I remember free web and net zero. Free internet was pretty damn nice. You need to be ale to make more and more money off of the people using the service year after year. Wonder what happened...is there still free internet. I honestly don't know. I guess dial up is free maybe?
There is no "whales" for Free Internet. That is their problem.
Really?
Or are "whales" a result of a monopoly and manipulation, something everyone else would be in court for. There should really be a mechanism in the game to ensure there is competition in prices of the items in the shop.
You don't think that would be better for consumers?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
I remember free web and net zero. Free internet was pretty damn nice. You need to be ale to make more and more money off of the people using the service year after year. Wonder what happened...is there still free internet. I honestly don't know. I guess dial up is free maybe?
There is no "whales" for Free Internet. That is their problem.
Really?
Or are "whales" a result of a monopoly and manipulation, something everyone else would be in court for. There should really be a mechanism in the game to ensure there is competition in prices of the items in the shop.
You don't think that would be better for consumers?
May be better for the whales, but certainly not better for the free players.
And what monopoly? Video game is a fiercely competitive business. Look at all the choices. Heck, i wouldn't even play a game for free if it rubs me wrong even in the slightly way. And since most players don't play, i would say freedom of choice works.
I think it would work out better for most people if they adopted the style that Puzzle Pirates did and what I believe you can do with PLEX in EvE (haven't tried that game since sometime in the first year it was around).
Make a game where a sub gets you the full game, access to everything, traditional MMO style. Make a limited free area/free level cap/free trial where you can do some but need a sub to actually get access to everything. Then let the whales buy as much currency as they want which can be used to buy subs (and if deemed necessary items in a store). Then let that currency be traded around in game for different things.
It works for so many because 1) The whales can buy everything they need in game through buying currency and trading it to other players for what it is that they need. 2) Players who don't like to pay for a game can grind out items that are needed by other players to earn currency to fund their gaming.
I'm not sure why so many companies have been resistant to this type of model and have either stuck with sub or gone all the way to f2p with store and no tradable buyable currency. This also makes it easier for people to bring their friends in by giving them enough currency to get their first month to try it out.
I think it would work out better for most people if they adopted the style that Puzzle Pirates did and what I believe you can do with PLEX in EvE (haven't tried that game since sometime in the first year it was around).
Make a game where a sub gets you the full game, access to everything, traditional MMO style. Make a limited free area/free level cap/free trial where you can do some but need a sub to actually get access to everything. Then let the whales buy as much currency as they want which can be used to buy subs (and if deemed necessary items in a store). Then let that currency be traded around in game for different things.
It works for so many because 1) The whales can buy everything they need in game through buying currency and trading it to other players for what it is that they need. 2) Players who don't like to pay for a game can grind out items that are needed by other players to earn currency to fund their gaming.
I'm not sure why so many companies have been resistant to this type of model and have either stuck with sub or gone all the way to f2p with store and no tradable buyable currency. This also makes it easier for people to bring their friends in by giving them enough currency to get their first month to try it out.
Because other models make more money? It is not as easy, in this model, for a whale to click on and buy a $500 sword on an impulse.
I think it would work out better for most people if they adopted the style that Puzzle Pirates did and what I believe you can do with PLEX in EvE (haven't tried that game since sometime in the first year it was around).
Make a game where a sub gets you the full game, access to everything, traditional MMO style. Make a limited free area/free level cap/free trial where you can do some but need a sub to actually get access to everything. Then let the whales buy as much currency as they want which can be used to buy subs (and if deemed necessary items in a store). Then let that currency be traded around in game for different things.
It works for so many because 1) The whales can buy everything they need in game through buying currency and trading it to other players for what it is that they need. 2) Players who don't like to pay for a game can grind out items that are needed by other players to earn currency to fund their gaming.
I'm not sure why so many companies have been resistant to this type of model and have either stuck with sub or gone all the way to f2p with store and no tradable buyable currency. This also makes it easier for people to bring their friends in by giving them enough currency to get their first month to try it out.
EvE does have the best pay system I've seen so far. P2P for those who prefer subs; selling timecodes or PLEX for ISK; and Tradeskilling to buy PLEX ingame with ISK. It satisfies everyone.
I remember free web and net zero. Free internet was pretty damn nice. You need to be ale to make more and more money off of the people using the service year after year. Wonder what happened...is there still free internet. I honestly don't know. I guess dial up is free maybe?
