I like using firefox as my browser. If we were stuck with Microsoft only tools..yikes.
And Firefox and Chrome are two free browsers. Is it somehow wrong to use them for free because that's how they're offered? That's the assertion made by people in this thread, that people who play free games are somehow leeches on society because they're playing a game the way it was designed and developed to be played.
So are Firefox users leeches on society too? Or are they just using a free product?
Anyone who thinks Free 2 Play games are designed and developed to be played free really doesn't understand how this market really works. F2P games make on average more than sub games per player. Every time one of these companies publishes financials this is supported. Just because a handful of people buck the trend and torture themselves by playing the game for free doesn't mean it was designed that way. Of course I don't understand someone spending all night in sub 0 weather for 50% off a TV on black Friday either but maybe that's just me.
Personally I wouldn't call it so much entitlement as mastadistic.
The studies have already been presented, the overwhelming majority of F2P players never buy anything in the cash shop. It's a very tiny minority that spend a lot of money. It's not a handful of people, it's almost everyone. If you average out what the whales spend, yes, these games make more than $15 per player, but the majority of players aren't paying more than $15, most are paying absolutely nothing at all.
Do those studies categorize people by hours played? I have played a lot of F2P games for 10-40 hours and never spent a dime and really didn't feel like the cash shop affected me. However it becomes clear that to keep playing I was going to have to spend money to keep playing as I wanted at which point I could pony up some cash, change how I play the game, or just uninstall it and move on. I think if you restricted the discussion to people with more time in game you will find that very few play them free. The people who do play free on the whole don't tend to stick around long. F2P really isn't that much different than a free 7 day pass to a sub game except it's wrapped in a play for free as long as you want spin.
I've yet to feel the slightest interest in buying anything and if I stop having fun playing the game, I stop playing it. They offer the game for free. They set the parameters. You agree to those parameters when you sign up and play the game. If you change your mind, by all means stop playing the game and delete it. How have you been harmed by this? Because you don't get your way? Too bad! Now I have no idea how things play out based on amount of gameplay, but honestly, there are people who spend way the hell too much time playing games anyhow. These people need lives.
I'm not following your train of thought.
I said that F2P games make more money per player than sub ones to which you countered that only a handful of players (whales) spend lots of money while most play for free to which I said that I felt those studies are flawed in that they don't distinguish short term players to longer term ones to which you than went on a rant about people spending to much time playing games.
My point continues to be people who play F2P games (short term game hoppers aside) for any significant amount of time end up spending more on average than those that sub month after month. You can play a F2P game for hundred hours plus a month for years at a time without spending any or only small amounts of money but your going to have to fight though the pain inflicted by the developers to do it. If you bunny hop from game to game spending only a handful of hours in each one than F2P is a much better bargain than having to buy a game even with a free 30 day sub included in the box price.
I have played Fallen Earth for a year for a grand total of 20 bucks for 2 characters. I have probably spent 30 bucks in Lotor over approx. 6 months because I bought all the expansions for 19. 99 plus one quest area for 6.99 or something.
Oh and absolutely nothing in Swtor and don't intend to pay anything there. That sure sounds like a lot less than 15 bucks a month plus the box cost for a sub game.
So what does that say for your "theory"? No offence but without facts, your "feeling" doesn't hold much water here.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
There's a distinct lack of value in most F2P games. Some just want to lure you to pay WOW sub prices for a subpar WOW game content wise.
Others want to nickel and dime you into submission.
These games don't exist in a vacuum and need to accept that their offerings often aren't worthy of their prices.
So now you are the arbiter of value for all others , eh Frodo!
Just a brilliantly abstract statement that carries absolutely zero weight.
Out of the mouthes of babes comes..... Absolutely nothing.
Cmon kids its facts or nothing here. You can't prove to me that there is any more value in a sub game can you? Of course not, you are just spouting off the opinions of others.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
I said that F2P games make more money per player than sub ones to which you countered that only a handful of players (whales) spend lots of money while most play for free to which I said that I felt those studies are flawed in that they don't distinguish short term players to longer term ones to which you than went on a rant about people spending to much time playing games.
Per player doesn't matter. Let's say there are two games, one P2P and one F2P. Both have 100 players, just to keep the math easy. The P2P game makes $1500 per month ($15 x 100), clearly an average of $15 per player. The F2P has 10 whales and 90 people who don't pay a penny, but the whales each spend $160 per month, making $1600 for the F2P game. Clearly the F2P game is more profitable for the developer, even though the overwhelming majority don't pay a penny.
