It should be something like choose to pay because it is what you're doing. All these games can be played for free but you are choosing what you pay for when go to the cash shop.
Or to simplify it even farther I've seen people calling these games cash shop games. It's accurate and doesn't mislead anyone.
Originally posted by Torvaldr Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by XthosBasically, they have to make something in the game be desirable that a percentage of people will pay for it....If they made it so no one wanted to pay, they would be out of business.I would prefer p2p, with no cash shop as my model....p2p with cosmetic only a 2nd....p2p dipping into f2p area is ridiculous imo....Then you have f2p, which in mmo terms 95%+ of the time takes on a form of p2w imo... Yes, even if it isn't pvp imo.... People 'win' things all the time irl that are not monitary based, if you can pay to achieve and get a leg up, you are 'beating' someone else basically that has put in the same amount of time, but not money...People cry about 'play to win' also, as the argument to that...So if that is the devil too, it is one I prefer (and no, I have a full time job, house, wife etc... I cannot 'beat' someone at that game, but at least they put in the time to do it, not the credit card number to do it).So yeah, f2p cannot be f2p for everyone in the end....I prefer everyone being on equal footing opportunity in game wise (which doesn't mean real life wise, as I stated earlier).I am not railing against f2p though, the industry kind of did it to themselves...I don't like it, but no one has kept them from offering free trials at launch, told them to put cash shops in p2p games etc... They saw people will pay, and f2p brings the biggest pool of people to draw that percentage of people willing to pay into a game... It has killed the staying power and quality imo, and made more people game jumpers.So where does that leave things? Vote with your wallet, I do. Then what will happen..happens.
This post highlights the actual issue with F2P games. Rather than entice players with things they want and can afford, developers can coerce players with limitations in game play, and coercive systems are both effective and easy to implement. The best example I can think of are games where leveling takes longer and longer, eventually becoming impossible without purchasing XP potions from the cash shop. It's a problem because it manages to subvert the "vote with your wallet" system. Players are voting with their wallets, but they are voting for something that doesn't actually give them additional game play, but rather gets them what most people would consider standard game play. It is F2P in name only. Not all F2P systems work like this. Many, in fact, do not. I'm hopeful that competition will eliminate the coercive systems in favor of the enticement systems, especially in larger games, and this does seem to be happening, but there are still coercive F2P systems out there. They obviously aren't so unpopular that they go away entirely.I think using the word "coerce" is rather loaded and overstated, but since it's out there, I'll go with it.
Those sorts of coercive or channeling tactics and deceptive marketing practices aren't the purvue of F2P games alone.
Let's look at Blizzard's upcoming expansion. They are removing flying for a while so combat isn't trivialized. We know that's a load of marketing BS because you can insta-level to 90 and that is about as trivializing as it gets, even though it's deceptively marketed as a game enhancing feature. It extends the time it takes for players to work through content meaning players will need to retain their subscriptions longer which drives up revenue. So a deceptive marketing tactic is used to drive revenue and it's so easily and cleverly disguised. P2P (sub-locked) games do this all the time with time sinks and grinds. I'm pretty sure there are several more times sinks in that next xpac (housing) that will help to drive subscription revenue.
What is really disingenuous is that P2P proponents gloss over these sorts of practices, maybe because they been in place so very long, and highlight the money sinks in sub-free games as if this only exists in those games.
Not all P2P payment models are like this either. I think EVE is far more generous in its model than WoW is. I think with increasing competition and industry maturity, the worst systems will either evolve or die. Since money is involved it will never be as good as we hoped, but it will also not be as bad as it could be.
The bottom line is game companies want revenue. They all try and drive that revenue. Different models work for different players, just like it does in any aspect of the entertainment industry. Some people like to rent movies, some like to subscribe to a streaming/rental service, others like to buy their movies (digital or hard copy), and others (like me) do a combination of those.
