F2P killed the genre - rebuttal...

Laurann · February 2015

F2P saved it. The MMO industry needed a temporary crutch in order to innovate. What we got is the fix-all for short term profitability and a industry wide f2p/cash shop cycle/development which has lasted WAY too long. The problem being is that mmo's are no longer a social experience for the most part - they are large multiplayer games made for adult-children with ADHD with very little depth using the same formulas over and over again.

MMORPG's like Archeage are able to do VERY well in western markets, yet the western publishers of those titles are trying desperately to "Westernize" and apply the instant gratification formulas and simplified mechanics to those titles in order to "churn and burn" some quick cash - primarily because EVERY developer that has had success in the genre in the past is bleeding money. Its an uphill battle at this point.

You know when companies like Blizzard shutters wip's and won't go near an MMO development cycle ever again, that the genre is DEAD. Everyone is riding the end of the lightning bolt - and no one can innovate without GOBS of cash.

ITS OVER FOLKS.

(unless someone who still thinks pre-trammel UO, the original three expansions of EQ, and SWG pre-nge is the "way" wins this weeks powerball jackpot)

Battlerock · February 2015

The Horse Parable

There once was a poor old man who owned a beautiful white horse.

Whenever noblemen passed through the village, they always noticed the horse and offered handsome sums of money for the stallion. But the old man always declined their offers, saying, "This horse is my friend. How can I sell my friend?"

One morning the old man awoke to find the horse was gone. The village people gathered and said, "Old man you were a fool not to sell the horse. You could have been wealthy! Now it has been stolen, and you have nothing. It is a great misfortune!" But the old man replied, "Don't go so far as to say that. Whether the horse was stolen or not, or whether it is a misfortune or a blessing, is unknown. All we know is that the horse is not in the stable."

Some days later the horse returned, bringing with it several beautiful wild mares. Again the village people gathered, and they said, "Old man you were right! The horse was not stolen, and it was not a misfortune. It was a blessing, and now you have many fine horses!" But the old man replied, "Again you go too far. Don't say it's a good thing, don't say it's a bad thing. Just say the horse is back. Whether it is a blessing or a misfortune is unknown."

Some days later the old man's only son began to train the wild mares, but he was thrown and trampled, and one of his legs was badly broken. Again the village people gathered. "Oh old man, you were right! It was not a blessing but a great misfortune, and now your only son is lame! With a sigh the old man replied, "Don't say it's a good thing, don't say it's a bad thing, just say my son has broken his leg. Whether it is a blessing or a misfortune is unknown."

It happened that a few weeks later the country went to war, and all the able bodied young men were forcibly taken for the military. Only the old man's son was passed over, because he was crippled. The whole village was crying and weeping, for they believed their sons would probably be killed and never come home to them. In their grief they came to the old man and said, "You were right old man, your son's injury has proven to be a blessing. Your son may be crippled, but he is with you, while our sons are gone forever! The old man simply shook his head and said, "Will you never learn? Only say that your sons have been forced into the military and my son has not. More than that is not known."

-- attributed to Catherine Marie Heath

By : Scott Teitsworth

Kyleran · February 2015

I would disagree, it would have been better for the genre to crash and burn even earlier than it has, F2P just enabled sub par titles that couldn't interest people enough to pay for a sub to hang on and die a much longer death than they should have.

I pay for four 1 year subs currently, and see no end to that anytime soon, perhaps my perspective is too skewed to see your way of thinking.

Laurann · February 2015

Originally posted by Kyleran
I would disagree, it would have been better for the genre to crash and burn even earlier than it has, F2P just enabled sub par titles that couldn't interest people enough to pay for a sub to hang on and die a much longer death than they should have.

I pay for four 1 year subs currently, and see no end to that anytime soon, perhaps my perspective is too skewed to see your way of thinking.

I pay for only two subs now as well. We are in the VAST MINORITY though Kyle.

aliven · February 2015

Ofc it not saved anything. It just is better model, both for consumers and producers if done right.

