Originally posted by daltanious Nothing to wonder. There will be always more people consuming various junk foods then those, that stay in high class, quality restaurants.
Which would be a more useful analogy if the MMO space had ever seen a high class, quality restaurant. About the highest quality level MMOs have ever achieved is the Cheesecake Factory, no five star restaurants here.
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.
The only relevant numbers are those paying for F2P games. That number is either in the hundreds or few thousand. Those 10’s of millions are free gamers, who are not paying for their game time and are engaged in theft of service. Once again the free gamer number is irrelevant. Once they start paying, their opinions will matter and their number will be tallied. Until then, they should remain unrecognized.
I hear all this F2P supports transient gamers. You know what else supports transient gaming? Paying by the hour.
Pardon any spelling errors
Konfess your cyns and some maybe forgiven Boy: Why can't I talk to Him? Mom: We don't talk to Priests. As if it could exist, without being payed for. F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing. Even telemarketers wouldn't think that. It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
Ah ha! This is the thread where I'm going to respond to a couple of people and not quote anything. I got lost in all the threads that seem to have similar topics.
@Caz_Nerg - "Objective Truth" is kind of a misnomer. That's just another way of saying "Fact". However, when talking about beliefs or judgements, we can use the word "Truth". So, is X "good" as an objective fact? No, that doesn't make sense. Do a certain number of the people who are likely to want X think it's a "good" thing? That's a fact. Is that enough "good" votes to consider the thing a "good" thing? That's a fact too. Another fact would be the probability that people who might want X will think it's a "good" thing before they get it. But it's not a fact that X is a "good" thing. It's just a belief or maybe a truth because truths can be based on belief and subjective judgements. I don't think the word "Truth" really applies here either though. We're not really talking about belief systems, so it seems weird to use the word "Truth" to me. We can just say that X is "good" because a significant number of the people likely to want X or something like X consider it a "good" thing.
@Geezer_Gamer - yes, it is relative. Using the NewEgg analogy, a CPU, if it's good will get a thousand or more reviews. You would never expect a sound card or a case to get so many reviews, so two hundred good reviews for a case is enough to think the case is "good", while two hundred reviews for a CPU may not be enough.
That's what you get when you're talking about subjective judgements though. A relative, probablistic chance that the next person to get something will think it's good.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Title sums it up really, book explains why. If everyone read and understood this book then just about every forum on the internet would have tumble weed rolling across it.
first of all i like to thank you, richard, for your regular column. i do not often agree with your thoughts, but i like reading them open minded.
"can so many f2p gamers really be wrong?"
1) there aren't much alternatives. 90% of the client, browser or mobile based online games on the market are offered under the assumption that its f2p. and the term 'f2p' is a marketing bullshit word. all 'f2p' games only have two things in common: a) its free to download and/or to play, no initial retail buy of the game and b) there is a cashshop. and thats it.
2) we need more numbers. it would be nice to know how many active (!) players of all the freemium games out there like f.e. sw:tor, lotro or dcuo are premium members and paying a monthly fee and how many active players only using the cashshop. in case of the freemium division of f2p games the "f2p" is nothing more like a unlimited trial time without buying a retail version but the goal of the publisher is to get as many players as possible to sign up for premium accounts. and all these premium account users are in fact p2p customers.
3) the majority of people is in 99 of 100 cases wrong. they do whatever they get suggested by the media and thats, as sad as it is, a scientific fact. is f2p right or wrong? we can't generalize the term 'f2p', too many different models of 'f2p' are out there. some are really fair others are from a moral point of view nothing more than fraud.
Also F2P? What are you definitions here. How many people stick? How many use the cash shop.
Simple economics say that no developer is going to produce a game, add content, patches and pay server upkeep and mod/admins unless there is money coming in from somewhere.
Cosmetic stuff and bag space will only take you so far (In most games I couldn't care-less about cosmetics if the gameplay is good) Free with great gameplay? Or pay for same game with main character wearing a different coloured hat? To me that's a no brainer. I'll take straight forward "free" 100% of the time and my credit card stays in my wallet.
Pay to win? Cash shops? Levelling bonus? Fast travel? Unlocking character types? whatever.
That's not free, that's just "not paying up front".
The only f2p games I will play are on my phone... if a game goes f2p that I was playing and does not have an option to have full access to everything via a sub... I will not play it anymore.
