Indeed it is, I'll await the point at which you are open to looking at all the observable traits as opposed to making false assumptions. When there are clear points refuting the claims you made that are completely ignored, it is difficult to make progress.
Like for example, the entirety of your previous claim suggesting 80% of F2P and 5% of P2P being open to play even though that is first of all highly subjective to the developer's choice and second of all countered by the examples previously provided about the modern means of access most players have and the commonality of certain game designs that directly inhibits that. If the observable traits of the models as they are currently used were properly taken into account, those numbers would not be so greatly skewed, and you'd be finding a considerably more negligible gap (not to mention it's a sidestep avoiding many of the other issues pointed out, again an active attempt at ignoring the observable traits that have been previously outlined).
I can't really make progress in a conversation where the counterargument is based entirely on sticking fingers in their ears and covering their eyes.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Answer is easier said than done, but be better than what the standard of free has to offer.
MMOs or games in general have a certain expectation for certain price points, which are standard.
For example a single player game with some online elements would be more of a b2p price model than a p2p. Thats a normal expectation.
However, a p2p model seems to compete really with WoW in terms of variety of content in regards of themepark.
So a mmo dev really has to set some new trends and take the mmo to the next level to focus on making the experience that much greater so it can have less content than wow, but justify a p2p model by offering something better in being different or in other elements.
To me free to play games might be good, but have ridiculous grind.
So in general a good themepark mmo, would have little grind of things being badly but instead focus on the joyof progression with quest variety and quality etc..., and at the same time offer a lot of end game. The thing about end game is that it is repeatable so if they ahve enough of it, it can be enough content to be something that justifies a p2p model as an mmo while offering good progression
tldr; a p2p model needs a short and fun progression expereince with a well developed end game, and other high quality features such as crafting, pvp, music as over package to fit the mold of a p2p vs free that can compete with WoW and f2p.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
Indeed it is, I'll await the point at which you are open to looking at all the observable traits as opposed to making false assumptions. When there are clear points refuting the claims you made that are completely ignored, it is difficult to make progress.
Like for example, the entirety of your previous claim suggesting 80% of F2P and 5% of P2P being open to play even though that is first of all highly subjective to the developer's choice and second of all countered by the examples previously provided about the modern means of access most players have and the commonality of certain game designs that directly inhibits that. If the observable traits of the models as they are currently used were properly taken into account, those numbers would not be so greatly skewed, and you'd be finding a considerably more negligible gap (not to mention it's a sidestep avoiding many of the other issues pointed out, again an active attempt at ignoring the observable traits that have been previously outlined).
I can't really make progress in a conversation where the counterargument is based entirely on sticking fingers in their ears and covering their eyes.
What assumption? What dispute?
I don't assume you have more info in F2P before handing over money; you actually do have more info. It isn't an assumption and you haven't disputed it.
You're not discussing an imaginary topic with an imaginary person saying imaginary things. I'm a real person who's pointed out an observably true trait of F2P games.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
And I'm a real person who's pointed out observably true traits that points out that singular "trait" of yours is an opinion predicated on a very subjective concept of how F2P works (to take your on phrase, it is in fact an imaginary topic as such as that concept of yours only worth in a theoretical scenario of only 20% of all game assets being monetized).
Whether or not you want to acknowledge that at this point is entirely up to you, for the rest it's there to read and comprehend at their leisure.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
And I'm a real person who's pointed out observably true traits that points out that singular "trait" of yours is an opinion predicated on a very subjective concept of how F2P works (to take your on phrase, it is in fact an imaginary topic as such as that concept of yours only worth in a theoretical scenario of only 20% of all game assets being monetized).
Whether or not you want to acknowledge that at this point is entirely up to you, for the rest it's there to read and comprehend at their leisure.
Can you give an example of a F2P MMO where his assertion would be false?
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
Can you give an example of a F2P MMO where his assertion would be false?
Honestly it'd be easier for me to get a game suggestion from you that you think isn't representative of this and for me to break it down, as any game picked requires a breakdown of the content in the cash shop + monetized components in-game versus the content available as F2P alongside an analysis of the early game experience versus the long term and endgame (in addition to accounting for content that's unlockable via extended play that is avoidable with paid unlocks).
Otherwise I'm picking a title at random that people might try to discredit by saying something like "oh but that game isn't like this game" at which point I do another analysis.
I've already done this with LoL previously though in I can't remember which thread. In the case of that game it's interesting because while the gameplay is itself subjectively very free, the monetization strategy it uses along with the target demographic it has picked makes for a rather exploitative cycle that it's success is built upon. While subjectively, yes, you could play the game a ton to unlock characters for free, all of them end up having a strong incentive for a paid purchase at release especially if you're aiming to be competitive in the game. This stacks with the fact that a majority of the released content are skins and bundles that are pay-only. Functionally the percentage of the game which you get for "free" in LoL is less than half at this point when you want to tally up all it's assets.
SWToR fares considerably worse when doing this breakdown because they establish considerably more paygates and content that is paid-user only or costs money to unlock individually for the account.
Where the claim does stand true-ish for Axe is when you examine much smaller titles that aren't offering a large amount of content to begin with. IE mobile mini games, not MMOs.
Post edited by Deivos on
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Can you give an example of a F2P MMO where his assertion would be false?
Honestly it'd be easier for me to get a game suggestion from you that you think isn't representative of this and for me to break it down...
Whole lotta typing there.
For reference, here is Axe's statement:
"B2P provides far less of the actual experience before requiring money, so players are more vulnerable to giving money to a game they don't enjoy than a F2P title where they are never required to pay."
Ok, so to give you MMO titles per your request, and to maintain a constant, let's use subscription MMO vs their later F2P incarnation. You can choose one or address all of them, if you want.
