Originally posted by Chilliesauce Like others said even in F2P model best thing to do is to pay 12 to 15 bucks a month to access entire game without any restrictions. So how does it matter whther a game is F2P or P2P. For players like me the transition makes no difference.
If you only wanted some extras one month, you paid only for those extras. With sub you still paid full price.
If didn't play for one month, you paid paid nothing. With sub you still paid full price.
If you consume less content than other players, you paid nothing or less over time depending on the content. With sub you still paid full price.
The difference is in the flexibility and choice that it affords the players. Add in that F2P only works when the free players are playing, so there is an incentive for the dev to keep creating content and upgrading the game for the entire playerbase. As a result, F2P games often have free expansions, more in-game events and giveaways, and regular content updates whereas with subscription the approach by most companies is to treat it like a product, not a service.
You know i can cancel my sub when i don't feel like playing? so i am still paying only for what i am playing and not anythign extra. It takes a click of a finger to cancel the sub. Also, i was saying that the 'transition' makes no difference to players like me who pay monthly sub for unrestricted access to entire game in F2P model. I wasn't talking from point of view of developers.
I know so many players who tried F2P titles and soon realised the restrictive nature of these games and ended up subbing because it is cheaper and more cost effective. The only difference is that now they are called 'gold' members.
Originally posted by Chilliesauce Like others said even in F2P model best thing to do is to pay 12 to 15 bucks a month to access entire game without any restrictions. So how does it matter whther a game is F2P or P2P. For players like me the transition makes no difference.
If you only wanted some extras one month, you paid only for those extras. With sub you still paid full price.
If didn't play for one month, you paid paid nothing. With sub you still paid full price.
If you consume less content than other players, you paid nothing or less over time depending on the content. With sub you still paid full price.
The difference is in the flexibility and choice that it affords the players. Add in that F2P only works when the free players are playing, so there is an incentive for the dev to keep creating content and upgrading the game for the entire playerbase. As a result, F2P games often have free expansions, more in-game events and giveaways, and regular content updates whereas with subscription the approach by most companies is to treat it like a product, not a service.
You know i can cancel my sub when i don't feel like playing? so i am still paying only for what i am playing and not anythign extra. It takes a click of a finger to cancel the sub. Also, i was saying that the 'transition' makes no difference to players like me who pay monthly sub for unrestricted access to entire game in F2P model. I wasn't talking from point of view of developers.
I know so many players who tried F2P titles and soon realised the restrictive nature of these games and ended up subbing because it is cheaper and more cost effective. The only difference is that now they are called 'gold' members.
Yes, I know that people can do that. I also know that most people won't. Everyone in marketing knows that most people won't. It's why subscriptions exist, Chillie. Earlier you stated that your point of view regarding cost is more on the side of 'what is best and smarter choice for consumer.' Subscriptions are not the best choice and often are not the smartest choice for any consumer, they are simply the most convenient choice. Subscriptions were created to ensure you pay for next months product/service, whether you use it or not. Subscriptions were created because each time that a person knows they might miss a month of usage, the company still gets their money.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Let's go with a less conservative player's expendetures (my wife). In two years times she has spent the same 70 I have (base amount for expansion that opened up complete Fellowship questing to cap and some extras from Isenguard. + 3 20 dollar credit buys. That's 70 + 60 = 130
Just like I am a former heavy smoker. If someone offers me one ciggarett and I say yes and smoke it it will be bad. Because a few days later I will smoke 3packs/day and will not be able to quit again without professional help.
I do not think you understand what self-control is...
I can say no to things that I know will be very bad for me and it prowes I have willpower. And that I understand myself and my problems. Without that willpower I would probably be dead or in jail.
Regarding smoking I have two options.
1. Smoke like the famous guy in "x-files" that was smoking all the time.
2. Not smoke at all.
Its impossible for me to sometimes smoke at partys or to smoke 5 cig/day.
All habits and activitys work like that for me. And if I play a game with a advantage CS I will spend a lot of money. Perhaps a fortune. Just like smoking my options are. 1.Buy and use everything that can in any way help me in the CS. 2. Dont play the game.