( Speaking in terms of MMO's here )
I think 2 things have lead to the f2p phenomenon.
1. Cell phones / mobile games - have gotten a lot more people playing games in general than ever before and created a lot more options for people to play.
2. New Generation... goes hand in hand with #1 but gamer's these days are quick to jump ship and we really do have a generation of instant gratification players swarming the market. Everything thing in our society is becoming I want it now, have to have it now.. now .. now .. now...
The gaming companies are in it to make money and they are simply capitalizing on the situation that has presented itself...
I for one think that the sub model is the most cost effective model for players ( most are just to stupid to realize it )
Sub model = $0.50 per day for all access ... what else are you going to be able to get hours of entertainment out of for that price?
f2p = who the hell knows but it is a lot more than that i am sure... companies will make sure of that with content and QoL items being gated behind the cash shop.... impulse buyers anyone? Whales? .... yeah that sub model is looking better and better after you balance your checkbook.
So in the end I think it boils down to new technology bringing masses of new gamer's in from a new instant gratification generation and just a mass stupidity from the general gaming public.
F2P games are doing amazing really and for people like me with plenty of time for gaming, gives us an oppertunity to try various games without commiting to 15 bucks a month.
I see F2P games as not all being bad but at the same time none of them are great. ESO is an example of a new sub based game that I believe will have a following and a pretty large one as it grows. WOW didn't have 10 million subs when it came out it mostly built it's subs off word of mouth from the gamers here and other sites, plus it was a great game, before CAT . We are also seeing other sub based games coming out, EQ Next, Wildstar, they are not following the F2P model and I can see those two as being good games as well.
Now you will have thousands trying to guess when each of these will go F2P in the hopes they can play and not pay and support these companies, which to me is just silly. The free loaders will have their say and they will miss out on some good games too.
Originally posted by Zephlos I am shocked at the amount of [mod edit] going on here...almost feels like the whole article was intended to troll us
I am (continually) shocked by how much hate gets spewn over the forums by those with an Anti- F2P agenda. It seems that the idea that people can play a game without first having to put up some money, is offensive to some at a very basic level. They are further appalled that many people actually enjoy these F2P games, and seek to demean them for this (percieved offence).
I will admit that I am personally more a fan of the old school F2P (Maple Story, Runescape, etc) vs the more modern iterations (League of Legends, Mobile, etc). However, I am also perfectly happy with some of the F2P Hybrids that offer multiple options (EQ2, Planeside, etc).
In the battle of F2P vs P2P, F2P is currently in the lead (in mmo online gaming). When there was little competition, F2P was clearly dominant, and had huge advantages. Now that competition is heavy, and cost for aquisition is high, F2P has huge advantages. Unless something changes, and either reduces the competition, or another avenue for player aquisition appears (as did with facebook games), F2P will maintain its advantage over P2P.
I am very much a fan of P2P done right. However, in todays market, that is very hard to do. This is not likely to change in the future.
Originally posted by CazNeerg What Gdemami appeared to be arguing was that objective truth could be determined by subjective popularity. That if X number of people happen to believe that something is good, then it becomes an objective fact that that thing is good. This theory is not logical.
Seems like it is you who needs some classes in formal logic...
As far as your comment about Alibaba goes there is another twist in the current market as well - namely the launch of GW2 ..... as a B2P game. The significance being that most games launched in "eastern markets" are free-to-buy with either a cash shop or some form of sub / game card.
I want buy to play games, but I play free to play games all the time because no one goes buy to play, and I hate subscription fees...
Even if you took out subscription fees, the money I paid on EQ1 's 14 expansions x $40 is still a lot... So, why can't games just sell DLC and expansions instead?
If I get into Rift and actually play more I'd gladly buy expansions for it, or Tera, or Wildstar/TESO, but what stops me from getting into games like FF14ARR, is the subscription fee itself.
There will be no expansions for FF14ARR in my house, because with the subscription fee I can't even log in when I want to... My CE box sits here unopened, because I hate subscription fees.
Just go buy to play and give us access to what we paid for, that is why I have a Star Trek Online and Lord of the Rings Online Lifetime access with a monthly stipend of ZEN/Turbine Points... If all games had Lifetime Access, I'd buy it...
Although we players are providing groups and healer/tanks for your dungeon/raids and you should all be grateful of that.