It's not overstating what's happening. The player can either pay the developer to continue progression, or leave the game. The player, unless they pay the developer, will be stopped in one zone indefinitely. Of course, there's the option to continue playing the game and making no progress, but I've yet to see anyone do this. The developer is forcing the issue of paying or not. Perhaps you would prefer the term "pressuring" to "coercing"? Doesn't matter. They are synonyms. Trying to persuade a person to do something they are unwilling to do by force or threats. The force is blocking further progression in the game by increasing the time it takes to progress to an unreasonable degree. Play Requiem for awhile, and unless you pay the developer for XP potions, your progression will stop.
Compare this to STO or SWToR where the player can continue to play the game for months or a year or more without having the entire game behind a pay wall. The player is not stuck in one zone or area, unable to continue with any new game experiences. The developer is of course dangling shinies for the player to buy, but not buying them doesn't essentially stop the game play. Play either of these games for awhile, don't pay the developer and your progression in those games will not stop.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Or to simplify it even farther I've seen people calling these games cash shop games. It's accurate and doesn't mislead anyone.
It is not accurate. You will confuse games like Marvel Heroes (which is free for a portion of the game) with GW2 which has no free portion.
Heck, even WoW is going to have a cash shop. Are you saying WOW is going to be the same business model as Maple Story?
Since we're talking about free to play and none of those examples are free to play games..... Wow can be played for free but you're the only person I've ever seen that's tried to confuse that with a f2p game. So I guess I can see why you're trying it here too. If we ever did end this topic with names that everyone understood you wouldn't have a platform to troll people with you're I never spend money posts from. So i guess you are a little biased when it comes to these names.
I also didn't touch on this in my post before, but a system of f2p that I would have no problem with, and I am sure some will, is one where it is f2p, with cash shop...If you pay a sub, you negate the cash shop, people without subs cannot use the cash shop to gain higher than a sub....Then people would say it is sub to win or something, but their are limits...Which is why this will probably never happen, a company generally wouldn't want to limit how much they can profit off of a individual. A compromise would be purely cosmetic, so people could spend more on cosmetic, which I have no problem with....Cosmetic means only visual, nothing else...Not a mostly cosmetic mount, but then if you spent the $100, it also has 10% more movement, it isn't game breaking, and they did spend $100....No..No...No. That is the slippery slope that got us in this mess to begin with imo.
So f2p, sub negating f2p, cash shop caps, minus cosmetic, and to entice people to sub, since their are caps and it doesn't make sense to sub with caps, you could give a discount on cosmetic that isn't shattering, and since it is purely cosmetic, it cannot be 2 win anything....Unless you have some fashion off with someone else.
I also didn't touch on this in my post before, but a system of f2p that I would have no problem with, and I am sure some will, is one where it is f2p, with cash shop...If you pay a sub, you negate the cash shop, people without subs cannot use the cash shop to gain higher than a sub....Then people would say it is sub to win or something, but their are limits...Which is why this will probably never happen, a company generally wouldn't want to limit how much they can profit off of a individual. A compromise would be purely cosmetic, so people could spend more on cosmetic, which I have no problem with....Cosmetic means only visual, nothing else...Not a mostly cosmetic mount, but then if you spent the $100, it also has 10% more movement, it isn't game breaking, and they did spend $100....No..No...No. That is the slippery slope that got us in this mess to begin with imo.
So f2p, sub negating f2p, cash shop caps, minus cosmetic, and to entice people to sub, since their are caps and it doesn't make sense to sub with caps, you could give a discount on cosmetic that isn't shattering, and since it is purely cosmetic, it cannot be 2 win anything....Unless you have some fashion off with someone else.
DCU and a few of Sonys other games have options that are a lot like this...well in some ways. I know in dcu when you sub you get everything the game has but the cosmetic stuff. Once you've paid your $15 you really don't even need to look at the cash shop.
I really like that system and wish more devs would use it but, you can't really farm a whale like that. It's too honest I guess
Or to simplify it even farther I've seen people calling these games cash shop games. It's accurate and doesn't mislead anyone.