My point continues to be people who play F2P games (short term game hoppers aside) for any significant amount of time end up spending more on average than those that sub month after month. You can play a F2P game for hundred hours plus a month for years at a time without spending any or only small amounts of money but your going to have to fight though the pain inflicted by the developers to do it. If you bunny hop from game to game spending only a handful of hours in each one than F2P is a much better bargain than having to buy a game even with a free 30 day sub included in the box price.
Where is your data to support that? You can't just make things up. I play games until I get bored or frustrated with them. I can leave an F2P game when I no longer have fun there, there are hundreds and hundreds of games to choose from if I want to go that route. I honestly have no interest in spending thousand of hours and years of my life on a single game anymore. That's in my past. I have neither the time nor the patience for that these days. If the developers make it too difficult to play the game without paying them large sums of money for pixels, there are plenty of other MMOs in the sea. P2P is only a good deal if you have time to play the game regularly. I can play an F2P game for a month, get busy, go do something else, then come back in 3 months and play again without having to plunk down another $15, even if I might get busy again and not even play the game for another month. F2P gaming is entirely flexible. P2P gaming is not. Now granted, I don't play any MMOs at all anymore so it's all moot. Right now, I'm working my way through the new Shadow Warrior.
I keep reading threads and comments whereby F2P players feel aggrieved that they are not receiving enough free content.
In what other walk of life and with what other product would this be an acceptable stance to take? Many mmo's cost many millions to develop and that money has to be recouped somehow (and they need to turn a profit for their funders or they would not exist in the first place). Where, do you suggest, should this money be recovered from?
My view is simply this, a F2P player who makes no financial contribution to a game is in no position to complain about the free content they may or may not be receiving.
A player who pays a subscription, as with all other walks of life, should experience a discernibly improved experience over a player who pays nothing.
Now don't get me wrong, if a monetization model allows a game to sell aesthetic items only, then great. But if it does not then a free player should quit complaining and move on.
As it stands the free content received by F2P players is paid for by a few whales who use the cash shop. Free players should be thankful that there are items in the cash shop other players are prepared to buy or there would be no game and no content for them to experience at all.
They are my thoughts on the subject, what do you think?
I advertize to you "GET A FREE CAR FROM MY SHOP WHEN YOU SHOW UP, ABSOUTELY FREE NO CHARGE!" and when you show up I get you all worked up, as the moment nears I will let you sit in it -without the keys- and say: "if you want to drive it you have to pay me $50.000 first."
same thing. Would you be happy?
This is not the same thing, you are a FOOL. What you are doing is akin to getting into that free car, and then complaining that the guy who paid next to you got the sports package.
-Shut your penniless mouth and drive the Pinto we gave you.
Yes I think F2P only players have an insane sense of entitlement. With that said I still think there are limitations on what should be chargeable to keep the game fair and balanced without excess expenses that are beyond industry standards or even reasonable pricing.
IMO I still think companies should have B2P models with F2P trials and cash shop that you can subscribe to to unlock items in the cash shop through additional gameplay. A hybrid that includes them all, no reason why not, it benefits all.
Originally posted by Boneserino i said they support the game by supplying needed population numbers. Not by supporting it financially. Both are benficial. But different.
May I ask how a player simply being "in game" benefits the game?
Do many F2P players group with others? Do they interact with those playing in some significant way?
While I am sure there are some freeloading F2P players that DO group and interact with others, possibly doing PvP if it is in the game, maybe even doing some crafting and giving a game world an economy, I am kind of fuzzy as to how, exactly, these non-paying players add to the content of other players.
If "population" is all you can come up with, would it not be easier and/or cheaper to just fill the world with NPCs? Sometimes, those NPCs can even chat or dialogue, along with quests
- 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
I keep reading threads and comments whereby F2P players feel aggrieved that they are not receiving enough free content.
In what other walk of life and with what other product would this be an acceptable stance to take? Many mmo's cost many millions to develop and that money has to be recouped somehow (and they need to turn a profit for their funders or they would not exist in the first place). Where, do you suggest, should this money be recovered from?
My view is simply this, a F2P player who makes no financial contribution to a game is in no position to complain about the free content they may or may not be receiving.
A player who pays a subscription, as with all other walks of life, should experience a discernibly improved experience over a player who pays nothing.
Now don't get me wrong, if a monetization model allows a game to sell aesthetic items only, then great. But if it does not then a free player should quit complaining and move on.