Why complain? Isn't a bigger population better for a game's overall health? Some free to play people that hate subscriptions actually pay $50-$100 a month on market items!! They don't hate spending money just because they hate a monthly fee!!
Don't mix up freebie leeches (soloists/content locusts) with those who actually pay money to the shop...
Even though who are free, they are giving you healers/tanks and playing with you ! Usually, you get just as many immature and childish people on subscriptions as you do on free games, and other than fighting rampant spammers/bots which happens on subscription games as well, it is a much healthier and livelier community!
My realm on WoW - Skywall - has been so dead, that now we are getting a merge and they already have used cross-realm zone technology on the game to improve populations, but all that did was mix it up and overpopulate zones, so that getting hunter beast mastery pets is a nightmare!
Harvesting is now torture, when the zone are full of level 90s running around harvesting and camping name spawns!!
Free to Play or Buy to Play would enable old players with loyalty to a game but just less money, to keep playing with their friends and guildmates forever, and not have to leave just because they are poor.
Not everyone is rich, and it is a shame to see friends disappear and leave a game to go off and play a new one, or to just save money and play nothing at all.
I've bought a lot of cosmetic items in EQ1, EQ2, WoW, LoTRS, and Vanguard: Saga of Heroes even...
Before the game was cancelled I bought multiple land mounts and 3 flying mounts because I wanted to show my loyalty and my care for the game.
Lots of people are cheap and won't pay for good games, that is why we don't get good games.
In order to support games you should buy DLC and expansions, but if they won't go buy to play, all we can do is buy from their markets and try to show them through our wallets that we want the game to continue.
Yes, it is sad that they all went free to play, but I still love these games and want to support them... Station Access isn't worth anything without Vanguard: Saga of Heroes and I am cancelling mine ><.
I had kept my EQ subscription throughout their free to play conversion, and now that the age of subscription is over, my only sub will be World of Warcraft now.
Goodluck to TESO and Wildstar ! ~ I'll see you whenever you go buy to play or free! ~
I don't play any F2P games...because they ARE bad. I try most of them worth trying...not once has my takeaway been anything other than "yep, they are still bad".
I totally disagree with the premise of this editorial. It is based on a very, very, very flawed premise:
So, whenever I see yet another statement to the effect that (almost) every offering in the entire category is bad, I can't help but ask whether their players agree. Invariably, my answer is that they don't
This is like saying that McDonald's must be "good food" because they've served 100's of billions of burgers. There is no world in which ANYONE with any clue what good food is considers McDonald's a fine dining experience. Heck, most people, if you get them to be truly honest about it, will agree that they don't even make a particularly good hamburger.
McDonald's has served 100's of billions of burgers because it it is CHEAP. The f2p market is exactly the same. Many people are great at convincing themselves that something is "good" if it saves them a few bucks. Human psychology; people can convince themselves of anything if they have the motivation to want to convince themselves. Money is one of the most powerful motivators on the planet.
While extreme it does illustrate the point that "Lots of people do this so it must be good" is a logical fallacy.:)
And of course not all F2P games are bad but they have the reputation they do because of the way a lot of them are.
"Lots of people do this so it must be good" is a fallacy, sure, but it's no more illogical than "my friends and I don't like this so it must be bad" which is essentially the root of anti-F2P sentiment.
And now you're using another logical fallacy in arguing a strawman.
If someone says something is bad because they and their friends don't like it... then it's bad to them. There is no "root of the anti-F2P sentiment" there. It's the same exact logic you, me, and anyone else uses when describing anything we don't like.. It's bad to those people personally, and they're expressing why.
It's also a gross over-simplification of the issues people take with the revenue model - examples of which are myriad and have been well presented, detailed, described and illustrated time and again, over and over, on these forums and elsewhere. Ignoring all of that just so you can write such an over-simplification as you have, doesn't make the dissenters look bad. It makes you look disingenuous.
The author's statement, and others like it, aread-populum fallacies, and are illogical. The responses by people who describe their issues with the revenue model itself, however, are not.
I think so many players can be wrong. Of course I don't have data and evidence, but in my experience a lot of the players don't know better because they are not into the game industry, and when you point them to other good games, who are much better then the crap that they are playing, they notice the difference.
First time I had this experience was with my two nieces who got both a Nintendo DS for christmas, they played a lot, showed me their games, which where all really not good, the parents and grandparents just did not know better. So I gave them my GBA Version of SuperMarioBros 3. And almost from the first minute they realized how much better this game is then all the other games they have, and they loved it. Same goes for people who told me that they like WoW because of all the non combat stuff that you can do, they are very surprised when you tell them what is possible in some of the other MMOs out there.
