have trouble comprehending the difference that's your problem.
lol, I am not stupid. I know exactly what it means. The point I was trying to make was that it's stupid to even say something like that.
All the person is doing is pointing out what is different while saying it's the same at the same time. It's just plain silly.
I don't think you read the whole thread. Either that or you're intentionally changing what was written in order to argue some odd point.
His argument in the OP was that he can't see paying a sub + MT because if he's already paying the sub "what am I paying for" regarding the MT, but he does not hold box + MT to the same standard. Actually, he prefers box + MT over no sub, no box fee and straight MT. I found it interesting that he had issue with paying the sub and then would choose a model with the same issue as he preferred model.
You are the one misunderstanding. I wasn't commenting on his entire post. I was only commenting on that particular statement that I pointed out.
I just find the statement to be rather silly is all. I think you are over thinking what I am saying XD.
I am just pointing out that B2P is not the same as F2P. The box price is what makes them different. So to say B2P is just F2P with a box fee is stupid. It only over complicates it even more then it needs to be. Everyone is already aware what a B2P model is. We don't need it to be explained by breaking it down.
Originally posted by Iselin Originally posted by nariusseldonOriginally posted by Iselin
The terminology is not really subjective, just deliberately confusing. It's a good example of marketing double-speak designed to deliberately give you the wrong impression. What wrong impression?It says "free", and i paid nothing for these games. I would say that is pretty accurate .. for me.The F2P titles where you can enjoy the game to the same extent without paying are few and far between. I can think of Path of Exile and a couple of others and that's about it.
If you're happy with the "B" sub-game instead of the "A" full game, well good for you. But they don't feature the "B" version in their ads do they? That would be the deception.
Why would you have the expectation that the person playing the game for free has the same game experience as the person who has paid money to the developer?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I don't care if a game is f2p or b2p. If I like it, I'm going to spend some money on it anyway, because I appreciate the work that went into it. If I didn't appreciate it, I wouldn't play.
$15 a month, or even double that is nothing compared to a night out at pubs, a dinner and movie date, or seeing a Broadway play or admission to a real art museum like the Louvre. If you enjoy participating in something, it's silly to not give a little bit of credit where it's deserved, and since many around here get 80+ hours a month out of a game, well, you do the math. It's pennies per hour..
The F2P titles where you can enjoy the game to the same extent without paying are few and far between. I can think of Path of Exile and a couple of others and that's about it.
If you're happy with the "B" sub-game instead of the "A" full game, well good for you. But they don't feature the "B" version in their ads do they? That would be the deception.
What deception? They said i can play for free .. not play everything for free. I did play. I got it free .. pretty accurately to me.
F2P titles i can enjoy .....
- PoE (as you have pointed out)
- Marvel Heroes
- STO
- PS2
.... and that is just what i have time for .. i also think Warframe is pretty good, and so is WoT. I will be playing WoWS when it comes out.
GW2 - the "B" game features limited character slots, limited inventory and bank space, limited loot drops (locked chests)... those things are only tolerable to most players because they can buy their way out of the restricitons...otherwise they'd be considered shitty design choices if the B game was all there was.
Rift - it's better than some, but... if you didn't pay for the Storm Legion XPac before it went F2P or buy the new souls now, you'll miss out on the some of the better souls in the game... otherwise fully playable "free" except most things can be bought with in-game currency or gems... even random vendors in the world accept the cash currency... many think this makes it P2win. When it comes right down to it, Trion is more in the business of selling gold than items.
...
most every game calling itself "free"
...
But you know damn well what I'm talking about. All I can think of if you truly don't think the word "free" is used deceptively in F2P gaming is that you either work in advertising yourself or you've become numbed by decades of being subjected to deceptive advertising
Lots of good books on advertising practices out there you could read... just saying..
"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
The terminology is not really subjective, just deliberately confusing. It's a good example of marketing double-speak designed to deliberately give you the wrong impression.
What wrong impression?It says "free", and i paid nothing for these games. I would say that is pretty accurate .. for me.
The F2P titles where you can enjoy the game to the same extent without paying are few and far between. I can think of Path of Exile and a couple of others and that's about it.
If you're happy with the "B" sub-game instead of the "A" full game, well good for you. But they don't feature the "B" version in their ads do they? That would be the deception.
Why would you have the expectation that the person playing the game for free has the same game experience as the person who has paid money to the developer?
You lost me there. Of course I don't have that expectation...it's why I'm calling them "A" and "B."
It's the F2P evangelists who like to pretend there is only one game when in fact typically there are two very different ones: the free one and the one you need to unlock with cash.
"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
Yet there are plenty of people who play these games and never pay a penny. The majority of people who play F2P games do play them entirely free of charge. Thus, they really are free to play, so long as you're not a competitive twit that has to keep up with the Joneses.
