f2p is an inferior model, the only people it benefits are those either too cheap to pay a sub fee or too poor to afford one. Well that isn't true, it also benefits people with more money than sense who wish to pay to win. And spare me with the "most of the stuff is available in game" nonsense, yes for a huge grind, like more grindy than the sub model grinds in most games you can indeed farm the stuff up.
This model is worse for the casual gamer all the way around. College kids with no job, and I suspect no friends or girl friends in many cases, can commit the hours and hours to grind the gear away, and rich people can just buy everything, and the rest of the normal people find themselves at a competitive disadvantage and are forced to consider paying 2 win themselves.
Subscription fees are the most fair system for the devs to get their money back and server maintainence, although 15 dollars a month is probably grossly over charging given what servers cost to maintain these days, should be 9.99 a month.
Anyways, these are just my thoughts based off of 15 years of playing mmos and having played both payment models.
I"m a casual gamer and I find the f2p model to be the superior model. It lets me pick and choose what I wish, I dont' worry about wasted sub fees. The company has to make the game enjoyable before they get a dime out of me, unlike the sub model where I first give them money to buy the game, then give them a months sub before I really know if the game is enjoyable or not. F2P requires the game to actually be fun and doesn't depend on hyped box sales. As you stated it also benefits the ones that can't afford a sub fee and the ones that want to pay more. So it benefits everyone.
The F2P I've played aren't any more or less grindy than the sub ones. Pretty much the same actually.
Subscription fee's, I don't mind paying them if I like the game, however IMO it is the most unfair system. As I stated by the game, pay a sub, 1 week in I"m bored and quit, what a waste of all that money. The devs want my money they have to make it fun.
Anyway these are just my thoughts based on 13 years of playing MMO and having played both payment models.
No, by making a game pay 2 win it is automatically the least fair model possible, and I am sorry mate...........I am calling shens on your assertion that f2p games let you grind gear at the same grind rate as sub games, especially items in their cash shop. See that is counter intuitive to their model.
I will go ahead and put you in the willing to pay 2 win category and move along.
Originally posted by KingGator f2p is an inferior model, the only people it benefits are those either too cheap to pay a sub fee or too poor to afford one. Well that isn't true, it also benefits people with more money than sense who wish to pay to win.
That does not make it an inferior model tho.
If there is enough people that like the model and such model can make more money, then it is superior.
You cannot judge by your own bias only, there are thousands of others that do the same and only full sample applies.
I disagree that they are pay 2 win. And if not P2W then F2P is the most fair model.
You moved the goal post on me. If a game is f2p but offers no pay 2 win then it may be the most fair model, but pay 2 win is inevitable in a f2p model. If that is the only revenue stream for the dev team they will naturally want to make more money, which I cannot blame them for, but this ultimately will lead to the temptation of putting elite gear in their cash shops and thus pay 2 win is born.
This is how discussions work. There is a premise, the premise is conversed and (in a good discussion) a variety of views arise from this discourse. When it becomes apparent that some people lack the ability to reason, the discussion no longer serves a purpose, we all move on.
----- The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoaredit - too many threads, too many different discussion in the same thread so I'm not going to discuss science vs pseudoscience anymore
If no one payed, these games would be out of business, someone is spending....
I myself prefer sub games, with no cash shop...I like knowing what I am spending, and I do not like the lure/chances of a f2p cash shop becoming a p2w...
It does make you wonder when you read the majority of the comments here from people claiming they don't spend a dime. Somebody is lying.
Why? It is a documented FACT that MOST F2P MMO players do NOT pay. I have posted a link of that research.
It is pretty obvious that a small minority is paying a lot to subsidize the majority. As long as I am not one of the "whales", i am more than happy to let them subsidize my game.
If most players don't pay then explain the enormous amount of revenue gained through F2P models that don't use content restriction. You can't have one while the other is so positive. Obviously it's working the way it was intended, to bring in revenue which is the goal of the companies making these games ultimately.