I think being able to say no when tempted to do something bad is a form of self control.
Anyway its not good for me and people like me if all future games will be F2P with advantage CS. And anyone should be able to understand why I prefer P2P games.
And the companies are in fact exploiting the minority they know will spend crazy money when playing the games. I dont think it is very etical and moral.
Just like I am a former heavy smoker. If someone offers me one ciggarett and I say yes and smoke it it will be bad. Because a few days later I will smoke 3packs/day and will not be able to quit again without professional help.
I do not think you understand what self-control is...
I can say no to things that I know will be very bad for me and it prowes I have willpower. And that I understand myself and my problems. Without that willpower I would probably be dead or in jail.
Regarding smoking I have two options.
1. Smoke like the famous guy in "x-files" that was smoking all the time.
2. Not smoke at all.
Its impossible for me to sometimes smoke at partys or to smoke 5 cig/day.
All habits and activitys work like that for me. And if I play a game with a advantage CS I will spend a lot of money. Perhaps a fortune. Just like smoking my options are. 1.Buy and use everything that can in any way help me in the CS. 2. Dont play the game.
I think being able to say no when tempted to do something bad is a form of self control.
Anyway its not good for me and people like me if all future games will be F2P with advantage CS. And anyone should be able to understand why I prefer P2P games.
And the companies are in fact exploiting the minority they know will spend crazy money when playing the games. I dont think it is very etical and moral.
Funny. I find 14.99 a month as a (deal) for MMOs now to be exploitive. Considering no game has monthly content updates now, server costs are the lowest they've been, and they still make you shell out 60+ bucks every year or so for expansions.
Originally posted by Chilliesauce Like others said even in F2P model best thing to do is to pay 12 to 15 bucks a month to access entire game without any restrictions. So how does it matter whther a game is F2P or P2P. For players like me the transition makes no difference.
If you only wanted some extras one month, you paid only for those extras. With sub you still paid full price.
If didn't play for one month, you paid paid nothing. With sub you still paid full price.
If you consume less content than other players, you paid nothing or less over time depending on the content. With sub you still paid full price.
The difference is in the flexibility and choice that it affords the players. Add in that F2P only works when the free players are playing, so there is an incentive for the dev to keep creating content and upgrading the game for the entire playerbase. As a result, F2P games often have free expansions, more in-game events and giveaways, and regular content updates whereas with subscription the approach by most companies is to treat it like a product, not a service.
You know i can cancel my sub when i don't feel like playing? so i am still paying only for what i am playing and not anythign extra. It takes a click of a finger to cancel the sub. Also, i was saying that the 'transition' makes no difference to players like me who pay monthly sub for unrestricted access to entire game in F2P model. I wasn't talking from point of view of developers.
I know so many players who tried F2P titles and soon realised the restrictive nature of these games and ended up subbing because it is cheaper and more cost effective. The only difference is that now they are called 'gold' members.
You keep saying unrestricted acces to entire game, I know some games do restrict you but in Guild wars 2 there is no restriction on the games content.
All items in the cash shop are purchased with gems I can gain gold in game and sell it to people for gems I have unristricted acces to all content except future expansions that you are expeted to purchase anyway.
So with F2P I have the freedom to play for nothing or when I have spare cash and not enough time I can buy a few items. If I decide to stop playing for a month or a week I am not spending money for nothing.
My Point is that F2p is a very good system as long as is it implamented correctly, to many people say its P2W or way more expensive but that only applies to bad implamentaions not good ones.
Originally posted by Loktofeit Subscriptions are not the best choice and often are not the smartest choice for any consumer, they are simply the most convenient choice.
That's a pretty broad blanket statement.
In this F2P model, do you have to unlock content for each and every character on your account? If a player has alt-itis in a bad way, would they be spending 4-5x the amount per month as a player with only one character?
If a player likes pretty, shiny pixels, would they pay more for their gaming experience than a player who cares not for that kind of stuff?
Would a player who enjoys collecting pay more for those CS mounts and pets than a player who could not care less for those things?
Do you still believe that subscriptions that include ALL of the above (I realize these subs hardly exist now-a-days) would be financially worse for ALL players?
