I'm sorry, but which F2P title has made a place in history as one of the games to not only welcome in new players, but hold them as they steadily grow larger?
None.
Why?
Neither of them, including the games that have gone F2P after being made off a subscription model, have been enough to hold the interest of the vast majority. And yet, World of Warcraft (which I've personally not played for a year now) can still keep you interested, if even in boughts. One thing GW2 has going for it is that it appeals to the casual folk, so you can dip in and out as you like, and they've done a good job with content considering how it's a buy once, play forever deal.
What does F2P have going for it? A quick and cheap thrill, with waning novelty. Not only is your game not regularly serviced by people on a consistent paycheck, but it's a game built (or modified) for reaching into the depth of your pockets that you never knew even existed.
My personal opinion, and I respect that everyone is different, would be as follows.
-----
PROS of F2P
(1) Being as there are so many MMOs launching under this plan, you're likely to get various genres. Everything from Steampunk, Vampires, to Anime, Dragon Riding, and Sci-Fi (you name, it really). Anything that is P2P will generally take years, and years to churn out a product (possibly) worth investing in.
(2) You can play as many as you want. When you want.
(3) They usually come out with a cool concept, mainly because they can push the game through with the idea, even if it doesn't come together solid at all. Usually this is great for any companies down the road who want to take that successful feature and make it an addition to equally successful game. (Let's not fool ourselves... some of the most successful games/and people, have ripped ideas off of others and threw them all together in a blender).
CONS of F2P
(1) Remember I said you can play as much as you want? It doesn't take very long to grow bored of the same old thing. Support may as well be non-existent, new content is underwhelming, but the game is, too. So... that kind of speaks for itself. I'm in it for the genre, but after that... I need a lot to keep me playing. What applies to P2P, applies to F2P just as much. It is a game built on the foundation of a F2P environment, or modified to encompass one.
(2) Your game is not built/or revised under the ability to find cool stuff in game. That's why there is the cash shop. If you don't like it, grab your wallet or get out.
(3) Lack of update, and lack of material. Don't like that starter zone? Want a specific race? Tired of the grind? Your feedback doesn't matter, and it's less than likely that they will revamp the game to appease you, as.. you know.. that costs a lot of money. Which, they generally tend to slap around on creating more cash shop items so they can profit double time on your contribution. Anyway, briefly said, you get what you pay for. And in this case, you need to pay in order to get your experience out of mediocre at best.
Originally posted by sketocafe I didn't see an actual argument in your post about why F2P will triumph over P2P so... no, I don't think it will.
It already does. f2p is making more money than sub-only games. There are more players playing f2p games than sub-only games. There are more f2p games than sub-only games. You get the idea.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar And it's not about the cost it is about the perceived value.
That's it. Nothing more. Is it worth the required price to you or not.
This .. it has nothing to do with houses, affordability, or anything like that.
I would gladly spend hundreds of dollars on a michelin star restaurant meal with my wife (in fact, I am going on Sat to celebrate valentine's day ... we opt to go to the day after to avoid the crowds), or $60 on a bottle of wine that i like, but i don't see a need to pay for MMOs when i can get the same, or more fun for free.
Michelin Star Restaurants and $60 bottles of wine...riiiiight.
You've big upped your lifestyle on so many occasions that the truth is becoming pretty obvious. That truth is something you're going to have to open your eyes to when you wake up tomorrow morning.
Happy Valentine's Day
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Michelin Star Restaurants and $60 bottles of wine...riiiiight.
You've big upped your lifestyle on so many occasions that the truth is becoming pretty obvious. That truth is something you're going to have to open your eyes to when you wake up tomorrow morning.
Happy Valentine's Day
Yeah .. and also $50 movie excursion with my kids ... the new robocop movie is playing.
Tomorrow, actually i have to work. Dining with the missus is for Sat evening. And what is so special about $60 wine? .. those are not even the truly expensive ones. A decent pinot noir in carneros will cost you that much.
But again ... there are plenty of stuff to spend money on .. but MMO is not one of those.
Originally posted by sketocafe I didn't see an actual argument in your post about why F2P will triumph over P2P so... no, I don't think it will.