Superman0X · February 2015

Originally posted by Laurann
F2P saved it. The MMO industry needed a temporary crutch in order to innovate. What we got is the fix-all for short term profitability and a industry wide f2p/cash shop cycle/development which has lasted WAY too long. The problem being is that mmo's are no longer a social experience for the most part - they are large multiplayer games made for adult-children with ADHD with very little depth using the same formulas over and over again.

MMORPG's like Archeage are able to do VERY well in western markets, yet the western publishers of those titles are trying desperately to "Westernize" and apply the instant gratification formulas and simplified mechanics to those titles in order to "churn and burn" some quick cash - primarily because EVERY developer that has had success in the genre in the past is bleeding money. Its an uphill battle at this point.

You know when companies like Blizzard shutters wip's and won't go near an MMO development cycle ever again, that the genre is DEAD. Everyone is riding the end of the lightning bolt - and no one can innovate without GOBS of cash.

ITS OVER FOLKS.

(unless someone who still thinks pre-trammel UO, the original three expansions of EQ, and SWG pre-nge is the "way" wins this weeks powerball jackpot)

I disagree.

I do not believe that F2P has saved or killed the industry. It has been a part of the industry for decades now (and for even longer with similar industries). It is nothing new, and its recent popularity is due to companies using the most favorable approach to the market at the time.

The current market problems is not based on payment models, it is based on development and operations models. We are, where we are, today because companies have been chasing WoW, and have the expectations that WoW is how products should perform.

Pre WoW companies thought that a new product would get 25-50k customers, and might grow to 300k with several years of additional development. They charged $45-60 upfront to recoup the (whole) development cost, and needed $15 a month more each month to continue to pay the developers to expand the game. It was only after a couple additional years of operation that they expected to start making money.

Post WoW companies are expecting to get 2-4M initial customers, and to grow to 5M+. They spend a LOT more on development upfront, and expect to get it all back in boxed sales. They then expect to lay off the development teams (or move them to the next paid expansion) while raking in $15 per month in profit. Each year they will have another paid expansion, and repeat. They expect the userbase to grow each year for the first 5 years.

The reality of post WoW launches is this. Companies get ~1M initial boxed sales, they lose ~50% of these customers a month for the first three months. The game stabilizes, but they never get enough upfront sales to pay for development. They now have to use the development staff (if not already cut) to fix the game for 6 months, while only getting a small amount of monthly subs vs a large expensive staff. Typically this is where they have to plan a business model change, as it is clear that they are never going to recoup cost, let alone make money with the current plan. They then adjust and if they do it right, at the end of the 2 year mark, the game is stable, and may even be growing organically with new players. They can then start making enough money to hopefully have the game paid for by year 4 or 5.

The problem we are having today is that MMO game development is expensive... and the returns have proven to be slow (unless you are the odd breakout hit like WoW). Developers want to make more post WoW (big budget) games, and are still promising WoW type returns. Those with the money are no longer willing to take the risk. In order for progress to be made, the developers have to go back to making pre WoW games with lower budgets, more reasonable expectations, and longer development cycles. Investors will then be willing to fund them, and the market will recover naturally.

Laurann · February 2015

Originally posted by aliven
Ofc it not saved anything. It just is better model, both for consumers and producers if done right.

What a strong argument you have there! Quite the wordsmith using facts and figures and critical thinking to knock out your point out of the park! I applaud you sir!

Laurann · February 2015

Originally posted by Superman0X
Originally posted by Laurann
F2P saved it. The MMO industry needed a temporary crutch in order to innovate. What we got is the fix-all for short term profitability and a industry wide f2p/cash shop cycle/development which has lasted WAY too long. The problem being is that mmo's are no longer a social experience for the most part - they are large multiplayer games made for adult-children with ADHD with very little depth using the same formulas over and over again.

MMORPG's like Archeage are able to do VERY well in western markets, yet the western publishers of those titles are trying desperately to "Westernize" and apply the instant gratification formulas and simplified mechanics to those titles in order to "churn and burn" some quick cash - primarily because EVERY developer that has had success in the genre in the past is bleeding money. Its an uphill battle at this point.