Star Wars: The Old Republic
Lord of the Rings Online
Age of Conan
APB (APB:Reloaded is the F2P version)
RIFT
According to Axehilt, LOTRO under the subscription model provided far less of the actual experience before requiring money (box fee, sub), so players were more vulnerable to giving money to a game they don't enjoy than the Free-to-play version of LOTRO where they can play the game and decide if it's worth their money or not.
I agree with Axehilt, but that's neither here nor there. I am interested in why you feel his assertion would be false for any of these titles. If you feel there is a better MMO or set of MMOs to use to illustrate your point, please use them.
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
You can watch videos of other people playing it and read reviews about it, and then pay me $40 for it to play it for yourself. Another option you have is to wait year or so until a trial version is made available. Sometimes a trial is never available.
or
You can play most of it yourself (and in most F2P MMOs, most content is available to try or use) and from your own personal experience decide if you want to pay anything at all.
Axehilt is saying that the latter lets people try the game itself before they buy, and the former they have to pay money before they can play it themselves. Even if one goes with a trial,it is often severely cappedin time and progression. If you've played MMOs for a decent enough time, you know that levels 1-20 are rarely indicative of the rest of the game experience.
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
@Loktofeit I'll admit I didn't read half of the walls that were posted by Axe and Deivos, so yes I'm misunderstood. However, from what I gathered in two or three lines is that they're deep in a debate over the definition of certain words. I pointed it out that F2P and B2P in the end, have exactly the same model in that they both allow FULL game AFTER pay, all the other circumstantial factors are irrelevant, so are given conditions.
I do agree that F2P guarantees you limited assets, but nonetheless, lets you play the core game so you are able to make a proper decision. Though this is just a method to gate players and their cash. B2P in this case, provides full game upon purchase and there's no hidden fine print, which you are able to refund when you please. You cannot do that in a cash shop setting, can you? My point exactly in regards to semantics...
@Loktofeit I'll admit I didn't read half of the walls that were posted by Axe and Deivos, so yes I'm misunderstood. However, from what I gathered in two or three lines is that they're deep in a debate over the definition of certain words. I pointed it out that F2P and B2P in the end, have exactly the same model in that they both allow FULL game AFTER pay, all the other circumstantial factors are irrelevant, so are given conditions.
I do agree that F2P guarantees you limited assets, but nonetheless, lets you play the core game so you are able to make a proper decision. Though this is just a method to gate players and their cash. B2P in this case, provides full game upon purchase and there's no hidden fine print, which you are able to refund when you please. You cannot do that in a cash shop setting, can you? My point exactly in regards to semantics...
Understood, although I don't quite agree with it, especially since a) B2P MMOs almost always have a cash shop, and b) subscription MMOs require monthly payments or you can't play at all. So to use "B2P" MMOs to support one's argument, disregarding the presence of either cash shop or subscription is rather disingenuouis.
That's another topic entirely, though.
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
@Loktofeit I'll admit I didn't read half of the walls that were posted by Axe and Deivos, so yes I'm misunderstood. However, from what I gathered in two or three lines is that they're deep in a debate over the definition of certain words. I pointed it out that F2P and B2P in the end, have exactly the same model in that they both allow FULL game AFTER pay, all the other circumstantial factors are irrelevant, so are given conditions.
I do agree that F2P guarantees you limited assets, but nonetheless, lets you play the core game so you are able to make a proper decision. Though this is just a method to gate players and their cash. B2P in this case, provides full game upon purchase and there's no hidden fine print, which you are able to refund when you please. You cannot do that in a cash shop setting, can you? My point exactly in regards to semantics...
Understood, although I don't quite agree with it, especially since a) B2P MMOs almost always have a cash shop, and b) subscription MMOs require monthly payments or you can't play at all. So to use "B2P" MMOs to support one's argument, disregarding the presence of either cash shop or subscription is rather disingenuouis.
That's another topic entirely, though.
Yeah, to be honest, I probably shouldn't have commented in the first place as I'm on the fence regarding payment models and how they compare to each other. Thus, my degree of detail and its conditions with this is close to none.
I support all models though, because in the end, a business is about making money while thinking about how to make more money. That bottom line directly rules out the consumers and the product in question.
Neither model is bad, and there are a lot of aspects that technically exist within both of them. Like for example the remark of "You can play most of it yourself..."
This element technically exists with both early on as there hasn't been many launches in a while that hasn't opened without some kinda beta period for access. Playing a good chunk of the game or at least getting a few hours into it before purchase even when talking about a B2P game isn't abnormal.
Similarly, F2P has adopted a good bit of the B2P methodology, just in a more "soft" context with the use of founders packs before even hitting a beta period. These things are no different to purchase than a B2P title.
A good chunk of the point I was making is that the concept being emphasized by Axehilt doesn't really exist in reality with such a strong polarity, it's much closer in proportion to each other most of the time, almost negligibly so in some cases, with others being functionally inverse (or more accurately, the same as if a B2P was selling on image alone, as the F2P early gameplay may very well not reflect the late or even midgame).
As for the examples for @Loktofeit ;. Not breaking them down statistically tonight, but I can point out several things immediately. The reason the post was long was because the middle of it was talking about LoL. I gave a small jab at SWToR though too so lets expound on that one a tad.
For one, SWToR is a rather highly monetized game, with the core 1-50 experience being the only component that's functionally F2P. There is a swath of content that has usage gates as well as reward-denial mechanics that provide content to players and then bars progress without purchase (tiered items, limited access to side activities). On top of that, they have released their major content as expansions and are slated to release another one. This is compounded by the volume of items that the shop does provide, and some important distinctions such as the fact that the shop purchases for legacy unlocks provide cross-server options to which the in-game method does not. If one was to actually spend their time tallying up all the paid content for that game versus the actual free content, the F2P would be disproportionately small.
LotRO I can't make an assessment on presently, as I do not know the breadth of it's content in game or otherwise.
