omer base is trying to help them improve their product. Anyone will show anger toward a company like that.
While I start out fists flying I do indeed back an extremely intelligent debate. As I said I'm very blunt even to the point of making insults whether or not you find it "nice" is your opinion. I'm I jerk and I'll take that as a compliment I have the backbone to speak my mind.
Whether or not you take my standpoint or someone else's is your choice. There are many people people who will agree to my posts regardless of slander/insults.
Facepalm, you realize every vertibrate has a backbone right? Not exactly an achievement bro.
It's a play on words to describe that I've got the ability to say what's on my mind to someone without saying it behind their back. I'm sorry you don't understand what it means. Just like how I could easily call someone a spineless coward for talking trash behind their back. Do I know this person has a spine? Aboslutely, but it's the metaphor or play on words that's used to depict a person(s) character traits.
LOL- I cannot believe you had to actually spell that out... =P
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Name the subscription games with zero cash shop features at all? Now go backwards 3-4 and ask that same question?
There is no such thing as a true subsrciption model anymore. At least not in AAA titles. Maybe if CU can avoid the pitfalls of structured funding they could create a niche subscription only game with zero cash shop but that's the best one could hope for. For the rest of the industry some variation of cash shop is here to stay regradless of the entry price, be it Free, Box only price, or Box plus monthly sub.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Meanwhile anyone who plays a P2P game for more than a year has spent more on their game than I ever have on any F2P. WoW'ers have spent how much per month for years + expansions?
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Originally posted by Dren_Utogi The only to win this forumbane is if WAR goes completely free to play with a quality items shop, and if it is successful, put the said person in his place of not knowing which end is up in the 21st century.
While I'm not 100% certain that WAR will go F2P. I do believe I've heard/read dev. posts about them researching possiblilities to converting WAR into a F2P title. I believe it's not worth the P2P subscription; especially after the amount of time the game has been out withouts major content updates. If my memory serves correct, they're just now bringing back fortresses which were originally taken out because of stability issues.
Will this be good for WAR? Sure, it could be. It will definitely revitalize the community. It all depends on how they handle their loyal customers and how they implement their cash shop.
If it's going to be like swtor free to play model no thanks ill pass
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Originally posted by VorthanionI sure hope this buisiness model collapses. I'm tired of the crappy quality games that have resulted from this movement.
are you also tired of all the crappy quality P2P MMO's that continue to release?
I'll take subscription based SWTOR over any of the current F2P pieces of garbage anyday.
How did f2p change the content of the game ?
It was designed for subscription, which means it had a higher quality development than those I have played that were F2P from the start
Really ? what games would that be ?
I find it a lot higher in quality than Neverwinter or Planetside 2 or any of the plethora of asian F2P monstrosities. I don't know about Archeage, it may start off as F2P or not, but the jury is still out on whether it's of high quality or not. As far as I know, Wildstar is starting as subscription as will EverQuest Next and Elder Scrolls Online. All three of which look good on paper, but we'll see. The potential already looks better than most games built for F2P from the start.
The only to win this forumbane is if WAR goes completely free to play with a quality items shop, and if it is successful, put the said person in his place of not knowing which end is up in the 21st century.
I'm off to play some free to play titles.
I see at least half of your screenshots there are from games that were specifically designed for the P2P model and were later shifted over to F2P. That doesn't really support your argument that F2P games are superior in quality when designed that way from the very start. I can't think of a single originally designed as a F2P MMO that I have stuck with for more than a month if that. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a significant difference in quality between the two competing business models specifically due to the way content has been designed to support them.
I think it is this type of elitism that needs to be weeded out for the genre to continue it;s positive gains in the last 4 years. Also believe every successful game from now to the future, will be free to play. Any game that does not have a hybrid payment module, will die out with in a year, like War did.
Riiiiiight.... youre the victim and everyone else is "elitist"..
Mr. "Im always right and anyone who thinks more than one type of model can work in the same market is a dummy".