There is no "whales" for Free Internet. That is their problem.
Really?
Or are "whales" a result of a monopoly and manipulation, something everyone else would be in court for. There should really be a mechanism in the game to ensure there is competition in prices of the items in the shop.
You don't think that would be better for consumers?
May be better for the whales, but certainly not better for the free players.
And what monopoly? Video game is a fiercely competitive business. Look at all the choices. Heck, i wouldn't even play a game for free if it rubs me wrong even in the slightly way. And since most players don't play, i would say freedom of choice works.
I like using firefox as my browser. If we were stuck with Microsoft only tools..yikes.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
I remember free web and net zero. Free internet was pretty damn nice. You need to be ale to make more and more money off of the people using the service year after year. Wonder what happened...is there still free internet. I honestly don't know. I guess dial up is free maybe?
There is no "whales" for Free Internet. That is their problem.
Really?
Or are "whales" a result of a monopoly and manipulation, something everyone else would be in court for. There should really be a mechanism in the game to ensure there is competition in prices of the items in the shop.
You don't think that would be better for consumers?
May be better for the whales, but certainly not better for the free players.
And what monopoly? Video game is a fiercely competitive business. Look at all the choices. Heck, i wouldn't even play a game for free if it rubs me wrong even in the slightly way. And since most players don't play, i would say freedom of choice works.
I like using firefox as my browser. If we were stuck with Microsoft only tools..yikes.
then you will be really pleased with F2P MMOs .. there are so many that you can finish them all in a year even if you just play each one a week.
I remember free web and net zero. Free internet was pretty damn nice. You need to be ale to make more and more money off of the people using the service year after year. Wonder what happened...is there still free internet. I honestly don't know. I guess dial up is free maybe?
There is no "whales" for Free Internet. That is their problem.
Really?
Or are "whales" a result of a monopoly and manipulation, something everyone else would be in court for. There should really be a mechanism in the game to ensure there is competition in prices of the items in the shop.
You don't think that would be better for consumers?
May be better for the whales, but certainly not better for the free players.
And what monopoly? Video game is a fiercely competitive business. Look at all the choices. Heck, i wouldn't even play a game for free if it rubs me wrong even in the slightly way. And since most players don't play, i would say freedom of choice works.
I like using firefox as my browser. If we were stuck with Microsoft only tools..yikes.
then you will be really pleased with F2P MMOs .. there are so many that you can finish them all in a year even if you just play each one a week.
I like the one im playing. All I want is that item in the shop:( It's 500 dollars. It cost 3 cents to make 100000 of them.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Free players are doing a lot more than that, they are providing content for the whales. The whales want to play in a big populated world where they can show off all of the crap they buy. That's why free players are there, to provide the eyes to look at the whale's high credit limits. Without the free players, the whales would go elsewhere.
Setting aside whether your point is correct, what does it have to do with whether some free players act excessively entitled?
I think far too many people, free and sub, act absurdly entitled. I think the majority of old-school gamers around here are ridiculously entitlement-happy. You're looking at a problem that exists in society and pretending it's a function of a particular game style preference.
You apparently don't understand the premise of that video, nor the *reaction*. The very *reaction* you're showing by asking me the question.
It's not about "more you pay, the more you get". It's about if A gets something B doesn't have, there's a cry of unfairness. And it's so universal most if not all mammals apparently display that tendency (as the video said the experiment was replicated with dogs and even birds).
The *reaction* you're showing is the issue. You're the monkey on the left of the video, upset that the monkey on the right is fine with his reward. Despite the monkey on the right is doing the same task...he just gets a different reward.
Get it yet?
I see where my confusion came from. I thought you were trying to make a point relevant to the topic, not just post a video of some monkeys. We aren't talking about a situation where two different people do the same task and get different rewards. The only "doing" relevant to the topic of this thread is paying, so we are talking about one individual (the completely free player) who is "doing" absolutely nothing, and then (in the case of the "entitled" free player) complaining that he is being insufficiently rewarded for his failure to do anything.
Which brings me back to "Fairness, seriously?" - Because the actual topic of this thread has nothing to do with fairness. It would only be a fairness issue if some totally free players were being treated differently than other totally free players. How those who pay are treated isn't really relevant to the question at hand.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
I like using firefox as my browser. If we were stuck with Microsoft only tools..yikes.
