Useful to keep the server looking busy but useless in that the dev/publisher will design the game to support so many freebies,meaning a crap low end game.Point being,sure it might look all snug and cozy,you can have your full server but you'll be playing a bland game.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Yes they are first most F2P have very stinky cash shop and % of spending money is quite low .... if there would be no F2P people game would look dead and also turn away actively paying people .
For example dungeons........ would suck if your community is 1k people and Dungeon queue is 1 h while with 20k free player you will queue lot faster Also These free load farm a lot and make things more accessible for you in auction ^^
Free players add to the total player interaction of the online world.
Mmos are all about player interaction so all players count.
Considering most players spend most of their time in game not interacting with other players I have to wonder at the validity of your statement.
I don't interact often but I also don't like seeing an empty world devoid of people. I really enjoy flooded cities and seeing people on the roads and in hunting areas. Adds to my personal immersion. When cities look like ghost towns and I never come across anyone, even if I enjoy the game I lose interest.
Also there is this thing of chance encounters, meeting awesome people here and there does happen. So with less population means less encounters.
Which was my point in my first response, they are just backdrops or filler to you.
It's easier and cheaper to fill the game world with them and ocassionally you might get a pleasant interaction.
But you aren't playing primarily to interact with them which is what Kano was saying their value was.
Fodder and extras is their greatest value, at least until they become payers.
No offense, but players who don't want to interact are really just useless clutter who steal my resources and kills and I can largely do without them unless contributing to the financial health of the game.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I suppose the companies that have F2P games must think that these players who use the resources of the game and do not contribute to it by buying something have a use . It logically follows because or else they would have found more draconian methods to get rid of them. Although most of them are a tenacious sort who can withstand considerable hardship in terms of time and effort to reap their game time rewards free of any payment. Some games do test their rather vast ability to take a lot of punishment before the scales fall from their eyes and they leave but I must concede that they do populate the world and make it look busy which is a plus.
I have not really played any game as a pure F2P player as I generally always contribute to any game I like so am constantly amazed at the time which to me is such a precious commodity they are willing to commit to save a paltry few dollars that if they had used that time elsewhere would have probably earned them far more, but as they say "to each his own".
I do have a different opinion about the 'bigger picture' though. If a game is relying on a few whales and the majority are free loaders (not using this in a derogatory manner merely descriptive) then the game is heading for doom. Once the paying players leave you are left with the non payers... not a healthy situation at all .
Considering the glut of poorly made MMORPGs that flooded the market trying to jump on the WoW phenomenon, I can appreciate developers/publishers looking for new ways to draw paying customers to their games, but F2P cash shops and the progress model they represent is utterly deplorable.
I AM, however, a fan of the model that LotR introduced, and other companies have adopted where you can play the base game for free, but in order to experience the higher end content either pay for a DLC package or join with a subscription. It seems to make the most sense in today's MMO market and seems to have the higher probability of being sustainable in order for companies to continue to develop new content.
What I dread is when companies that adopt the "Try it for free Subscribe if you like it" model start entertaining the idea of operating a cash shop like strictly F2P games do. It's a slap in the face to subscribers that have already chosen to support the game, especially when the cash shop operates on a gambling system that makes the subscription almost pointless, because there are items that a subscriber will only see by participating in the additional cash grab system.
ESO's future shift toward Crown Crates is one such example, and it's a dick move that I see off-shore developers/publishers use to exploit consumers, especially those that don't reside in the country of origin that the developers/publishers reside in.
So, to answer your question, I would agree with some of the other statements above that list examples of why non-paying customers CAN be useful in a model that creates incentive to subscribe or buy DLC packs to permanently access additional content, but I DO NOT agree with cash shop models designed to lure out "whales" in a F2P environment, especially those that cater to a gambling system like Loot-for-Cash crates that give a big middle finger to subscribers.
TheAmir, your book analogy, is that refering to digital books? As to the one person's remark about population. Yeah, don't like ghost towns or zones. Would probably quit very quickly. I play both kinds P2P and F2P.