You know when companies like Blizzard shutters wip's and won't go near an MMO development cycle ever again, that the genre is DEAD. Everyone is riding the end of the lightning bolt - and no one can innovate without GOBS of cash.

ITS OVER FOLKS.

(unless someone who still thinks pre-trammel UO, the original three expansions of EQ, and SWG pre-nge is the "way" wins this weeks powerball jackpot)

I disagree.

I do not believe that F2P has saved or killed the industry. It has been a part of the industry for decades now (and for even longer with similar industries). It is nothing new, and its recent popularity is due to companies using the most favorable approach to the market at the time.

The current market problems is not based on payment models, it is based on development and operations models. We are, where we are, today because companies have been chasing WoW, and have the expectations that WoW is how products should perform.

Pre WoW companies thought that a new product would get 25-50k customers, and might grow to 300k with several years of additional development. They charged $45-60 upfront to recoup the (whole) development cost, and needed $15 a month more each month to continue to pay the developers to expand the game. It was only after a couple additional years of operation that they expected to start making money.

Post WoW companies are expecting to get 2-4M initial customers, and to grow to 5M+. They spend a LOT more on development upfront, and expect to get it all back in boxed sales. They then expect to lay off the development teams (or move them to the next paid expansion) while raking in $15 per month in profit. Each year they will have another paid expansion, and repeat. They expect the userbase to grow each year for the first 5 years.

The reality of post WoW launches is this. Companies get ~1M initial boxed sales, they lose ~50% of these customers a month for the first three months. The game stabilizes, but they never get enough upfront sales to pay for development. They now have to use the development staff (if not already cut) to fix the game for 6 months, while only getting a small amount of monthly subs vs a large expensive staff. Typically this is where they have to plan a business model change, as it is clear that they are never going to recoup cost, let alone make money with the current plan. They then adjust and if they do it right, at the end of the 2 year mark, the game is stable, and may even be growing organically with new players. They can then start making enough money to hopefully have the game paid for by year 4 or 5.

The problem we are having today is that MMO game development is expensive... and the returns have proven to be slow (unless you are the odd breakout hit like WoW). Developers want to make more post WoW (big budget) games, and are still promising WoW type returns. Those with the money are no longer willing to take the risk. In order for progress to be made, the developers have to go back to making pre WoW games with lower budgets, more reasonable expectations, and longer development cycles. Investors will then be willing to fund them, and the market will recover naturally.

I think I nailed all those points in condensed form, including the innovation angle which you missed. Again - please explain to me where your disagreement is in my OP?

aliven · February 2015

Originally posted by Laurann
Originally posted by aliven
Ofc it not saved anything. It just is better model, both for consumers and producers if done right.

What a strong argument you have there! Quite the wordsmith using facts and figures and critical thinking to knock out your point out of the park! I applaud you sir!

I dont see a reason to provide arguments for you. This thread is stupid, just like those off "f2p killed mmo" and others. Just other side of the coin.

udon · February 2015

Originally posted by aliven
Ofc it not saved anything. It just is better model, both for consumers and producers if done right.

I would challenge that statement. Looking from a distance sure it seems like a better model for both parties. But once you start to really dig into how F2P changes the way game mechanics are presented to the player and how player activities and motivations are altered by them it is a lot harder to make that claim.

Maybe you don't care about that but it doesn't mean everyone doesn't.

Laurann · February 2015

Aliven - then why post in the thread other than to increase your post count, if all you want to do is interject blanket rhetoric while calling the thread "stupid?"

aliven · February 2015

Originally posted by udon
Originally posted by aliven
Ofc it not saved anything. It just is better model, both for consumers and producers if done right.

I would challenge that statement. Looking from a distance sure it seems like a better model for both parties. But once you start to really dig into how F2P changes the way game mechanics are presented to the player and how player activities and motivations are altered by them it is a lot harder to make that claim.