Age of Conan is a bit of a problem to compare because early on it was very simply an incomplete game, and much of what they did following it's failure as a B2P was an attempt to oversell the title to try and save it. I would say that it had a better balance of F2P content that SWtoR by a good amount, as the shop never got particularly large and the paid expansion content was only comparable to the content that was added to the core game over time for free. AoC didn't do the whole crafting upgrade material and other stuff as a F2P title really and that killed a large chunk of P2P content as well. It's a title that's more F2P than anything else.
APB kind of has the same boat as AoC but a little sideways. Mostly in that it is a horribly built game top to bottom. What it did have going for it in it's P2P version was two things though. No cash shop meaning access to all the game's content at the time, and secondly it was one of the early ones to tinker with a method to sell sub time in-game. Problem is that it was not a well supported feature as they basically introduced a secondary currency that had no meaning or use outside of buying time, and it split the in-game economy as a result. When it went F2P it did implement a cash shop shortly thereafter, and has since then introduced most of it's new content as paid assets. The game lets you play the core gameplay without limits, but it puts limits on the creative components as well as access to many items that do not have an unpaid counterpart aside from the white versions that were from the original RTW version. APB as a result is one that you can actually play all the general stuff pretty openly without concern of paying, but the majority of the content that's been produced for it is paid content.
Rift falls into the same situation as LotRO. I don't know enough about the game's content to explain it.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
None of that answers the question. Why do you feel his assertion would be false for any of those titles?
To reiterate his assertion so that you don't have to scroll up:
"B2P provides far less of the actual experience before requiring money, so players are more vulnerable to giving money to a game they don't enjoy than a F2P title where they are never required to pay."
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
The first three paragraphs there directly comments on that...
The very notion that people are more informed when they are paying into F2P is a major assumption on axe's part as has been illustrated by my prior arguments pointing out the gaps in play time and investment to turnover along with the point that early game can and is treated like a demo in many cases unto it's own, with early game playing nothing like mid or endgame. This is a compounding issue with the point that has been made I don't know how many times now that these games have many monetization models built on what is functionally extortion of money by coaxing impulsive and emotionally driven purchases from the users rather than by offering gameplay they actually enjoy, also known as "fun pain" where a user is effectively playing a losing game because they have been lead to believe they are enduring the game's bad side or paying in to uncover an enjoyable component that doesn't even exist.
Point here being, that issue has been addressed multiple times with a lot of information behind it. To so blatantly disregard what is written right above the post in which you wish to claim otherwise is more that a little annoying.
[mod edit]
Post edited by Amana on
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
The first three paragraphs there directly comments on that...
The very notion that people are more informed when they are paying into F2P is a major assumption on axe's part as has been illustrated by my prior arguments pointing out the gaps in play time and investment to turnover along with the point that early game can and is treated like a demo in many cases unto it's own, with early game playing nothing like mid or endgame. This is a compounding issue with the point that has been made I don't know how many times now that these games have many monetization models built on what is functionally extortion of money by coaxing impulsive and emotionally driven purchases from the users rather than by offering gameplay they actually enjoy, also known as "fun pain" where a user is effectively playing a losing game because they have been lead to believe they are enduring the game's bad side or paying in to uncover an enjoyable component that doesn't even exist.
Point here being, that issue has been addressed multiple times with a lot of information behind it. To so blatantly disregard what is written right above the post in which you wish to claim otherwise is more that a little annoying.
EDIT: You need me to break it down into some grade school terms again?
My argument is that F2P players objectively have more information available before money changes hands.
Your argument seems to be that the information isn't always used. (And if that's so, let's be honest it really didn't need 10 bazillion unrelated paragraphs to write out.)
It doesn't establish my argument as an assumption, nor does it dispute it.
Basically we're describing two national parks with dangerous cliffs, one with "cliff ahead" signs and one without. My argument is that the "cliff ahead" group has objectively more information. Your argument is that some people stupidly ignore that information and fall off the cliff, and somehow you want to use that to claim I'm wrong in stating a plainly obvious fact. But if data existed, we would almost certainly discover that fewer people fall off the cliff with the signs.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Every mmorpg should be free. No monthly subs bulkitten and No pay to win as well. But put buy option that give advantage to premium players, to player that buy the game
Premium players get more choice in characters creations. While free player can choose 1 or 2 face, body, hairstyle, premium player get 30. Give premium player better outfit example, while free player get crappy clothes, premium player get a cool ninja suit if they play assassin class.
Like skyrim, premium player get access to offline single player mode. Dev can create more content quest in a dlc that can be played offline single player.
All players in online world vs world is same level. No grinding Level, pure skill based 100vs100 war. Equipment all the same. You log in, do pvp, balance no grinding quest
My argument is that F2P players objectively have more information available before money changes hands.
Your argument seems to be that the information isn't always used.
It doesn't establish my argument as an assumption, nor does it dispute it.
Basically we're describing two national parks with dangerous cliffs, one with "cliff ahead" signs and one without. My argument is that the "cliff ahead" group has objectively more information. Your argument is that some people stupidly ignore that information and fall off the cliff, and somehow you want to use that to claim I'm wrong in stating a plainly obvious fact. But if data existed, we would almost certainly discover that fewer people fall off the cliff with the signs.
Incorrect. First off, that argument you posed as mine has not been the one posed at any point. The argument was that your point is an assumption ans also very much a theoretical level of argument because it ignores most of the variables that affect real-world titles and the amount of access they provide to content alongside the many design schemes that are made in F2P to bleed people before they reach far enough to form a conclusion on whether or not they actually enjoy the game. In other words, the "information" players have access to in F2P can and is often skewed or not representative of the reality of the game as a whole.
I've also pointed this out in relation to the fact that F2P has more methods than B2P to con money from players because they can play on the user psychologically during the game to incentivize pay from emotional and impulse responses.