The paradox of time and money. If you have more time to play a game, thus costing you more in the F2P model, you more than likely are not working as much, so your income fluctuates. If you have the money to play a lot, it is probably because you are working extra hard and time limits your game playing. With a sub, a player gets to play however much they desire for the same price each month.
Personally, I like to pay a set fee every month. Call me lazy. I do it for my internet, cable, and phone. Rent is the same. However, water and electric don't seem to offer an unlimited pay plan. lol I really do not feel "cheated" in any way with any of these payment options. Why would someone feel cheated with their gaming money? For me, it sure makes it easy to budget every month.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Just like I am a former heavy smoker. If someone offers me one ciggarett and I say yes and smoke it it will be bad. Because a few days later I will smoke 3packs/day and will not be able to quit again without professional help.
I do not think you understand what self-control is...
I can say no to things that I know will be very bad for me and it prowes I have willpower. And that I understand myself and my problems. Without that willpower I would probably be dead or in jail.
Regarding smoking I have two options.
1. Smoke like the famous guy in "x-files" that was smoking all the time.
2. Not smoke at all.
Its impossible for me to sometimes smoke at partys or to smoke 5 cig/day.
All habits and activitys work like that for me. And if I play a game with a advantage CS I will spend a lot of money. Perhaps a fortune. Just like smoking my options are. 1.Buy and use everything that can in any way help me in the CS. 2. Dont play the game.
I think being able to say no when tempted to do something bad is a form of self control.
Anyway its not good for me and people like me if all future games will be F2P with advantage CS. And anyone should be able to understand why I prefer P2P games.
And the companies are in fact exploiting the minority they know will spend crazy money when playing the games. I dont think it is very etical and moral.
Funny. I find 14.99 a month as a (deal) for MMOs now to be exploitive. Considering no game has monthly content updates now, server costs are the lowest they've been, and they still make you shell out 60+ bucks every year or so for expansions.
Maybe you are right. But, depending on the game, someone like me can spend $100, $300 or sometimes $500/month or more when playing a cash shop game. Games like that can be dangerous for me and my CC. I should certainly avoid them... Because I know it will end badly for me. My only option is to find other games with a different business model.
Originally posted by Chilliesauce Like others said even in F2P model best thing to do is to pay 12 to 15 bucks a month to access entire game without any restrictions. So how does it matter whther a game is F2P or P2P. For players like me the transition makes no difference.
If you only wanted some extras one month, you paid only for those extras. With sub you still paid full price.
If didn't play for one month, you paid paid nothing. With sub you still paid full price.
If you consume less content than other players, you paid nothing or less over time depending on the content. With sub you still paid full price.
The difference is in the flexibility and choice that it affords the players. Add in that F2P only works when the free players are playing, so there is an incentive for the dev to keep creating content and upgrading the game for the entire playerbase. As a result, F2P games often have free expansions, more in-game events and giveaways, and regular content updates whereas with subscription the approach by most companies is to treat it like a product, not a service.
You know i can cancel my sub when i don't feel like playing? so i am still paying only for what i am playing and not anythign extra. It takes a click of a finger to cancel the sub. Also, i was saying that the 'transition' makes no difference to players like me who pay monthly sub for unrestricted access to entire game in F2P model. I wasn't talking from point of view of developers.
I know so many players who tried F2P titles and soon realised the restrictive nature of these games and ended up subbing because it is cheaper and more cost effective. The only difference is that now they are called 'gold' members.
You keep saying unrestricted acces to entire game, I know some games do restrict you but in Guild wars 2 there is no restriction on the games content.
All items in the cash shop are purchased with gems I can gain gold in game and sell it to people for gems I have unristricted acces to all content except future expansions that you are expeted to purchase anyway.
So with F2P I have the freedom to play for nothing or when I have spare cash and not enough time I can buy a few items. If I decide to stop playing for a month or a week I am not spending money for nothing.
My Point is that F2p is a very good system as long as is it implamented correctly, to many people say its P2W or way more expensive but that only applies to bad implamentaions not good ones.