Maybe you don't care about that but it doesn't mean everyone doesn't.

And as i said, if done right. Like PoE, Marvel Heroes. League of legends. Dota 2. Smite. Lots of game that nailed f2p. Rift. World of Tanks. There are plenty of examples. And i dont care about shitty f2p scams like SWtoR. They are just do to grab money, that has nothing to do with good f2p.

Superman0X · February 2015

Originally posted by Laurann
...removed to make this more readable...
I think I nailed all those points in condensed form, including the innovation angle which you missed. Again - please explain to me where your disagreement is in my OP?

F2P saved it.

I dont believe that it has helped or hurt it.

The MMO industry needed a temporary crutch in order to innovate.

I do not believe it is temporary, or that innovation is the solution. I believe that F2P is here to stay, and that going back to an older approach (regression?) is the solution.

The problem being is that mmo's are no longer a social experience for the most part.

I believe that the problem is that MMO's are expected to be industry changing, and when they are not, they collapse in on themselves in an attempt to salvage something. This stifles any products from actually being as good as they could have been.

MMORPG's like Archeage are able to do VERY well in western markets, yet the western publishers of those titles are trying desperately to "Westernize" and apply the instant gratification formulas and simplified mechanics to those titles in order to "churn and burn" some quick cash.

Trion hasn't done anything but marketing/operations for Archeage. All other secondary assumptions are incorrect.

I hope that this clarifies how/why I disagree with your original post.

Kyleran · February 2015

Originally posted by Laurann
Originally posted by Kyleran
I would disagree, it would have been better for the genre to crash and burn even earlier than it has, F2P just enabled sub par titles that couldn't interest people enough to pay for a sub to hang on and die a much longer death than they should have.

I pay for four 1 year subs currently, and see no end to that anytime soon, perhaps my perspective is too skewed to see your way of thinking.

I pay for only two subs now as well. We are in the VAST MINORITY though Kyle.

Well I'm just an old curmudgeon that can't adapt to the changing times, others seem to have no problem and are enjoying themselves just fine.

rodingo · February 2015

I don't know if F2P killed the genre, however I feel that the subscription model didn't help it any. Not becuase $15 is to expensive, but the quality of games trying to charge that amount is/was subpar.

edit: Its the same reason why Starbucks is so huge and all over the place. The coffee they sell at $3-5 a cup is crap, but people will gladly pay becuase they feel some form of exclusivity.

Joseph_Kerr · February 2015

Originally posted by Battlerock
The Horse Parable

There once was a poor old man who owned a beautiful white horse.

Whenever noblemen passed through the village, they always noticed the horse and offered handsome sums of money for the stallion. But the old man always declined their offers, saying, "This horse is my friend. How can I sell my friend?"

One morning the old man awoke to find the horse was gone. The village people gathered and said, "Old man you were a fool not to sell the horse. You could have been wealthy! Now it has been stolen, and you have nothing. It is a great misfortune!" But the old man replied, "Don't go so far as to say that. Whether the horse was stolen or not, or whether it is a misfortune or a blessing, is unknown. All we know is that the horse is not in the stable."

Some days later the horse returned, bringing with it several beautiful wild mares. Again the village people gathered, and they said, "Old man you were right! The horse was not stolen, and it was not a misfortune. It was a blessing, and now you have many fine horses!" But the old man replied, "Again you go too far. Don't say it's a good thing, don't say it's a bad thing. Just say the horse is back. Whether it is a blessing or a misfortune is unknown."

Some days later the old man's only son began to train the wild mares, but he was thrown and trampled, and one of his legs was badly broken. Again the village people gathered. "Oh old man, you were right! It was not a blessing but a great misfortune, and now your only son is lame! With a sigh the old man replied, "Don't say it's a good thing, don't say it's a bad thing, just say my son has broken his leg. Whether it is a blessing or a misfortune is unknown."