If no one payed, these games would be out of business, someone is spending....
I myself prefer sub games, with no cash shop...I like knowing what I am spending, and I do not like the lure/chances of a f2p cash shop becoming a p2w...
It does make you wonder when you read the majority of the comments here from people claiming they don't spend a dime. Somebody is lying.
Why? It is a documented FACT that MOST F2P MMO players do NOT pay. I have posted a link of that research.
It is pretty obvious that a small minority is paying a lot to subsidize the majority. As long as I am not one of the "whales", i am more than happy to let them subsidize my game.
If most players don't pay then explain the enormous amount of revenue gained through F2P models that don't use content restriction. You can't have one while the other is so positive. Obviously it's working the way it was intended, to bring in revenue which is the goal of the companies making these games ultimately.
Of course you can. Most don't pay anything, some pay a small amount, a very small amount of people pay a huge amount (the so called whales).
Pretty well-established and documented by now.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by Gdemami Originally posted by VengeSunsoar However the company correctly guessed that people would be convinced that the product would save them time, so the need was created.
Erm no.
The demand for microwaves raised up once women left their households for work and home meal cuisine was replaced with prefabricated food products.
But believe whatever you want, invalid logic can justify just anything.
It sure can. Point proven.
- 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
Moreover these games ae my escape, my fantasy world, the minute you bring real world economic considerations into the game you bring the real world into the game and make them far less interesting to me.
This.
Same for me.
Double agree.
Originally posted by Arskaaa "when players learned tacticks in dungeon/raids, its bread".
OK, fine, you know it all. I have no need to educate you in Marketing 101. Believe what you will.
Do yourself a favour though and Google 'Marketing creating demand' and have a read.
Ah, famous "google it" argument...or rather lack of...
Was there a demand for a Pet Rock back in the 70's? Did the person responsible for that meet a demand from customers?
Were there people clammering for a Hoola Hoop when Whamo introduced it in the 50's?
That is the introduction of a new product/service, which has nothing to do with the manner in which people choose to pay for products/services, the latter being the topic at hand.
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
ANY F2P game I have been playing (starting with Rappelz) at the end of month went MUCH more expensive then P2P model. Usually, with very few exceptions, one gets crappy game with even crappiest performance in F2P version compared to much better P2P. But sure, there are P2P games that should not exist not even as F2P.
Here's the thing I don't get and this thread is a prime example of it. It's full of posts saying 2 things, "the devs have to make money for the game to continue running", I think we can all agree with this. Those posts are only outnumbered by those proclaiming that they have been playing f2p games for 2-5 years and in all that time have spend miniscule amounts of money or nothing at all. Now I'm no mathematician but we either have a very focused group of f2p players here at mmorpg.com and there is another forum somewhere with f2p gamers complaining about having spend millions on the game. Or people talk utter shit, I'm going to go with the latter (hey I'm a realist).
Maybe people who spent thousands of dollar on a F2P game just aren't very proud of that. No need to tell people who don't 'need' to win a game that they're talking utter shit. About 80% of F2P gamers spend almost no money on the game. 20% of the players spend more on them than they would spend in a P2P game. The majority isn't talking utter shit, they're telling it like it is.
The amount of money a person spends on a thing is based entirely on how much they WANT to spend on a thing.
I have played many F2P games and not spent a penny. In some cases, I've decided to fork over X amount of money where I feel it's worth it/where I want to.
That's all it comes down to. OF COURSE developers and publishers are going to put in place methods to encourage people to spend money, otherwise there would be no prompt to spend money. That's true of every platform and payment model, including P2P games (where longer subscriptions enjoy discounts).
To suggest that the F2P model is inherently corrupt when it affords the user a degree of choice that doesn't exist in the P2P model is, I'm afraid, moronic.