To correct your analogy, it's the difference between a park with a "cliff ahead" sign, and a park that says "bridge ahead". My argument has been the fact that outside of a perfectly controlled theoretical model and accounting for the real-world monetization practices used today, people very simply don't know what they are getting into and are being lead to false conclusions. F2P is an exceptionally proficient platform for doing that to people. "If data existed", to which I have linked articles in the past pointing out multiple of these practices as well as several direct statistics and analysis of a couple big F2P titles now (LoL and WoT), we would discover that quite a lot of people are lead off the cliff with the bridge signs.
You have a lovely theory, and on a superficial and micro level it could be held true (assuming the games content is built to accommodate). It however does not correlate to all the things going on with reality and the use of the monetization models and their surrounding content.
That you would dismiss things out of hand again even though those "unrelated paragraphs" were examples, deconstructions, and references directly disputing your idea versus modern business practice, is rather par for the course. As said a while ago "I'll await the point at which you are open to looking at all the observable traits as opposed to making false assumptions. When there are clear points refuting the claims you made that are completely ignored, it is difficult to make progress."
You have repeated the same mistakes previously addressed yet again.
[mod edit]
Post edited by Amana on
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Incorrect. First off, that argument you posed as mine has not been the one posed at any point. The argument was that your point is an assumption ans also very much a theoretical level of argument because it ignores most of the variables that affect real-world titles and the amount of access they provide to content alongside the many design schemes that are made in F2P to bleed people before they reach far enough to form a conclusion on whether or not they actually enjoy the game. In other words, the "information" players have access to in F2P can and is often skewed or not representative of the reality of the game as a whole.
I've also pointed this out in relation to the fact that F2P has more methods than B2P to con money from players because they can play on the user psychologically during the game to incentivize pay from emotional and impulse responses.
To correct your analogy, it's the difference between a park with a "cliff ahead" sign, and a park that says "bridge ahead". My argument has been the fact that outside of a perfectly controlled theoretical model and accounting for the real-world monetization practices used today, people very simply don't know what they are getting into and are being lead to false conclusions. F2P is an exceptionally proficient platform for doing that to people. "If data existed", to which I have linked articles in the past pointing out multiple of these practices as well as several direct statistics and analysis of a couple big F2P titles now (LoL and WoT), we would discover that quite a lot of people are lead off the cliff with the bridge signs.
You have a lovely theory, and on a superficial and micro level it could be held true (assuming the games content is built to accommodate). It however does not correlate to all the things going on with reality and the use of the monetization models and their surrounding content.
That you would dismiss things out of hand again even though those "unrelated paragraphs" were examples, deconstructions, and references directly disputing your idea versus modern business practice, is rather par for the course. As said a while ago "I'll await the point at which you are open to looking at all the observable traits as opposed to making false assumptions. When there are clear points refuting the claims you made that are completely ignored, it is difficult to make progress."
You have repeated the same mistakes previously addressed yet again.
"I can't really make progress in a conversation where the counterargument is based entirely on sticking fingers in their ears and covering their eyes."
There is nothing theoretical or assumed about what I'm saying. F2P players play the game without paying. Do you understand that? They have firsthand knowledge of whether the game is fun to them before they're required to pay. This is objectively more knowledge than B2P players have, where if they have any firsthand knowledge at all it's substantially more limited than what F2P players have. These are plainly observable facts, and calling them "theoretical" or "assumptions" makes me wonder if you understand you're wrong but are simply arguing for the sake of argument's sake.
Whether you believe F2P has more methods to "con" players is irrelevant because (a) most importantly: it has no relevance to what I'm saying players still have more information), and (b) the "number of cons" is itself irrelevant. A lot of little tricks to earn money isn't necessarily worse than one big trick (using a game trailer to make the sale.) Objectively I've been suckered into far more big tricks than little ones over the years, having bought many B2P games that I didn't enjoy but never once having paid money to a F2P game I didn't enjoy. So personally I regard the big trick as the worse offender.
Your analogy correction doesn't exactly shed light on your argument, although at this point it seems like you're not only arguing for the sake of argument, but arguing a point that's barely related to my own point. When someone says something factual you can't just claim their facts are "theoretical" just because you want to bring up some separate subject matter. The fact remains that the most important knowledge related to giving money to someone to entertain you is whether they will entertain you. With a F2P model you have literally already been entertained at the point where money changes hands, whereas with B2P you are handing money before you've been entertained.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Youtube, Twitch, etc. are the reason there should be no more f2p games besides for the poor. You should pay for a quality product....if you think otherwise .....well....you are a bum. p2p or b2p should never have to compete with free, they should be in different leagues.
If you want to know about a game that you have to b2p or p2p....go on Youtube or Twitch...This isn't the old days where you get a TV CGI trailer and have to wonder whether or not the game is as cool as the trailer or see some info in a magazine without seeing actual gameplay, or just the look of a cool game cover/case and a nice summary to go on.
Every quality mmorpg should come out b2p or p2p and say "Hey, you wanna know how the gameplay is? Check out this Youtube/Twitch channel. b2p or p2p if you want."
I hate when I see those comments of "Eh, I'm gonna wait for it to go f2p". The option for b2p/p2p to have to play with those who are playing for free no matter how limited they are drops the level of community(The community IS the MMORPG). I'm not sure if I'm the only one but I've noticed a HUGE difference between a b2p/p2p community within an mmorpg over a f2p mmorpg. It's that feeling you get when you remember playing a game that was once p2p and then played that same game when it became f2p....If you played lineage 2 when it was p2p and played it now you know what I mean.
Axehilt said: [Running away from the subject and not addressing a thing.]
You just repeated the same mistake you've made a bunch of times now, only with more letters. If you can't be arsed to even establish a counterargument for the comments and information provided rather than just running away and dismissing it, then it'd be better for you to stop posting at this point, as me repeating the same corrections time and again serves no progress for anyone else.