It is not accurate. You will confuse games like Marvel Heroes (which is free for a portion of the game) with GW2 which has no free portion.
Heck, even WoW is going to have a cash shop. Are you saying WOW is going to be the same business model as Maple Story?
Since we're talking about free to play and none of those examples are free to play games..... Wow can be played for free but you're the only person I've ever seen that's tried to confuse that with a f2p game. So I guess I can see why you're trying it here too. If we ever did end this topic with names that everyone understood you wouldn't have a platform to troll people with you're I never spend money posts from. So i guess you are a little biased when it comes to these names.
Marvel Hero is F2P.
But don't blame me for your own logic. Your own logic conclude that WoW is a "cash shop game" (when its roll out its cash shop) and the same as "these game" you mentioned.
Or to simplify it even farther I've seen people calling these games cash shop games. It's accurate and doesn't mislead anyone.
It is not accurate. You will confuse games like Marvel Heroes (which is free for a portion of the game) with GW2 which has no free portion.
Heck, even WoW is going to have a cash shop. Are you saying WOW is going to be the same business model as Maple Story?
Since we're talking about free to play and none of those examples are free to play games..... Wow can be played for free but you're the only person I've ever seen that's tried to confuse that with a f2p game. So I guess I can see why you're trying it here too. If we ever did end this topic with names that everyone understood you wouldn't have a platform to troll people with you're I never spend money posts from. So i guess you are a little biased when it comes to these names.
Marvel Hero is F2P.
But don't blame me for your own logic. Your own logic conclude that WoW is a "cash shop game" (when its roll out its cash shop) and the same as "these game" you mentioned.
What logic.... marvel heroes is the only game you listed that fits into what we're talking about
( comparing it to gw2 was the example, not just the game ) There's little confusion about what a b2p or p2p game is. So. we're talking about free to play games, not all mmos. If people want to confuse the issue by trying to attach a f2p name to a p2p game then they're just trying to confuse it on purpose.
For the record f2p isn't going anywhere. No matter what anyone suggests, no matter how well it fits, it wont change.
I agree OP about the naming discrepancy, "Free" has always been used to get people's attention and promote rather than really giving something of value away.
In relation to MMOs, sure, some people can play many titles without paying anything but if everyone did that the doors would close. In sliding scale relation those models that don't bring in as much money by having "great" models don't get as much attention due to, well, how much money there is.
At the head of every company, regardless of model, is someone who's job it is to make sure the lights stay on. Nothing that has a cost is free for long. Again this does not apply to one player specifically but the games population overall. The "beauty" of F2P is that the ones that would have subbed are now paying more so others can play for free. If the F2P model is good it makes sure there is a noticeable difference between the two.
It's not overstating what's happening. The player can either pay the developer to continue progression, or leave the game. The player, unless they pay the developer, will be stopped in one zone indefinitely.
Sure. So leave the game. What is the big deal? There are plenty of other games, and entertainment. That is the beauty of competition.
If a f2p game stop the players too early, they may not catch any whales, and so one I always choose f2p games that give out a sizable free portion, and enjoy that.
They should be labeled Pay to Win because I haven't played a single F2P MMO which does not give you some advantage from buying stuff in the cash shop. Some are obvious about it, such as STO, where every powerful ship can be bought in the shop and some are less obvious about it like games such as Eve, which even has a sub and is technically P2P, but where every single thing in the game can be in-directly, and legally, bought by real cash. Including high level/skill characters!
Originally posted by Yamota They should be labeled Pay to Win because I haven't played a single F2P MMO which does not give you some advantage from buying stuff in the cash shop. Some are obvious about it, such as STO, where every powerful ship can be bought in the shop and some are less obvious about it like games such as Eve, which even has a sub and is technically P2P, but where every single thing in the game can be in-directly, and legally, bought by real cash. Including high level/skill characters!