It already does. f2p is making more money than sub-only games. There are more players playing f2p games than sub-only games. There are more f2p games than sub-only games. You get the idea.
So, the f2p model is superior, right?
Because it is more profitable, right?
Because it has more players, right?
So by that logic, I'm a little confused.
Which is the best f2p game?
Is it the one with the best profits?
Or is it the one with the most players?
Which do you play, Nari? The one which makes the most money, or the one that has the most people? Or wait....I'm forgetting the air-tight logic. You can't have one without the other - if it is the best, it is going to make the biggest profit, and if it is the best, it is going to have the highest population.
So which game is the best, utilizing your own logic?
Michelin Star Restaurants and $60 bottles of wine...riiiiight.
You've big upped your lifestyle on so many occasions that the truth is becoming pretty obvious. That truth is something you're going to have to open your eyes to when you wake up tomorrow morning.
Happy Valentine's Day
Yeah .. and also $50 movie excursion with my kids ... the new robocop movie is playing.
Tomorrow, actually i have to work. Dining with the missus is for Sat evening. And what is so special about $60 wine? .. those are not even the truly expensive ones. A decent pinot noir in carneros will cost you that much.
But again ... there are plenty of stuff to spend money on .. but MMO is not one of those.
Ok, wait. Now I'm confused again. The best mmo's are the one's which make the most money, which are f2p. And you recommend them, because you don't have to give them money.....yet the reason is that they are good is because people do.
Bah.....forget it.....I'm starting to think that you haven't really thought this through.......
Originally posted by sketocafe I didn't see an actual argument in your post about why F2P will triumph over P2P so... no, I don't think it will.
It already does. f2p is making more money than sub-only games. There are more players playing f2p games than sub-only games. There are more f2p games than sub-only games. You get the idea.
So, the f2p model is superior, right?
Because it is more profitable, right?
Because it has more players, right?
So by that logic, I'm a little confused.
Which is the best f2p game?
Is it the one with the best profits?
Or is it the one with the most players?
Which do you play, Nari? The one which makes the most money, or the one that has the most people? Or wait....I'm forgetting the air-tight logic. You can't have one without the other - if it is the best, it is going to make the biggest profit, and if it is the best, it is going to have the highest population.
So which game is the best, utilizing your own logic?
_________________
Ummm...yeah, he raises a good point.
Which f2p game out there is the most "successful " ???...I would like to know.....
Michelin Star Restaurants and $60 bottles of wine...riiiiight.
You've big upped your lifestyle on so many occasions that the truth is becoming pretty obvious. That truth is something you're going to have to open your eyes to when you wake up tomorrow morning.
Happy Valentine's Day
Yeah .. and also $50 movie excursion with my kids ... the new robocop movie is playing.
Tomorrow, actually i have to work. Dining with the missus is for Sat evening. And what is so special about $60 wine? .. those are not even the truly expensive ones. A decent pinot noir in carneros will cost you that much.
But again ... there are plenty of stuff to spend money on .. but MMO is not one of those.
Ok, wait. Now I'm confused again. The best mmo's are the one's which make the most money, which are f2p. And you recommend them, because you don't have to give them money.....yet the reason is that they are good is because people do.
Bah.....forget it.....I'm starting to think that you haven't really thought this through.......
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 .
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.
The flaw in your argument is that you are thinking of what is best for you, the player. That rarely translates into what is best for the company. Many times what players want would ruin the game and kill it.
You just want F2P games to play around with, and that's fine. Go play them. Wait the P2P games to fail and go F2P/B2P.
Pay the money if you can and want to, otherwise don't. It's not a complicated issue.
Lastly, did you really think that any devs would read this, much less change their minds? First you need their attention, second you need to work on spelling and grammar, or write in your native language.
Originally posted by sketocafe I didn't see an actual argument in your post about why F2P will triumph over P2P so... no, I don't think it will.
It already does. f2p is making more money than sub-only games. There are more players playing f2p games than sub-only games. There are more f2p games than sub-only games. You get the idea.
So, the f2p model is superior, right?
Because it is more profitable, right?
Because it has more players, right?
So by that logic, I'm a little confused.
Which is the best f2p game?
Is it the one with the best profits?