I still have to play a game which restricted me once i upgraded to gold or platinum in F2P titles. I haven't come across any so far. Mind giving me an example? maybe i missed something?
Originally posted by Chilliesauce Like others said even in F2P model best thing to do is to pay 12 to 15 bucks a month to access entire game without any restrictions. So how does it matter whther a game is F2P or P2P. For players like me the transition makes no difference.
If you only wanted some extras one month, you paid only for those extras. With sub you still paid full price.
If didn't play for one month, you paid paid nothing. With sub you still paid full price.
If you consume less content than other players, you paid nothing or less over time depending on the content. With sub you still paid full price.
The difference is in the flexibility and choice that it affords the players. Add in that F2P only works when the free players are playing, so there is an incentive for the dev to keep creating content and upgrading the game for the entire playerbase. As a result, F2P games often have free expansions, more in-game events and giveaways, and regular content updates whereas with subscription the approach by most companies is to treat it like a product, not a service.
You know i can cancel my sub when i don't feel like playing? so i am still paying only for what i am playing and not anythign extra. It takes a click of a finger to cancel the sub. Also, i was saying that the 'transition' makes no difference to players like me who pay monthly sub for unrestricted access to entire game in F2P model. I wasn't talking from point of view of developers.
I know so many players who tried F2P titles and soon realised the restrictive nature of these games and ended up subbing because it is cheaper and more cost effective. The only difference is that now they are called 'gold' members.
Yes, I know that people can do that. I also know that most people won't. Everyone in marketing knows that most people won't. It's why subscriptions exist, Chillie. Earlier you stated that your point of view regarding cost is more on the side of 'what is best and smarter choice for consumer.' Subscriptions are not the best choice and often are not the smartest choice for any consumer, they are simply the most convenient choice. Subscriptions were created to ensure you pay for next months product/service, whether you use it or not. Subscriptions were created because each time that a person knows they might miss a month of usage, the company still gets their money.
I go witht the choices laid in front of me. In B2P model i know if i am paying 15 bucks a month everything is open for me 'apart from cosmetic items in shops which make no difference to gameplay). I know i have access to all areas of the games, all classes, dungeons etc.
In F2P model if i don't pay to unlock content one by one or pay a monthly sub i know that restrictions are going to be heavy. Trust me i have tried both style of gameplay and for complete game experince nothing beats stickign to monthly sub for F2P titles. And by the way if i miss a month in F2P title the company still gets those 15 bucks... so i see no difference here.
So with F2P I have the freedom to play for nothing or when I have spare cash and not enough time I can buy a few items. If I decide to stop playing for a month or a week I am not spending money for nothing.
My Point is that F2p is a very good system as long as is it implamented correctly, to many people say its P2W or way more expensive but that only applies to bad implamentaions not good ones.
depends on player too
take Diablo3 for example -- players spend hundreds of dollars on RMAH for gear of questionable worth
or Zynga facebook games where you spend cash to get energy so you dont have to wait as long to do actions
doesnt matter how well a game implements a cash market or "pay as you go" content
a significant number of players will burn their cash needlessly in f2p games as long as they are having fun
Originally posted by Chilliesauce Like others said even in F2P model best thing to do is to pay 12 to 15 bucks a month to access entire game without any restrictions. So how does it matter whther a game is F2P or P2P. For players like me the transition makes no difference.
If you only wanted some extras one month, you paid only for those extras. With sub you still paid full price.
If didn't play for one month, you paid paid nothing. With sub you still paid full price.
If you consume less content than other players, you paid nothing or less over time depending on the content. With sub you still paid full price.
The difference is in the flexibility and choice that it affords the players. Add in that F2P only works when the free players are playing, so there is an incentive for the dev to keep creating content and upgrading the game for the entire playerbase. As a result, F2P games often have free expansions, more in-game events and giveaways, and regular content updates whereas with subscription the approach by most companies is to treat it like a product, not a service.
You know i can cancel my sub when i don't feel like playing? so i am still paying only for what i am playing and not anythign extra. It takes a click of a finger to cancel the sub. Also, i was saying that the 'transition' makes no difference to players like me who pay monthly sub for unrestricted access to entire game in F2P model. I wasn't talking from point of view of developers.