Comments
Which would be a more useful analogy if the MMO space had ever seen a high class, quality restaurant. About the highest quality level MMOs have ever achieved is the Cheesecake Factory, no five star restaurants here.
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.
The only relevant numbers are those paying for F2P games. That number is either in the hundreds or few thousand. Those 10’s of millions are free gamers, who are not paying for their game time and are engaged in theft of service. Once again the free gamer number is irrelevant. Once they start paying, their opinions will matter and their number will be tallied. Until then, they should remain unrecognized.
I hear all this F2P supports transient gamers. You know what else supports transient gaming? Paying by the hour.Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
As if it could exist, without being payed for.
F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.
It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
Ah ha! This is the thread where I'm going to respond to a couple of people and not quote anything. I got lost in all the threads that seem to have similar topics.
@Caz_Nerg - "Objective Truth" is kind of a misnomer. That's just another way of saying "Fact". However, when talking about beliefs or judgements, we can use the word "Truth". So, is X "good" as an objective fact? No, that doesn't make sense. Do a certain number of the people who are likely to want X think it's a "good" thing? That's a fact. Is that enough "good" votes to consider the thing a "good" thing? That's a fact too. Another fact would be the probability that people who might want X will think it's a "good" thing before they get it. But it's not a fact that X is a "good" thing. It's just a belief or maybe a truth because truths can be based on belief and subjective judgements. I don't think the word "Truth" really applies here either though. We're not really talking about belief systems, so it seems weird to use the word "Truth" to me. We can just say that X is "good" because a significant number of the people likely to want X or something like X consider it a "good" thing.
@Geezer_Gamer - yes, it is relative. Using the NewEgg analogy, a CPU, if it's good will get a thousand or more reviews. You would never expect a sound card or a case to get so many reviews, so two hundred good reviews for a case is enough to think the case is "good", while two hundred reviews for a CPU may not be enough.
That's what you get when you're talking about subjective judgements though. A relative, probablistic chance that the next person to get something will think it's good.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
LOTRO
Not just another pretty color.
Another article looking to either police or justify why people like things that other people don't.
I can't think of much in life more pointless than this.
I'm off to scoff marmite and read Proust
Scritty
Book rec (check on Amazon)
"I'm not crazy, I'm just not you"
Title sums it up really, book explains why. If everyone read and understood this book then just about every forum on the internet would have tumble weed rolling across it.
first of all i like to thank you, richard, for your regular column. i do not often agree with your thoughts, but i like reading them open minded.
"can so many f2p gamers really be wrong?"
1) there aren't much alternatives. 90% of the client, browser or mobile based online games on the market are offered under the assumption that its f2p. and the term 'f2p' is a marketing bullshit word. all 'f2p' games only have two things in common: a) its free to download and/or to play, no initial retail buy of the game and b) there is a cashshop. and thats it.
2) we need more numbers. it would be nice to know how many active (!) players of all the freemium games out there like f.e. sw:tor, lotro or dcuo are premium members and paying a monthly fee and how many active players only using the cashshop. in case of the freemium division of f2p games the "f2p" is nothing more like a unlimited trial time without buying a retail version but the goal of the publisher is to get as many players as possible to sign up for premium accounts. and all these premium account users are in fact p2p customers.
3) the majority of people is in 99 of 100 cases wrong. they do whatever they get suggested by the media and thats, as sad as it is, a scientific fact. is f2p right or wrong? we can't generalize the term 'f2p', too many different models of 'f2p' are out there. some are really fair others are from a moral point of view nothing more than fraud.
Also F2P? What are you definitions here. How many people stick? How many use the cash shop.
Simple economics say that no developer is going to produce a game, add content, patches and pay server upkeep and mod/admins unless there is money coming in from somewhere.
Cosmetic stuff and bag space will only take you so far (In most games I couldn't care-less about cosmetics if the gameplay is good) Free with great gameplay? Or pay for same game with main character wearing a different coloured hat? To me that's a no brainer. I'll take straight forward "free" 100% of the time and my credit card stays in my wallet.
Pay to win? Cash shops? Levelling bonus? Fast travel? Unlocking character types? whatever.
That's not free, that's just "not paying up front".