And Firefox and Chrome are two free browsers. Is it somehow wrong to use them for free because that's how they're offered? That's the assertion made by people in this thread, that people who play free games are somehow leeches on society because they're playing a game the way it was designed and developed to be played.
So are Firefox users leeches on society too? Or are they just using a free product?
I like using firefox as my browser. If we were stuck with Microsoft only tools..yikes.
And Firefox and Chrome are two free browsers. Is it somehow wrong to use them for free because that's how they're offered? That's the assertion made by people in this thread, that people who play free games are somehow leeches on society because they're playing a game the way it was designed and developed to be played.
So are Firefox users leeches on society too? Or are they just using a free product?
I believe Firefox makes its money by assigning Google as main browser, and Google makes its money through advertising. This is in no way comparable to F2P games where one player effectively pays for another players free experience.
Free players are doing a lot more than that, they are providing content for the whales. The whales want to play in a big populated world where they can show off all of the crap they buy. That's why free players are there, to provide the eyes to look at the whale's high credit limits. Without the free players, the whales would go elsewhere.
Setting aside whether your point is correct, what does it have to do with whether some free players act excessively entitled?
I think far too many people, free and sub, act absurdly entitled. I think the majority of old-school gamers around here are ridiculously entitlement-happy. You're looking at a problem that exists in society and pretending it's a function of a particular game style preference.
Actually, I'm not. I never claimed that the sense of entitlement is the result of the model, though I think it would be fair to say the totally free option attracts substantially greater numbers of the type of people in society who already have an entitlement mentality than would be attracted to a game without a totally free option.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
I like using firefox as my browser. If we were stuck with Microsoft only tools..yikes.
And Firefox and Chrome are two free browsers. Is it somehow wrong to use them for free because that's how they're offered? That's the assertion made by people in this thread, that people who play free games are somehow leeches on society because they're playing a game the way it was designed and developed to be played.
So are Firefox users leeches on society too? Or are they just using a free product?
Anyone who thinks Free 2 Play games are designed and developed to be played free really doesn't understand how this market really works. F2P games make on average more than sub games per player. Every time one of these companies publishes financials this is supported. Just because a handful of people buck the trend and torture themselves by playing the game for free doesn't mean it was designed that way. Of course I don't understand someone spending all night in sub 0 weather for 50% off a TV on black Friday either but maybe that's just me.
Personally I wouldn't call it so much entitlement as mastadistic.
I like using firefox as my browser. If we were stuck with Microsoft only tools..yikes.
And Firefox and Chrome are two free browsers. Is it somehow wrong to use them for free because that's how they're offered? That's the assertion made by people in this thread, that people who play free games are somehow leeches on society because they're playing a game the way it was designed and developed to be played.
So are Firefox users leeches on society too? Or are they just using a free product?
No. There is competition. They are free...totally free, because of competition. Im not talking about the Game, Im talking of the prices in the shop.
Controlling the supply and demand is bad for customers amirite? Am I?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
I like using firefox as my browser. If we were stuck with Microsoft only tools..yikes.
And Firefox and Chrome are two free browsers. Is it somehow wrong to use them for free because that's how they're offered? That's the assertion made by people in this thread, that people who play free games are somehow leeches on society because they're playing a game the way it was designed and developed to be played.
So are Firefox users leeches on society too? Or are they just using a free product?
I believe Firefox makes its money by assigning Google as main browser, and Google makes its money through advertising. This is in no way comparable to F2P games where one player effectively pays for another players free experience.
It's very much comparable, F2P games set up free players as content for the whales. Try again.
I like using firefox as my browser. If we were stuck with Microsoft only tools..yikes.
And Firefox and Chrome are two free browsers. Is it somehow wrong to use them for free because that's how they're offered? That's the assertion made by people in this thread, that people who play free games are somehow leeches on society because they're playing a game the way it was designed and developed to be played.
So are Firefox users leeches on society too? Or are they just using a free product?
No. There is competition. They are free...totally free, because of competition. Im not talking about the Game, Im talking of the prices in the shop.
Controlling the supply and demand is bad for customers amirite? Am I?
I don't think so. They don't force anyone to buy anything out of the shop at all. Maybe we can look at this from a little different perspective. Wordpress is a popular blogging software that is totally free. You can download it and blog with absolutely no cost right now. There are all kinds of plugins though that do cost money and you have a choice whether to use them or not. Most people do not, they blog completely free of charge. Some people buy a few plugins. Some people buy a lot. It's all up to personal preference and personality. I don't think controlling supply and demand is a bad thing at all, after all, EVERY MMO does it. Want to use this super-sword? You can't touch it until you reach level X. That's controlling supply and demand.