I know so many players who tried F2P titles and soon realised the restrictive nature of these games and ended up subbing because it is cheaper and more cost effective. The only difference is that now they are called 'gold' members.
You keep saying unrestricted acces to entire game, I know some games do restrict you but in Guild wars 2 there is no restriction on the games content.
All items in the cash shop are purchased with gems I can gain gold in game and sell it to people for gems I have unristricted acces to all content except future expansions that you are expeted to purchase anyway.
So with F2P I have the freedom to play for nothing or when I have spare cash and not enough time I can buy a few items. If I decide to stop playing for a month or a week I am not spending money for nothing.
My Point is that F2p is a very good system as long as is it implamented correctly, to many people say its P2W or way more expensive but that only applies to bad implamentaions not good ones.
I still have to play a game which restricted me once i upgraded to gold or platinum in F2P titles. I haven't come across any so far. Mind giving me an example? maybe i missed something?
I just did, you need to play a game like guild wars it does not have gold or platimun you have access to all of the game, if you pay for the box only or pay extra in the cash shop.
The games that offer a system as you describe is a bad one they are basically sub based games that give the first 20 lvls or limited access for free. These are not true F2P for me and definatly fall into the badly implamented group.
Originally posted by Chilliesauce Like others said even in F2P model best thing to do is to pay 12 to 15 bucks a month to access entire game without any restrictions. So how does it matter whther a game is F2P or P2P. For players like me the transition makes no difference.
If you only wanted some extras one month, you paid only for those extras. With sub you still paid full price.
If didn't play for one month, you paid paid nothing. With sub you still paid full price.
If you consume less content than other players, you paid nothing or less over time depending on the content. With sub you still paid full price.
The difference is in the flexibility and choice that it affords the players. Add in that F2P only works when the free players are playing, so there is an incentive for the dev to keep creating content and upgrading the game for the entire playerbase. As a result, F2P games often have free expansions, more in-game events and giveaways, and regular content updates whereas with subscription the approach by most companies is to treat it like a product, not a service.
You know i can cancel my sub when i don't feel like playing? so i am still paying only for what i am playing and not anythign extra. It takes a click of a finger to cancel the sub. Also, i was saying that the 'transition' makes no difference to players like me who pay monthly sub for unrestricted access to entire game in F2P model. I wasn't talking from point of view of developers.
I know so many players who tried F2P titles and soon realised the restrictive nature of these games and ended up subbing because it is cheaper and more cost effective. The only difference is that now they are called 'gold' members.
You keep saying unrestricted acces to entire game, I know some games do restrict you but in Guild wars 2 there is no restriction on the games content.
All items in the cash shop are purchased with gems I can gain gold in game and sell it to people for gems I have unristricted acces to all content except future expansions that you are expeted to purchase anyway.
So with F2P I have the freedom to play for nothing or when I have spare cash and not enough time I can buy a few items. If I decide to stop playing for a month or a week I am not spending money for nothing.
My Point is that F2p is a very good system as long as is it implamented correctly, to many people say its P2W or way more expensive but that only applies to bad implamentaions not good ones.
I still have to play a game which restricted me once i upgraded to gold or platinum in F2P titles. I haven't come across any so far. Mind giving me an example? maybe i missed something?
I just did, you need to play a game like guild wars it does not have gold or platimun you have access to all of the game, if you pay for the box only or pay extra in the cash shop.
The games that offer a system as you describe is a bad one they are basically sub based games that give the first 20 lvls or limited access for free. These are not true F2P for me and definatly fall into the badly implamented group.
i am talking about F2P titles not B2P two different models here.
There are a huge number of different business models that call themselves "free to play", and they shouldn't all be lumped in together.
/
This..
I will warn folks that dont already know, yes most f2p games can and will get expensive unless you dont mind endless gold grinding with inferior gear!
When i was playing these free wonders it was hard not to indulge and spend 35-50 bucks a month on some of them just for convenience sake because the grinding can and in most of these gets brutal by design if you dont use the CS..