Again, this could be said about P2P games as well. For one you're not going to have anything at all unless you continually pay out. For another, those that charge for expansions gate the nicest newest most powerful gear behind those expacs. You don't pony up, you get left behind.
Some F2P games sell power items directly like in your Cryptic example. Others do not like EQ2, unless of course you consider mounts and xp pots power items, but then again some sub games sell those too.
And again, it is no where near the same thing. Everyone pays one flat fee for an expansions or sub and everyone level at the same rate and have to do the same things to get a gear, level, mount whatever. In Eve you can have 0 game hours, pay a few hundred $ for PLEX and then buy a top skilled character which otherwise takes a year to skill up.
If you cant see the difference between that and paying for an expansion, I am not sure there is much point in continuing this discussion. And yes, many sub-games are double dipping by having both a sub and a cash shop, which makes them even worse than F2P games.
There is one major difference,one standard has 100% of the players all playing and having access to the entire game,nobody is segregated from the other.
The other standard is misleading in every form fashionable.You might invest a ton of time for not much money,then realize to play the game as intended and to further advance all a sudden you have to pay a ton of money.How much that is a total secret and it can change at a moments notice.You might finally give in and spend money only to see the game introduce better options for yet more money.
Pretty simple really,the market is saturated with far too many mediocre games.They knew they could not possibly ask a sub fee and survive,so they started to look for a gimmick that could mask itself as free but in reality is not.That is why i lol when devs or players say things like "Oh they need to sell items to pay the bills".Well then why didn't they keep the sub fee?
A sub fee separates the good from the bad games and that is fact.Cash shop allows those weaker games a chance to get their foot in the door.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
There is one major difference,one standard has 100% of the players all playing and having access to the entire game,nobody is segregated from the other.
The other standard is misleading in every form fashionable.You might invest a ton of time for not much money,then realize to play the game as intended and to further advance all a sudden you have to pay a ton of money.How much that is a total secret and it can change at a moments notice.You might finally give in and spend money only to see the game introduce better options for yet more money.
Pretty simple really,the market is saturated with far too many mediocre games.They knew they could not possibly ask a sub fee and survive,so they started to look for a gimmick that could mask itself as free but in reality is not.That is why i lol when devs or players say things like "Oh they need to sell items to pay the bills".Well then why didn't they keep the sub fee?
A sub fee separates the good from the bad games and that is fact.Cash shop allows those weaker games a chance to get their foot in the door.
So I guess SOE expects EQN to be a weaker game? You're making a gross generalization about the economic model a company chooses.
What you said may have been true 10 years ago but the times have changed. There's push back against the sub model that is independent of quality and, probably, has more to do with this mini-depression we've been in for a few years.
Yes, the market is saturated with crap F2P games but not all F2P games are crap.
"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
And again, it is no where near the same thing. Everyone pays one flat fee for an expansions or sub and everyone level at the same rate and have to do the same things to get a gear, level, mount whatever. In Eve you can have 0 game hours, pay a few hundred $ for PLEX and then buy a top skilled character which otherwise takes a year to skill up.
If you cant see the difference between that and paying for an expansion, I am not sure there is much point in continuing this discussion. And yes, many sub-games are double dipping by having both a sub and a cash shop, which makes them even worse than F2P games.
Aha, but you forget that time is money.
Everyone pays the same flat fee, everyone takes the same time to level, but does everyone have the same time available to put into the game to? If you pay $15 for a month in which you play the game for 50 hours total, while I pay $15 for month in which I play the game for 20 hours total, that isn't really the same value is it? You're paying 30 cents an hour, I'm paying 75 cents an hour.
And you could say, "Well that's your fault for not playing." But I could say it's your fault for not spending as much money in the cash shop on a F2P. Maybe you don't have the financial means to pay more. But maybe I have more obligations than you do and less time to play.
Either way, the cost isn't necessarily fair for everyone in P2P either.