That's the secret.
Is that a fact or is that just your opinion?
Sure there are plenty of people who will do everything in their power to get around paying anything, but it doesn't seem to me like those people stay for very long. Personally when I play a F2P, I will dabble with it for free for a while, but as soon as I get anywhere I start buying from the shop. Though I prefer to buy cosmetic items and such rather than items to be competitive.
But admittedly I don't have any hard numbers to back my word up either.
There was a thread around here not too long ago that gave all the stats and sources that proved the majority of F2P players pay *NOTHING*. You can go look for it, I'm sure someone will pop up shortly and provide a link.
Comments
Why do people always do that?
B2P is F2P with box fee? The box fee is what makes it different.
A 5 dollar bill is 1 dollar that is worth 5. The worth is what makes it a 5 dollar bill. It's what makes it different.
A lion is a cat only bigger. This one is not the best example since there are actually many differences. However, it's pretty much doing the same thing.
My point is that it's a silly statement. B2P is F2P with box fee.
To tell someone something is the same and then to state the difference of the 2 ... is just ... funny. Which is it, different or the same? I guess I am just being picky here and a smartass. But still, I have heard that statement to much, like as if people think it really means something.
It mean exactly what was said. If you have trouble comprehending the difference that's your problem.
1) F2P is free to me .. that is free enough.
2) It is moot anyway. The OP Is not going to change how language is used on the internet. There is really nothing he can do if people keep using the term "f2P".
lol, I am not stupid. I know exactly what it means. The point I was trying to make was that it's stupid to even say something like that.
All the person is doing is pointing out what is different while saying it's the same at the same time. It's just plain silly.
Sort of like using the word "free" in F2P?
"It's free but then you pay."
Your literal-minded schtick to defend B2P as the ideal model when the only B2P MMO anyone has ever heard of has a prominent cash shop is getting old.
EDIT: and if you don't want to quibble too much about the definition of MMO, take a look at the newly released GTA Online. A B2P console title that made $1 billion in just 3 days... guess what, they also have microtransactions in the game... there goes another potential pure B2P title down the F2P cash shop route... one that has no financial need to do so.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Not really, because F2P can actually be free if you do not pay. It depends on the person. F2P is free for some and not free for others. It's a sort of odd thing.
I defend B2P ... because I personally believe it's a great payment model. It just isn't used very often for MMO games, which is sad.
I find it even more funny how you always seem to find my comments on this matter XD. I may have to start assuming if I mention this topic under any circumstance, a comment from you will follow.
Edit: In response to your edit ... ya ... I know. Companies are in it to make money, so they will milk as much money they can. That makes the companies bad .. not the payment model. XD
Don't flatter yourself. We seem to share an interest in MMO economic models so we often end up reading and commenting on the same threads... that's about all we share
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
There are truly F2P games and "pseudo" F2P games and "time-unlimited demos" that call themselves F2Ps.
First is, for example, Dota 2/CS:GO (which in the near future will be F2P)
Second is most of the stuff that calls itself F2P
Third is, for example, Killer Instinct (fighting game where 1 char is free, others you have to buy)
So yes, there are true F2P games. In CS:GO / Dota 2 you can get ZERO advantage by paying. Everything is available to you from the get go - heroes/weapons, all you pay for cosmetics. Only cosmetics. This means that the game is absoultely free to play and you do not have any incentitive whatsoever to spend even a copper. However, this does not mean of course that the game won't seduce you into doing so - cases/boxes dropping that require a key to open, other stuff - they know how to make you want to pay, and honestly, you should finance a game you like, so it's fine.
But then, games like MMO F2Ps where you gain a clear advantage by paying money, or "social" games where you pay to skip grind/access more content, or games like LoL where you have to pay for new champions (or grind for them for a long time) - those are not truly F2P.
To a regular person it seems silly to call something different because it costs a fee to install it. Both games still require a player to make a microtransaction to obtain parts of the game.
The terms " freemium ", " buy to play ", and " free to play " don't really have any meanings. They are strictly marketing terms used to misrepresent the possible costs of a game. Nobody would play these games if they had to tell you the total cost to access every part of the game, or even share the costs to maximize a players enjoyment at any given instance.
dont know what you are on about.. i play many F2P games, without spending a dime.. F2P works for me
Hmmm .. yaaa ... I suppose you make a good point.
*shrugs*
The color pink is really just the color red with a little white in it.
I just don't know why people can't just call it what it is, instead of trying to make it more complicated rofl. Just call it what it is called. I am pretty sure just about everyone knows a B2P and F2P have a similar game experience. The models themselves still are not the same though.
And yet the most successful online games, with the most players, LoL, is F2P.
You really think "no one would play" if you tell LoL players how much heroes, and skin cost?