I prefer a B2P model like arenanets over F2P or sub models however i do not mind paying a monthly sub for a game if it is fully complete and truly worthy of a sub, but these days very few games truly qualify to me as "worthy of a sub" and all of these are older games as these days they are mostly clones made to sell fast boxes and then attempt to hook their victims early with illlusional carrots on a stick that turn out just to be a stick while they were milking them for $15 a month..
I just did, you need to play a game like guild wars it does not have gold or platimun you have access to all of the game, if you pay for the box only or pay extra in the cash shop.
guild wars doesnt count as free to play game -- it like saying Diablo is "pay once" and unlimited play
So with F2P I have the freedom to play for nothing or when I have spare cash and not enough time I can buy a few items. If I decide to stop playing for a month or a week I am not spending money for nothing.
My Point is that F2p is a very good system as long as is it implamented correctly, to many people say its P2W or way more expensive but that only applies to bad implamentaions not good ones.
depends on player too
take Diablo3 for example -- players spend hundreds of dollars on RMAH for gear of questionable worth
or Zynga facebook games where you spend cash to get energy so you dont have to wait as long to do actions
doesnt matter how well a game implements a cash market or "pay as you go" content
a significant number of players will burn their cash needlessly in f2p games as long as they are having fun
Isnt that there choice though, if you spend money and are having fun then thats what matters, I have a friend who loves music just like me, I buy good speakers etc I dont spend much, he however spent thousands on sound proofing his study and getting best equipment I dont see the point but he is happy.
F2P/B2P gives you the option to choose which way you want to go.
Originally posted by MaGooUK I just did, you need to play a game like guild wars it does not have gold or platimun you have access to all of the game, if you pay for the box only or pay extra in the cash shop.
MaGooUK, Guild Wars is NOT a F2P game. Why do you keep bringing it up as if it is? The purchase of the box gives you access to the whole game. Try getting access without that initial purchase. Please try finding examples of games that are actually close to F2P models.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by MaGooUK I just did, you need to play a game like guild wars it does not have gold or platimun you have access to all of the game, if you pay for the box only or pay extra in the cash shop.
MaGooUK, Guild Wars is NOT a F2P game. Why do you keep bringing it up as if it is? The purchase of the box gives you access to the whole game. Try getting access without that initial purchase. Please try finding examples of games that are actually close to F2P models.
How about Planetside 2 it is F2P and is almoust identical to GW2,
As for F2P yes you are right that they restrict access unless you pay for it, my point is that they are bad implamentations of what F2P should be. I am not saying you are wrong about them I am saying as a payment model they are not F2P they are subs (gold platimum etc) with free content bolted on.
I still have to play a game which restricted me once i upgraded to gold or platinum in F2P titles. I haven't come across any so far. Mind giving me an example? maybe i missed something?
LOTRO.
Let me guess... expansions don't count?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I love F2P because it is basically an "idiot tax" payment model. I have the self control to play a game and not constantly spend money on stupid cosmetic items so it means those who can't control themselves pay for me. I used to have friends in WoW who paid to change their name every month or were constantly faction or server transferring their toons and I was just baffled at how they could waste money like that. So if those people want to pay for my content then I am all for it. The only time I oppose F2P is when it is pay to win because then it isn't really a game anymore.
Comments
You know i can cancel my sub when i don't feel like playing? so i am still paying only for what i am playing and not anythign extra. It takes a click of a finger to cancel the sub. Also, i was saying that the 'transition' makes no difference to players like me who pay monthly sub for unrestricted access to entire game in F2P model. I wasn't talking from point of view of developers.
I know so many players who tried F2P titles and soon realised the restrictive nature of these games and ended up subbing because it is cheaper and more cost effective. The only difference is that now they are called 'gold' members.
Yes, I know that people can do that. I also know that most people won't. Everyone in marketing knows that most people won't. It's why subscriptions exist, Chillie. Earlier you stated that your point of view regarding cost is more on the side of 'what is best and smarter choice for consumer.' Subscriptions are not the best choice and often are not the smartest choice for any consumer, they are simply the most convenient choice. Subscriptions were created to ensure you pay for next months product/service, whether you use it or not. Subscriptions were created because each time that a person knows they might miss a month of usage, the company still gets their money.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
70 bucks for 2 + years of play in LotRO.