The distinction of "first hand knowledge" was proven to be an entirely subjective claim. Objective values were given to show the reality of access and user experience in proportion to one another. Your "plainly observable facts" were already proven to only exist in a vacuum.
Your only further evidence at present is anecdotal of your own experience, which is very flawed as you're trying to claim you have fallen less victim to extortion when the very premise of extorting money from an individual is to sucker them into it, not make an obvious ploy. The idea that you know how much money you've unintentionally wasted in that scenario is entirely in doubt in that regard.
The analogy adjustment was accounting for the many variables you continue to be neglecting.
When someone says something "factual" is is subject to many things. For example. I can say that in order for the statue of the Jolly Green Giant to eclipse the space needle you'd have to place it ~1,000' from one another and you'd stand roughly 100 feet further away. Completely factual statement. It's bearing on reality, however, is negligible. And that's the flaw you keep repeating. Your claim is true, on a theoretical level. Reality, however, has so many more variables and facts that don't align with the numbers you want to swing so concretely. The "truth" as it exists is not the same as the "truth" you espouse.
So I shall repeat this segment again.
"I'll await the point at which you are open to looking at all the observable traits as opposed to making false assumptions. When there are clear points refuting the claims you made that are completely ignored, it is difficult to make progress."
EDIT: The fact you attempt to dismiss things by claiming this...
"F2P has more methods to "con" players is irrelevant because (a) most importantly: it has no relevance to what I'm saying players still have more information), and (b) the "number of cons" is itself irrelevant."
Is outstanding on it's own because anyone with two brain cells to rub together can understand the fact that a game built on conning a person into paying out has no real mandate to be a quality title. It needs enough to draw a person in and then bleed them. Hence the point made about early game not being representative of mid-end game which you completely ignored in an attempt to isolate a single factor for a false argument.
The following statement of yours just as well falls into a big-time error with this.
"A lot of little tricks to earn money isn't necessarily worse than one big trick (using a game trailer to make the sale.)"
Which this statement you have to have completely forgotten the revenue from F2P and the comparative model of casinos and their profits. The very fact that F2P enables and actively utilizes a monetization model in many cases which generates impulse and emotionally driven purchases to draw an endless stream of investment that can see numerous people paying out more for a title than they ever would have if it were a single purchase. Not to mention your example is again predicated on a vacuum thought process ("using a game trailer" in implication of it being the only access a player has to previewing a B2P title). Not gonna call that a straw-man in particular, but it's most certainly hyperbole.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
This isn't the old days where you get a TV CGI trailer and have to wonder whether or not the game is as cool as the trailer or see some info in a magazine without seeing actual gameplay, or just the look of a cool game cover/case and a nice summary to go on.
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
Axehilt said: [Running away from the subject and not addressing a thing.]
You just repeated the same mistake you've made a bunch of times now, only with more letters. If you can't be arsed to even establish a counterargument for the comments and information provided rather than just running away and dismissing it, then it'd be better for you to stop posting at this point, as me repeating the same corrections time and again serves no progress for anyone else.
The distinction of "first hand knowledge" was proven to be an entirely subjective claim. Objective values were given to show the reality of access and user experience in proportion to one another. Your "plainly observable facts" were already proven to only exist in a vacuum.
Your only further evidence at present is anecdotal of your own experience, which is very flawed as you're trying to claim you have fallen less victim to extortion when the very premise of extorting money from an individual is to sucker them into it, not make an obvious ploy. The idea that you know how much money you've unintentionally wasted in that scenario is entirely in doubt in that regard.
The analogy adjustment was accounting for the many variables you continue to be neglecting.
When someone says something "factual" is is subject to many things. For example. I can say that in order for the statue of the Jolly Green Giant to eclipse the space needle you'd have to place it ~1,000' from one another and you'd stand roughly 100 feet further away. Completely factual statement. It's bearing on reality, however, is negligible. And that's the flaw you keep repeating. Your claim is true, on a theoretical level. Reality, however, has so many more variables and facts that don't align with the numbers you want to swing so concretely. The "truth" as it exists is not the same as the "truth" you espouse.
So I shall repeat this segment again.
"I'll await the point at which you are open to looking at all the observable traits as opposed to making false assumptions. When there are clear points refuting the claims you made that are completely ignored, it is difficult to make progress."
Restating my position is not "running away from the subject".
It is the subject. You're the one attempting to criticize it, remember?
Are you seriously unaware of how F2P works? This isn't something you can discuss away. F2P players experience more of a game firsthand before paying. B2P players must pay prior to experiencing any significant portion of the game firsthand. It's not even a contest, and I'm not sure where you thought you "proved" this was subjective.
This isn't about my experience. It's how the models work.
Your words cannot change how the models work. One model asks for money prior to the gameplay, the other asks for it after. Reality isn't going to magically change if you insist this is an "assumption" -- it still won't be an assumption, because it's how the models work.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Axehilt said: [Running away from the subject and not addressing a thing.]
You just repeated the same mistake you've made a bunch of times now, only with more letters. If you can't be arsed to even establish a counterargument for the comments and information provided rather than just running away and dismissing it, then it'd be better for you to stop posting at this point, as me repeating the same corrections time and again serves no progress for anyone else.
The distinction of "first hand knowledge" was proven to be an entirely subjective claim. Objective values were given to show the reality of access and user experience in proportion to one another. Your "plainly observable facts" were already proven to only exist in a vacuum.
Your only further evidence at present is anecdotal of your own experience, which is very flawed as you're trying to claim you have fallen less victim to extortion when the very premise of extorting money from an individual is to sucker them into it, not make an obvious ploy. The idea that you know how much money you've unintentionally wasted in that scenario is entirely in doubt in that regard.
The analogy adjustment was accounting for the many variables you continue to be neglecting.
When someone says something "factual" is is subject to many things. For example. I can say that in order for the statue of the Jolly Green Giant to eclipse the space needle you'd have to place it ~1,000' from one another and you'd stand roughly 100 feet further away. Completely factual statement. It's bearing on reality, however, is negligible. And that's the flaw you keep repeating. Your claim is true, on a theoretical level. Reality, however, has so many more variables and facts that don't align with the numbers you want to swing so concretely. The "truth" as it exists is not the same as the "truth" you espouse.
So I shall repeat this segment again.
"I'll await the point at which you are open to looking at all the observable traits as opposed to making false assumptions. When there are clear points refuting the claims you made that are completely ignored, it is difficult to make progress."
Restating my position is not "running away from the subject".
It is the subject. You're the one attempting to criticize it, remember?
Are you seriously unaware of how F2P works? This isn't something you can discuss away. F2P players experience more of a game firsthand before paying. B2P players must pay prior to experiencing any significant portion of the game firsthand. It's not even a contest, and I'm not sure where you thought you "proved" this was subjective.
This isn't about my experience. It's how the models work.
Your words cannot change how the models work. One model asks for money prior to the gameplay, the other asks for it after. Reality isn't going to magically change if you insist this is an "assumption" -- it still won't be an assumption, because it's how the models work.
Someone is seriously trying to argue against this? Cause I refused to read beyond your response...as it is so dead on correct.
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Comments
Like for example, the entirety of your previous claim suggesting 80% of F2P and 5% of P2P being open to play even though that is first of all highly subjective to the developer's choice and second of all countered by the examples previously provided about the modern means of access most players have and the commonality of certain game designs that directly inhibits that. If the observable traits of the models as they are currently used were properly taken into account, those numbers would not be so greatly skewed, and you'd be finding a considerably more negligible gap (not to mention it's a sidestep avoiding many of the other issues pointed out, again an active attempt at ignoring the observable traits that have been previously outlined).
I can't really make progress in a conversation where the counterargument is based entirely on sticking fingers in their ears and covering their eyes.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
MMOs or games in general have a certain expectation for certain price points, which are standard.
For example a single player game with some online elements would be more of a b2p price model than a p2p. Thats a normal expectation.
However, a p2p model seems to compete really with WoW in terms of variety of content in regards of themepark.
So a mmo dev really has to set some new trends and take the mmo to the next level to focus on making the experience that much greater so it can have less content than wow, but justify a p2p model by offering something better in being different or in other elements.
To me free to play games might be good, but have ridiculous grind.
So in general a good themepark mmo, would have little grind of things being badly but instead focus on the joyof progression with quest variety and quality etc..., and at the same time offer a lot of end game. The thing about end game is that it is repeatable so if they ahve enough of it, it can be enough content to be something that justifies a p2p model as an mmo while offering good progression
tldr; a p2p model needs a short and fun progression expereince with a well developed end game, and other high quality features such as crafting, pvp, music as over package to fit the mold of a p2p vs free that can compete with WoW and f2p.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
I don't assume you have more info in F2P before handing over money; you actually do have more info. It isn't an assumption and you haven't disputed it.
You're not discussing an imaginary topic with an imaginary person saying imaginary things. I'm a real person who's pointed out an observably true trait of F2P games.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Whether or not you want to acknowledge that at this point is entirely up to you, for the rest it's there to read and comprehend at their leisure.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
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
Otherwise I'm picking a title at random that people might try to discredit by saying something like "oh but that game isn't like this game" at which point I do another analysis.
I've already done this with LoL previously though in I can't remember which thread. In the case of that game it's interesting because while the gameplay is itself subjectively very free, the monetization strategy it uses along with the target demographic it has picked makes for a rather exploitative cycle that it's success is built upon. While subjectively, yes, you could play the game a ton to unlock characters for free, all of them end up having a strong incentive for a paid purchase at release especially if you're aiming to be competitive in the game. This stacks with the fact that a majority of the released content are skins and bundles that are pay-only. Functionally the percentage of the game which you get for "free" in LoL is less than half at this point when you want to tally up all it's assets.
SWToR fares considerably worse when doing this breakdown because they establish considerably more paygates and content that is paid-user only or costs money to unlock individually for the account.
Where the claim does stand true-ish for Axe is when you examine much smaller titles that aren't offering a large amount of content to begin with. IE mobile mini games, not MMOs.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
You say F2P provides more info before pay, it's true, this conversely means F2P provides limited info before pay. IE. FULL content AFTER pay
This is exactly the same as B2P provides FULL content AFTER pay, given that it's ZERO content before pay, no?
For reference, here is Axe's statement:
"B2P provides far less of the actual experience before requiring money, so players are more vulnerable to giving money to a game they don't enjoy than a F2P title where they are never required to pay."
Ok, so to give you MMO titles per your request, and to maintain a constant, let's use subscription MMO vs their later F2P incarnation. You can choose one or address all of them, if you want.
According to Axehilt, LOTRO under the subscription model provided far less of the actual experience before requiring money (box fee, sub), so players were more vulnerable to giving money to a game they don't enjoy than the Free-to-play version of LOTRO where they can play the game and decide if it's worth their money or not.
I agree with Axehilt, but that's neither here nor there. I am interested in why you feel his assertion would be false for any of these titles. If you feel there is a better MMO or set of MMOs to use to illustrate your point, please use them.
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
It's semantics to you because you don't understnad the discussion.
@jc234 , I've got a game for you to play.
You can watch videos of other people playing it and read reviews about it, and then pay me $40 for it to play it for yourself. Another option you have is to wait year or so until a trial version is made available. Sometimes a trial is never available.
or
You can play most of it yourself (and in most F2P MMOs, most content is available to try or use) and from your own personal experience decide if you want to pay anything at all.
Axehilt is saying that the latter lets people try the game itself before they buy, and the former they have to pay money before they can play it themselves. Even if one goes with a trial,it is often severely cappedin time and progression. If you've played MMOs for a decent enough time, you know that levels 1-20 are rarely indicative of the rest of the game experience.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I do agree that F2P guarantees you limited assets, but nonetheless, lets you play the core game so you are able to make a proper decision. Though this is just a method to gate players and their cash. B2P in this case, provides full game upon purchase and there's no hidden fine print, which you are able to refund when you please. You cannot do that in a cash shop setting, can you? My point exactly in regards to semantics...
Understood, although I don't quite agree with it, especially since a) B2P MMOs almost always have a cash shop, and b) subscription MMOs require monthly payments or you can't play at all. So to use "B2P" MMOs to support one's argument, disregarding the presence of either cash shop or subscription is rather disingenuouis.
That's another topic entirely, though.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I support all models though, because in the end, a business is about making money while thinking about how to make more money. That bottom line directly rules out the consumers and the product in question.
This element technically exists with both early on as there hasn't been many launches in a while that hasn't opened without some kinda beta period for access. Playing a good chunk of the game or at least getting a few hours into it before purchase even when talking about a B2P game isn't abnormal.
Similarly, F2P has adopted a good bit of the B2P methodology, just in a more "soft" context with the use of founders packs before even hitting a beta period. These things are no different to purchase than a B2P title.
A good chunk of the point I was making is that the concept being emphasized by Axehilt doesn't really exist in reality with such a strong polarity, it's much closer in proportion to each other most of the time, almost negligibly so in some cases, with others being functionally inverse (or more accurately, the same as if a B2P was selling on image alone, as the F2P early gameplay may very well not reflect the late or even midgame).
As for the examples for @Loktofeit ;. Not breaking them down statistically tonight, but I can point out several things immediately. The reason the post was long was because the middle of it was talking about LoL. I gave a small jab at SWToR though too so lets expound on that one a tad.
For one, SWToR is a rather highly monetized game, with the core 1-50 experience being the only component that's functionally F2P. There is a swath of content that has usage gates as well as reward-denial mechanics that provide content to players and then bars progress without purchase (tiered items, limited access to side activities). On top of that, they have released their major content as expansions and are slated to release another one. This is compounded by the volume of items that the shop does provide, and some important distinctions such as the fact that the shop purchases for legacy unlocks provide cross-server options to which the in-game method does not. If one was to actually spend their time tallying up all the paid content for that game versus the actual free content, the F2P would be disproportionately small.
LotRO I can't make an assessment on presently, as I do not know the breadth of it's content in game or otherwise.
Age of Conan is a bit of a problem to compare because early on it was very simply an incomplete game, and much of what they did following it's failure as a B2P was an attempt to oversell the title to try and save it. I would say that it had a better balance of F2P content that SWtoR by a good amount, as the shop never got particularly large and the paid expansion content was only comparable to the content that was added to the core game over time for free. AoC didn't do the whole crafting upgrade material and other stuff as a F2P title really and that killed a large chunk of P2P content as well. It's a title that's more F2P than anything else.
APB kind of has the same boat as AoC but a little sideways. Mostly in that it is a horribly built game top to bottom. What it did have going for it in it's P2P version was two things though. No cash shop meaning access to all the game's content at the time, and secondly it was one of the early ones to tinker with a method to sell sub time in-game. Problem is that it was not a well supported feature as they basically introduced a secondary currency that had no meaning or use outside of buying time, and it split the in-game economy as a result. When it went F2P it did implement a cash shop shortly thereafter, and has since then introduced most of it's new content as paid assets. The game lets you play the core gameplay without limits, but it puts limits on the creative components as well as access to many items that do not have an unpaid counterpart aside from the white versions that were from the original RTW version. APB as a result is one that you can actually play all the general stuff pretty openly without concern of paying, but the majority of the content that's been produced for it is paid content.
Rift falls into the same situation as LotRO. I don't know enough about the game's content to explain it.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
To reiterate his assertion so that you don't have to scroll up:
"B2P provides far less of the actual experience before requiring money, so players are more vulnerable to giving money to a game they don't enjoy than a F2P title where they are never required to pay."
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
The very notion that people are more informed when they are paying into F2P is a major assumption on axe's part as has been illustrated by my prior arguments pointing out the gaps in play time and investment to turnover along with the point that early game can and is treated like a demo in many cases unto it's own, with early game playing nothing like mid or endgame. This is a compounding issue with the point that has been made I don't know how many times now that these games have many monetization models built on what is functionally extortion of money by coaxing impulsive and emotionally driven purchases from the users rather than by offering gameplay they actually enjoy, also known as "fun pain" where a user is effectively playing a losing game because they have been lead to believe they are enduring the game's bad side or paying in to uncover an enjoyable component that doesn't even exist.
Point here being, that issue has been addressed multiple times with a lot of information behind it. To so blatantly disregard what is written right above the post in which you wish to claim otherwise is more that a little annoying.
[mod edit]
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Your argument seems to be that the information isn't always used. (And if that's so, let's be honest it really didn't need 10 bazillion unrelated paragraphs to write out.)
It doesn't establish my argument as an assumption, nor does it dispute it.
Basically we're describing two national parks with dangerous cliffs, one with "cliff ahead" signs and one without. My argument is that the "cliff ahead" group has objectively more information. Your argument is that some people stupidly ignore that information and fall off the cliff, and somehow you want to use that to claim I'm wrong in stating a plainly obvious fact. But if data existed, we would almost certainly discover that fewer people fall off the cliff with the signs.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Premium players get more choice in characters creations. While free player can choose 1 or 2 face, body, hairstyle, premium player get 30. Give premium player better outfit example, while free player get crappy clothes, premium player get a cool ninja suit if they play assassin class.
Like skyrim, premium player get access to offline single player mode. Dev can create more content quest in a dlc that can be played offline single player.