Free shouldn't bring life to a game, that is ridiculous. Community of parasites and gold famers isn't good for anything. Of course micro transactions paying for a game is equally as awful.
What ever happened to a quality game people were willing to skip a couple lunches for each month anyway? Had to work for odd things like a cool outfit out of a obscure dungeon that offered no other benefit, or a long painful quest chain.
FTP killed mmos and created a generation of game hopping zombies (yes I am one as well) that don't have anything to work towards except the final gear set and chat trolling.
Here's an old but related video. The numbers have changed, but a lot of the principles remain the same. Joshua Hong was CEO of one of the largest F2P stables in the west at the time. His interview starts at about the 3:10 mark. He explains the value of the free players, and also elaborates on online games as a service (as opposed to a product).
Free players exist because the actual regular paying numbers are small. People typically flock to games with a sizeable player base since it shows to the general public that it wont shut down in the forceable future. Free players are pretty much population fluff.
The fact is (I have no evidence, but I'm confident) that the 'never a dime' folks outnumber the contributors. I don't know what the populations look like for those games which are f2p, but I'm willing to bet that it is by a significant ratio. However, as a general rule, people like to have healthy populations and while they aren't contributing directly to the financial well being of the game, the 'never a dime' folks do fill it out. This makes it more likely that there will be a healthier contributor population.
If you're not paying for it you're the product being sold.
Free players are the content being sold to the whales. They're the bait that attracts them, they're the food that keeps them there, and they might end up being something else.
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.
"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."
I suppose the companies that have F2P games must think that these players who use the resources of the game and do not contribute to it by buying something have a use . It logically follows because or else they would have found more draconian methods to get rid of them.
Yeah, certainly - many games which have a free trial/subscription model have quite effective ways to disable an unsubscribed account from playing after it hits a certain level or time limit. Either the game logs you out and won't let you log back in until you pay up, or the game transports your avatar to a location you can't leave and can't do anything interesting inside (this is for the case where contacting customer support and paying subscriptions is done from within the game instead of on a separate site). Sometimes the game restricts the avatar to the newbie area, allowing that player to continue to socialize with other players and become jealous of the places they see paid players going and talking about. These restrictions usually are the final deadline after the player runs into several other disadvantages of not being a subscriber, because the game wants the player to repeatedly reconsider the idea of subscribing.
I want to help design and develop a PvE-focused, solo-friendly, sandpark MMO which combines crafting, monster hunting, and story. So PM me if you are starting one.
Here is what I know, 10% or less of a F2P game’s population spends money on the game. Of that 10%, 80% or more have a WoW subscription and have spent money on other F2P games. WoW subscribers account for the majority of money made in the F2P market. Again of the 10%, 20% or less subscribe to another MMO and have spent money on other F2P games. The distribution across other MMOs is all in the single digits percentage or less.
Once again of the 10%, less than 1% are non-subscribers and paying customers. If a player doesn’t spend money on the game in the first month, there is a high chance (>90%) that they will never spend money on the game. The number of non-paying customers that switch or become paying customer is less than 1%.
Who are the non-paying customers? People who don’t have it in their budget to spend money on video games (the working poor). People who have the budget to spend money, but refuse to spend money (they shouldn’t have offered it for free, if they wanted us to pay for it). People not in control of their spending budget (children).
If a game is P2W with the same items available for free in game, by grinding. Then less than 1% of the Play for Free (P4F) will achieve those items. Or participate in “End Game Content.” The vast majority of non-paying customers want the content for free, and handed to them like a paying customer. They expect Best In Slot (BIS) items to be part of everyday loot tables and at high drop rates.
Play for Free (P4F) gamers want to play for free. Anything that interferes with them not spending money is P2W. If they want to buy it, then it must be P2W. This includes cosmetic only items, content unlocks, BIS items, mounts, and pets.