As it stands the free content received by F2P players is paid for by a few whales who use the cash shop. Free players should be thankful that there are items in the cash shop other players are prepared to buy or there would be no game and no content for them to experience at all.
They are my thoughts on the subject, what do you think?
I advertize to you "GET A FREE CAR FROM MY SHOP WHEN YOU SHOW UP, ABSOUTELY FREE NO CHARGE!" and when you show up I get you all worked up, as the moment nears I will let you sit in it -without the keys- and say: "if you want to drive it you have to pay me $50.000 first."
same thing. Would you be happy?
This is not the same thing, you are a FOOL. What you are doing is akin to getting into that free car, and then complaining that the guy who paid next to you got the sports package.
-Shut your penniless mouth and drive the Pinto we gave you.
not only that, but the guy who paid for the sports package, also has air conditioning as standard, while the 'pinto' driver has to roll down the window by hand, and its really slow too, now just how unfair is that!
F2P, give them an inch, and they'll still complain that it isn't a mile long
"F2P, give them an inch, and they'll still complain that it isn't a mile long "
I think for many players out there it must come as a shock to the system that anyone asks you to pay for gaming. Gaming should be free like films, the TV and books. Crap, there not free are they?
Here's why I think people complain about F2Ps: the F2P in question makes it impossible for them to properly experience the game. This is wrong. Why? Well, the F2P model is all about giving you enough of a (hopefully) good thing to entice you to subscribe. If the free player can't enjoy the experience for free, why should he or she upgrade? I play a lot of F2Ps and this, IMO, the factor of not letting you sufficiently get into the game, is where the bad ones fail.
But you're right: paying members DO deserve a better gaming experience.
There's a distinct lack of value in most F2P games. Some just want to lure you to pay WOW sub prices for a subpar WOW game content wise.
Others want to nickel and dime you into submission.
These games don't exist in a vacuum and need to accept that their offerings often aren't worthy of their prices.
So now you are the arbiter of value for all others , eh Frodo!
Just a brilliantly abstract statement that carries absolutely zero weight.
Out of the mouthes of babes comes..... Absolutely nothing.
Cmon kids its facts or nothing here. You can't prove to me that there is any more value in a sub game can you? Of course not, you are just spouting off the opinions of others.
I'm not a kid, so I'll add some common sense here: name me one F2P game from start to finish that exists now with 9+ million players for 10 years.
<crickets>
Content costs money. F2P model is a misnomer, as those devs aren't working for free, they want a paycheck just like Blizzard employees do...and that can't come from people who actually do F2P.
May I ask how a player simply being "in game" benefits the game?
Do many F2P players group with others? Do they interact with those playing in some significant way?
While I am sure there are some freeloading F2P players that DO group and interact with others, possibly doing PvP if it is in the game, maybe even doing some crafting and giving a game world an economy, I am kind of fuzzy as to how, exactly, these non-paying players add to the content of other players.
If "population" is all you can come up with, would it not be easier and/or cheaper to just fill the world with NPCs? Sometimes, those NPCs can even chat or dialogue, along with quests
pvp.
LoL have tons of free players. They are content for paid ones.
I like using firefox as my browser. If we were stuck with Microsoft only tools..yikes.
And Firefox and Chrome are two free browsers. Is it somehow wrong to use them for free because that's how they're offered? That's the assertion made by people in this thread, that people who play free games are somehow leeches on society because they're playing a game the way it was designed and developed to be played.
So are Firefox users leeches on society too? Or are they just using a free product?
I believe Firefox makes its money by assigning Google as main browser, and Google makes its money through advertising. This is in no way comparable to F2P games where one player effectively pays for another players free experience.
It's very much comparable, F2P games set up free players as content for the whales. Try again.
What? Did you just randomly string some words together and call it an argument?
More like you have a comprehension problem. I totally understand what he is trying to say.
Do many F2P players group with others? Do they interact with those playing in some significant way?While I am sure there are some freeloading F2P players that DO group and interact with others, possibly doing PvP if it is in the game, maybe even doing some crafting and giving a game world an economy, I am kind of fuzzy as to how, exactly, these non-paying players add to the content of other players.
If "population" is all you can come up with, would it not be easier and/or cheaper to just fill the world with NPCs? Sometimes, those NPCs can even chat or dialogue, along with quests
Well there is the "sheep effect" with a lot of people if they see a lot of people around them playing, even if they're not interacting at all with those people, they think the game must be good and if they hardly run into anyone else they think it must suck just on that basis.