Cash shops exist to appeal to people with severe self-control issues. I've never even been tempted to buy a single thing for real cash in a game cash-shop. I have never, in my entire life, in a P2P or F2P game, bought anything in a cash shop and I never will. I don't lack self-control. Far too many people do. That's their problem, not mine.
I like using firefox as my browser. If we were stuck with Microsoft only tools..yikes.
And Firefox and Chrome are two free browsers. Is it somehow wrong to use them for free because that's how they're offered? That's the assertion made by people in this thread, that people who play free games are somehow leeches on society because they're playing a game the way it was designed and developed to be played.
So are Firefox users leeches on society too? Or are they just using a free product?
Anyone who thinks Free 2 Play games are designed and developed to be played free really doesn't understand how this market really works. F2P games make on average more than sub games per player. Every time one of these companies publishes financials this is supported. Just because a handful of people buck the trend and torture themselves by playing the game for free doesn't mean it was designed that way. Of course I don't understand someone spending all night in sub 0 weather for 50% off a TV on black Friday either but maybe that's just me.
Personally I wouldn't call it so much entitlement as mastadistic.
The studies have already been presented, the overwhelming majority of F2P players never buy anything in the cash shop. It's a very tiny minority that spend a lot of money. It's not a handful of people, it's almost everyone. If you average out what the whales spend, yes, these games make more than $15 per player, but the majority of players aren't paying more than $15, most are paying absolutely nothing at all.
I like using firefox as my browser. If we were stuck with Microsoft only tools..yikes.
And Firefox and Chrome are two free browsers. Is it somehow wrong to use them for free because that's how they're offered? That's the assertion made by people in this thread, that people who play free games are somehow leeches on society because they're playing a game the way it was designed and developed to be played.
So are Firefox users leeches on society too? Or are they just using a free product?
I believe Firefox makes its money by assigning Google as main browser, and Google makes its money through advertising. This is in no way comparable to F2P games where one player effectively pays for another players free experience.
It's very much comparable, F2P games set up free players as content for the whales. Try again.
What? Did you just randomly string some words together and call it an argument?
I like using firefox as my browser. If we were stuck with Microsoft only tools..yikes.
And Firefox and Chrome are two free browsers. Is it somehow wrong to use them for free because that's how they're offered? That's the assertion made by people in this thread, that people who play free games are somehow leeches on society because they're playing a game the way it was designed and developed to be played.
So are Firefox users leeches on society too? Or are they just using a free product?
No. There is competition. They are free...totally free, because of competition. Im not talking about the Game, Im talking of the prices in the shop.
Controlling the supply and demand is bad for customers amirite? Am I?
I don't think so. They don't force anyone to buy anything out of the shop at all. Maybe we can look at this from a little different perspective. Wordpress is a popular blogging software that is totally free. You can download it and blog with absolutely no cost right now. There are all kinds of plugins though that do cost money and you have a choice whether to use them or not. Most people do not, they blog completely free of charge. Some people buy a few plugins. Some people buy a lot. It's all up to personal preference and personality. I don't think controlling supply and demand is a bad thing at all, after all, EVERY MMO does it. Want to use this super-sword? You can't touch it until you reach level X. That's controlling supply and demand.
Cash shops exist to appeal to people with severe self-control issues. I've never even been tempted to buy a single thing for real cash in a game cash-shop. I have never, in my entire life, in a P2P or F2P game, bought anything in a cash shop and I never will. I don't lack self-control. Far too many people do. That's their problem, not mine.
As long as their is there is another entity offering the item in the mall, it's ok at least in perception.
Obviously, they need some if not most controls, but not all. If you are coming from the angle of what's good for the consumer.
So offering player sold items as well in the shop helps...perception anyway.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
I like using firefox as my browser. If we were stuck with Microsoft only tools..yikes.
And Firefox and Chrome are two free browsers. Is it somehow wrong to use them for free because that's how they're offered? That's the assertion made by people in this thread, that people who play free games are somehow leeches on society because they're playing a game the way it was designed and developed to be played.
So are Firefox users leeches on society too? Or are they just using a free product?