Paying customers attract other paying customers by word of mouth. Non-paying customer mostly spread the word of how free a game is, to other non-paying customers.
F2P games are close over time. I don’t keep track of the numbers. But I know Ubisoft has announced 2 of their F2P are closing. And I think I remember 2 other F2P closings announced on this site this year. This site ought to create a list of the F2P closing so non-paying customers can see how they play style affects the F2P market.
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.
In some games it's useful to have more players from the perspective of making the world more full but these players need to realize that no game is or ever should be created with the intention of people who don't pay a subscription being fully competitive with people who do.
Free-to-play is an extended free trial. If you want the full experience you should be prepared to pony up 10-15$ a month eventually.
In some games it's useful to have more players from the perspective of making the world more full but these players need to realize that no game is or ever should be created with the intention of people who don't pay a subscription being fully competitive with people who do.
Free-to-play is an extended free trial. If you want the full experience you should be prepared to pony up 10-15$ a month eventually.
you mean 1000-15000$ a month ? 10-15$ ? what year is it ?
If it only 10-15$ a month then all those F2Ps are closed now . Even in nowadays P2P game , if you don't throw in 100 to 500$ a month , don't even dream about full experience . and 500$ is only price for dreaming .
Many players around, are an advantage but they can of course become a liability if the percentage of paying customers becomes too low. If you support a game on a single percent of the players you certainly should rethink your current model.
If they want revenue from non-paying players the best way to do it is to have a secondary site where players can choose to watch ads and get paid in cash shop currency.
Some games do split the playerbase up like this, (haven't seen adds ingame since Anarchy Online tried it though). Usually the paid servers have fewer players, and you end up having to go to free servers to do anything outside the farmed dungeons.
There's no need to split the playerbase. There's no reason paying players can't also choose to watch a few ads for a few extra bits of cash shop currency, maybe while they are riding a bus or train to work and can't play the main game on their phone. Ideally the ad-viewing could be combined with the game's forum or chat server or wiki, some website that is officially associated with the game but not in the game.
If you are thinking in terms of subscriptions vs. cash shop, some games sell subscription time in the cash shop.
Advertisers place no value on non-paying customers. They don't want to pay for their ad to be show to non-paying customers. They don't want their ads shown out of game where it can be ignored. They want their ad shown only to the 10% or less of paying customers, when in game and actively concentrating on playing.
What do advertisers want? In game the player's field of view (FOV) is divided typically into three levels of detail (LOD): high, close to the player, medium, some distance away, and low, far away and just plain background. Well imagine playing a game where only the high LOD is rendered, and everything else is the commercial planer surface. Those beautiful expanses in the game world. Gone, because the paying customers will be watching commercials behind their game play. This idea didn't fly, but it was discussed.
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.
In some games it's useful to have more players from the perspective of making the world more full but these players need to realize that no game is or ever should be created with the intention of people who don't pay a subscription being fully competitive with people who do.
Free-to-play is an extended free trial. If you want the full experience you should be prepared to pony up 10-15$ a month eventually.
you mean 1000-15000$ a month ? 10-15$ ? what year is it ?
If it only 10-15$ a month then all those F2Ps are closed now . Even in nowadays P2P game , if you don't throw in 100 to 500$ a month , don't even dream about full experience . and 500$ is only price for dreaming .
Clearly we play different games. I have never paid more than 15$ a month for an MMO and I've never felt overly limited by that in any MMO I've played with the exception of ArcheAge. Even there it was more about who had been playing longer/more obsessively than who swiped the most. Swiping was just a way to bypass not having a life for half a year.
How much does the extra server traffic REALLY cost. lets be honest here.
They believe they are entitled to a free game.
If the company says it's free, then of course they believe that it's free.
Absolutely.
What part of FREE to play implies cost?
When did people forget the adage "there is no such thing as a free lunch?"
Few things in life are free, even if you aren't paying, someone has to.
I was taught by my parents to always pay for my way in life, and am uncomfortable if others pay for me, be it a restaurant check or in a video game.