Played: DAoC, AC2, WoW, CoH, GW, GW2, WAR, AoC, Champions Online, Rift, Dragon Nest, Vindictus, Warframe, Neverwinter, Dungeon Fighter Online
What logic, you asked? Here is a quote, directly from your post:
"simplify it even farther I've seen people calling these games cash shop games. It's accurate and doesn't mislead anyone."
Marvel Heroes is a cash shop game.
GW2 is a cash shop game.
DDO is a cash shop game.
LOTRO is a cash shop game.
WOW will be a cash shop game.
EQN will be a cash shop game.
...
Great .. by your logic .. let's put all these games together in one category.
If you want to pull sections of a post out and miss quote it then there really is no point in even trying to continue this. You're just being your typical self and starting shit over nothing.
I've already explained we're talking about f2p games and you keep bringing up other pay models and then saying I'm trying to lump them in with it. So if you want to make shit up just argue with yourself. Lots of ppl here have alt accounts to agree with themselves, you can argue.
I'm not a big fan of subscription based games. F2P is my cup of tea, especially if you can buy things a la carte. Star Trek Online was great for me, because I had the ability to buy only Original Series uniforms and ships. The same is said for Avengers Alliance, Marvel Heroes, Super Hero Squad, and DC Universe Online. Some of these were once subscription only, some have kept subscriptions, and some do both subs and F2P. Everyone wins, except for PVP, where wallet warriors always win.
Your thread title would be right if it was, "Free To Play is not Free". "Free To Play" has a meaning, and that meaning is, "Some of the content is free, almost always the opening or 'install' content of the game. Other content in the game is not free."
My point is that calling "Free to Play" MMOs "Free to Play" is incorrect as it's an inaccurate description that just allows some players to bash it for reasons that make no sense.
What you actually just did there was repeat my point. "Free to Play" should not mean "You can play a trial of the game for free." It should mean "The game is free to play."
You just agreed with me that the F2P is not really free, there for "Free" should not be included in the description of its model unless you want to say, "Free to Try, Microtransaction to Play" or "F2T,M2P"
You can play for free so it is f2p. Keep up that crusade though.
Originally posted by Yamota They should be labeled Pay to Win because I haven't played a single F2P MMO which does not give you some advantage from buying stuff in the cash shop. Some are obvious about it, such as STO, where every powerful ship can be bought in the shop and some are less obvious about it like games such as Eve, which even has a sub and is technically P2P, but where every single thing in the game can be in-directly, and legally, bought by real cash. Including high level/skill characters!
Again, this could be said about P2P games as well. For one you're not going to have anything at all unless you continually pay out. For another, those that charge for expansions gate the nicest newest most powerful gear behind those expacs. You don't pony up, you get left behind.
Some F2P games sell power items directly like in your Cryptic example. Others do not like EQ2, unless of course you consider mounts and xp pots power items, but then again some sub games sell those too.
And again, it is no where near the same thing. Everyone pays one flat fee for an expansions...
Whoa there. Why are we working on the assumption that it's both ok and expected to pay extra for an expansion but not ok or expected for someone to pay extra for more content in another game? You don't see your double standard there, possibly because you buy expansions without question as you are used to them, despite buying an expansion being no different than buying access to additional features, new zones and the ability to level higher.
I mean, what's the difference - the difference when it comes to being pay to win, as I see that will need to be clarified here - between these two:
an extra charge for a new zone pack, a level cap increase and a new game feature
an extra charge for all of those bundled together
Other than the former lets you pick and choose what you want, as far as paying to win goes, they are both exactly the same.
You brought up buying EVE characters, but CCP isn't selling those. However, AoC subscribers get bonus levels they can freely add to any character over 40, Ultima Online sells advanced characters, quite a few other MMOs offer similar things as extras in pure sub games or as perks in games that have sub and some form of freemium or extendd trial.
An expansion meets the criteria of almost everyone here for pay to win, and there hasn't been a poster here yet that has been able to refute that.