Anyone who thinks Free 2 Play games are designed and developed to be played free really doesn't understand how this market really works. F2P games make on average more than sub games per player. Every time one of these companies publishes financials this is supported. Just because a handful of people buck the trend and torture themselves by playing the game for free doesn't mean it was designed that way. Of course I don't understand someone spending all night in sub 0 weather for 50% off a TV on black Friday either but maybe that's just me.
Personally I wouldn't call it so much entitlement as mastadistic.
The studies have already been presented, the overwhelming majority of F2P players never buy anything in the cash shop. It's a very tiny minority that spend a lot of money. It's not a handful of people, it's almost everyone. If you average out what the whales spend, yes, these games make more than $15 per player, but the majority of players aren't paying more than $15, most are paying absolutely nothing at all.
Do those studies categorize people by hours played? I have played a lot of F2P games for 10-40 hours and never spent a dime and really didn't feel like the cash shop affected me. However it becomes clear that to keep playing I was going to have to spend money to keep playing as I wanted at which point I could pony up some cash, change how I play the game, or just uninstall it and move on. I think if you restricted the discussion to people with more time in game you will find that very few play them free. The people who do play free on the whole don't tend to stick around long. F2P really isn't that much different than a free 7 day pass to a sub game except it's wrapped in a play for free as long as you want spin.
League of Legends has the best F2P system and I've happily spent money on unlocking new characters and a few skins. I was also super-addicted to a straight up pay-to-win model game where hardcore players will drop $800 on maxing out a character's gear without blinking an eye. I think the latter game's playerbase has a much higher self of entitlement, mainly because of the price-tags in the cash shop and the feeling of "I've spent $2,000 on this game, I deserve a say in mechanics" or whatever.
Basically, pay-to-win players think of themselves as "investors" in the product and not addicts with poor impulse control.
I keep reading threads and comments whereby F2P players feel aggrieved that they are not receiving enough free content.
In what other walk of life and with what other product would this be an acceptable stance to take? Many mmo's cost many millions to develop and that money has to be recouped somehow (and they need to turn a profit for their funders or they would not exist in the first place). Where, do you suggest, should this money be recovered from?
My view is simply this, a F2P player who makes no financial contribution to a game is in no position to complain about the free content they may or may not be receiving.
A player who pays a subscription, as with all other walks of life, should experience a discernibly improved experience over a player who pays nothing.
Now don't get me wrong, if a monetization model allows a game to sell aesthetic items only, then great. But if it does not then a free player should quit complaining and move on.
As it stands the free content received by F2P players is paid for by a few whales who use the cash shop. Free players should be thankful that there are items in the cash shop other players are prepared to buy or there would be no game and no content for them to experience at all.
They are my thoughts on the subject, what do you think?
I advertize to you "GET A FREE CAR FROM MY SHOP WHEN YOU SHOW UP, ABSOUTELY FREE NO CHARGE!" and when you show up I get you all worked up, as the moment nears I will let you sit in it -without the keys- and say: "if you want to drive it you have to pay me $50.000 first."
same thing. Would you be happy?
Well i just simply would not fall for it to begin with. Would you? Nothing is free and those who believe that companies who are in business to make money can do so by not charging for their product are simply clueless.
I will admit some companies take a shady approach when it comes to how they advertise their product but it is all of our jobs as consumers to decide who we do business with.
Pretty straight forward if you dont like a product do not buy it , after all there are a whole lot of options out there to pick from.
The so call free to play models that different game companies have taken to are nothing more than a way to get you to try their product and decide if you think it is worth giving your money to them to get access to everything they have to offer.
I like using firefox as my browser. If we were stuck with Microsoft only tools..yikes.
And Firefox and Chrome are two free browsers. Is it somehow wrong to use them for free because that's how they're offered? That's the assertion made by people in this thread, that people who play free games are somehow leeches on society because they're playing a game the way it was designed and developed to be played.
So are Firefox users leeches on society too? Or are they just using a free product?
Anyone who thinks Free 2 Play games are designed and developed to be played free really doesn't understand how this market really works. F2P games make on average more than sub games per player. Every time one of these companies publishes financials this is supported. Just because a handful of people buck the trend and torture themselves by playing the game for free doesn't mean it was designed that way. Of course I don't understand someone spending all night in sub 0 weather for 50% off a TV on black Friday either but maybe that's just me.
Personally I wouldn't call it so much entitlement as mastadistic.
