Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
To all who argue that P2P => F2P...
Kopogero
Member UncommonPosts: 1,685
F2P is the future. It is why we've seen increased F2P over P2P MMO's and other type of games over the last years. Of course what type of F2P system is in place is the most important aspect of the game and this is where most either succeed or fail big.
Wouldn't you want to be in charge of spending your $ or be slapped with monthly and expansion fees? Example...
Typical P2P game charges $60 for game itself + 30 days free and afterwards additional $15 monthly with $40 expansion fee every 1.5-2 years.If the F2P didn't grow in popularity I would never try and enjoy a lot of online games out there, A LOT and to any skeptic that the P2P is still best, ask yourself if you are in the same boat or not.
Look at the Elder Scroll Online and Wildstar latest examples. They are launching as P2P, but I won't get inolved in them on start because I have no idea in what I'm involving myself since the NDA has existed for too long and I haven't tested the product. Heck, even B2P games like Guild Wars 2 and The Secret World would took some $ of me if I knew in what I'm involving myself to buy the products.
Todays games require a lot of space as well and not all got unlimited bandwidth usage with their ISP. It doesn't worth for me to download 20 gigs for 2-3 days of gameplay. So yea, those who attempt to go with the P2P model on start will in fact be the ones with the best chance of going F2P in future since they are the ones who fail to attract big audience on the launch of the game.
SOE is one of the savvy and smarter companies out there who realize this, which is why they going with the F2P model for Everquest Next. My ideal F2P model would be the one where it charges me $ for content and nothing else. It will be up to me at the end if that content justifies the asking price. In my opinion what they need to do is give that 30 days of free time to any new account and then the player is welcome to decide if they willing to pay $30-60 for the game and continue playing it as a free game until something new is provided that justifies the fee.
The cash shop can be damaging to the game only if the items sold interfere with what the game is already about. So for example if the game already has system in place for acquiring rare pets/mounts or costumes/styles such items cannot be sold. Same goes for boosts to EXP/loot drop % or whatever. Thats part of the game system and cannot be sold for $.
New content, additional character slots, increased inventory space are some of the acceptable things that can exist within a cash shop. So I gave my two cents why F2P is the future and we've seen a large increase in games going with this model. It gives the players the choice to decide with their $ and save more in the process than a static sub and box fee on the start which is unhelpful at all since we already don't know what exactly are buying.
Comments
But that's the thing. No one is forcing you to. Us the players decide with what type of community to be involved. It has nothing to do with the model of the game. The Russian/Brazillian 12 year olds would add additional revenue to the game, which would make that game better experience for you at the end.
Except yes it does.
Making a game subscription sets the bar to the point where people are required to pay a certain rate in order to play on certain servers. People without a certain income at that level (12-year-olds) or people in countries with different economic systems (Russia and Brazil) cannot play the game on those servers, and they have servers set up for their own countries with different costs.
When you place a subscription in place, it removes the ability for these people to play on the same server as me, improving my gaming experience. If it was possible for it to be F2P and still remove the terrible F2P players (just go play SWTOR, it's riddled with them), then I would be happy with F2P.
Also, the Russian / Brazillian 12-year-olds basically contribute nothing economically to the system, since they have no money to pay for it. I'd guess they're probably a drain on the system, unless it's ad-based.
You list some of your ideal scenarios, but guess what, those are not game company ideal scenarios. As long as people keep shelling out hundreds on lock boxes , enhancement chance modifiers, and of course...gear, then guess what game companies will keep selling on the cash shop?
Sorry man but there are so few f2p titles out there that are actually fair .
You do realize the younger the player is the bigger the odds of him spending more $? You forgot the mommy/daddy factor here. I remember when i was living in a 3rd world country how expensive was to buy SNES, PSX consoles. The SNES games required a fortune and I still managed to purchase 5-6 and rented the most, so your "different economy" argument is also invalid. If the company reaches out to bigger audience the bigger it can grow. Why you think Blizzard wanted China so badly despite of "their economy"?