I personally am totally unaffected by this. I'll play an empty game if it's fun (and soloable) and scoff at a full game if the game play sucks but you just have to look at some of the posts in this forum to see that some people haven't really matured beyond the "want to be in the in crowd in middle school" phase. I guess having a lot of F2P players could help rope in those types.
Originally posted by UNATCOII Originally posted by BoneserinoOriginally posted by FrodoFraginsThere's a distinct lack of value in most F2P games. Some just want to lure you to pay WOW sub prices for a subpar WOW game content wise.Others want to nickel and dime you into submission.These games don't exist in a vacuum and need to accept that their offerings often aren't worthy of their prices.
So now you are the arbiter of value for all others , eh Frodo! Just a brilliantly abstract statement that carries absolutely zero weight. Out of the mouthes of babes comes..... Absolutely nothing. Cmon kids its facts or nothing here. You can't prove to me that there is any more value in a sub game can you? Of course not, you are just spouting off the opinions of others. I'm not a kid, so I'll add some common sense here: name me one F2P game from start to finish that exists now with 9+ million players for 10 years.
<crickets>
Content costs money. F2P model is a misnomer, as those devs aren't working for free, they want a paycheck just like Blizzard employees do...and that can't come from people who actually do F2P.
You are correct, except for a complete misunderstanding of what F2P means.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Folks , it's pretty simple. Your concept of free differs from other peoples. So , a companies concept of what constitutes free, will differ for any individuals. The really issue is, there isn't a firm definition as a rule, just a concept.
Originally posted by AG-VukFolks , it's pretty simple. Your concept of free differs from other peoples. So , a companies concept of what constitutes free, will differ for any individuals. The really issue is, there isn't a firm definition as a rule, just a concept.
Companies exist to make money. Employees expect to get paid for their time.
How do they make a profit and employees get paid if no one pays, again?
Don't need 1000001 definitions to know -- no money coming in = no income.
Originally posted by AG-Vuk Folks , it's pretty simple. Your concept of free differs from other peoples. So , a companies concept of what constitutes free, will differ for any individuals. The really issue is, there isn't a firm definition as a rule, just a concept.
Everyone understands what "Free To Play" means. Anyone who doesn't learns very quickly. It means some portion of the game is free, and some portion of the game isn't. Players can indeed play F2P games without spending any money. Players can also play F2P games while spending money and receive more of the game's content. It's not rocket appliances.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I keep reading threads and comments whereby F2P players feel aggrieved that they are not receiving enough free content.
In what other walk of life and with what other product would this be an acceptable stance to take? Many mmo's cost many millions to develop and that money has to be recouped somehow (and they need to turn a profit for their funders or they would not exist in the first place). Where, do you suggest, should this money be recovered from?
My view is simply this, a F2P player who makes no financial contribution to a game is in no position to complain about the free content they may or may not be receiving.
A player who pays a subscription, as with all other walks of life, should experience a discernibly improved experience over a player who pays nothing.
Now don't get me wrong, if a monetization model allows a game to sell aesthetic items only, then great. But if it does not then a free player should quit complaining and move on.
As it stands the free content received by F2P players is paid for by a few whales who use the cash shop. Free players should be thankful that there are items in the cash shop other players are prepared to buy or there would be no game and no content for them to experience at all.
They are my thoughts on the subject, what do you think?
Originally posted by AG-VukFolks , it's pretty simple. Your concept of free differs from other peoples. So , a companies concept of what constitutes free, will differ for any individuals. The really issue is, there isn't a firm definition as a rule, just a concept.
Companies exist to make money. Employees expect to get paid for their time.
How do they make a profit and employees get paid if no one pays, again?
Don't need 1000001 definitions to know -- no money coming in = no income.
Really is no such thing as a free lunch.
You forget the whales.
F2P means free for some (and most likely me). Problem solved.
I like using firefox as my browser. If we were stuck with Microsoft only tools..yikes.
And Firefox and Chrome are two free browsers. Is it somehow wrong to use them for free because that's how they're offered? That's the assertion made by people in this thread, that people who play free games are somehow leeches on society because they're playing a game the way it was designed and developed to be played.
So are Firefox users leeches on society too? Or are they just using a free product?
I believe Firefox makes its money by assigning Google as main browser, and Google makes its money through advertising. This is in no way comparable to F2P games where one player effectively pays for another players free experience.
It's very much comparable, F2P games set up free players as content for the whales. Try again.