I'm always wary of free offers in life such as vacations, dinners or electronics because they lead to attempts get me to buy expensive timeshares, investment opportunities, buyers clubs or insurance.
Sure, if you are under 25 you may not know all of this, but anyone older really should know better.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I don't see subscribers as paying for free players. What are the alternatives? If a game does not have enough players how do you make sure new players can find teams for group content?
I played Rift about 8-12 months after launch, I still had to pay for the client, but it was either B2P or I got a deal with several months sub included.
When I signed up to dungeons in the very nice dungeon finder, I got into teams with end game lvl players. The reason was, not enough players to fill the teams so the dungeon finder rewarded end game players to boost players through. Incredible booring but atleast got the quest done and got loot.
In ESO they scale the dungeon to the highest lvl player and then scale the players up. The problem with this is that I've never seen this scaling system implemented well. The dungeons become incredible dull.
Age of Conan had a similar system to ESO, just that it wasn't automatic. The resource dungeons scaled from 40-80, and you could boost players up to 20 lvls. However the difference from a lvl 80 resource dungeon to say Atzel's Fortress was like night and day.
At the end of the day, the devs have to spend time and money trying to make content doable for the subscribers. Allowing in free players saves a lot of trouble since you don't have to scale the dungeons or allow high lvl players to boost them.
Or you can do like many games TSW for example and do nothing and the players can not play the starting dungeons at all.
The cost of free players is higher than just the cost to run the servers. SOMEONE has to pay for the cost of the development of the game and continued updates. The less people paying in the smaller the number of people who have to bear the burden of those costs.
I don't see subscribers as paying for free players. What are the alternatives? If a game does not have enough players how do you make sure new players can find teams for group content?
The cost of free players is higher than just the cost to run the servers. SOMEONE has to pay for the cost of the development of the game and continued updates. The less people paying in the smaller the number of people who have to bear the burden of those costs.
I don't see subscribers as paying for free players. What are the alternatives? If a game does not have enough players how do you make sure new players can find teams for group content?
But if you remove those free players I imagine the game will go under in the not too distant future...You need a healthy looking playerbase to attract the people that will spend the money.
How much does the extra server traffic REALLY cost. lets be honest here.
They believe they are entitled to a free game.
If the company says it's free, then of course they believe that it's free.
Absolutely.
What part of FREE to play implies cost?
When did people forget the adage "there is no such thing as a free lunch?"
Few things in life are free, even if you aren't paying, someone has to.
I was taught by my parents to always pay for my way in life, and am uncomfortable if others pay for me, be it a restaurant check or in a video game.
I'm always wary of free offers in life such as vacations, dinners or electronics because they lead to attempts get me to buy expensive timeshares, investment opportunities, buyers clubs or insurance.
Sure, if you are under 25 you may not know all of this, but anyone older really should know better.
And my comment was taken out of a context of which is was intended. Someone made a comment about it doesn't cost them much for bandwidth. They leftout the "therefore they can give me a game for free" which inspired my comment.
You and I are older and were raised in an age where we had to work for things and pay our own way. In high school, I had a job and I was a volunteer on our towns ambulance department. Today kids seems to be given things or don't have to work for them. So they expect they don't have to work for anything.
How about we do this. Turn the freeloaders into workers in mmoRPGs. They work to gain some kind of currency. Subscribers can earn items that can be sold in an AH in exchange for the freeloader currency at a cost of what the market can bear. Subscribers can use the freeloader currency to open up new levels of content. Each level of content gives better challenge and rewards. Make them earn stuff.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Comments
Useful to keep the server looking busy but useless in that the dev/publisher will design the game to support so many freebies,meaning a crap low end game.Point being,sure it might look all snug and cozy,you can have your full server but you'll be playing a bland game.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
For example dungeons........ would suck if your community is 1k people and Dungeon queue is 1 h while with 20k free player you will queue lot faster
Also These free load farm a lot and make things more accessible for you in auction ^^
It's easier and cheaper to fill the game world with them and ocassionally you might get a pleasant interaction.