F2P games have so many players as a good number of the players are subbing to other games and can't afford to sub to more.
subbing EVE, soon ESO as well, have 2 LTS and at times sub games which beta'd but now turn out to be not so great.
Have jus restarted EQ2 as silver but got the Freeblood race and ToV expansion so at least put some money to the game.
The only f2p games I will play are on my phone... if a game goes f2p that I was playing and does not have an option to have full access to everything via a sub... I will not play it anymore.
( Speaking in terms of MMO's here )
I think 2 things have lead to the f2p phenomenon.
1. Cell phones / mobile games - have gotten a lot more people playing games in general than ever before and created a lot more options for people to play.
2. New Generation... goes hand in hand with #1 but gamer's these days are quick to jump ship and we really do have a generation of instant gratification players swarming the market. Everything thing in our society is becoming I want it now, have to have it now.. now .. now .. now...
The gaming companies are in it to make money and they are simply capitalizing on the situation that has presented itself...
I for one think that the sub model is the most cost effective model for players ( most are just to stupid to realize it )
Sub model = $0.50 per day for all access ... what else are you going to be able to get hours of entertainment out of for that price?
f2p = who the hell knows but it is a lot more than that i am sure... companies will make sure of that with content and QoL items being gated behind the cash shop.... impulse buyers anyone? Whales? .... yeah that sub model is looking better and better after you balance your checkbook.
So in the end I think it boils down to new technology bringing masses of new gamer's in from a new instant gratification generation and just a mass stupidity from the general gaming public.
was intended to troll us
I see F2P games as not all being bad but at the same time none of them are great. ESO is an example of a new sub based game that I believe will have a following and a pretty large one as it grows. WOW didn't have 10 million subs when it came out it mostly built it's subs off word of mouth from the gamers here and other sites, plus it was a great game, before CAT
. We are also seeing other sub based games coming out, EQ Next, Wildstar, they are not following the F2P model and I can see those two as being good games as well.
Now you will have thousands trying to guess when each of these will go F2P in the hopes they can play and not pay and support these companies, which to me is just silly. The free loaders will have their say and they will miss out on some good games too.
This year will be the death of F2P, I hope
Peace
Lascer
I am (continually) shocked by how much hate gets spewn over the forums by those with an Anti- F2P agenda. It seems that the idea that people can play a game without first having to put up some money, is offensive to some at a very basic level. They are further appalled that many people actually enjoy these F2P games, and seek to demean them for this (percieved offence).
I will admit that I am personally more a fan of the old school F2P (Maple Story, Runescape, etc) vs the more modern iterations (League of Legends, Mobile, etc). However, I am also perfectly happy with some of the F2P Hybrids that offer multiple options (EQ2, Planeside, etc).
In the battle of F2P vs P2P, F2P is currently in the lead (in mmo online gaming). When there was little competition, F2P was clearly dominant, and had huge advantages. Now that competition is heavy, and cost for aquisition is high, F2P has huge advantages. Unless something changes, and either reduces the competition, or another avenue for player aquisition appears (as did with facebook games), F2P will maintain its advantage over P2P.
I am very much a fan of P2P done right. However, in todays market, that is very hard to do. This is not likely to change in the future.
Seems like it is you who needs some classes in formal logic...
Agree.
As far as your comment about Alibaba goes there is another twist in the current market as well - namely the launch of GW2 ..... as a B2P game. The significance being that most games launched in "eastern markets" are free-to-buy with either a cash shop or some form of sub / game card.
I want buy to play games, but I play free to play games all the time because no one goes buy to play, and I hate subscription fees...
Even if you took out subscription fees, the money I paid on EQ1 's 14 expansions x $40 is still a lot... So, why can't games just sell DLC and expansions instead?
If I get into Rift and actually play more I'd gladly buy expansions for it, or Tera, or Wildstar/TESO, but what stops me from getting into games like FF14ARR, is the subscription fee itself.
There will be no expansions for FF14ARR in my house, because with the subscription fee I can't even log in when I want to... My CE box sits here unopened, because I hate subscription fees.
Just go buy to play and give us access to what we paid for, that is why I have a Star Trek Online and Lord of the Rings Online Lifetime access with a monthly stipend of ZEN/Turbine Points... If all games had Lifetime Access, I'd buy it...
Bring on Buy to Play please !!
Although we players are providing groups and healer/tanks for your dungeon/raids and you should all be grateful of that.