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
F2P is a misnomer (used to its fullest marketing potential) to get you into a game and if done right, get you spending money. It really is just a trial or free preview of a game. To get everything you want out of a F2P game (which is everything with most OCD gamers) you will have to spend money. You are not playing for free, you are trying and previewing for free and then paying to get all that has been developed for that gaming experience.
Since nothing is free in life, that should not come as a surprise to anyone.
Originally posted by misterder I'm not a big fan of subscription based games. F2P is my cup of tea, especially if you can buy things a la carte. Star Trek Online was great for me, because I had the ability to buy only Original Series uniforms and ships. The same is said for Avengers Alliance, Marvel Heroes, Super Hero Squad, and DC Universe Online. Some of these were once subscription only, some have kept subscriptions, and some do both subs and F2P. Everyone wins, except for PVP, where wallet warriors always win.
Comments
It should be something like choose to pay because it is what you're doing. All these games can be played for free but you are choosing what you pay for when go to the cash shop.
Or to simplify it even farther I've seen people calling these games cash shop games. It's accurate and doesn't mislead anyone.
It is not accurate. You will confuse games like Marvel Heroes (which is free for a portion of the game) with GW2 which has no free portion.
Heck, even WoW is going to have a cash shop. Are you saying WOW is going to be the same business model as Maple Story?
I think using the word "coerce" is rather loaded and overstated, but since it's out there, I'll go with it.
Those sorts of coercive or channeling tactics and deceptive marketing practices aren't the purvue of F2P games alone.
Let's look at Blizzard's upcoming expansion. They are removing flying for a while so combat isn't trivialized. We know that's a load of marketing BS because you can insta-level to 90 and that is about as trivializing as it gets, even though it's deceptively marketed as a game enhancing feature. It extends the time it takes for players to work through content meaning players will need to retain their subscriptions longer which drives up revenue. So a deceptive marketing tactic is used to drive revenue and it's so easily and cleverly disguised. P2P (sub-locked) games do this all the time with time sinks and grinds. I'm pretty sure there are several more times sinks in that next xpac (housing) that will help to drive subscription revenue.
What is really disingenuous is that P2P proponents gloss over these sorts of practices, maybe because they been in place so very long, and highlight the money sinks in sub-free games as if this only exists in those games.
Not all P2P payment models are like this either. I think EVE is far more generous in its model than WoW is. I think with increasing competition and industry maturity, the worst systems will either evolve or die. Since money is involved it will never be as good as we hoped, but it will also not be as bad as it could be.
The bottom line is game companies want revenue. They all try and drive that revenue. Different models work for different players, just like it does in any aspect of the entertainment industry. Some people like to rent movies, some like to subscribe to a streaming/rental service, others like to buy their movies (digital or hard copy), and others (like me) do a combination of those.
It's not overstating what's happening. The player can either pay the developer to continue progression, or leave the game. The player, unless they pay the developer, will be stopped in one zone indefinitely. Of course, there's the option to continue playing the game and making no progress, but I've yet to see anyone do this. The developer is forcing the issue of paying or not. Perhaps you would prefer the term "pressuring" to "coercing"? Doesn't matter. They are synonyms. Trying to persuade a person to do something they are unwilling to do by force or threats. The force is blocking further progression in the game by increasing the time it takes to progress to an unreasonable degree. Play Requiem for awhile, and unless you pay the developer for XP potions, your progression will stop.
Compare this to STO or SWToR where the player can continue to play the game for months or a year or more without having the entire game behind a pay wall. The player is not stuck in one zone or area, unable to continue with any new game experiences. The developer is of course dangling shinies for the player to buy, but not buying them doesn't essentially stop the game play. Play either of these games for awhile, don't pay the developer and your progression in those games will not stop.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
On a topic of free 2 play and pay 2 play, which is more expensive - the sex you get for free or the sex you pay for?
The free sex.