But you aren't playing primarily to interact with them which is what Kano was saying their value was.
Fodder and extras is their greatest value, at least until they become payers.
No offense, but players who don't want to interact are really just useless clutter who steal my resources and kills and I can largely do without them unless contributing to the financial health of the game.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I have not really played any game as a pure F2P player as I generally always contribute to any game I like so am constantly amazed at the time which to me is such a precious commodity they are willing to commit to save a paltry few dollars that if they had used that time elsewhere would have probably earned them far more, but as they say "to each his own".
I do have a different opinion about the 'bigger picture' though. If a game is relying on a few whales and the majority are free loaders (not using this in a derogatory manner merely descriptive) then the game is heading for doom. Once the paying players leave you are left with the non payers... not a healthy situation at all .
Considering the glut of poorly made MMORPGs that flooded the market trying to jump on the WoW phenomenon, I can appreciate developers/publishers looking for new ways to draw paying customers to their games, but F2P cash shops and the progress model they represent is utterly deplorable.
I AM, however, a fan of the model that LotR introduced, and other companies have adopted where you can play the base game for free, but in order to experience the higher end content either pay for a DLC package or join with a subscription. It seems to make the most sense in today's MMO market and seems to have the higher probability of being sustainable in order for companies to continue to develop new content.
What I dread is when companies that adopt the "Try it for free Subscribe if you like it" model start entertaining the idea of operating a cash shop like strictly F2P games do. It's a slap in the face to subscribers that have already chosen to support the game, especially when the cash shop operates on a gambling system that makes the subscription almost pointless, because there are items that a subscriber will only see by participating in the additional cash grab system.
ESO's future shift toward Crown Crates is one such example, and it's a dick move that I see off-shore developers/publishers use to exploit consumers, especially those that don't reside in the country of origin that the developers/publishers reside in.
So, to answer your question, I would agree with some of the other statements above that list examples of why non-paying customers CAN be useful in a model that creates incentive to subscribe or buy DLC packs to permanently access additional content, but I DO NOT agree with cash shop models designed to lure out "whales" in a F2P environment, especially those that cater to a gambling system like Loot-for-Cash crates that give a big middle finger to subscribers.
What ever happened to a quality game people were willing to skip a couple lunches for each month anyway? Had to work for odd things like a cool outfit out of a obscure dungeon that offered no other benefit, or a long painful quest chain.
FTP killed mmos and created a generation of game hopping zombies (yes I am one as well) that don't have anything to work towards except the final gear set and chat trolling.
Here's an old but related video. The numbers have changed, but a lot of the principles remain the same. Joshua Hong was CEO of one of the largest F2P stables in the west at the time. His interview starts at about the 3:10 mark. He explains the value of the free players, and also elaborates on online games as a service (as opposed to a product).
http://revision3.com/gigaom/micro/
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
I self identify as a monkey.
If you're not paying for it you're the product being sold.
Free players are the content being sold to the whales. They're the bait that attracts them, they're the food that keeps them there, and they might end up being something else.
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.
"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."
Here is what I know, 10% or less of a F2P game’s population spends money on the game. Of that 10%, 80% or more have a WoW subscription and have spent money on other F2P games. WoW subscribers account for the majority of money made in the F2P market. Again of the 10%, 20% or less subscribe to another MMO and have spent money on other F2P games. The distribution across other MMOs is all in the single digits percentage or less.
Once again of the 10%, less than 1% are non-subscribers and paying customers. If a player doesn’t spend money on the game in the first month, there is a high chance (>90%) that they will never spend money on the game. The number of non-paying customers that switch or become paying customer is less than 1%.
Who are the non-paying customers? People who don’t have it in their budget to spend money on video games (the working poor). People who have the budget to spend money, but refuse to spend money (they shouldn’t have offered it for free, if they wanted us to pay for it). People not in control of their spending budget (children).