The terminology is not really subjective, just deliberately confusing. It's a good example of marketing double-speak designed to deliberately give you the wrong impression. It's hardly different than using cliched terms like "New" "improved" (or even "reborn" I guess
) or "On Sale" or pricing things at $4.99 instead of $5.00.
Despite the fact that I also would prefer a pure B2P model - if one really existed - I find all F2P and B2P MMOs to be less honest in their advertising than the stodgy old pure sub model.
I'm not really interested in other people's personal buying decisions- that's their business. But I, as a consumer, am put-off by deceptive practices. I've even written emails to Apple (ignored of course lol... just did it for my own satisfaction) telling them that they should have 3 app categories not just "free" and "pay". They need a 3rd one called "Pay inside app." To separate the truly free from just the marketing-motivated pseudo-free. It's even worse and more deceptive in iTunes than in the MMO world... not to mention that they're pitching to a generally younger audience.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
What wrong impression?
It says "free", and i paid nothing for these games. I would say that is pretty accurate .. for me.
I don't think you read the whole thread. Either that or you're intentionally changing what was written in order to argue some odd point.
His argument in the OP was that he can't see paying a sub + MT because if he's already paying the sub "what am I paying for" regarding the MT, but he does not hold box + MT to the same standard. Actually, he prefers box + MT over no sub, no box fee and straight MT. I found it interesting that he had issue with paying the sub and then would choose a model with the same issue as he preferred model.
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
The F2P titles where you can enjoy the game to the same extent without paying are few and far between. I can think of Path of Exile and a couple of others and that's about it.
If you're happy with the "B" sub-game instead of the "A" full game, well good for you. But they don't feature the "B" version in their ads do they? That would be the deception.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
What deception? They said i can play for free .. not play everything for free. I did play. I got it free .. pretty accurately to me.
F2P titles i can enjoy .....
- PoE (as you have pointed out)
- Marvel Heroes
- STO
- PS2
.... and that is just what i have time for .. i also think Warframe is pretty good, and so is WoT. I will be playing WoWS when it comes out.
Funny that you say that because most F2P games that I play, I'm able to play EVERYTHING for free.
You are the one misunderstanding. I wasn't commenting on his entire post. I was only commenting on that particular statement that I pointed out.
I just find the statement to be rather silly is all. I think you are over thinking what I am saying XD.
I am just pointing out that B2P is not the same as F2P. The box price is what makes them different. So to say B2P is just F2P with a box fee is stupid. It only over complicates it even more then it needs to be. Everyone is already aware what a B2P model is. We don't need it to be explained by breaking it down.
What wrong impression? It says "free", and i paid nothing for these games. I would say that is pretty accurate .. for me.
The F2P titles where you can enjoy the game to the same extent without paying are few and far between. I can think of Path of Exile and a couple of others and that's about it.
If you're happy with the "B" sub-game instead of the "A" full game, well good for you. But they don't feature the "B" version in their ads do they? That would be the deception.
Why would you have the expectation that the person playing the game for free has the same game experience as the person who has paid money to the developer?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I don't care if a game is f2p or b2p. If I like it, I'm going to spend some money on it anyway, because I appreciate the work that went into it. If I didn't appreciate it, I wouldn't play.
$15 a month, or even double that is nothing compared to a night out at pubs, a dinner and movie date, or seeing a Broadway play or admission to a real art museum like the Louvre. If you enjoy participating in something, it's silly to not give a little bit of credit where it's deserved, and since many around here get 80+ hours a month out of a game, well, you do the math. It's pennies per hour..
GW2 - the "B" game features limited character slots, limited inventory and bank space, limited loot drops (locked chests)... those things are only tolerable to most players because they can buy their way out of the restricitons...otherwise they'd be considered shitty design choices if the B game was all there was.
Rift - it's better than some, but... if you didn't pay for the Storm Legion XPac before it went F2P or buy the new souls now, you'll miss out on the some of the better souls in the game... otherwise fully playable "free" except most things can be bought with in-game currency or gems... even random vendors in the world accept the cash currency... many think this makes it P2win. When it comes right down to it, Trion is more in the business of selling gold than items.
...
most every game calling itself "free"
...
But you know damn well what I'm talking about. All I can think of if you truly don't think the word "free" is used deceptively in F2P gaming is that you either work in advertising yourself or you've become numbed by decades of being subjected to deceptive advertising
Lots of good books on advertising practices out there you could read... just saying..
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
You lost me there. Of course I don't have that expectation...it's why I'm calling them "A" and "B."
It's the F2P evangelists who like to pretend there is only one game when in fact typically there are two very different ones: the free one and the one you need to unlock with cash.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
There was a thread around here not too long ago that gave all the stats and sources that proved the majority of F2P players pay *NOTHING*. You can go look for it, I'm sure someone will pop up shortly and provide a link.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None