Or is it the one with the most players?
Which do you play, Nari? The one which makes the most money, or the one that has the most people? Or wait....I'm forgetting the air-tight logic. You can't have one without the other - if it is the best, it is going to make the biggest profit, and if it is the best, it is going to have the highest population.
So which game is the best, utilizing your own logic?
_________________
Using his logic. Lol for north america is the best f2p game.It has a massive population and makes massive amount of profit. I don't see the flaw in his argument ?
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 .
How many F2P games have you actually played, because it sounds like your just citing what others have reported. There is probably 2 great f2p MMO'S in every 10-15 f2p releases sure. But how many p2p releases are there for every great p2p game ? and the people who try p2p duds like SWTOR burn good money on bad product in the process then the game goes to an attrocious f2p model to boot.....
F2P games aren't crap because they are free to play any more than b2p games are good just because you threw money at them.
With P2P games they have some form maintaining servers as well due to the subs while F2P opens the floodgates to all. Often F2P have lower system requirements as they appeal to gamers with lower incomes so typically younger gamers than the P2P crowd. They also have more game updates and patches and may come from a company that has more money to support their game long term. Some P2P games that go F2P still have the option to sub and many people continue to do so as long as the perceived benefits outweight the extra costs (longer gaming periods) F2P also feel to have a lower quality of gaming though it may not be true it is seen this way not because of the game itself but the gamers within. Yeah I know my name is freegames as I play alot of indie games some free and some paid. I have also tried out at least 50 mmos in the past 5 years and at most 5 P2P games and slightly over 45 F2P games.
The examples you mention Guild Wars 2 and the Secret World are both games that are unique in themselves.
In certain markets P2P may be superior, but depending on the game going F2P may be better in the long term. It all depends on the game and whether it is worth playing for whatever kind of gamer they are interested in attracting to their game. There are plenty of good games in both catergories, but consider who plays those games and each person may have a different answer.
I've played so many F2P MMOs out there that in the end fell short of content. GW2 was the last straw for me. I thought F2P games would be the future myself. I think what it comes down to is the majority willing to pay monthly. I want P2P because I can afford it and I want quality in my games. For those who can't pay there is no shame in going to F2P game but don't expect equal quality in content.
If the F2P are the future then this future is without me. I am currently giving Tera Rising a whirl and sometimes i wonder why nobody gives a shit how they moderate their games.
The global chat is one the worst i have seen, people openly stating that they are pedophiles and that there is nothing wrong with that <-- i kid you not (this was a discussion yesterday), people may make fun of the WoW community but in fact the WoW community seems like kittens compared to some of the F2P games.
Most people don't give a fuck in F2P games, if they get banned all they need to do is a new account, all they have lost is time.
F2P is winning because it's more lucrative then P2P for allot of company's, it has nothing to do with being the better games.
That is why for every 1 well created Pay to Play game, there are 1000 crappy F2P games created while another 1000 crappy F2P games die on the same day.
The possibility of the universe collapsing into a singularity is higher than the birth of a perfect MMORPG.
That is why for every 1 well created Pay to Play game, there are 1000 crappy F2P games created while another 1000 crappy F2P games die on the same day.
No ... it is more like sub-only games are seldom produced anymore, and for any sub-only game, it is easy to find a f2p game which is as much, or more fun, for free.
I remember this same aurguement in relation to email providers... everyone was complaining about how terrible free email was, and that it wasnt the future, because anyone that wanted quality would pay for email. We can all see how that went (for the same reasons).
Originally posted by Superman0X I remember this same aurguement in relation to email providers... everyone was complaining about how terrible free email was, and that it wasnt the future, because anyone that wanted quality would pay for email. We can all see how that went (for the same reasons).
I wonder how many people who call f2p players freeloaders use gmail or hotmail.
Originally posted by Superman0X I remember this same aurguement in relation to email providers... everyone was complaining about how terrible free email was, and that it wasnt the future, because anyone that wanted quality would pay for email. We can all see how that went (for the same reasons).
I wonder how many people who call f2p players freeloaders use gmail or hotmail.
Bad analogy. Most complaints about F2P games are about the cash shops that come with them. There's nothing similar with free email.