This is just such a blindly obstinate viewpoint. F2P is just a business model, not a religion. Stop trying to burn folks like heretics for denying the "one and only almighty model".
I think it is this type of elitism that needs to be weeded out for the genre to continue it;s positive gains in the last 4 years. Also believe every successful game from now to the future, will be free to play. Any game that does not have a hybrid payment module, will die out with in a year, like War did.
Riiiiiight.... youre the victim and everyone else is "elitist"..
Mr. "Im always right and anyone who thinks more than one type of model can work in the same market is a dummy".
This is just such a blindly obstinate viewpoint. F2P is just a business model, not a religion. Stop trying to burn folks like heretics for denying the "one and only almighty model".
We're not burning him at the stake for denying it's a better model (and I am not saying it is, it certainly has its negatives just as much as P2P), what we are burning him at the stake for though is blaming crappy quality on games being F2P which is like me blaming crappy quality of games on CoD-type games, it may make sense if you connect allot of dots while wearing a tinfoil hat but that's really grasping for things. Now if you'll excuse me the stake needs some gasoline thrown on it.
I think it is this type of elitism that needs to be weeded out for the genre to continue it;s positive gains in the last 4 years. Also believe every successful game from now to the future, will be free to play. Any game that does not have a hybrid payment module, will die out with in a year, like War did.
Riiiiiight.... youre the victim and everyone else is "elitist"..
Mr. "Im always right and anyone who thinks more than one type of model can work in the same market is a dummy".
This is just such a blindly obstinate viewpoint. F2P is just a business model, not a religion. Stop trying to burn folks like heretics for denying the "one and only almighty model".
We're not burning him at the stake for denying it's a better model (and I am not saying it is, it certainly has its negatives just as much as P2P), what we are burning him at the stake for though is blaming crappy quality on games being F2P which is like me blaming crappy quality of games on CoD-type games, it may make sense if you connect allot of dots while wearing a tinfoil hat but that's really grasping for things. Now if you'll excuse me the stake needs some gasoline thrown on it.
F2P games can be cheaper to make because customers are more forgiving when they dont have to pay upfront. Thats just a fact. Just pay attention to the banner ads as you randomly browse the internet. Everyone has their own F2P game.
This certainly doesnt mean that you cant invest a lot into building and developing a great F2P game. But companies dont have to do that to make money off the model. Sure some of them are good. I dont think anyone ever said that all F2P games are inherently bad. But there are also vast numbers of crappy F2P games out there. Thats just undeniable.
I think it is this type of elitism that needs to be weeded out for the genre to continue it;s positive gains in the last 4 years. Also believe every successful game from now to the future, will be free to play. Any game that does not have a hybrid payment module, will die out with in a year, like War did.
Riiiiiight.... youre the victim and everyone else is "elitist"..
Mr. "Im always right and anyone who thinks more than one type of model can work in the same market is a dummy".
This is just such a blindly obstinate viewpoint. F2P is just a business model, not a religion. Stop trying to burn folks like heretics for denying the "one and only almighty model".
We're not burning him at the stake for denying it's a better model (and I am not saying it is, it certainly has its negatives just as much as P2P), what we are burning him at the stake for though is blaming crappy quality on games being F2P which is like me blaming crappy quality of games on CoD-type games, it may make sense if you connect allot of dots while wearing a tinfoil hat but that's really grasping for things. Now if you'll excuse me the stake needs some gasoline thrown on it.
F2P games can be cheaper to make because customers are more forgiving when they dont have to pay upfront. Thats just a fact. Just pay attention to the banner ads as you randomly browse the internet. Everyone has their own F2P game.
This certainly doesnt mean that you cant invest a lot into building and developing a great F2P game. But companies dont have to do that to make money off the model. Sure some of them are good. I dont think anyone ever said that all F2P games are inherently bad. But there are also vast numbers of crappy F2P games out there. Thats just undeniable.
Just because browser based games fall within the realm of F2P does not say anything about the model itself. To put it bluntly what you said about customers being more forgiving is actually false because in a F2P game you don't pay up front for access if the game is shit we'll just walk away without paying a dime ergo all long running F2P games (Runescape, Silk Road Online, etc) have something which makes them worthwhile to not only play but also invest in and that's the inherent strength of F2P: Developers are expected to deliver something enjoyable or at least a good enough skinner box to keep people playing ergo if anything the innovation (and sometimes the quality) of F2P games surpass P2P games because while a P2P game may have more money to play it that initial large investment is also a double edged sword as the game is less likely to innovate.
I wouldn't think someone liek Mark Jacobs would like f2p because they don't get their money up front.....Someone like him would want box+sub+cash shop so they can make max profitibility quickly but that model is ridiculously expensive for the consumer and going away (thank goodnes).
Comments
LOL- I cannot believe you had to actually spell that out... =P
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Name the subscription games with zero cash shop features at all? Now go backwards 3-4 and ask that same question?
There is no such thing as a true subsrciption model anymore. At least not in AAA titles. Maybe if CU can avoid the pitfalls of structured funding they could create a niche subscription only game with zero cash shop but that's the best one could hope for. For the rest of the industry some variation of cash shop is here to stay regradless of the entry price, be it Free, Box only price, or Box plus monthly sub.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
If it's going to be like swtor free to play model no thanks ill pass
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
I find it a lot higher in quality than Neverwinter or Planetside 2 or any of the plethora of asian F2P monstrosities. I don't know about Archeage, it may start off as F2P or not, but the jury is still out on whether it's of high quality or not. As far as I know, Wildstar is starting as subscription as will EverQuest Next and Elder Scrolls Online. All three of which look good on paper, but we'll see. The potential already looks better than most games built for F2P from the start.
I see at least half of your screenshots there are from games that were specifically designed for the P2P model and were later shifted over to F2P. That doesn't really support your argument that F2P games are superior in quality when designed that way from the very start. I can't think of a single originally designed as a F2P MMO that I have stuck with for more than a month if that. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a significant difference in quality between the two competing business models specifically due to the way content has been designed to support them.
SW:TOr had a huge budget regardless of it being sub-based or not, and look how that turned out.
I found more content/fun things to do in Guild Wars 2 then SW:TOR.
Head injury?
Riiiiiight.... youre the victim and everyone else is "elitist"..
Mr. "Im always right and anyone who thinks more than one type of model can work in the same market is a dummy".
This is just such a blindly obstinate viewpoint. F2P is just a business model, not a religion. Stop trying to burn folks like heretics for denying the "one and only almighty model".
We're not burning him at the stake for denying it's a better model (and I am not saying it is, it certainly has its negatives just as much as P2P), what we are burning him at the stake for though is blaming crappy quality on games being F2P which is like me blaming crappy quality of games on CoD-type games, it may make sense if you connect allot of dots while wearing a tinfoil hat but that's really grasping for things. Now if you'll excuse me the stake needs some gasoline thrown on it.
F2P games can be cheaper to make because customers are more forgiving when they dont have to pay upfront. Thats just a fact. Just pay attention to the banner ads as you randomly browse the internet. Everyone has their own F2P game.
This certainly doesnt mean that you cant invest a lot into building and developing a great F2P game. But companies dont have to do that to make money off the model. Sure some of them are good. I dont think anyone ever said that all F2P games are inherently bad. But there are also vast numbers of crappy F2P games out there. Thats just undeniable.
Just because browser based games fall within the realm of F2P does not say anything about the model itself. To put it bluntly what you said about customers being more forgiving is actually false because in a F2P game you don't pay up front for access
if the game is shit we'll just walk away without paying a dime ergo all long running F2P games (Runescape, Silk Road Online, etc) have something which makes them worthwhile to not only play but also invest in and that's the inherent strength of F2P: Developers are expected to deliver something enjoyable or at least a good enough skinner box to keep people playing ergo if anything the innovation (and sometimes the quality) of F2P games surpass P2P games because while a P2P game may have more money to play it that initial large investment is also a double edged sword as the game is less likely to innovate.