It happened that a few weeks later the country went to war, and all the able bodied young men were forcibly taken for the military. Only the old man's son was passed over, because he was crippled. The whole village was crying and weeping, for they believed their sons would probably be killed and never come home to them. In their grief they came to the old man and said, "You were right old man, your son's injury has proven to be a blessing. Your son may be crippled, but he is with you, while our sons are gone forever! The old man simply shook his head and said, "Will you never learn? Only say that your sons have been forced into the military and my son has not. More than that is not known."

-- attributed to Catherine Marie Heath

By : Scott Teitsworth

It's funny 'cause it's true.

saker · February 2015

The money-men and the cult-of-infinite-greed that is Murican-style-crony-"capitalism" killed it.

saker · February 2015

Originally posted by Battlerock
The Horse Parable
There once was a poor old man who owned a beautiful white horse.
Whenever noblemen passed through the village, they always noticed the horse and offered handsome sums of money for the stallion. But the old man always declined their offers, saying, "This horse is my friend. How can I sell my friend?"
One morning the old man awoke to find the horse was gone. The village people gathered and said, "Old man you were a fool not to sell the horse. You could have been wealthy! Now it has been stolen, and you have nothing. It is a great misfortune!" But the old man replied, "Don't go so far as to say that. Whether the horse was stolen or not, or whether it is a misfortune or a blessing, is unknown. All we know is that the horse is not in the stable."
Some days later the horse returned, bringing with it several beautiful wild mares. Again the village people gathered, and they said, "Old man you were right! The horse was not stolen, and it was not a misfortune. It was a blessing, and now you have many fine horses!" But the old man replied, "Again you go too far. Don't say it's a good thing, don't say it's a bad thing. Just say the horse is back. Whether it is a blessing or a misfortune is unknown."
Some days later the old man's only son began to train the wild mares, but he was thrown and trampled, and one of his legs was badly broken. Again the village people gathered. "Oh old man, you were right! It was not a blessing but a great misfortune, and now your only son is lame! With a sigh the old man replied, "Don't say it's a good thing, don't say it's a bad thing, just say my son has broken his leg. Whether it is a blessing or a misfortune is unknown." It happened that a few weeks later the country went to war, and all the able bodied young men were forcibly taken for the military. Only the old man's son was passed over, because he was crippled. The whole village was crying and weeping, for they believed their sons would probably be killed and never come home to them. In their grief they came to the old man and said, "You were right old man, your son's injury has proven to be a blessing. Your son may be crippled, but he is with you, while our sons are gone forever! The old man simply shook his head and said, "Will you never learn? Only say that your sons have been forced into the military and my son has not. More than that is not known." -- attributed to Catherine Marie Heath By : Scott Teitsworth

Accuracy in language is so very important!

udon · February 2015

Originally posted by aliven
Originally posted by udon
Originally posted by aliven
Ofc it not saved anything. It just is better model, both for consumers and producers if done right.

I would challenge that statement. Looking from a distance sure it seems like a better model for both parties. But once you start to really dig into how F2P changes the way game mechanics are presented to the player and how player activities and motivations are altered by them it is a lot harder to make that claim.

Maybe you don't care about that but it doesn't mean everyone doesn't.

And as i said, if done right. Like PoE, Marvel Heroes. League of legends. Dota 2. Smite. Lots of game that nailed f2p. Rift. World of Tanks. There are plenty of examples. And i dont care about shitty f2p scams like SWtoR. They are just do to grab money, that has nothing to do with good f2p.

Done right is pretty subjective. Some of those titles I have enjoyed but if you pay enough attention to the details all of them do have subtle little things they make players do that drives you towards the cash shop. Be it items that don't stack as much as you would expect to sell inventory slots, zones that are inconsistent difficulty to promote grinding, daily rewards for just logging in, or how XP is rewarded into different locked pools all is there to drive you towards the cash shop. That doesn't mean the games are horrible but it does mean the games are different than they might of been if they had been designed for a different monetization model.