What? Did you just randomly string some words together and call it an argument?
Do you have a problem comprehending very basic English that we should be aware of?
Your argument is meaningless. In what way is a free player content for a paying player? In what game and in what F2P model? And how does that relate to a company making money from advertising?
Originally posted by AG-VukFolks , it's pretty simple. Your concept of free differs from other peoples. So , a companies concept of what constitutes free, will differ for any individuals. The really issue is, there isn't a firm definition as a rule, just a concept.
Companies exist to make money. Employees expect to get paid for their time.
How do they make a profit and employees get paid if no one pays, again?
Don't need 1000001 definitions to know -- no money coming in = no income.
Really is no such thing as a free lunch.
You forget the whales.
F2P means free for some (and most likely me). Problem solved.
Why always the need to compare games to unrelated rl things? I keep it simple and compare games. Because when I want to play a game, I don't make a choice between a game and some other unrelated free product. But between different games (in this case F2P games).
So if one F2P game gives me a great experience without having to pay anything (Rift), And a different F2P game makes it very difficult to enjoy it for free (SWTOR) to the point that some shop purchases feel mandatory instead of just for convenience. Is it then wrong to voice my opinion about this on the relevant forum? Or does that make me feel entitled because I compare two comparable F2P products?
Comments
I'm not following your train of thought.
I said that F2P games make more money per player than sub ones to which you countered that only a handful of players (whales) spend lots of money while most play for free to which I said that I felt those studies are flawed in that they don't distinguish short term players to longer term ones to which you than went on a rant about people spending to much time playing games.
My point continues to be people who play F2P games (short term game hoppers aside) for any significant amount of time end up spending more on average than those that sub month after month. You can play a F2P game for hundred hours plus a month for years at a time without spending any or only small amounts of money but your going to have to fight though the pain inflicted by the developers to do it. If you bunny hop from game to game spending only a handful of hours in each one than F2P is a much better bargain than having to buy a game even with a free 30 day sub included in the box price.
@Udon
I have played Fallen Earth for a year for a grand total of 20 bucks for 2 characters. I have probably spent 30 bucks in Lotor over approx. 6 months because I bought all the expansions for 19. 99 plus one quest area for 6.99 or something.
Oh and absolutely nothing in Swtor and don't intend to pay anything there. That sure sounds like a lot less than 15 bucks a month plus the box cost for a sub game.
So what does that say for your "theory"? No offence but without facts, your "feeling" doesn't hold much water here.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
There's a distinct lack of value in most F2P games. Some just want to lure you to pay WOW sub prices for a subpar WOW game content wise.
Others want to nickel and dime you into submission.
These games don't exist in a vacuum and need to accept that their offerings often aren't worthy of their prices.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
So now you are the arbiter of value for all others , eh Frodo!
Just a brilliantly abstract statement that carries absolutely zero weight.
Out of the mouthes of babes comes..... Absolutely nothing.
Cmon kids its facts or nothing here. You can't prove to me that there is any more value in a sub game can you? Of course not, you are just spouting off the opinions of others.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Per player doesn't matter. Let's say there are two games, one P2P and one F2P. Both have 100 players, just to keep the math easy. The P2P game makes $1500 per month ($15 x 100), clearly an average of $15 per player. The F2P has 10 whales and 90 people who don't pay a penny, but the whales each spend $160 per month, making $1600 for the F2P game. Clearly the F2P game is more profitable for the developer, even though the overwhelming majority don't pay a penny.
Where is your data to support that? You can't just make things up. I play games until I get bored or frustrated with them. I can leave an F2P game when I no longer have fun there, there are hundreds and hundreds of games to choose from if I want to go that route. I honestly have no interest in spending thousand of hours and years of my life on a single game anymore. That's in my past. I have neither the time nor the patience for that these days. If the developers make it too difficult to play the game without paying them large sums of money for pixels, there are plenty of other MMOs in the sea. P2P is only a good deal if you have time to play the game regularly. I can play an F2P game for a month, get busy, go do something else, then come back in 3 months and play again without having to plunk down another $15, even if I might get busy again and not even play the game for another month. F2P gaming is entirely flexible. P2P gaming is not. Now granted, I don't play any MMOs at all anymore so it's all moot. Right now, I'm working my way through the new Shadow Warrior.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
This is not the same thing, you are a FOOL. What you are doing is akin to getting into that free car, and then complaining that the guy who paid next to you got the sports package.
-Shut your penniless mouth and drive the Pinto we gave you.