Why complain? Isn't a bigger population better for a game's overall health? Some free to play people that hate subscriptions actually pay $50-$100 a month on market items!! They don't hate spending money just because they hate a monthly fee!!
Don't mix up freebie leeches (soloists/content locusts) with those who actually pay money to the shop...
Even though who are free, they are giving you healers/tanks and playing with you ! Usually, you get just as many immature and childish people on subscriptions as you do on free games, and other than fighting rampant spammers/bots which happens on subscription games as well, it is a much healthier and livelier community!
My realm on WoW - Skywall - has been so dead, that now we are getting a merge and they already have used cross-realm zone technology on the game to improve populations, but all that did was mix it up and overpopulate zones, so that getting hunter beast mastery pets is a nightmare!
Harvesting is now torture, when the zone are full of level 90s running around harvesting and camping name spawns!!
Free to Play or Buy to Play would enable old players with loyalty to a game but just less money, to keep playing with their friends and guildmates forever, and not have to leave just because they are poor.
Not everyone is rich, and it is a shame to see friends disappear and leave a game to go off and play a new one, or to just save money and play nothing at all.
I've bought a lot of cosmetic items in EQ1, EQ2, WoW, LoTRS, and Vanguard: Saga of Heroes even...
Before the game was cancelled I bought multiple land mounts and 3 flying mounts because I wanted to show my loyalty and my care for the game.
Lots of people are cheap and won't pay for good games, that is why we don't get good games.
In order to support games you should buy DLC and expansions, but if they won't go buy to play, all we can do is buy from their markets and try to show them through our wallets that we want the game to continue.
Yes, it is sad that they all went free to play, but I still love these games and want to support them... Station Access isn't worth anything without Vanguard: Saga of Heroes and I am cancelling mine ><.
I had kept my EQ subscription throughout their free to play conversion, and now that the age of subscription is over, my only sub will be World of Warcraft now.
Goodluck to TESO and Wildstar ! ~ I'll see you whenever you go buy to play or free! ~
I don't play any F2P games...because they ARE bad. I try most of them worth trying...not once has my takeaway been anything other than "yep, they are still bad".
I totally disagree with the premise of this editorial. It is based on a very, very, very flawed premise:
This is like saying that McDonald's must be "good food" because they've served 100's of billions of burgers. There is no world in which ANYONE with any clue what good food is considers McDonald's a fine dining experience. Heck, most people, if you get them to be truly honest about it, will agree that they don't even make a particularly good hamburger.
McDonald's has served 100's of billions of burgers because it it is CHEAP. The f2p market is exactly the same. Many people are great at convincing themselves that something is "good" if it saves them a few bucks. Human psychology; people can convince themselves of anything if they have the motivation to want to convince themselves. Money is one of the most powerful motivators on the planet.
Oh yes, thanks Richard... such insight..
After reading some of what you have to say, keep hating the P2P system. That's like your grail.
I also now remember why I've been inactive on this site for years and never allow any ads.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
And now you're using another logical fallacy in arguing a strawman.
If someone says something is bad because they and their friends don't like it... then it's bad to them. There is no "root of the anti-F2P sentiment" there. It's the same exact logic you, me, and anyone else uses when describing anything we don't like.. It's bad to those people personally, and they're expressing why.
It's also a gross over-simplification of the issues people take with the revenue model - examples of which are myriad and have been well presented, detailed, described and illustrated time and again, over and over, on these forums and elsewhere. Ignoring all of that just so you can write such an over-simplification as you have, doesn't make the dissenters look bad. It makes you look disingenuous.
The author's statement, and others like it, are ad-populum fallacies, and are illogical. The responses by people who describe their issues with the revenue model itself, however, are not.
I think so many players can be wrong. Of course I don't have data and evidence, but in my experience a lot of the players don't know better because they are not into the game industry, and when you point them to other good games, who are much better then the crap that they are playing, they notice the difference.
First time I had this experience was with my two nieces who got both a Nintendo DS for christmas, they played a lot, showed me their games, which where all really not good, the parents and grandparents just did not know better. So I gave them my GBA Version of SuperMarioBros 3. And almost from the first minute they realized how much better this game is then all the other games they have, and they loved it. Same goes for people who told me that they like WoW because of all the non combat stuff that you can do, they are very surprised when you tell them what is possible in some of the other MMOs out there.