I don't think most people would have a problem with ad supported games but they don't exist, at least on the level of MMOs, because MMOs are way too expensive.
It's not the cash shops thats the problem with F2P MMO's. It's what they are selling in them. Cash shops are the best thing that happened to this genre since they give power to the player to make his choices on what and how he wants to spend his $, which can cost you more than a B2P+P2P forced upon the player.
What's better, spending $10 every 3-5 months for new DLC/content and playing the game with less character slots, less inventory, less credits/gold limit, less customer support, longer server queue, etc or paying $15 every month?
I already stated in previous posts why the B2P model is unhealthy and risky to many including me. Look what happened to Guild Wars 2 and The Secret World. They both were asking $60 from me and today they've both received $0. Sure year+ from launch I've seen some promos, but I end up spending $0. So they end up losing more $ from potential players like me by asking $60 on launch.
Comments
I'm sorry, but which F2P title has made a place in history as one of the games to not only welcome in new players, but hold them as they steadily grow larger?
None.
Why?
Neither of them, including the games that have gone F2P after being made off a subscription model, have been enough to hold the interest of the vast majority. And yet, World of Warcraft (which I've personally not played for a year now) can still keep you interested, if even in boughts. One thing GW2 has going for it is that it appeals to the casual folk, so you can dip in and out as you like, and they've done a good job with content considering how it's a buy once, play forever deal.
What does F2P have going for it? A quick and cheap thrill, with waning novelty. Not only is your game not regularly serviced by people on a consistent paycheck, but it's a game built (or modified) for reaching into the depth of your pockets that you never knew even existed.
My personal opinion, and I respect that everyone is different, would be as follows.
-----
PROS of F2P
(1) Being as there are so many MMOs launching under this plan, you're likely to get various genres. Everything from Steampunk, Vampires, to Anime, Dragon Riding, and Sci-Fi (you name, it really). Anything that is P2P will generally take years, and years to churn out a product (possibly) worth investing in.
(2) You can play as many as you want. When you want.
(3) They usually come out with a cool concept, mainly because they can push the game through with the idea, even if it doesn't come together solid at all. Usually this is great for any companies down the road who want to take that successful feature and make it an addition to equally successful game. (Let's not fool ourselves... some of the most successful games/and people, have ripped ideas off of others and threw them all together in a blender).
CONS of F2P
(1) Remember I said you can play as much as you want? It doesn't take very long to grow bored of the same old thing. Support may as well be non-existent, new content is underwhelming, but the game is, too. So... that kind of speaks for itself. I'm in it for the genre, but after that... I need a lot to keep me playing. What applies to P2P, applies to F2P just as much. It is a game built on the foundation of a F2P environment, or modified to encompass one.
(2) Your game is not built/or revised under the ability to find cool stuff in game. That's why there is the cash shop. If you don't like it, grab your wallet or get out.
(3) Lack of update, and lack of material. Don't like that starter zone? Want a specific race? Tired of the grind? Your feedback doesn't matter, and it's less than likely that they will revamp the game to appease you, as.. you know.. that costs a lot of money. Which, they generally tend to slap around on creating more cash shop items so they can profit double time on your contribution. Anyway, briefly said, you get what you pay for. And in this case, you need to pay in order to get your experience out of mediocre at best.
It already does. f2p is making more money than sub-only games. There are more players playing f2p games than sub-only games. There are more f2p games than sub-only games. You get the idea.
You've big upped your lifestyle on so many occasions that the truth is becoming pretty obvious. That truth is something you're going to have to open your eyes to when you wake up tomorrow morning.
Happy Valentine's Day
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Yeah .. and also $50 movie excursion with my kids ... the new robocop movie is playing.
Tomorrow, actually i have to work. Dining with the missus is for Sat evening. And what is so special about $60 wine? .. those are not even the truly expensive ones. A decent pinot noir in carneros will cost you that much.
But again ... there are plenty of stuff to spend money on .. but MMO is not one of those.
So, the f2p model is superior, right?
Because it is more profitable, right?
Because it has more players, right?
So by that logic, I'm a little confused.
Which is the best f2p game?
Is it the one with the best profits?
Or is it the one with the most players?