Yes I think F2P only players have an insane sense of entitlement. With that said I still think there are limitations on what should be chargeable to keep the game fair and balanced without excess expenses that are beyond industry standards or even reasonable pricing.
IMO I still think companies should have B2P models with F2P trials and cash shop that you can subscribe to to unlock items in the cash shop through additional gameplay. A hybrid that includes them all, no reason why not, it benefits all.
Do many F2P players group with others? Do they interact with those playing in some significant way?
While I am sure there are some freeloading F2P players that DO group and interact with others, possibly doing PvP if it is in the game, maybe even doing some crafting and giving a game world an economy, I am kind of fuzzy as to how, exactly, these non-paying players add to the content of other players.
If "population" is all you can come up with, would it not be easier and/or cheaper to just fill the world with NPCs? Sometimes, those NPCs can even chat or dialogue, along with quests
- 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
not only that, but the guy who paid for the sports package, also has air conditioning as standard, while the 'pinto' driver has to roll down the window by hand, and its really slow too, now just how unfair is that!
F2P, give them an inch, and they'll still complain that it isn't a mile long
"F2P, give them an inch, and they'll still complain that it isn't a mile long
"
I think for many players out there it must come as a shock to the system that anyone asks you to pay for gaming. Gaming should be free like films, the TV and books. Crap, there not free are they?
I agree with the OP.
Here's why I think people complain about F2Ps: the F2P in question makes it impossible for them to properly experience the game. This is wrong. Why? Well, the F2P model is all about giving you enough of a (hopefully) good thing to entice you to subscribe. If the free player can't enjoy the experience for free, why should he or she upgrade? I play a lot of F2Ps and this, IMO, the factor of not letting you sufficiently get into the game, is where the bad ones fail.
But you're right: paying members DO deserve a better gaming experience.
A great list of free games (mostly MMORPGs): http://www.mytop10games.com/
I'm not a kid, so I'll add some common sense here: name me one F2P game from start to finish that exists now with 9+ million players for 10 years.
<crickets>
Content costs money. F2P model is a misnomer, as those devs aren't working for free, they want a paycheck just like Blizzard employees do...and that can't come from people who actually do F2P.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
pvp.
LoL have tons of free players. They are content for paid ones.
More like you have a comprehension problem. I totally understand what he is trying to say.
Well there is the "sheep effect" with a lot of people if they see a lot of people around them playing, even if they're not interacting at all with those people, they think the game must be good and if they hardly run into anyone else they think it must suck just on that basis.
I personally am totally unaffected by this. I'll play an empty game if it's fun (and soloable) and scoff at a full game if the game play sucks but you just have to look at some of the posts in this forum to see that some people haven't really matured beyond the "want to be in the in crowd in middle school" phase. I guess having a lot of F2P players could help rope in those types.
I'm not a kid, so I'll add some common sense here: name me one F2P game from start to finish that exists now with 9+ million players for 10 years.
<crickets>
Content costs money. F2P model is a misnomer, as those devs aren't working for free, they want a paycheck just like Blizzard employees do...and that can't come from people who actually do F2P.
You are correct, except for a complete misunderstanding of what F2P means.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Companies exist to make money. Employees expect to get paid for their time.
How do they make a profit and employees get paid if no one pays, again?
Don't need 1000001 definitions to know -- no money coming in = no income.
Really is no such thing as a free lunch.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
Everyone understands what "Free To Play" means. Anyone who doesn't learns very quickly. It means some portion of the game is free, and some portion of the game isn't. Players can indeed play F2P games without spending any money. Players can also play F2P games while spending money and receive more of the game's content. It's not rocket appliances.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Yes!
Yes, I've read a poem. Try not to faint.
You forget the whales.
F2P means free for some (and most likely me). Problem solved.
Your argument is meaningless. In what way is a free player content for a paying player? In what game and in what F2P model? And how does that relate to a company making money from advertising?
Whales aren't F2Ping...
(need a drum roll and cymbal clash there!)
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
Why always the need to compare games to unrelated rl things? I keep it simple and compare games. Because when I want to play a game, I don't make a choice between a game and some other unrelated free product. But between different games (in this case F2P games).
So if one F2P game gives me a great experience without having to pay anything (Rift), And a different F2P game makes it very difficult to enjoy it for free (SWTOR) to the point that some shop purchases feel mandatory instead of just for convenience. Is it then wrong to voice my opinion about this on the relevant forum? Or does that make me feel entitled because I compare two comparable F2P products?