The studies have already been presented, the overwhelming majority of F2P players never buy anything in the cash shop. It's a very tiny minority that spend a lot of money. It's not a handful of people, it's almost everyone. If you average out what the whales spend, yes, these games make more than $15 per player, but the majority of players aren't paying more than $15, most are paying absolutely nothing at all.
Do those studies categorize people by hours played? I have played a lot of F2P games for 10-40 hours and never spent a dime and really didn't feel like the cash shop affected me. However it becomes clear that to keep playing I was going to have to spend money to keep playing as I wanted at which point I could pony up some cash, change how I play the game, or just uninstall it and move on. I think if you restricted the discussion to people with more time in game you will find that very few play them free. The people who do play free on the whole don't tend to stick around long. F2P really isn't that much different than a free 7 day pass to a sub game except it's wrapped in a play for free as long as you want spin.
I've yet to feel the slightest interest in buying anything and if I stop having fun playing the game, I stop playing it. They offer the game for free. They set the parameters. You agree to those parameters when you sign up and play the game. If you change your mind, by all means stop playing the game and delete it. How have you been harmed by this? Because you don't get your way? Too bad! Now I have no idea how things play out based on amount of gameplay, but honestly, there are people who spend way the hell too much time playing games anyhow. These people need lives.
Comments
Really?
Or are "whales" a result of a monopoly and manipulation, something everyone else would be in court for. There should really be a mechanism in the game to ensure there is competition in prices of the items in the shop.
You don't think that would be better for consumers?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
May be better for the whales, but certainly not better for the free players.
And what monopoly? Video game is a fiercely competitive business. Look at all the choices. Heck, i wouldn't even play a game for free if it rubs me wrong even in the slightly way. And since most players don't play, i would say freedom of choice works.
I think it would work out better for most people if they adopted the style that Puzzle Pirates did and what I believe you can do with PLEX in EvE (haven't tried that game since sometime in the first year it was around).
Make a game where a sub gets you the full game, access to everything, traditional MMO style. Make a limited free area/free level cap/free trial where you can do some but need a sub to actually get access to everything. Then let the whales buy as much currency as they want which can be used to buy subs (and if deemed necessary items in a store). Then let that currency be traded around in game for different things.
It works for so many because 1) The whales can buy everything they need in game through buying currency and trading it to other players for what it is that they need. 2) Players who don't like to pay for a game can grind out items that are needed by other players to earn currency to fund their gaming.
I'm not sure why so many companies have been resistant to this type of model and have either stuck with sub or gone all the way to f2p with store and no tradable buyable currency. This also makes it easier for people to bring their friends in by giving them enough currency to get their first month to try it out.
Because other models make more money? It is not as easy, in this model, for a whale to click on and buy a $500 sword on an impulse.
EvE does have the best pay system I've seen so far. P2P for those who prefer subs; selling timecodes or PLEX for ISK; and Tradeskilling to buy PLEX ingame with ISK. It satisfies everyone.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
I like using firefox as my browser. If we were stuck with Microsoft only tools..yikes.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
then you will be really pleased with F2P MMOs .. there are so many that you can finish them all in a year even if you just play each one a week.
I like the one im playing. All I want is that item in the shop:( It's 500 dollars. It cost 3 cents to make 100000 of them.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
I think far too many people, free and sub, act absurdly entitled. I think the majority of old-school gamers around here are ridiculously entitlement-happy. You're looking at a problem that exists in society and pretending it's a function of a particular game style preference.
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
I see where my confusion came from. I thought you were trying to make a point relevant to the topic, not just post a video of some monkeys. We aren't talking about a situation where two different people do the same task and get different rewards. The only "doing" relevant to the topic of this thread is paying, so we are talking about one individual (the completely free player) who is "doing" absolutely nothing, and then (in the case of the "entitled" free player) complaining that he is being insufficiently rewarded for his failure to do anything.
Which brings me back to "Fairness, seriously?" - Because the actual topic of this thread has nothing to do with fairness. It would only be a fairness issue if some totally free players were being treated differently than other totally free players. How those who pay are treated isn't really relevant to the question at hand.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
And Firefox and Chrome are two free browsers. Is it somehow wrong to use them for free because that's how they're offered? That's the assertion made by people in this thread, that people who play free games are somehow leeches on society because they're playing a game the way it was designed and developed to be played.
So are Firefox users leeches on society too? Or are they just using a free product?