I think you were a rich kid. The majority of these kids are not rich kids.
Blizzard wanted China because they make a fortune off their (wait for it) subscription model. If the Chinese players could play for free, they would have made a loss expanding into China.
Yes, and this is not about debate if the F2P model is fair or not. It's about if it's better ot not and you just agreed that it is if executed properly. Companies are welcome to sell whatever they want in a cash shop, but at least we can try the game for free and see exactly what they selling and choose to continue playing it or not.
And hey, the fewer the games are with "fair F2P models" better for them since they will attract bigger numbers.
No, I wasn't a rich kid, which just proves futher of my argument. If I was a "rich kid" my parents would also not migrated to a better country later on in life. The fact I've not spent any $ in the last 3 years and 1 month on any new MMO's proves that MMO's that charge fee without allowing me to test the product lose more in the long run.
Exactly my point....
And those of us who prefer P2P over F2P feel that F2P attracts an unwanted type of community. You say it has nothing to do with the model of the game, but it does. And that's one of the reasons we prefer P2P.
I wonder if they could set up a server to keep people like you off my server. I've never been a big fan of xenophobes or someone that thinks $15 a month paid as a sub, makes them better than others.
What? How is trying to stay away from freeloaders the same as a xenophobe? LOL. Victim Syndrome much?
Amen my brotha.
(lol)
Except the fact that this was 10 years ago, when the F2P model was untested and only several MMO's existed. On top WOW ripped you, me and everyone else here more because we were still younger, unexperienced and careless with our $.
WOW and EVE are also the only two great MMORPG's we've seen over the last decade so they managed to profit from that model, but guess what where is your WOW now? There is a reason why some here already stated that WOW should go F2P.
You can write 1000 words why you love F2P but the fact remains, if I log into my computer game and see a mini mall screen trying to sell me things it's bad. Period.
Keep that crap out of my games. There is no way to get rid of the nags and pop ups no matter how much money you throw at these jokers. When I log into my game all I want to see is the game that's it, end of story.
Another valid point.
Still the number one MMORPG in the west by an *enormous* margin. Nothing is even close to half of it's western player base.
Your paying for the internet so therefore you are paying to play F2P games.
I'm not sure using Sony's model is the best argument for F2P.
Not all who wander are lost...
The "unwanted" reputation is only gained because of the type of community not because of their "economic background". It is exactly why 3rd world countries need the chance and opportunity to mix with the world. There are so many languages out there, but some 3rd world countries are still unaware of the damages their doing to themself and their reputation by segragating and separating themself with purposely not willing to use the universal language.
I withnessed this not longer than a week when I was playing Aura Kingdom. I was looking for a level 5 guild for the EXP bonus and someone whispered me "Do you speak Spanish?". He clearly proved afterwards how well his English was, but would not invite me simply because I did not speak Spanish. Of course it's his own guild and choice and I have no problem with that, but its just making yourself a negative view to the public and the world.
Ok..I am not a young fella, I played UO since it's 1st year and stayed subbed for over 8 years to it. Loved every minute of it, saw it all from it's first days as a pvp/pk game to it's inclusion of pve facets. Since that time I have played many a free to play game, and yes I have to agree that having subs tends to build better communities.
As to where wow is now...last I seen it still had over a million subs.
You kinda just proved my point.
You do realise the fact your parents moved supports the theory that you were a rich kid, right?
it depends on the player
Good players with money prefer p2p
Bad players with money prefer f2p so they can buy2win to make up for there lack of skill
good and bad but poor players prefer f2p cause they cant afford a sub
The fact is if you are a good player the p2p model is still the best as it creates an all inclusive game where you spend less money per month to have everything you need where in a f2p game you end up buying a 15/month elite sub + tons of other crap its brutal if you want to be competative Id much rather p2p