70 / 24 = 2.91 dollars a month.
14.99 * 24 = 359.76 total in 2 years time.
Let's go with a less conservative player's expendetures (my wife). In two years times she has spent the same 70 I have (base amount for expansion that opened up complete Fellowship questing to cap and some extras from Isenguard. + 3 20 dollar credit buys. That's 70 + 60 = 130
130 / 24 = 5.41 dollars a month.
F2P isn't expensive. It's practical.
a yo ho ho
I can say no to things that I know will be very bad for me and it prowes I have willpower. And that I understand myself and my problems. Without that willpower I would probably be dead or in jail.
Regarding smoking I have two options.
1. Smoke like the famous guy in "x-files" that was smoking all the time.
2. Not smoke at all.
Its impossible for me to sometimes smoke at partys or to smoke 5 cig/day.
All habits and activitys work like that for me. And if I play a game with a advantage CS I will spend a lot of money. Perhaps a fortune. Just like smoking my options are. 1.Buy and use everything that can in any way help me in the CS. 2. Dont play the game.
I think being able to say no when tempted to do something bad is a form of self control.
Anyway its not good for me and people like me if all future games will be F2P with advantage CS. And anyone should be able to understand why I prefer P2P games.
And the companies are in fact exploiting the minority they know will spend crazy money when playing the games. I dont think it is very etical and moral.
Funny. I find 14.99 a month as a (deal) for MMOs now to be exploitive. Considering no game has monthly content updates now, server costs are the lowest they've been, and they still make you shell out 60+ bucks every year or so for expansions.
a yo ho ho
You keep saying unrestricted acces to entire game, I know some games do restrict you but in Guild wars 2 there is no restriction on the games content.
All items in the cash shop are purchased with gems I can gain gold in game and sell it to people for gems I have unristricted acces to all content except future expansions that you are expeted to purchase anyway.
So with F2P I have the freedom to play for nothing or when I have spare cash and not enough time I can buy a few items. If I decide to stop playing for a month or a week I am not spending money for nothing.
My Point is that F2p is a very good system as long as is it implamented correctly, to many people say its P2W or way more expensive but that only applies to bad implamentaions not good ones.
In this F2P model, do you have to unlock content for each and every character on your account? If a player has alt-itis in a bad way, would they be spending 4-5x the amount per month as a player with only one character?
If a player likes pretty, shiny pixels, would they pay more for their gaming experience than a player who cares not for that kind of stuff?
Would a player who enjoys collecting pay more for those CS mounts and pets than a player who could not care less for those things?
Do you still believe that subscriptions that include ALL of the above (I realize these subs hardly exist now-a-days) would be financially worse for ALL players?
The paradox of time and money. If you have more time to play a game, thus costing you more in the F2P model, you more than likely are not working as much, so your income fluctuates. If you have the money to play a lot, it is probably because you are working extra hard and time limits your game playing. With a sub, a player gets to play however much they desire for the same price each month.
Personally, I like to pay a set fee every month. Call me lazy. I do it for my internet, cable, and phone. Rent is the same. However, water and electric don't seem to offer an unlimited pay plan. lol I really do not feel "cheated" in any way with any of these payment options. Why would someone feel cheated with their gaming money? For me, it sure makes it easy to budget every month.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Maybe you are right. But, depending on the game, someone like me can spend $100, $300 or sometimes $500/month or more when playing a cash shop game. Games like that can be dangerous for me and my CC. I should certainly avoid them... Because I know it will end badly for me. My only option is to find other games with a different business model.
I still have to play a game which restricted me once i upgraded to gold or platinum in F2P titles. I haven't come across any so far. Mind giving me an example? maybe i missed something?
I go witht the choices laid in front of me. In B2P model i know if i am paying 15 bucks a month everything is open for me 'apart from cosmetic items in shops which make no difference to gameplay). I know i have access to all areas of the games, all classes, dungeons etc.