*woosh*
Since we're talking about free to play and none of those examples are free to play games..... Wow can be played for free but you're the only person I've ever seen that's tried to confuse that with a f2p game. So I guess I can see why you're trying it here too. If we ever did end this topic with names that everyone understood you wouldn't have a platform to troll people with you're I never spend money posts from. So i guess you are a little biased when it comes to these names.
I also didn't touch on this in my post before, but a system of f2p that I would have no problem with, and I am sure some will, is one where it is f2p, with cash shop...If you pay a sub, you negate the cash shop, people without subs cannot use the cash shop to gain higher than a sub....Then people would say it is sub to win or something, but their are limits...Which is why this will probably never happen, a company generally wouldn't want to limit how much they can profit off of a individual. A compromise would be purely cosmetic, so people could spend more on cosmetic, which I have no problem with....Cosmetic means only visual, nothing else...Not a mostly cosmetic mount, but then if you spent the $100, it also has 10% more movement, it isn't game breaking, and they did spend $100....No..No...No. That is the slippery slope that got us in this mess to begin with imo.
So f2p, sub negating f2p, cash shop caps, minus cosmetic, and to entice people to sub, since their are caps and it doesn't make sense to sub with caps, you could give a discount on cosmetic that isn't shattering, and since it is purely cosmetic, it cannot be 2 win anything....Unless you have some fashion off with someone else.
DCU and a few of Sonys other games have options that are a lot like this...well in some ways. I know in dcu when you sub you get everything the game has but the cosmetic stuff. Once you've paid your $15 you really don't even need to look at the cash shop.
I really like that system and wish more devs would use it but, you can't really farm a whale like that. It's too honest I guess
Marvel Hero is F2P.
But don't blame me for your own logic. Your own logic conclude that WoW is a "cash shop game" (when its roll out its cash shop) and the same as "these game" you mentioned.
What logic.... marvel heroes is the only game you listed that fits into what we're talking about
( comparing it to gw2 was the example, not just the game ) There's little confusion about what a b2p or p2p game is. So. we're talking about free to play games, not all mmos. If people want to confuse the issue by trying to attach a f2p name to a p2p game then they're just trying to confuse it on purpose.
For the record f2p isn't going anywhere. No matter what anyone suggests, no matter how well it fits, it wont change.
In relation to MMOs, sure, some people can play many titles without paying anything but if everyone did that the doors would close. In sliding scale relation those models that don't bring in as much money by having "great" models don't get as much attention due to, well, how much money there is.
At the head of every company, regardless of model, is someone who's job it is to make sure the lights stay on. Nothing that has a cost is free for long. Again this does not apply to one player specifically but the games population overall. The "beauty" of F2P is that the ones that would have subbed are now paying more so others can play for free. If the F2P model is good it makes sure there is a noticeable difference between the two.
What logic, you asked? Here is a quote, directly from your post:
"simplify it even farther I've seen people calling these games cash shop games. It's accurate and doesn't mislead anyone."
Marvel Heroes is a cash shop game.
GW2 is a cash shop game.
DDO is a cash shop game.
LOTRO is a cash shop game.
WOW will be a cash shop game.
EQN will be a cash shop game.
...
Great .. by your logic .. let's put all these games together in one category.
Enjoyment is subjective. Quite a few F2P games like STO and Marvel Heroes are enjoyable to me.
Sure. So leave the game. What is the big deal? There are plenty of other games, and entertainment. That is the beauty of competition.
If a f2p game stop the players too early, they may not catch any whales, and so one I always choose f2p games that give out a sizable free portion, and enjoy that.
My gaming blog
And again, it is no where near the same thing. Everyone pays one flat fee for an expansions or sub and everyone level at the same rate and have to do the same things to get a gear, level, mount whatever. In Eve you can have 0 game hours, pay a few hundred $ for PLEX and then buy a top skilled character which otherwise takes a year to skill up.