Well you see, if a FTP game had a spending cap of $35 per month (double the normal subscription) then a lot more people would actually pay that $35. It is the people spending $350+ that turn those $35 spenders off -- as the playing field is not at all equal at that point. But I wonder just what percentage of the money coming into a FTP comes from people who spend say $350 or more per month on the FTP game. I have this sneaking suspicion that it may be a higher percentage than people realize. I mean it doesnt take all that many $2,000 per month whales to marginalize the contributions of the normal player who isnt free-riding.
Here's the thing I don't get and this thread is a prime example of it. It's full of posts saying 2 things, "the devs have to make money for the game to continue running", I think we can all agree with this. Those posts are only outnumbered by those proclaiming that they have been playing f2p games for 2-5 years and in all that time have spend miniscule amounts of money or nothing at all. Now I'm no mathematician but we either have a very focused group of f2p players here at mmorpg.com and there is another forum somewhere with f2p gamers complaining about having spend millions on the game. Or people talk utter shit, I'm going to go with the latter (hey I'm a realist).
Maybe people who spent thousands of dollar on a F2P game just aren't very proud of that. No need to tell people who don't 'need' to win a game that they're talking utter shit. About 80% of F2P gamers spend almost no money on the game. 20% of the players spend more on them than they would spend in a P2P game. The majority isn't talking utter shit, they're telling it like it is.
If you feel that you need to spend thousands of dollars to have fun and enjoy the game there is no reason for others to have a problem with it. But someone that is not very rich spending that much anyway could be in trouble. It is up to the individual. Personally I think its better to play a game with a different business model. A P2P or a true B2P game. Because I feel that I need and want to spend that much when playing F2P games. But its not very good for my economy. If others can play them without spending much or anything and have fun its good for them. But people are different. And there is no way they can know what others need to do or how much they will need to spend to have fun.
If no one payed, these games would be out of business, someone is spending....
I myself prefer sub games, with no cash shop...I like knowing what I am spending, and I do not like the lure/chances of a f2p cash shop becoming a p2w...
It does make you wonder when you read the majority of the comments here from people claiming they don't spend a dime. Somebody is lying.
Why? It is a documented FACT that MOST F2P MMO players do NOT pay. I have posted a link of that research.
It is pretty obvious that a small minority is paying a lot to subsidize the majority. As long as I am not one of the "whales", i am more than happy to let them subsidize my game.
If most players don't pay then explain the enormous amount of revenue gained through F2P models that don't use content restriction. You can't have one while the other is so positive. Obviously it's working the way it was intended, to bring in revenue which is the goal of the companies making these games ultimately.
Gosh .. where have you been in the last few years? Do some reading on the Internet, ok? These things are DOCUMENTED.
"Whales" are spending a lot of money and subsidizing everyone. If someone spent $150, he pays for 10 other people for the month's subscription. Even Raph Koster knows this.
Here's the thing I don't get and this thread is a prime example of it. It's full of posts saying 2 things, "the devs have to make money for the game to continue running", I think we can all agree with this. Those posts are only outnumbered by those proclaiming that they have been playing f2p games for 2-5 years and in all that time have spend miniscule amounts of money or nothing at all. Now I'm no mathematician but we either have a very focused group of f2p players here at mmorpg.com and there is another forum somewhere with f2p gamers complaining about having spend millions on the game. Or people talk utter shit, I'm going to go with the latter (hey I'm a realist).
Maybe people who spent thousands of dollar on a F2P game just aren't very proud of that. No need to tell people who don't 'need' to win a game that they're talking utter shit. About 80% of F2P gamers spend almost no money on the game. 20% of the players spend more on them than they would spend in a P2P game. The majority isn't talking utter shit, they're telling it like it is.
I don't see an issue. It is documented that MOST players do not play. And those who do .. don't post here. This place is such a small part of the MMO community. What is the problem if it misses all the whales (since there are so few of them anyway)?