Which do you play, Nari? The one which makes the most money, or the one that has the most people? Or wait....I'm forgetting the air-tight logic. You can't have one without the other - if it is the best, it is going to make the biggest profit, and if it is the best, it is going to have the highest population.
So which game is the best, utilizing your own logic?
_________________
Ok, wait. Now I'm confused again. The best mmo's are the one's which make the most money, which are f2p. And you recommend them, because you don't have to give them money.....yet the reason is that they are good is because people do.
Bah.....forget it.....I'm starting to think that you haven't really thought this through.......
Ummm...yeah, he raises a good point.
Which f2p game out there is the most "successful " ???...I would like to know.....
heh..plus 1 ...Zorgo.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
The flaw in your argument is that you are thinking of what is best for you, the player. That rarely translates into what is best for the company. Many times what players want would ruin the game and kill it.
You just want F2P games to play around with, and that's fine. Go play them. Wait the P2P games to fail and go F2P/B2P.
Pay the money if you can and want to, otherwise don't. It's not a complicated issue.
Lastly, did you really think that any devs would read this, much less change their minds? First you need their attention, second you need to work on spelling and grammar, or write in your native language.
Using his logic. Lol for north america is the best f2p game.It has a massive population and makes massive amount of profit. I don't see the flaw in his argument ?
Main Game: Eldevin (Plat0nic)
2nd Game: Path of Exile (Platonic Hate)
F2P is the future. That doesn't mean it isn't garbage.
How many F2P games have you actually played, because it sounds like your just citing what others have reported. There is probably 2 great f2p MMO'S in every 10-15 f2p releases sure. But how many p2p releases are there for every great p2p game ? and the people who try p2p duds like SWTOR burn good money on bad product in the process then the game goes to an attrocious f2p model to boot.....F2P games aren't crap because they are free to play any more than b2p games are good just because you threw money at them.
The examples you mention Guild Wars 2 and the Secret World are both games that are unique in themselves.
In certain markets P2P may be superior, but depending on the game going F2P may be better in the long term. It all depends on the game and whether it is worth playing for whatever kind of gamer they are interested in attracting to their game. There are plenty of good games in both catergories, but consider who plays those games and each person may have a different answer.
If the F2P are the future then this future is without me. I am currently giving Tera Rising a whirl and sometimes i wonder why nobody gives a shit how they moderate their games.
The global chat is one the worst i have seen, people openly stating that they are pedophiles and that there is nothing wrong with that <-- i kid you not (this was a discussion yesterday), people may make fun of the WoW community but in fact the WoW community seems like kittens compared to some of the F2P games.
Most people don't give a fuck in F2P games, if they get banned all they need to do is a new account, all they have lost is time.
F2P is winning because it's more lucrative then P2P for allot of company's, it has nothing to do with being the better games.
That is why for every 1 well created Pay to Play game, there are 1000 crappy F2P games created while another 1000 crappy F2P games die on the same day.
The possibility of the universe collapsing into a singularity is higher than the birth of a perfect MMORPG.
No ... it is more like sub-only games are seldom produced anymore, and for any sub-only game, it is easy to find a f2p game which is as much, or more fun, for free.
I wonder how many people who call f2p players freeloaders use gmail or hotmail.
Bad analogy. Most complaints about F2P games are about the cash shops that come with them. There's nothing similar with free email.
I don't think most people would have a problem with ad supported games but they don't exist, at least on the level of MMOs, because MMOs are way too expensive.
It's not the cash shops thats the problem with F2P MMO's. It's what they are selling in them. Cash shops are the best thing that happened to this genre since they give power to the player to make his choices on what and how he wants to spend his $, which can cost you more than a B2P+P2P forced upon the player.
What's better, spending $10 every 3-5 months for new DLC/content and playing the game with less character slots, less inventory, less credits/gold limit, less customer support, longer server queue, etc or paying $15 every month?
I already stated in previous posts why the B2P model is unhealthy and risky to many including me. Look what happened to Guild Wars 2 and The Secret World. They both were asking $60 from me and today they've both received $0. Sure year+ from launch I've seen some promos, but I end up spending $0. So they end up losing more $ from potential players like me by asking $60 on launch.