If you cant see the difference between that and paying for an expansion, I am not sure there is much point in continuing this discussion. And yes, many sub-games are double dipping by having both a sub and a cash shop, which makes them even worse than F2P games.
My gaming blog
There is one major difference,one standard has 100% of the players all playing and having access to the entire game,nobody is segregated from the other.
The other standard is misleading in every form fashionable.You might invest a ton of time for not much money,then realize to play the game as intended and to further advance all a sudden you have to pay a ton of money.How much that is a total secret and it can change at a moments notice.You might finally give in and spend money only to see the game introduce better options for yet more money.
Pretty simple really,the market is saturated with far too many mediocre games.They knew they could not possibly ask a sub fee and survive,so they started to look for a gimmick that could mask itself as free but in reality is not.That is why i lol when devs or players say things like "Oh they need to sell items to pay the bills".Well then why didn't they keep the sub fee?
A sub fee separates the good from the bad games and that is fact.Cash shop allows those weaker games a chance to get their foot in the door.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
So I guess SOE expects EQN to be a weaker game? You're making a gross generalization about the economic model a company chooses.
What you said may have been true 10 years ago but the times have changed. There's push back against the sub model that is independent of quality and, probably, has more to do with this mini-depression we've been in for a few years.
Yes, the market is saturated with crap F2P games but not all F2P games are crap.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Aha, but you forget that time is money.
Everyone pays the same flat fee, everyone takes the same time to level, but does everyone have the same time available to put into the game to? If you pay $15 for a month in which you play the game for 50 hours total, while I pay $15 for month in which I play the game for 20 hours total, that isn't really the same value is it? You're paying 30 cents an hour, I'm paying 75 cents an hour.
And you could say, "Well that's your fault for not playing." But I could say it's your fault for not spending as much money in the cash shop on a F2P. Maybe you don't have the financial means to pay more. But maybe I have more obligations than you do and less time to play.
Either way, the cost isn't necessarily fair for everyone in P2P either.
Played: DAoC, AC2, WoW, CoH, GW, GW2, WAR, AoC, Champions Online, Rift, Dragon Nest, Vindictus, Warframe, Neverwinter, Dungeon Fighter Online
Currently Playing: Dungeon Fighter Online Global
Waiting for: None
If you want to pull sections of a post out and miss quote it then there really is no point in even trying to continue this. You're just being your typical self and starting shit over nothing.
I've already explained we're talking about f2p games and you keep bringing up other pay models and then saying I'm trying to lump them in with it. So if you want to make shit up just argue with yourself. Lots of ppl here have alt accounts to agree with themselves, you can argue.
You can play for free so it is f2p. Keep up that crusade though.
Whoa there. Why are we working on the assumption that it's both ok and expected to pay extra for an expansion but not ok or expected for someone to pay extra for more content in another game? You don't see your double standard there, possibly because you buy expansions without question as you are used to them, despite buying an expansion being no different than buying access to additional features, new zones and the ability to level higher.
I mean, what's the difference - the difference when it comes to being pay to win, as I see that will need to be clarified here - between these two:
Other than the former lets you pick and choose what you want, as far as paying to win goes, they are both exactly the same.
You brought up buying EVE characters, but CCP isn't selling those. However, AoC subscribers get bonus levels they can freely add to any character over 40, Ultima Online sells advanced characters, quite a few other MMOs offer similar things as extras in pure sub games or as perks in games that have sub and some form of freemium or extendd trial.
An expansion meets the criteria of almost everyone here for pay to win, and there hasn't been a poster here yet that has been able to refute that.
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
F2P is a misnomer (used to its fullest marketing potential) to get you into a game and if done right, get you spending money. It really is just a trial or free preview of a game. To get everything you want out of a F2P game (which is everything with most OCD gamers) you will have to spend money. You are not playing for free, you are trying and previewing for free and then paying to get all that has been developed for that gaming experience.
Since nothing is free in life, that should not come as a surprise to anyone.
Hello nariusseldon.