If a game is P2W with the same items available for free in game, by grinding. Then less than 1% of the Play for Free (P4F) will achieve those items. Or participate in “End Game Content.” The vast majority of non-paying customers want the content for free, and handed to them like a paying customer. They expect Best In Slot (BIS) items to be part of everyday loot tables and at high drop rates.
Play for Free (P4F) gamers want to play for free. Anything that interferes with them not spending money is P2W. If they want to buy it, then it must be P2W. This includes cosmetic only items, content unlocks, BIS items, mounts, and pets.
Paying customers attract other paying customers by word of mouth. Non-paying customer mostly spread the word of how free a game is, to other non-paying customers.
F2P games are close over time. I don’t keep track of the numbers. But I know Ubisoft has announced 2 of their F2P are closing. And I think I remember 2 other F2P closings announced on this site this year. This site ought to create a list of the F2P closing so non-paying customers can see how they play style affects the F2P market.
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.
Free-to-play is an extended free trial. If you want the full experience you should be prepared to pony up 10-15$ a month eventually.
Lost my mind, now trying to lose yours...
If it only 10-15$ a month then all those F2Ps are closed now . Even in nowadays P2P game , if you don't throw in 100 to 500$ a month , don't even dream about full experience . and 500$ is only price for dreaming .
What do advertisers want? In game the player's field of view (FOV) is divided typically into three levels of detail (LOD): high, close to the player, medium, some distance away, and low, far away and just plain background. Well imagine playing a game where only the high LOD is rendered, and everything else is the commercial planer surface. Those beautiful expanses in the game world. Gone, because the paying customers will be watching commercials behind their game play. This idea didn't fly, but it was discussed.
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.
Few things in life are free, even if you aren't paying, someone has to.
I was taught by my parents to always pay for my way in life, and am uncomfortable if others pay for me, be it a restaurant check or in a video game.
I'm always wary of free offers in life such as vacations, dinners or electronics because they lead to attempts get me to buy expensive timeshares, investment opportunities, buyers clubs or insurance.
Sure, if you are under 25 you may not know all of this, but anyone older really should know better.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I played Rift about 8-12 months after launch, I still had to pay for the client, but it was either B2P or I got a deal with several months sub included.
When I signed up to dungeons in the very nice dungeon finder, I got into teams with end game lvl players. The reason was, not enough players to fill the teams so the dungeon finder rewarded end game players to boost players through. Incredible booring but atleast got the quest done and got loot.
In ESO they scale the dungeon to the highest lvl player and then scale the players up. The problem with this is that I've never seen this scaling system implemented well. The dungeons become incredible dull.
Age of Conan had a similar system to ESO, just that it wasn't automatic. The resource dungeons scaled from 40-80, and you could boost players up to 20 lvls. However the difference from a lvl 80 resource dungeon to say Atzel's Fortress was like night and day.
At the end of the day, the devs have to spend time and money trying to make content doable for the subscribers. Allowing in free players saves a lot of trouble since you don't have to scale the dungeons or allow high lvl players to boost them.
Or you can do like many games TSW for example and do nothing and the players can not play the starting dungeons at all.
Remove leveling / vertical progression entirely so everyone can do content together and have fun.
And my comment was taken out of a context of which is was intended. Someone made a comment about it doesn't cost them much for bandwidth. They leftout the "therefore they can give me a game for free" which inspired my comment.
You and I are older and were raised in an age where we had to work for things and pay our own way. In high school, I had a job and I was a volunteer on our towns ambulance department. Today kids seems to be given things or don't have to work for them. So they expect they don't have to work for anything.
How about we do this. Turn the freeloaders into workers in mmoRPGs. They work to gain some kind of currency. Subscribers can earn items that can be sold in an AH in exchange for the freeloader currency at a cost of what the market can bear. Subscribers can use the freeloader currency to open up new levels of content. Each level of content gives better challenge and rewards. Make them earn stuff.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"