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
I believe Firefox makes its money by assigning Google as main browser, and Google makes its money through advertising. This is in no way comparable to F2P games where one player effectively pays for another players free experience.
Actually, I'm not. I never claimed that the sense of entitlement is the result of the model, though I think it would be fair to say the totally free option attracts substantially greater numbers of the type of people in society who already have an entitlement mentality than would be attracted to a game without a totally free option.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
Anyone who thinks Free 2 Play games are designed and developed to be played free really doesn't understand how this market really works. F2P games make on average more than sub games per player. Every time one of these companies publishes financials this is supported. Just because a handful of people buck the trend and torture themselves by playing the game for free doesn't mean it was designed that way. Of course I don't understand someone spending all night in sub 0 weather for 50% off a TV on black Friday either but maybe that's just me.
Personally I wouldn't call it so much entitlement as mastadistic.
No. There is competition. They are free...totally free, because of competition. Im not talking about the Game, Im talking of the prices in the shop.
Controlling the supply and demand is bad for customers amirite? Am I?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
It's very much comparable, F2P games set up free players as content for the whales. Try again.
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
I don't think so. They don't force anyone to buy anything out of the shop at all. Maybe we can look at this from a little different perspective. Wordpress is a popular blogging software that is totally free. You can download it and blog with absolutely no cost right now. There are all kinds of plugins though that do cost money and you have a choice whether to use them or not. Most people do not, they blog completely free of charge. Some people buy a few plugins. Some people buy a lot. It's all up to personal preference and personality. I don't think controlling supply and demand is a bad thing at all, after all, EVERY MMO does it. Want to use this super-sword? You can't touch it until you reach level X. That's controlling supply and demand.
Cash shops exist to appeal to people with severe self-control issues. I've never even been tempted to buy a single thing for real cash in a game cash-shop. I have never, in my entire life, in a P2P or F2P game, bought anything in a cash shop and I never will. I don't lack self-control. Far too many people do. That's their problem, not mine.
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
The studies have already been presented, the overwhelming majority of F2P players never buy anything in the cash shop. It's a very tiny minority that spend a lot of money. It's not a handful of people, it's almost everyone. If you average out what the whales spend, yes, these games make more than $15 per player, but the majority of players aren't paying more than $15, most are paying absolutely nothing at all.
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
What? Did you just randomly string some words together and call it an argument?
As long as their is there is another entity offering the item in the mall, it's ok at least in perception.
Obviously, they need some if not most controls, but not all. If you are coming from the angle of what's good for the consumer.
So offering player sold items as well in the shop helps...perception anyway.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Do those studies categorize people by hours played? I have played a lot of F2P games for 10-40 hours and never spent a dime and really didn't feel like the cash shop affected me. However it becomes clear that to keep playing I was going to have to spend money to keep playing as I wanted at which point I could pony up some cash, change how I play the game, or just uninstall it and move on. I think if you restricted the discussion to people with more time in game you will find that very few play them free. The people who do play free on the whole don't tend to stick around long. F2P really isn't that much different than a free 7 day pass to a sub game except it's wrapped in a play for free as long as you want spin.
League of Legends has the best F2P system and I've happily spent money on unlocking new characters and a few skins. I was also super-addicted to a straight up pay-to-win model game where hardcore players will drop $800 on maxing out a character's gear without blinking an eye. I think the latter game's playerbase has a much higher self of entitlement, mainly because of the price-tags in the cash shop and the feeling of "I've spent $2,000 on this game, I deserve a say in mechanics" or whatever.
Basically, pay-to-win players think of themselves as "investors" in the product and not addicts with poor impulse control.
Currently playing: Eldevin Online as a Deadly Assassin
Its crazy that some demanding and entitled f2p players are also so lazzzyyy.
crying to death on this forum, whining about lack of addl quickbars and other limitations.- its cheaply unlockable using ingame-currency.
and these type of players are the noisiest too.
so yes, there is a UBER sense of entitlement going on.
I've yet to feel the slightest interest in buying anything and if I stop having fun playing the game, I stop playing it. They offer the game for free. They set the parameters. You agree to those parameters when you sign up and play the game. If you change your mind, by all means stop playing the game and delete it. How have you been harmed by this? Because you don't get your way? Too bad! Now I have no idea how things play out based on amount of gameplay, but honestly, there are people who spend way the hell too much time playing games anyhow. These people need lives.
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