If you think YOU are gaining anything in something marketed to you as "free to play", think again. You either give up a lot of game play if you are not buying off their stores or taking advantage of their "premium" subscription service. In fact, you are lossing value if you subscribe OR pay for micotransactions OR both. Do you really think a company is going to give you everything if you sub and they have a store to sell items? Not likely. They want you to spend your money and they don't give a rip how they get it from you. Use to be that WE expected good service, good product and REASONABLE cost. Now, THEY are dictating terms and lying to us by making up these so-called "free" models that are not free. If you ever see a game that says "free to play" in the marketing scheme....RUN!
If you think YOU are gaining anything in something marketed to you as "free to play", think again. You either give up a lot of game play if you are not buying off their stores or taking advantage of their "premium" subscription service. In fact, you are lossing value if you subscribe OR pay for micotransactions OR both. Do you really think a company is going to give you everything if you sub and they have a store to sell items? Not likely. They want you to spend your money and they don't give a rip how they get it from you. Use to be that WE expected good service, good product and REASONABLE cost. Now, THEY are dictating terms and lying to us by making up these so-called "free" models that are not free. If you ever see a game that says "free to play" in the marketing scheme....RUN!
If you want to be the best of the best you will need to be both VIP and a "Whale" if you play freemium games. I think its a bit strange some fail to understand that. Some can play and have fun without paying anything. But powergamers that wants to be first, wants to be as powerful as possible, wants to never waste time and always be efficient will need to be "Whales". And if someone with that attitude is really hardcore and competitive he will become a very big "Whale".
I tried to explain in this thread... If you know you will need to be a "Whale" to have fun can you really afford to play the game? People need to think about that... Because it can get very expensive. I know that....
If you think YOU are gaining anything in something marketed to you as "free to play", think again. You either give up a lot of game play if you are not buying off their stores or taking advantage of their "premium" subscription service. In fact, you are lossing value if you subscribe OR pay for micotransactions OR both. Do you really think a company is going to give you everything if you sub and they have a store to sell items? Not likely. They want you to spend your money and they don't give a rip how they get it from you. Use to be that WE expected good service, good product and REASONABLE cost. Now, THEY are dictating terms and lying to us by making up these so-called "free" models that are not free. If you ever see a game that says "free to play" in the marketing scheme....RUN!
I like the fact that you believe that a "Study" consisting of... EA, Ubisoft, and some other Game Industry People... Will have any real value, without any NEUTRAL STUDIES. Only numbers we can see from the link are from; EA:SOME People spend 5000 $ on F2P Football game. It isn't a big secret that Sport-fanatics are most easy to cash -_-'
As stated before, some people use money, and some don't. Nothing can change this.I really don't see how this thread has gotten so big, while the issue itself has been simple.
F2P Games aren't free, but player base isn't made of just some who buy and some who don't. There are those who buy every now and then, and nothing expensive. The game needs it's funding from somewhere, so if there aren't any cash shop or special memberships, what is left?---Shameless Advertising.
Id rather pay a little, without giving a crap about someone crying that i have used more than some random gamer would've used in subs. (But i also won't accept that "Core" game is P2P, there has to be SOME limits )
If you think YOU are gaining anything in something marketed to you as "free to play", think again. You either give up a lot of game play if you are not buying off their stores or taking advantage of their "premium" subscription service. In fact, you are lossing value if you subscribe OR pay for micotransactions OR both. Do you really think a company is going to give you everything if you sub and they have a store to sell items? Not likely. They want you to spend your money and they don't give a rip how they get it from you. Use to be that WE expected good service, good product and REASONABLE cost. Now, THEY are dictating terms and lying to us by making up these so-called "free" models that are not free. If you ever see a game that says "free to play" in the marketing scheme....RUN!
I am not giving up ANY gameplay. I am getting SOME gameplay without paying a cent. Feel free and fair to me.
No they are not giving me everything .. but they are giving me SOME .. and that is value.
Case in point, i really enjoy playing DCUO .. and i don't need to buy any of the content paks to enjoy it. Do you think i am going to give up that fun just because you say so?