The problem with SWTOR is that the cash shop was shoved into a game designed to be sub. If they had built SWTOR from the ground up F2P it would be a very different experience but they can't really go back and retrofit all the content to F2P. Even Rift has had to find ways to drive people to their cash shop though gear because their content wasn't designed with F2P in mind.

Azaron_Nightblade · February 2015

Originally posted by Laurann
Originally posted by Kyleran
I would disagree, it would have been better for the genre to crash and burn even earlier than it has, F2P just enabled sub par titles that couldn't interest people enough to pay for a sub to hang on and die a much longer death than they should have.

I pay for four 1 year subs currently, and see no end to that anytime soon, perhaps my perspective is too skewed to see your way of thinking.

I pay for only two subs now as well. We are in the VAST MINORITY though Kyle.

Not that much of a minority. I pay for two subs as well, and so does a RL friend of mine.

There are more people paying for subs than ever before, during the "glory" days. They just happened to be scattered across a ton of MMOs, with the vast majority on WoW, and several hundred k or a million here and there.

FFXIV, EVE, SWTOR, ESO, etc all have people that are subbed to them. And so do TSW and other smaller, less known MMOs. Heck, ArcheAge even has subs, and so do similar games with "premium" options.

Sub and F2P/B2P can co-exists to some degree. It's just become very hard for a game to justify sticking with sub only when there's so much competition giving up the goods for free. :P

alkarionlog · February 2015

Originally posted by aliven
Ofc it not saved anything. It just is better model, both for consumers and producers if done right.

for consumers you say? I don't see any advantage for me on a f2p game other then I get to spend more then normally, but I can see advantage for devs, 5 times teh profit with less work and even less paying for the programmers, all exec keep the money.

you guys have a fucked up way of thinking about everything, you guys think a game making huge profit is a good thing with its not always the case, its good for then, but that don't imply better games unfortunable and even less pay for the real ones thinking,

they don't want new things, they don't want to test, tehy don't want to make a world we can have a adventure we can't in RL, they don't want you having fun, all tehy want is your money, and they will put unfun things to do and offer you to pay to skip it, make they game and then offer you to pay to skip it,

no feature is there to help you and yes help you spend more, some hide better other make you quit the game faster, but in the end all games f2p I played I hardly remember, the P2P games I do and miss that time,

when we could join friends to hunt monster for a quest, or for a drop to craft a new weapon for a guildie, enemy guild attacking someone from your guild all rush tehre to help him and kill they people, nothing like this is there now, just ways to force you to pay, be it more hotbars to use skills, be it money cap so you can't farm too much, be it to still keep playing in the game not only you have to pay a vip/premium account to keep playing but also have to pay extra DLC to keep playing, I don't see anything on this to be better for consumers.... Players, I see it be better for teh companys, not devs or programmer or art design, but only for teh company so only care for they end year bonus

Superman0X · February 2015

Originally posted by alkarionlog
Originally posted by aliven
Ofc it not saved anything. It just is better model, both for consumers and producers if done right.

for consumers you say? I don't see any advantage for me on a f2p game other then I get to spend more then normally, but I can see advantage for devs, 5 times teh profit with less work and even less paying for the programmers, all exec keep the money.

you guys have a fucked up way of thinking about everything, you guys think a game making huge profit is a good thing with its not always the case, its good for then, but that don't imply better games unfortunable and even less pay for the real ones thinking,

they don't want new things, they don't want to test, tehy don't want to make a world we can have a adventure we can't in RL, they don't want you having fun, all tehy want is your money, and they will put unfun things to do and offer you to pay to skip it, make they game and then offer you to pay to skip it,

no feature is there to help you and yes help you spend more, some hide better other make you quit the game faster, but in the end all games f2p I played I hardly remember, the P2P games I do and miss that time,

when we could join friends to hunt monster for a quest, or for a drop to craft a new weapon for a guildie, enemy guild attacking someone from your guild all rush tehre to help him and kill they people, nothing like this is there now, just ways to force you to pay, be it more hotbars to use skills, be it money cap so you can't farm too much, be it to still keep playing in the game not only you have to pay a vip/premium account to keep playing but also have to pay extra DLC to keep playing, I don't see anything on this to be better for consumers.... Players, I see it be better for teh companys, not devs or programmer or art design, but only for teh company so only care for they end year bonus

F2P is generally better for a consumer because it allows the OPTION to pay after seeing the game. P2P requires payment upfront before the game can be seen. This allows the customer to determine the value of the product based off of their experience, rather than off of marketing hype. Which do you trust more, your personal experience, or what you see in an ad?