In F2P model if i don't pay to unlock content one by one or pay a monthly sub i know that restrictions are going to be heavy. Trust me i have tried both style of gameplay and for complete game experince nothing beats stickign to monthly sub for F2P titles. And by the way if i miss a month in F2P title the company still gets those 15 bucks... so i see no difference here.
depends on player too
take Diablo3 for example -- players spend hundreds of dollars on RMAH for gear of questionable worth
or Zynga facebook games where you spend cash to get energy so you dont have to wait as long to do actions
doesnt matter how well a game implements a cash market or "pay as you go" content
a significant number of players will burn their cash needlessly in f2p games as long as they are having fun
EQ2 fan sites
thats been my experience too
EQ2 fan sites
I just did, you need to play a game like guild wars it does not have gold or platimun you have access to all of the game, if you pay for the box only or pay extra in the cash shop.
The games that offer a system as you describe is a bad one they are basically sub based games that give the first 20 lvls or limited access for free. These are not true F2P for me and definatly fall into the badly implamented group.
i am talking about F2P titles not B2P
two different models here.
/
This..
I will warn folks that dont already know, yes most f2p games can and will get expensive unless you dont mind endless gold grinding with inferior gear!
When i was playing these free wonders it was hard not to indulge and spend 35-50 bucks a month on some of them just for convenience sake because the grinding can and in most of these gets brutal by design if you dont use the CS..
I prefer a B2P model like arenanets over F2P or sub models however i do not mind paying a monthly sub for a game if it is fully complete and truly worthy of a sub, but these days very few games truly qualify to me as "worthy of a sub" and all of these are older games as these days they are mostly clones made to sell fast boxes and then attempt to hook their victims early with illlusional carrots on a stick that turn out just to be a stick while they were milking them for $15 a month..
Playing GW2..
guild wars doesnt count as free to play game -- it like saying Diablo is "pay once" and unlimited play
EQ2 fan sites
Isnt that there choice though, if you spend money and are having fun then thats what matters, I have a friend who loves music just like me, I buy good speakers etc I dont spend much, he however spent thousands on sound proofing his study and getting best equipment I dont see the point but he is happy.
F2P/B2P gives you the option to choose which way you want to go.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
B2P and F2P share only *one similarity* --- no monthly sub required
I dont think anyone has expressed issues with buy to play games
Free to play games carry plenty of baggage because F2P will nickel and dime you
EQ2 fan sites
How about Planetside 2 it is F2P and is almoust identical to GW2,
As for F2P yes you are right that they restrict access unless you pay for it, my point is that they are bad implamentations of what F2P should be. I am not saying you are wrong about them I am saying as a payment model they are not F2P they are subs (gold platimum etc) with free content bolted on.
Sorry but you are no mathematician - especially when reading your last paragraph.
I never claimed it to be exact numbers to be taken literary, that is your problem that you do not understand a demonstrational example.
I think I also found your another problem but nvm....
SOE hasnt revealed the pricing details of PS2 yet
yes PS2 will be f2p but SOE f2p games have a history of nickel and diming
a good example is Free Realms, the profession Pet Trainer seemed free
but the "gotcha" was that you had to spend 1.00 to buy any pet to train
its unknown what gimmicks SOE will use in PlanetSide2 for charging cash (beyond cosmetic gear)
- its better to use a F2P example of a game that is already released
EQ2 fan sites
LOTRO.
Let me guess... expansions don't count?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I love F2P because it is basically an "idiot tax" payment model. I have the self control to play a game and not constantly spend money on stupid cosmetic items so it means those who can't control themselves pay for me. I used to have friends in WoW who paid to change their name every month or were constantly faction or server transferring their toons and I was just baffled at how they could waste money like that. So if those people want to pay for my content then I am all for it. The only time I oppose F2P is when it is pay to win because then it isn't really a game anymore.
EQ2 also
initially SOE intended to offer EQ2 expansions for free if they were older than a year
but they went back to the charging for expansions when they converted all servers to f2p
it can be argued that EQ2, LOTRO, AOC, etc are not traditional f2p
former p2p mmos that changed their pricing structure to support a freemium style of play
EQ2 fan sites