Comments
No, by making a game pay 2 win it is automatically the least fair model possible, and I am sorry mate...........I am calling shens on your assertion that f2p games let you grind gear at the same grind rate as sub games, especially items in their cash shop. See that is counter intuitive to their model.
I will go ahead and put you in the willing to pay 2 win category and move along.
I disagree that they are pay 2 win. And if not P2W then F2P is the most fair model.
That does not make it an inferior model tho.
If there is enough people that like the model and such model can make more money, then it is superior.
You cannot judge by your own bias only, there are thousands of others that do the same and only full sample applies.
F2P games are EXPENSIVE!
Only if you have no self control.....
You moved the goal post on me. If a game is f2p but offers no pay 2 win then it may be the most fair model, but pay 2 win is inevitable in a f2p model. If that is the only revenue stream for the dev team they will naturally want to make more money, which I cannot blame them for, but this ultimately will lead to the temptation of putting elite gear in their cash shops and thus pay 2 win is born.
Those two statements are mutually exclusive.
If revenue stream is conditional, it means there must be some other streams but then it cannot be inevitable.
So you say that powerful game affecting items are the only revenue stream possible for F2P games?
This is how discussions work. There is a premise, the premise is conversed and (in a good discussion) a variety of views arise from this discourse. When it becomes apparent that some people lack the ability to reason, the discussion no longer serves a purpose, we all move on.
-----
The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
I agree. The two conditions are mutually exclusive.
But I guess it really depends on how we define P2W.
edit - too many threads, too many different discussion in the same thread so I'm not going to discuss science vs pseudoscience anymore
Okey.
*puts the mighty Snyders thinking cap off*
If most players don't pay then explain the enormous amount of revenue gained through F2P models that don't use content restriction. You can't have one while the other is so positive. Obviously it's working the way it was intended, to bring in revenue which is the goal of the companies making these games ultimately.
Of course you can. Most don't pay anything, some pay a small amount, a very small amount of people pay a huge amount (the so called whales).
Pretty well-established and documented by now.
Erm no.
The demand for microwaves raised up once women left their households for work and home meal cuisine was replaced with prefabricated food products.
But believe whatever you want, invalid logic can justify just anything.
It sure can. Point proven.
- 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
Double agree.
Originally posted by Arskaaa
"when players learned tacticks in dungeon/raids, its bread".
That is the introduction of a new product/service, which has nothing to do with the manner in which people choose to pay for products/services, the latter being the topic at hand.
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
ANY F2P game I have been playing (starting with Rappelz) at the end of month went MUCH more expensive then P2P model. Usually, with very few exceptions, one gets crappy game with even crappiest performance in F2P version compared to much better P2P. But sure, there are P2P games that should not exist not even as F2P.
Maybe people who spent thousands of dollar on a F2P game just aren't very proud of that. No need to tell people who don't 'need' to win a game that they're talking utter shit. About 80% of F2P gamers spend almost no money on the game. 20% of the players spend more on them than they would spend in a P2P game. The majority isn't talking utter shit, they're telling it like it is.
The amount of money a person spends on a thing is based entirely on how much they WANT to spend on a thing.
I have played many F2P games and not spent a penny. In some cases, I've decided to fork over X amount of money where I feel it's worth it/where I want to.
That's all it comes down to. OF COURSE developers and publishers are going to put in place methods to encourage people to spend money, otherwise there would be no prompt to spend money. That's true of every platform and payment model, including P2P games (where longer subscriptions enjoy discounts).
To suggest that the F2P model is inherently corrupt when it affords the user a degree of choice that doesn't exist in the P2P model is, I'm afraid, moronic.
Well you see, if a FTP game had a spending cap of $35 per month (double the normal subscription) then a lot more people would actually pay that $35. It is the people spending $350+ that turn those $35 spenders off -- as the playing field is not at all equal at that point. But I wonder just what percentage of the money coming into a FTP comes from people who spend say $350 or more per month on the FTP game. I have this sneaking suspicion that it may be a higher percentage than people realize. I mean it doesnt take all that many $2,000 per month whales to marginalize the contributions of the normal player who isnt free-riding.