Leon1e · February 2015

Originally posted by alkarionlog
Originally posted by aliven
Ofc it not saved anything. It just is better model, both for consumers and producers if done right.

for consumers you say? I don't see any advantage for me on a f2p game other then I get to spend more then normally

That is your own problem, not the business model.

It's like blaming BMW because of all those idiots that cannot drive a car and get into accidents.

Octagon7711 · February 2015

I'm playing several mmo's now and paying zero subs and having a great time.

Laurann · February 2015

Originally posted by Superman0X
Originally posted by alkarionlog
Originally posted by aliven
Ofc it not saved anything. It just is better model, both for consumers and producers if done right.

for consumers you say? I don't see any advantage for me on a f2p game other then I get to spend more then normally, but I can see advantage for devs, 5 times teh profit with less work and even less paying for the programmers, all exec keep the money.

you guys have a fucked up way of thinking about everything, you guys think a game making huge profit is a good thing with its not always the case, its good for then, but that don't imply better games unfortunable and even less pay for the real ones thinking,

they don't want new things, they don't want to test, tehy don't want to make a world we can have a adventure we can't in RL, they don't want you having fun, all tehy want is your money, and they will put unfun things to do and offer you to pay to skip it, make they game and then offer you to pay to skip it,

no feature is there to help you and yes help you spend more, some hide better other make you quit the game faster, but in the end all games f2p I played I hardly remember, the P2P games I do and miss that time,

when we could join friends to hunt monster for a quest, or for a drop to craft a new weapon for a guildie, enemy guild attacking someone from your guild all rush tehre to help him and kill they people, nothing like this is there now, just ways to force you to pay, be it more hotbars to use skills, be it money cap so you can't farm too much, be it to still keep playing in the game not only you have to pay a vip/premium account to keep playing but also have to pay extra DLC to keep playing, I don't see anything on this to be better for consumers.... Players, I see it be better for teh companys, not devs or programmer or art design, but only for teh company so only care for they end year bonus

F2P is generally better for a consumer because it allows the OPTION to pay after seeing the game. P2P requires payment upfront before the game can be seen. This allows the customer to determine the value of the product based off of their experience, rather than off of marketing hype. Which do you trust more, your personal experience, or what you see in an ad?

I'd rather go with the b2p + free 30 day sub model to determine my valuation of a product. I think however the $60 box price is ridiculous. If more MMO's came into the market at a $30 price point plus a free months worth of sub time, a small non-p2w cash shop, I think the genre would be in a happier place.

udon · February 2015

Originally posted by Superman0X
F2P is generally better for a consumer because it allows the OPTION to pay after seeing the game. P2P requires payment upfront before the game can be seen. This allows the customer to determine the value of the product based off of their experience, rather than off of marketing hype. Which do you trust more, your personal experience, or what you see in an ad?

I have heard this argument a lot and it seems to me to be a bit shortsighted. A MMO isn't something you try for a couple weeks than cast aside it's something you integrate into a community of others and play for years. Or at least it should be. In that respect the money you spend trying the game is irrelevant to the long term enjoyment you hope to get out of it.

It seems like most F2P players these days play games more like free trials than actually trying to experience what makes MMO's different from SPG or even FPS games which is the ability to build and interact in a community. You can't do that if you are jumping from game to game every couple of weeks.

Howdy, Stranger!

F2P killed the genre - rebuttal...

Comments

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

F2P killed the genre - rebuttal...

Comments

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey