Originally posted by Scot F2P from launch always means less content and less quality.
What on earth are you basing that on? The only thing that could be remotely relevant would be the preorder and release box price, which are independent of the sub. There is absolutely no basis for such a ridiculous statement, but that's par for the course for most of what gets stated as fact by the anti-F2P crowd here.
You say there is no basis for that statement, but in your reply you detail it out for us why what I said is true? Investors and gaming companies know a P2P MMO will have preorder, launch sales and subscription revenue. B2P only misses out on the subscription. The only thing that F2P used to have that generated income that P2P did not have was the cash shop. Well over the last couple of years P2P have got cash shops too.
Maybe I am missing what you are getting at? To me it seems clear that products with more revenue sources will receive more funding. More funding leads to more content, better quality graphics, ensuring the game is 3D 3rd person, more polish. F2P MMO's can have good graphics, good polish and at least a reasonable amount of content. But with more funding you get...more.
We see both revenue styles merging more, year by year, F2P now have subscriptions for example. These extra revenue streams have not yet changed how gaming companies think of F2P though. They are still the poor mans MMO.
We know now in the last couple of years thats also not true when company have more funding means more content and quality, we seen plenty of failors of past 6 years from big budget companys becouse of lack of content and quality.
I am not saying because a MMO has more funding it will have better gameplay, what I am talking about is production values. More funding gives better graphics and polish. It can lead to more diverse gameplay, but often leads into areas which do not make the MMO a better game. The spaceflight combat in SWTOR is a good example, they had the money to make mini games and chose to make one which had no input into the MMO, it was meaningless. What we got in terms of good production values in SWTOR was all the excellent voice acting, that made SWTOR a better MMO, giving it a cinematic feeling. But it did not make gameplay any better.
So more money does not equal quality of gameplay, just better production values. That can make for a better MMO in terms of graphics, voice acting and so on.
I don't understand the recent boom in popularity about the F2P model, Everyone's mom is talking about F2P. I ask, why?
Every F2P game I have played has been very under whelming.
- The graphics are "meh."
- The game play is always generic questing with the yellow Exclamation mark.
- Never more than 3-4 classes, usually genaric.
- Never anything new, always just recycled ideas done a billion times over.
- The combat and overall game feels like it was made in some ones garage.
Besides being a cheap @ss, what do people see in these games?
I didn't read the whole post sorry but its like this - mortgage, 2 kids whose games I need to subsidise, plus just the cost of the kids, 2 cars, wife, 2 dogs, 2 cats, life - that's why I play F2P games.
I agree with you there. I don't have as much as you but still - apartment rent, cost of living, car payments, new to working in my field, inexperienced issues with life, college payments, paying off loans - is why I play F2P games. I pay when I can afford to do so, which is not often, but I support what I love and love what I support.
I played WoW up until WotLK, played RoM for 2 years and now Rift. I am F2P player. I support games when I feel they deserve my money and I want the items enough. I don't troll, and I don't take kindly to trolls.
Originally posted by Scot F2P from launch always means less content and less quality.
What on earth are you basing that on? The only thing that could be remotely relevant would be the preorder and release box price, which are independent of the sub. There is absolutely no basis for such a ridiculous statement, but that's par for the course for most of what gets stated as fact by the anti-F2P crowd here.
You say there is no basis for that statement, but in your reply you detail it out for us why what I said is true? Investors and gaming companies know a P2P MMO will have preorder, launch sales and subscription revenue. B2P only misses out on the subscription. The only thing that F2P used to have that generated income that P2P did not have was the cash shop. Well over the last couple of years P2P have got cash shops too.
Maybe I am missing what you are getting at? To me it seems clear that products with more revenue sources will receive more funding. More funding leads to more content, better quality graphics, ensuring the game is 3D 3rd person, more polish. F2P MMO's can have good graphics, good polish and at least a reasonable amount of content. But with more funding you get...more.
We see both revenue styles merging more, year by year, F2P now have subscriptions for example. These extra revenue streams have not yet changed how gaming companies think of F2P though. They are still the poor mans MMO.
We know now in the last couple of years thats also not true when company have more funding means more content and quality, we seen plenty of failors of past 6 years from big budget companys becouse of lack of content and quality.
I am not saying because a MMO has more funding it will have better gameplay, what I am talking about is production values. More funding gives better graphics and polish. It can lead to more diverse gameplay, but often leads into areas which do not make the MMO a better game. The spaceflight combat in SWTOR is a good example, they had the money to make mini games and chose to make one which had no input into the MMO, it was meaningless. What we got in terms of good production values in SWTOR was all the excellent voice acting, that made SWTOR a better MMO, giving it a cinematic feeling. But it did not make gameplay any better.
So more money does not equal quality of gameplay, just better production values. That can make for a better MMO in terms of graphics, voice acting and so on.
All you've said is that they can make better looking crap. You've also either contradicted yourself or your contention is that gameplay is not a factor in your assessment of the quality of an MMO. I think that if you step back and look at your posts for a minute, you'll see that you're letting a personal bias color your perception of reality, resulting in some rather confusing statements.
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
Originally posted by Scot F2P from launch always means less content and less quality.
What on earth are you basing that on? The only thing that could be remotely relevant would be the preorder and release box price, which are independent of the sub. There is absolutely no basis for such a ridiculous statement, but that's par for the course for most of what gets stated as fact by the anti-F2P crowd here.
You say there is no basis for that statement, but in your reply you detail it out for us why what I said is true? Investors and gaming companies know a P2P MMO will have preorder, launch sales and subscription revenue. B2P only misses out on the subscription. The only thing that F2P used to have that generated income that P2P did not have was the cash shop. Well over the last couple of years P2P have got cash shops too.
Maybe I am missing what you are getting at? To me it seems clear that products with more revenue sources will receive more funding. More funding leads to more content, better quality graphics, ensuring the game is 3D 3rd person, more polish. F2P MMO's can have good graphics, good polish and at least a reasonable amount of content. But with more funding you get...more.
We see both revenue styles merging more, year by year, F2P now have subscriptions for example. These extra revenue streams have not yet changed how gaming companies think of F2P though. They are still the poor mans MMO.
We know now in the last couple of years thats also not true when company have more funding means more content and quality, we seen plenty of failors of past 6 years from big budget companys becouse of lack of content and quality.
I am not saying because a MMO has more funding it will have better gameplay, what I am talking about is production values. More funding gives better graphics and polish. It can lead to more diverse gameplay, but often leads into areas which do not make the MMO a better game. The spaceflight combat in SWTOR is a good example, they had the money to make mini games and chose to make one which had no input into the MMO, it was meaningless. What we got in terms of good production values in SWTOR was all the excellent voice acting, that made SWTOR a better MMO, giving it a cinematic feeling. But it did not make gameplay any better.
So more money does not equal quality of gameplay, just better production values. That can make for a better MMO in terms of graphics, voice acting and so on.
All you've said is that they can make better looking crap. You've also either contradicted yourself or your contention is that gameplay is not a factor in your assessment of the quality of an MMO. I think that if you step back and look at your posts for a minute, you'll see that you're letting a personal bias color your perception of reality, resulting in some rather confusing statements.
No there is nothing wrong with this reasoning at all..He said they have better means to create a better game, more funding allows to hire better artists , better graphics engine, better lore writers etc overall better in ALL areas ..
NOT a guarantee for a GREAT game how ever , but It will greatly increase it's chance of being successful
Most PURE FTP games is funded with as little money as possible and made as good it possibly can get , but with limited resources you get what you are paying for.
What is true in the above statement is also true here, you can of course create a masterpiece with small amount of resources as well, but It will be much tougher to be successful.
Originally posted by Scot F2P from launch always means less content and less quality.
What on earth are you basing that on? The only thing that could be remotely relevant would be the preorder and release box price, which are independent of the sub. There is absolutely no basis for such a ridiculous statement, but that's par for the course for most of what gets stated as fact by the anti-F2P crowd here.
You say there is no basis for that statement, but in your reply you detail it out for us why what I said is true? Investors and gaming companies know a P2P MMO will have preorder, launch sales and subscription revenue. B2P only misses out on the subscription. The only thing that F2P used to have that generated income that P2P did not have was the cash shop. Well over the last couple of years P2P have got cash shops too.
Maybe I am missing what you are getting at? To me it seems clear that products with more revenue sources will receive more funding. More funding leads to more content, better quality graphics, ensuring the game is 3D 3rd person, more polish. F2P MMO's can have good graphics, good polish and at least a reasonable amount of content. But with more funding you get...more.
We see both revenue styles merging more, year by year, F2P now have subscriptions for example. These extra revenue streams have not yet changed how gaming companies think of F2P though. They are still the poor mans MMO.
We know now in the last couple of years thats also not true when company have more funding means more content and quality, we seen plenty of failors of past 6 years from big budget companys becouse of lack of content and quality.
I am not saying because a MMO has more funding it will have better gameplay, what I am talking about is production values. More funding gives better graphics and polish. It can lead to more diverse gameplay, but often leads into areas which do not make the MMO a better game. The spaceflight combat in SWTOR is a good example, they had the money to make mini games and chose to make one which had no input into the MMO, it was meaningless. What we got in terms of good production values in SWTOR was all the excellent voice acting, that made SWTOR a better MMO, giving it a cinematic feeling. But it did not make gameplay any better.
So more money does not equal quality of gameplay, just better production values. That can make for a better MMO in terms of graphics, voice acting and so on.
All you've said is that they can make better looking crap. You've also either contradicted yourself or your contention is that gameplay is not a factor in your assessment of the quality of an MMO. I think that if you step back and look at your posts for a minute, you'll see that you're letting a personal bias color your perception of reality, resulting in some rather confusing statements.
No there is nothing wrong with this reasoning at all..He said they have better means to create a better game, more funding allows to hire better artists , better graphics engine, better lore writers etc overall better in ALL areas ..
NOT a guarantee for a GREAT game how ever , but It will greatly increase it's chance of being successful
Most PURE FTP games is funded with as little money as possible and made as good it possibly can get , but with limited resources you get what you are paying for.
What is true in the above statement is also true here, you can of course create a masterpiece with small amount of resources as well, but It will be much tougher to be successful.
Indeed this is what I am getting at, more money means more staff on the MMO and so on. But that does not ensure a better MMO, the graphics will look better or you really like the voice overs, but that does not ensure you have a great MMO. I am a bit of a snob about my MMOs would never pretend otherwise, but when I think F2P is good I will say so. Was recently praising Atlantica Online and a couple of weeks ago Runescape. They would not be for me, I like top graphics and top production values with great gameplay. But great gameplay and big budget have not gone hand in hand over the last few years.
OP are you being purposefully obtuse? Many major games today are f2p, in fact more are ft2 then are not. AOC, Rift (soon), EQ, EQ2, Vanguard, AO, COH (before it closed), TERA, DDO, LOTRO, TOR, Vindictus, and so on. So will assume this thread is just typical bait. Out of all those games which I played/enjoyed, only one did I spend a penny in and that was COH and it was $4.
Now you could extend your argument to all MMO's be them free or not couldn't you? So my question would be why would I pay for a game, when I could get equal quality/enjoyment for free?
OP just woke up from a long nap and thinks it is still 2006. No one told him all the AAA MMO's that have gone or will be released as F2P. All kidding aside, its crazy how long this thread has become over this guys nonsensical post.
I am not saying because a MMO has more funding it will have better gameplay, what I am talking about is production values. More funding gives better graphics and polish. It can lead to more diverse gameplay, but often leads into areas which do not make the MMO a better game. The spaceflight combat in SWTOR is a good example, they had the money to make mini games and chose to make one which had no input into the MMO, it was meaningless. What we got in terms of good production values in SWTOR was all the excellent voice acting, that made SWTOR a better MMO, giving it a cinematic feeling. But it did not make gameplay any better.
So more money does not equal quality of gameplay, just better production values. That can make for a better MMO in terms of graphics, voice acting and so on.
And i bet Riot games, and the WoT developers have more budget than most sub-MMO companies, except may be Blizz.
F2P is making more money in the market than P2P. So i agree with you .. the total market expenditure .. hence the total market production is better for F2P.
1 hour per week in a ''good'' game is worth 15$/month.
No. A "good" game is worth the same as the the price of the next game that is as fun.
If that next game is free, the "good" game is worth exactly nothing.
Way to take it all out of context... And if you didn't see I was talking about myself only, I don't pretend to know what other people think. So to me a ''good'' game would be a ''fun'' game, it would be ''immersive'' , have ''depth'' and keep me entertained for months. A game like that to me is worth a lot more than 15$/month.
1 hour per week in a ''good'' game is worth 15$/month.
No. A "good" game is worth the same as the the price of the next game that is as fun.
If that next game is free, the "good" game is worth exactly nothing.
Way to take it all out of context... And if you didn't see I was talking about myself only, I don't pretend to know what other people think. So to me a ''good'' game would be a ''fun'' game, it would be ''immersive'' , have ''depth'' and keep me entertained for months. A game like that to me is worth a lot more than 15$/month.
That game will never be free.
Many people on this site have stated that, "That game will never be free" when talking about a specific list of features they like only to change their minds when a game that had that features list was f2p.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
1 hour per week in a ''good'' game is worth 15$/month.
No. A "good" game is worth the same as the the price of the next game that is as fun.
If that next game is free, the "good" game is worth exactly nothing.
Way to take it all out of context... And if you didn't see I was talking about myself only, I don't pretend to know what other people think. So to me a ''good'' game would be a ''fun'' game, it would be ''immersive'' , have ''depth'' and keep me entertained for months. A game like that to me is worth a lot more than 15$/month.
That game will never be free.
Many people on this site have stated that, "That game will never be free" when talking about a specific list of features they like only to change their minds when a game that had that features list was f2p.
Which game ? I didn't ever like any game that ever launched as a f2p game
1 hour per week in a ''good'' game is worth 15$/month.
No. A "good" game is worth the same as the the price of the next game that is as fun.
If that next game is free, the "good" game is worth exactly nothing.
Way to take it all out of context... And if you didn't see I was talking about myself only, I don't pretend to know what other people think. So to me a ''good'' game would be a ''fun'' game, it would be ''immersive'' , have ''depth'' and keep me entertained for months. A game like that to me is worth a lot more than 15$/month.
That game will never be free.
Many people on this site have stated that, "That game will never be free" when talking about a specific list of features they like only to change their minds when a game that had that features list was f2p.
Which game ? I didn't ever like any game that ever launched as a f2p game
I didn't say you, or a specific game.
I stated many have said a particular game with the features they like would never be free, then have come back later and said, "I used to not like f2p but then I tried..."
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
1 hour per week in a ''good'' game is worth 15$/month.
No. A "good" game is worth the same as the the price of the next game that is as fun.
If that next game is free, the "good" game is worth exactly nothing.
Way to take it all out of context... And if you didn't see I was talking about myself only, I don't pretend to know what other people think. So to me a ''good'' game would be a ''fun'' game, it would be ''immersive'' , have ''depth'' and keep me entertained for months. A game like that to me is worth a lot more than 15$/month.
That game will never be free.
Many people on this site have stated that, "That game will never be free" when talking about a specific list of features they like only to change their minds when a game that had that features list was f2p.
Which game ? I didn't ever like any game that ever launched as a f2p game
I didn't say you, or a specific game.
I stated many have said a particular game with the features they like would never be free, then have come back later and said, "I used to not like f2p but then I tried..."
Well you are using facts to try to point something out, what game and what feature were those people talking about ? I have yet to see any great feature in the f2p game released in the last 6 years ... Name me 1 f2p mmorpg that is superior to any p2p mmorpg released in the 15 last year in your opinion, then maybe we can start talking about something rather that argue about .. nothing
I'm merely stating that it is not uncommon for people to state on these boards, "I used to not like f2p till I played xx" or "I used to think no f2p game would ever have xx feature, then I played y"
You also changed your argument. Your argument was you won't play a f2p game because it wont have whatever features, now your argument is that p2p is superior. Those are 2 different arguments.
That being said there are many f2p games out there that IMO are better than many p2p games.
I'm using all f2p, not just ones that started f2p as that is another red herring argument.
Good f2p games
EQ, EQ2, Swtor, Age of Wushu, PS2, LoL, Istaria (can play as human free), Aion, DDO, Lotro, FE, DCUO
All of those are IMO better than many p2p games suchs as: Shadowbane, Darkfall (1st incarnatino) (plaed sb and darkfall only a short while), Wow (in some ways, in others not nearly so much), matrix online, Vanguard (f2p now but haven't tried it since it went f2p and there were still a lot of bugs just before then), Ryzom (same as VG), SWG (closed but I played for about 2 months with my brother, thought it was pretty bad), MXO, Dark and Light...
I"m sure other people can think of more.
See how you changed your argument?
You went from a potentially factual statement of "xx will never be in a f2p game" to a completley subjective statement like "Name one that is better". 2 very different arguments.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I'm merely stating that it is not uncommon for people to state on these boards, "I used to not like f2p till I played xx" or "I used to think no f2p game would ever have xx feature, then I played y"
You also changed your argument. Your argument was you won't play a f2p game because it wont have whatever features, now your argument is that p2p is superior. Those are 2 different arguments.
That being said there are many f2p games out there that IMO are better than many p2p games.
I'm using all f2p, not just ones that started f2p as that is another red herring argument.
Good f2p games
EQ, EQ2, Swtor, Age of Wushu, PS2, LoL, Istaria (can play as human free), Aion, DDO, Lotro, FE, DCUO
All of those are IMO better than many p2p games suchs as: Shadowbane, Darkfall (1st incarnatino) (plaed sb and darkfall only a short while), Wow (in some ways, in others not nearly so much), matrix online, Vanguard (f2p now but haven't tried it since it went f2p and there were still a lot of bugs just before then), Ryzom (same as VG), SWG (closed but I played for about 2 months with my brother, thought it was pretty bad).
I"m sure other people can think of more.
See how you changed your argument?
You went from a potentially factual statement of "xx will never be in a f2p game" to a completley subjective statement like "Name one that is better". 2 very different arguments.
You are mistaken.. I didn't change my arguments, I just have many not to like f2p games. I also never stated any features I am looking for, I was talking more in a general way. The thing I hate the most about f2p game are the cash shop, for me it totally destroys immersion.
I don't agree with what you are saying about p2p game turning f2p, that makes no sense. Most of the game you named started as p2p and for that weren't focused around a cash shop. That's mostly what makes em ''better'' than f2p.
PS2 and LoL arent mmorpg, so the only f2p you stating is AoW and I totally hated it. I had lot more fun in shadowbane for exemple.
So when you get a p2p quality game free, without a cash shop, then yes it would be superior. do you see that ever happening ?
Because EQ2 became f2p are you saying it is a better game ?
I'm merely stating that it is not uncommon for people to state on these boards, "I used to not like f2p till I played xx" or "I used to think no f2p game would ever have xx feature, then I played y"
You also changed your argument. Your argument was you won't play a f2p game because it wont have whatever features, now your argument is that p2p is superior. Those are 2 different arguments.
That being said there are many f2p games out there that IMO are better than many p2p games.
I'm using all f2p, not just ones that started f2p as that is another red herring argument.
Good f2p games
EQ, EQ2, Swtor, Age of Wushu, PS2, LoL, Istaria (can play as human free), Aion, DDO, Lotro, FE, DCUO
All of those are IMO better than many p2p games suchs as: Shadowbane, Darkfall (1st incarnatino) (plaed sb and darkfall only a short while), Wow (in some ways, in others not nearly so much), matrix online, Vanguard (f2p now but haven't tried it since it went f2p and there were still a lot of bugs just before then), Ryzom (same as VG), SWG (closed but I played for about 2 months with my brother, thought it was pretty bad).
I"m sure other people can think of more.
See how you changed your argument?
You went from a potentially factual statement of "xx will never be in a f2p game" to a completley subjective statement like "Name one that is better". 2 very different arguments.
You are mistaken.. I didn't change my arguments, I just have many not to like f2p games. I also never stated any features I am looking for, I was talking more in a general way. The thing I hate the most about f2p game are the cash shop, for me it totally destroys immersion.
I don't agree with what you are saying about p2p game turning f2p, that makes no sense. Most of the game you named started as p2p and for that weren't focused around a cash shop. That's mostly what makes em ''better'' than f2p.
PS2 and LoL arent mmorpg, so the only f2p you stating is AoW and I totally hated it. I had lot more fun in shadowbane for exemple.
So when you get a p2p quality game free, without a cash shop, then yes it would be superior. do you see that ever happening ?
Because EQ2 became f2p are you saying it is a better game ?
Well I played it longer as f2p than I did as p2p.
Better is subjective. IMO there is no difference in quality.
And yes you did change your argument. Your first statement was, "So to me a ''good'' game would be a ''fun'' game, it would be ''immersive'' , have ''depth'' and keep me entertained for months"
It is possible that someday a f2p will do that.
Just like it has for many other people that said the same things.
Your 2nd statement was, "Name me 1 f2p mmorpg that is superior to any p2p mmorpg released in the 15 last year in your opinion, then maybe we can start talking about something rather that argue about .. nothing"
Those are 2 different arguments.
edit - ps2 and lol are MMO's, perhaps not MMORPG, but that is also adifferent argument.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I'm merely stating that it is not uncommon for people to state on these boards, "I used to not like f2p till I played xx" or "I used to think no f2p game would ever have xx feature, then I played y"
You also changed your argument. Your argument was you won't play a f2p game because it wont have whatever features, now your argument is that p2p is superior. Those are 2 different arguments.
That being said there are many f2p games out there that IMO are better than many p2p games.
I'm using all f2p, not just ones that started f2p as that is another red herring argument.
Good f2p games
EQ, EQ2, Swtor, Age of Wushu, PS2, LoL, Istaria (can play as human free), Aion, DDO, Lotro, FE, DCUO
All of those are IMO better than many p2p games suchs as: Shadowbane, Darkfall (1st incarnatino) (plaed sb and darkfall only a short while), Wow (in some ways, in others not nearly so much), matrix online, Vanguard (f2p now but haven't tried it since it went f2p and there were still a lot of bugs just before then), Ryzom (same as VG), SWG (closed but I played for about 2 months with my brother, thought it was pretty bad).
I"m sure other people can think of more.
See how you changed your argument?
You went from a potentially factual statement of "xx will never be in a f2p game" to a completley subjective statement like "Name one that is better". 2 very different arguments.
You are mistaken.. I didn't change my arguments, I just have many not to like f2p games. I also never stated any features I am looking for, I was talking more in a general way. The thing I hate the most about f2p game are the cash shop, for me it totally destroys immersion.
I don't agree with what you are saying about p2p game turning f2p, that makes no sense. Most of the game you named started as p2p and for that weren't focused around a cash shop. That's mostly what makes em ''better'' than f2p.
PS2 and LoL arent mmorpg, so the only f2p you stating is AoW and I totally hated it. I had lot more fun in shadowbane for exemple.
So when you get a p2p quality game free, without a cash shop, then yes it would be superior. do you see that ever happening ?
Because EQ2 became f2p are you saying it is a better game ?
Well I played it longer as f2p than I did as p2p.
Better is subjective. IMO there is no difference in quality.
And yes you did change your argument. Your first statement was, "So to me a ''good'' game would be a ''fun'' game, it would be ''immersive'' , have ''depth'' and keep me entertained for months"
It is possible that someday a f2p will do that.
Just like it has for many other people that said the same things.
Your 2nd statement was, "Name me 1 f2p mmorpg that is superior to any p2p mmorpg released in the 15 last year in your opinion, then maybe we can start talking about something rather that argue about .. nothing"
Those are 2 different arguments.
So we are allowed only 1 argument per discussion ? I fail to see where I contradicted myself.
My first argument as you pointed out mentionned immersion and I already stated that cash shop destroys it to me. So do you think we will ever get a f2p game without a cash shop ?
To you there is no difference in quality, me I see one. When I am reminded to check the cash shop every 5 minutes, when I have locked content, it all gets on my nerves.
I'm merely stating that it is not uncommon for people to state on these boards, "I used to not like f2p till I played xx" or "I used to think no f2p game would ever have xx feature, then I played y"
You also changed your argument. Your argument was you won't play a f2p game because it wont have whatever features, now your argument is that p2p is superior. Those are 2 different arguments.
That being said there are many f2p games out there that IMO are better than many p2p games.
I'm using all f2p, not just ones that started f2p as that is another red herring argument.
Good f2p games
EQ, EQ2, Swtor, Age of Wushu, PS2, LoL, Istaria (can play as human free), Aion, DDO, Lotro, FE, DCUO
All of those are IMO better than many p2p games suchs as: Shadowbane, Darkfall (1st incarnatino) (plaed sb and darkfall only a short while), Wow (in some ways, in others not nearly so much), matrix online, Vanguard (f2p now but haven't tried it since it went f2p and there were still a lot of bugs just before then), Ryzom (same as VG), SWG (closed but I played for about 2 months with my brother, thought it was pretty bad).
I"m sure other people can think of more.
See how you changed your argument?
You went from a potentially factual statement of "xx will never be in a f2p game" to a completley subjective statement like "Name one that is better". 2 very different arguments.
You are mistaken.. I didn't change my arguments, I just have many not to like f2p games. I also never stated any features I am looking for, I was talking more in a general way. The thing I hate the most about f2p game are the cash shop, for me it totally destroys immersion.
I don't agree with what you are saying about p2p game turning f2p, that makes no sense. Most of the game you named started as p2p and for that weren't focused around a cash shop. That's mostly what makes em ''better'' than f2p.
PS2 and LoL arent mmorpg, so the only f2p you stating is AoW and I totally hated it. I had lot more fun in shadowbane for exemple.
So when you get a p2p quality game free, without a cash shop, then yes it would be superior. do you see that ever happening ?
Because EQ2 became f2p are you saying it is a better game ?
Well I played it longer as f2p than I did as p2p.
Better is subjective. IMO there is no difference in quality.
And yes you did change your argument. Your first statement was, "So to me a ''good'' game would be a ''fun'' game, it would be ''immersive'' , have ''depth'' and keep me entertained for months"
It is possible that someday a f2p will do that.
Just like it has for many other people that said the same things.
Your 2nd statement was, "Name me 1 f2p mmorpg that is superior to any p2p mmorpg released in the 15 last year in your opinion, then maybe we can start talking about something rather that argue about .. nothing"
Those are 2 different arguments.
So we are allowed only 1 argument per discussion ? I fail to see where I contradicted myself.
My first argument as you pointed out mentionned immersion and I already stated that cash shop destroys it to me. So do you think we will ever get a f2p game without a cash shop ?
To you there is no difference in quality, me I see one. When I am reminded to check the cash shop every 5 minutes, when I have locked content, it all gets on my nerves.
Why not? It's happened before. As someone pointed out in another thread ealier Runescape was released in 2001, a subscription not given till 2012 and a cs not till years later.
It supported itself through advertising.
And yes you are allowed more than one argument but just be honest, point out you don't like it. Don't say I don't like it for this reason, then when someone refutes that reason, give a different argument. Just say you don't like it and be done.
edit - sorry mean to say for runescape sub in 2002. So from 2001 - 2002 there was no sub.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I'm merely stating that it is not uncommon for people to state on these boards, "I used to not like f2p till I played xx" or "I used to think no f2p game would ever have xx feature, then I played y"
You also changed your argument. Your argument was you won't play a f2p game because it wont have whatever features, now your argument is that p2p is superior. Those are 2 different arguments.
That being said there are many f2p games out there that IMO are better than many p2p games.
I'm using all f2p, not just ones that started f2p as that is another red herring argument.
Good f2p games
EQ, EQ2, Swtor, Age of Wushu, PS2, LoL, Istaria (can play as human free), Aion, DDO, Lotro, FE, DCUO
All of those are IMO better than many p2p games suchs as: Shadowbane, Darkfall (1st incarnatino) (plaed sb and darkfall only a short while), Wow (in some ways, in others not nearly so much), matrix online, Vanguard (f2p now but haven't tried it since it went f2p and there were still a lot of bugs just before then), Ryzom (same as VG), SWG (closed but I played for about 2 months with my brother, thought it was pretty bad).
I"m sure other people can think of more.
See how you changed your argument?
You went from a potentially factual statement of "xx will never be in a f2p game" to a completley subjective statement like "Name one that is better". 2 very different arguments.
You are mistaken.. I didn't change my arguments, I just have many not to like f2p games. I also never stated any features I am looking for, I was talking more in a general way. The thing I hate the most about f2p game are the cash shop, for me it totally destroys immersion.
I don't agree with what you are saying about p2p game turning f2p, that makes no sense. Most of the game you named started as p2p and for that weren't focused around a cash shop. That's mostly what makes em ''better'' than f2p.
PS2 and LoL arent mmorpg, so the only f2p you stating is AoW and I totally hated it. I had lot more fun in shadowbane for exemple.
So when you get a p2p quality game free, without a cash shop, then yes it would be superior. do you see that ever happening ?
Because EQ2 became f2p are you saying it is a better game ?
Well I played it longer as f2p than I did as p2p.
Better is subjective. IMO there is no difference in quality.
And yes you did change your argument. Your first statement was, "So to me a ''good'' game would be a ''fun'' game, it would be ''immersive'' , have ''depth'' and keep me entertained for months"
It is possible that someday a f2p will do that.
Just like it has for many other people that said the same things.
Your 2nd statement was, "Name me 1 f2p mmorpg that is superior to any p2p mmorpg released in the 15 last year in your opinion, then maybe we can start talking about something rather that argue about .. nothing"
Those are 2 different arguments.
So we are allowed only 1 argument per discussion ? I fail to see where I contradicted myself.
My first argument as you pointed out mentionned immersion and I already stated that cash shop destroys it to me. So do you think we will ever get a f2p game without a cash shop ?
To you there is no difference in quality, me I see one. When I am reminded to check the cash shop every 5 minutes, when I have locked content, it all gets on my nerves.
Why not? It's happened before. As someone pointed out in another thread ealier Runescape was released in 2001, a subscription not given till 2012 and a cs not till years later.
It supported itself through advertising.
And yes you are allowed more than one argument but just be honest, point out you don't like it. Don't say I don't like it for this reason, then when someone refutes that reason, give a different argument. Just say you don't like it and be done.
err I never played runescape but I am pretty sure there was a p2p option from the get go, in 2012 they raised the sub cost ...
I still don't see what you are trying to say, I am pretty sure that I said I didn't like f2p game and said why. And I don't see where you refuted my opinion, not that you could since it's an opinion ...
You said that some day I could like a f2p game, I said I highly doubt it. When a p2p game turns f2p, I stop playing it. Why do you think that could ever change ? Because random joe one day stated that he changed his mind about f2p games ??
Yes. Exactly. Many other people have changed their minds about f2p when they found a game they like. Thats exactly why I think you could change your mind.
A better question is. Why do you think you couldn't?
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I don't understand the recent boom in popularity about the F2P model, Everyone's mom is talking about F2P. I ask, why?
Every F2P game I have played has been very under whelming.
- The graphics are "meh."
- The game play is always generic questing with the yellow Exclamation mark.
- Never more than 3-4 classes, usually genaric.
- Never anything new, always just recycled ideas done a billion times over.
- The combat and overall game feels like it was made in some ones garage.
Besides being a cheap @ss, what do people see in these games?
i think you have misconceptions about f2p games. just because a game is free 2 play does not mean it is terrible or generic. one of the best mmos I've ever played is a free 2 play title. shaiya. it has more depth and more systems in place than many so called AAA mmo's. the game it self is great, what keeps me from playing it is the business model.
That being said there are many f2p games out there that IMO are better than many p2p games.
I'm using all f2p, not just ones that started f2p as that is another red herring argument.
Good f2p games
EQ, EQ2, Swtor, Age of Wushu, PS2, LoL, Istaria (can play as human free), Aion, DDO, Lotro, FE, DCUO
Apart from PS2 did any of those great "F2P" MMO's you mention start as a F2P game? When are you lot going to accept that a P2P MMO which has better funding for launch tends to have higher production values and that makes it "better" MMO in your eyes when it goes F2P?
Have a check of a MMO review some time, the ratings for Graphics, Sound and Polish. This costs serious funding which F2P MMOs lack.
We have even had some of you guys trying to make out that F2P is getting more funding, take your head out of the sand, F2P MMO's look cheaper, sound cheaper and have less polish.
Now with that limitation F2P MMOs can still innovate, have good gameplay and so on. But money is a huge factor. If we were to follow your argument to the Solo game world, are you saying big budget is worse? B3, CoD and so on are worse because they have more staff and more resources?
Of course you can spend a lot of money and get a flop. But big budget usually works better in any area of life. But not for F2P MMO's...right.
That being said there are many f2p games out there that IMO are better than many p2p games.
I'm using all f2p, not just ones that started f2p as that is another red herring argument.
Good f2p games
EQ, EQ2, Swtor, Age of Wushu, PS2, LoL, Istaria (can play as human free), Aion, DDO, Lotro, FE, DCUO
Apart from PS2 did any of those great "F2P" MMO's you mention start as a F2P game? When are you lot going to accept that a P2P MMO which has better funding for launch tends to have higher production values and that makes it "better" MMO in your eyes when it goes F2P?
Have a check of a MMO review some time, the ratings for Graphics, Sound and Polish. This costs serious funding which F2P MMOs lack.
We have even had some of you guys trying to make out that F2P is getting more funding, take your head out of the sand, F2P MMO's look cheaper, sound cheaper and have less polish.
Now with that limitation F2P MMOs can still innovate, have good gameplay and so on. But money is a huge factor. If we were to follow your argument to the Solo game world, are you saying big budget is worse? B3, CoD and so on are worse because they have more staff and more resources?
Of course you can spend a lot of money and get a flop. But big budget usually works better in any area of life. But not for F2P MMO's...right.
I agree..These players simply refuse to accept this fact as a fact , since it will make them loose their argument all together.
Sure, these games are NOW free to play, and In a way they should be treated as such, but to deny the obvious is a bit odd.
You can NOT develop/make a game like TSW , Age of Conan or SWTOR and release it as FTP from the start unless someone came around and gave you 50-150 Milj dollars. If you still did that you would have to wait for a VERY long time to get some fruit for your hard work at the game.
What would you pay salary to your programmers and art team with , the "hopes" that someone buys an xp potion in the store ?
Sure there are many people buying stuff in E-stores today , but can you ensure a steady cash flow ? NO..So unless you have a HUGE buffer with cash there will be "hopes" that pays the salary for this dev team ..
That is also why so many pure FTP games are PTW . because without ANY truly useful items in the store , people can actually ignore the store, so they have to sell "useful" items, not just clothing or fluff pets.
To make sales you have to have goods that people would like to buy. Then you will say that most FTP games are going well without the need for "useful" items in the store , well thats also true to some level , If thats the case then they have to have other means to secure funds , like an alternative subscription plan or the pre order of some distant DLC...
Just look at Neverwinter as an example, they were selling game stuff and Founders pack deals for a pure FTP game pre release, and so did the newly released Marvel Heroes.
Yes. Exactly. Many other people have changed their minds about f2p when they found a game they like. Thats exactly why I think you could change your mind.
A better question is. Why do you think you couldn't?
Some people like going to a casino, they enjoy the chance to win big and spend time throwing money at slut machine or playing card games. I do not, I don't like the shady ways used to grab my money, I don't like to feel like the cow ready for milking.
That's the reason I don't like f2p game, cause somehow they have to entice you to pay money. So they use tricks to make you spend big.
Buy boxes, have a chance for something truly epic, it can happen really ! look in world chat we put it right in your face when someone does !
Those shiny boxes you looted, well here you have to buy those keys to open em.
You fill up your bag space in no time ? well you can't craft more bags but you can buy inventory space from us !
Oh sorry you can't enter that area, you didn't buy this pack.. but here check the cash shop.
Oh btw here are the best deals in the cash shop right now ! have a look ! we even give you an achievement for your first purchase of the day !
Like I said earlier, it all revolves around the cash shop to me. Give me a quality game that I like without a cash shop and I will play it, be it p2p or f2p.
So I am not saying that I will never ever play a f2p game, but it is ''highly improbable'' that I would ever like one.
Comments
Thanks,
Mike
Working on Social Strategy MMORTS (now Launched!) http://www.worldalpha.com
I am not saying because a MMO has more funding it will have better gameplay, what I am talking about is production values. More funding gives better graphics and polish. It can lead to more diverse gameplay, but often leads into areas which do not make the MMO a better game. The spaceflight combat in SWTOR is a good example, they had the money to make mini games and chose to make one which had no input into the MMO, it was meaningless. What we got in terms of good production values in SWTOR was all the excellent voice acting, that made SWTOR a better MMO, giving it a cinematic feeling. But it did not make gameplay any better.
So more money does not equal quality of gameplay, just better production values. That can make for a better MMO in terms of graphics, voice acting and so on.
I agree with you there. I don't have as much as you but still - apartment rent, cost of living, car payments, new to working in my field, inexperienced issues with life, college payments, paying off loans - is why I play F2P games.
I pay when I can afford to do so, which is not often, but I support what I love and love what I support.
I played WoW up until WotLK, played RoM for 2 years and now Rift.
I am F2P player. I support games when I feel they deserve my money and I want the items enough.
I don't troll, and I don't take kindly to trolls.
All you've said is that they can make better looking crap. You've also either contradicted yourself or your contention is that gameplay is not a factor in your assessment of the quality of an MMO. I think that if you step back and look at your posts for a minute, you'll see that you're letting a personal bias color your perception of reality, resulting in some rather confusing statements.
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
No there is nothing wrong with this reasoning at all..He said they have better means to create a better game, more funding allows to hire better artists , better graphics engine, better lore writers etc overall better in ALL areas ..
NOT a guarantee for a GREAT game how ever , but It will greatly increase it's chance of being successful
Most PURE FTP games is funded with as little money as possible and made as good it possibly can get , but with limited resources you get what you are paying for.
What is true in the above statement is also true here, you can of course create a masterpiece with small amount of resources as well, but It will be much tougher to be successful.
Indeed this is what I am getting at, more money means more staff on the MMO and so on. But that does not ensure a better MMO, the graphics will look better or you really like the voice overs, but that does not ensure you have a great MMO. I am a bit of a snob about my MMOs would never pretend otherwise, but when I think F2P is good I will say so. Was recently praising Atlantica Online and a couple of weeks ago Runescape. They would not be for me, I like top graphics and top production values with great gameplay. But great gameplay and big budget have not gone hand in hand over the last few years.
OP just woke up from a long nap and thinks it is still 2006. No one told him all the AAA MMO's that have gone or will be released as F2P. All kidding aside, its crazy how long this thread has become over this guys nonsensical post.
It doesn't mean the production value will be better, or the graphics will be better, or anything at all will be better.
It doesn't even mean it could be better, all it means is that they could afford more staff or better staff.
It's all about the execution.
And i bet Riot games, and the WoT developers have more budget than most sub-MMO companies, except may be Blizz.
F2P is making more money in the market than P2P. So i agree with you .. the total market expenditure .. hence the total market production is better for F2P.
Way to take it all out of context... And if you didn't see I was talking about myself only, I don't pretend to know what other people think. So to me a ''good'' game would be a ''fun'' game, it would be ''immersive'' , have ''depth'' and keep me entertained for months. A game like that to me is worth a lot more than 15$/month.
That game will never be free.
Many people on this site have stated that, "That game will never be free" when talking about a specific list of features they like only to change their minds when a game that had that features list was f2p.
Which game ? I didn't ever like any game that ever launched as a f2p game
I didn't say you, or a specific game.
I stated many have said a particular game with the features they like would never be free, then have come back later and said, "I used to not like f2p but then I tried..."
Well you are using facts to try to point something out, what game and what feature were those people talking about ? I have yet to see any great feature in the f2p game released in the last 6 years ... Name me 1 f2p mmorpg that is superior to any p2p mmorpg released in the 15 last year in your opinion, then maybe we can start talking about something rather that argue about .. nothing
I'm merely stating that it is not uncommon for people to state on these boards, "I used to not like f2p till I played xx" or "I used to think no f2p game would ever have xx feature, then I played y"
You also changed your argument. Your argument was you won't play a f2p game because it wont have whatever features, now your argument is that p2p is superior. Those are 2 different arguments.
That being said there are many f2p games out there that IMO are better than many p2p games.
I'm using all f2p, not just ones that started f2p as that is another red herring argument.
Good f2p games
EQ, EQ2, Swtor, Age of Wushu, PS2, LoL, Istaria (can play as human free), Aion, DDO, Lotro, FE, DCUO
All of those are IMO better than many p2p games suchs as: Shadowbane, Darkfall (1st incarnatino) (plaed sb and darkfall only a short while), Wow (in some ways, in others not nearly so much), matrix online, Vanguard (f2p now but haven't tried it since it went f2p and there were still a lot of bugs just before then), Ryzom (same as VG), SWG (closed but I played for about 2 months with my brother, thought it was pretty bad), MXO, Dark and Light...
I"m sure other people can think of more.
See how you changed your argument?
You went from a potentially factual statement of "xx will never be in a f2p game" to a completley subjective statement like "Name one that is better". 2 very different arguments.
You are mistaken.. I didn't change my arguments, I just have many not to like f2p games. I also never stated any features I am looking for, I was talking more in a general way. The thing I hate the most about f2p game are the cash shop, for me it totally destroys immersion.
I don't agree with what you are saying about p2p game turning f2p, that makes no sense. Most of the game you named started as p2p and for that weren't focused around a cash shop. That's mostly what makes em ''better'' than f2p.
PS2 and LoL arent mmorpg, so the only f2p you stating is AoW and I totally hated it. I had lot more fun in shadowbane for exemple.
So when you get a p2p quality game free, without a cash shop, then yes it would be superior. do you see that ever happening ?
Because EQ2 became f2p are you saying it is a better game ?
Well I played it longer as f2p than I did as p2p.
Better is subjective. IMO there is no difference in quality.
And yes you did change your argument. Your first statement was, "So to me a ''good'' game would be a ''fun'' game, it would be ''immersive'' , have ''depth'' and keep me entertained for months"
It is possible that someday a f2p will do that.
Just like it has for many other people that said the same things.
Your 2nd statement was, "Name me 1 f2p mmorpg that is superior to any p2p mmorpg released in the 15 last year in your opinion, then maybe we can start talking about something rather that argue about .. nothing"
Those are 2 different arguments.
edit - ps2 and lol are MMO's, perhaps not MMORPG, but that is also adifferent argument.
So we are allowed only 1 argument per discussion ? I fail to see where I contradicted myself.
My first argument as you pointed out mentionned immersion and I already stated that cash shop destroys it to me. So do you think we will ever get a f2p game without a cash shop ?
To you there is no difference in quality, me I see one. When I am reminded to check the cash shop every 5 minutes, when I have locked content, it all gets on my nerves.
Why not? It's happened before. As someone pointed out in another thread ealier Runescape was released in 2001, a subscription not given till 2012 and a cs not till years later.
It supported itself through advertising.
And yes you are allowed more than one argument but just be honest, point out you don't like it. Don't say I don't like it for this reason, then when someone refutes that reason, give a different argument. Just say you don't like it and be done.
edit - sorry mean to say for runescape sub in 2002. So from 2001 - 2002 there was no sub.
err I never played runescape but I am pretty sure there was a p2p option from the get go, in 2012 they raised the sub cost ...
I still don't see what you are trying to say, I am pretty sure that I said I didn't like f2p game and said why. And I don't see where you refuted my opinion, not that you could since it's an opinion ...
You said that some day I could like a f2p game, I said I highly doubt it. When a p2p game turns f2p, I stop playing it. Why do you think that could ever change ? Because random joe one day stated that he changed his mind about f2p games ??
Yes. Exactly. Many other people have changed their minds about f2p when they found a game they like. Thats exactly why I think you could change your mind.
A better question is. Why do you think you couldn't?
i think you have misconceptions about f2p games. just because a game is free 2 play does not mean it is terrible or generic. one of the best mmos I've ever played is a free 2 play title. shaiya. it has more depth and more systems in place than many so called AAA mmo's. the game it self is great, what keeps me from playing it is the business model.
Apart from PS2 did any of those great "F2P" MMO's you mention start as a F2P game? When are you lot going to accept that a P2P MMO which has better funding for launch tends to have higher production values and that makes it "better" MMO in your eyes when it goes F2P?
Have a check of a MMO review some time, the ratings for Graphics, Sound and Polish. This costs serious funding which F2P MMOs lack.
We have even had some of you guys trying to make out that F2P is getting more funding, take your head out of the sand, F2P MMO's look cheaper, sound cheaper and have less polish.
Now with that limitation F2P MMOs can still innovate, have good gameplay and so on. But money is a huge factor. If we were to follow your argument to the Solo game world, are you saying big budget is worse? B3, CoD and so on are worse because they have more staff and more resources?
Of course you can spend a lot of money and get a flop. But big budget usually works better in any area of life. But not for F2P MMO's...right.
I agree..These players simply refuse to accept this fact as a fact , since it will make them loose their argument all together.
Sure, these games are NOW free to play, and In a way they should be treated as such, but to deny the obvious is a bit odd.
You can NOT develop/make a game like TSW , Age of Conan or SWTOR and release it as FTP from the start unless someone came around and gave you 50-150 Milj dollars. If you still did that you would have to wait for a VERY long time to get some fruit for your hard work at the game.
What would you pay salary to your programmers and art team with , the "hopes" that someone buys an xp potion in the store ?
Sure there are many people buying stuff in E-stores today , but can you ensure a steady cash flow ? NO..So unless you have a HUGE buffer with cash there will be "hopes" that pays the salary for this dev team ..
That is also why so many pure FTP games are PTW . because without ANY truly useful items in the store , people can actually ignore the store, so they have to sell "useful" items, not just clothing or fluff pets.
To make sales you have to have goods that people would like to buy. Then you will say that most FTP games are going well without the need for "useful" items in the store , well thats also true to some level , If thats the case then they have to have other means to secure funds , like an alternative subscription plan or the pre order of some distant DLC...
Just look at Neverwinter as an example, they were selling game stuff and Founders pack deals for a pure FTP game pre release, and so did the newly released Marvel Heroes.
Some people like going to a casino, they enjoy the chance to win big and spend time throwing money at slut machine or playing card games. I do not, I don't like the shady ways used to grab my money, I don't like to feel like the cow ready for milking.
That's the reason I don't like f2p game, cause somehow they have to entice you to pay money. So they use tricks to make you spend big.
Buy boxes, have a chance for something truly epic, it can happen really ! look in world chat we put it right in your face when someone does !
Those shiny boxes you looted, well here you have to buy those keys to open em.
You fill up your bag space in no time ? well you can't craft more bags but you can buy inventory space from us !
Oh sorry you can't enter that area, you didn't buy this pack.. but here check the cash shop.
Oh btw here are the best deals in the cash shop right now ! have a look ! we even give you an achievement for your first purchase of the day !
Like I said earlier, it all revolves around the cash shop to me. Give me a quality game that I like without a cash shop and I will play it, be it p2p or f2p.
So I am not saying that I will never ever play a f2p game, but it is ''highly improbable'' that I would ever like one.