If you feel that you need to spend thousands of dollars to have fun and enjoy the game there is no reason for others to have a problem with it. But someone that is not very rich spending that much anyway could be in trouble. It is up to the individual. Personally I think its better to play a game with a different business model. A P2P or a true B2P game. Because I feel that I need and want to spend that much when playing F2P games. But its not very good for my economy. If others can play them without spending much or anything and have fun its good for them. But people are different. And there is no way they can know what others need to do or how much they will need to spend to have fun.
Gosh .. where have you been in the last few years? Do some reading on the Internet, ok? These things are DOCUMENTED.
"Whales" are spending a lot of money and subsidizing everyone. If someone spent $150, he pays for 10 other people for the month's subscription. Even Raph Koster knows this.
http://www.raphkoster.com/2012/01/11/f2p-vs-subs/
Here is some stat in freemium games .. same principle as F2P MMOs.
http://www.gamesindustryblog.com/2012/03/arppu-in-freemium-games/
BTW, there is no "if". Most players do not play. That is documented research.
I don't see an issue. It is documented that MOST players do not play. And those who do .. don't post here. This place is such a small part of the MMO community. What is the problem if it misses all the whales (since there are so few of them anyway)?
F2P is a scam. Take a look at some of the quotes from "leading" industry people in the linked article:
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2012/07/04/is-a-free-to-play-future-inevitable.aspx
If you think YOU are gaining anything in something marketed to you as "free to play", think again. You either give up a lot of game play if you are not buying off their stores or taking advantage of their "premium" subscription service. In fact, you are lossing value if you subscribe OR pay for micotransactions OR both. Do you really think a company is going to give you everything if you sub and they have a store to sell items? Not likely. They want you to spend your money and they don't give a rip how they get it from you. Use to be that WE expected good service, good product and REASONABLE cost. Now, THEY are dictating terms and lying to us by making up these so-called "free" models that are not free. If you ever see a game that says "free to play" in the marketing scheme....RUN!
Let's party like it is 1863!
If you want to be the best of the best you will need to be both VIP and a "Whale" if you play freemium games. I think its a bit strange some fail to understand that. Some can play and have fun without paying anything. But powergamers that wants to be first, wants to be as powerful as possible, wants to never waste time and always be efficient will need to be "Whales". And if someone with that attitude is really hardcore and competitive he will become a very big "Whale".
I tried to explain in this thread... If you know you will need to be a "Whale" to have fun can you really afford to play the game? People need to think about that... Because it can get very expensive. I know that....
I like the fact that you believe that a "Study" consisting of... EA, Ubisoft, and some other Game Industry People... Will have any real value, without any NEUTRAL STUDIES. Only numbers we can see from the link are from; EA:SOME People spend 5000 $ on F2P Football game. It isn't a big secret that Sport-fanatics are most easy to cash -_-'
As stated before, some people use money, and some don't. Nothing can change this.I really don't see how this thread has gotten so big, while the issue itself has been simple.
F2P Games aren't free, but player base isn't made of just some who buy and some who don't. There are those who buy every now and then, and nothing expensive. The game needs it's funding from somewhere, so if there aren't any cash shop or special memberships, what is left?---Shameless Advertising.
Id rather pay a little, without giving a crap about someone crying that i have used more than some random gamer would've used in subs. (But i also won't accept that "Core" game is P2P, there has to be SOME limits
)
I am not giving up ANY gameplay. I am getting SOME gameplay without paying a cent. Feel free and fair to me.
No they are not giving me everything .. but they are giving me SOME .. and that is value.
Case in point, i really enjoy playing DCUO .. and i don't need to buy any of the content paks to enjoy it. Do you think i am going to give up that fun just because you say so?