All players in online world vs world is same level. No grinding Level, pure skill based 100vs100 war. Equipment all the same. You log in, do pvp, balance no grinding quest
I've also pointed this out in relation to the fact that F2P has more methods than B2P to con money from players because they can play on the user psychologically during the game to incentivize pay from emotional and impulse responses.
To correct your analogy, it's the difference between a park with a "cliff ahead" sign, and a park that says "bridge ahead". My argument has been the fact that outside of a perfectly controlled theoretical model and accounting for the real-world monetization practices used today, people very simply don't know what they are getting into and are being lead to false conclusions. F2P is an exceptionally proficient platform for doing that to people. "If data existed", to which I have linked articles in the past pointing out multiple of these practices as well as several direct statistics and analysis of a couple big F2P titles now (LoL and WoT), we would discover that quite a lot of people are lead off the cliff with the bridge signs.
You have a lovely theory, and on a superficial and micro level it could be held true (assuming the games content is built to accommodate). It however does not correlate to all the things going on with reality and the use of the monetization models and their surrounding content.
That you would dismiss things out of hand again even though those "unrelated paragraphs" were examples, deconstructions, and references directly disputing your idea versus modern business practice, is rather par for the course. As said a while ago "I'll await the point at which you are open to looking at all the observable traits as opposed to making false assumptions. When there are clear points refuting the claims you made that are completely ignored, it is difficult to make progress."
You have repeated the same mistakes previously addressed yet again.
[mod edit]
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Whether you believe F2P has more methods to "con" players is irrelevant because (a) most importantly: it has no relevance to what I'm saying players still have more information), and (b) the "number of cons" is itself irrelevant. A lot of little tricks to earn money isn't necessarily worse than one big trick (using a game trailer to make the sale.) Objectively I've been suckered into far more big tricks than little ones over the years, having bought many B2P games that I didn't enjoy but never once having paid money to a F2P game I didn't enjoy. So personally I regard the big trick as the worse offender.
Your analogy correction doesn't exactly shed light on your argument, although at this point it seems like you're not only arguing for the sake of argument, but arguing a point that's barely related to my own point. When someone says something factual you can't just claim their facts are "theoretical" just because you want to bring up some separate subject matter. The fact remains that the most important knowledge related to giving money to someone to entertain you is whether they will entertain you. With a F2P model you have literally already been entertained at the point where money changes hands, whereas with B2P you are handing money before you've been entertained.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If you want to know about a game that you have to b2p or p2p....go on Youtube or Twitch...This isn't the old days where you get a TV CGI trailer and have to wonder whether or not the game is as cool as the trailer or see some info in a magazine without seeing actual gameplay, or just the look of a cool game cover/case and a nice summary to go on.
Every quality mmorpg should come out b2p or p2p and say "Hey, you wanna know how the gameplay is? Check out this Youtube/Twitch channel. b2p or p2p if you want."
I hate when I see those comments of "Eh, I'm gonna wait for it to go f2p". The option for b2p/p2p to have to play with those who are playing for free no matter how limited they are drops the level of community(The community IS the MMORPG). I'm not sure if I'm the only one but I've noticed a HUGE difference between a b2p/p2p community within an mmorpg over a f2p mmorpg. It's that feeling you get when you remember playing a game that was once p2p and then played that same game when it became f2p....If you played lineage 2 when it was p2p and played it now you know what I mean.
The distinction of "first hand knowledge" was proven to be an entirely subjective claim. Objective values were given to show the reality of access and user experience in proportion to one another. Your "plainly observable facts" were already proven to only exist in a vacuum.
Your only further evidence at present is anecdotal of your own experience, which is very flawed as you're trying to claim you have fallen less victim to extortion when the very premise of extorting money from an individual is to sucker them into it, not make an obvious ploy. The idea that you know how much money you've unintentionally wasted in that scenario is entirely in doubt in that regard.
The analogy adjustment was accounting for the many variables you continue to be neglecting.
When someone says something "factual" is is subject to many things. For example. I can say that in order for the statue of the Jolly Green Giant to eclipse the space needle you'd have to place it ~1,000' from one another and you'd stand roughly 100 feet further away. Completely factual statement. It's bearing on reality, however, is negligible. And that's the flaw you keep repeating. Your claim is true, on a theoretical level. Reality, however, has so many more variables and facts that don't align with the numbers you want to swing so concretely. The "truth" as it exists is not the same as the "truth" you espouse.
So I shall repeat this segment again.
"I'll await the point at which you are open to looking at all the observable traits as opposed to making false assumptions. When there are clear points refuting the claims you made that are completely ignored, it is difficult to make progress."
EDIT: The fact you attempt to dismiss things by claiming this...
"F2P has more methods to "con" players is irrelevant because (a) most importantly: it has no relevance to what I'm saying players still have more information), and (b) the "number of cons" is itself irrelevant."
Is outstanding on it's own because anyone with two brain cells to rub together can understand the fact that a game built on conning a person into paying out has no real mandate to be a quality title. It needs enough to draw a person in and then bleed them. Hence the point made about early game not being representative of mid-end game which you completely ignored in an attempt to isolate a single factor for a false argument.
The following statement of yours just as well falls into a big-time error with this.
"A lot of little tricks to earn money isn't necessarily worse than one big trick (using a game trailer to make the sale.)"
Which this statement you have to have completely forgotten the revenue from F2P and the comparative model of casinos and their profits. The very fact that F2P enables and actively utilizes a monetization model in many cases which generates impulse and emotionally driven purchases to draw an endless stream of investment that can see numerous people paying out more for a title than they ever would have if it were a single purchase. Not to mention your example is again predicated on a vacuum thought process ("using a game trailer" in implication of it being the only access a player has to previewing a B2P title). Not gonna call that a straw-man in particular, but it's most certainly hyperbole.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
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
It is the subject. You're the one attempting to criticize it, remember?
Are you seriously unaware of how F2P works? This isn't something you can discuss away. F2P players experience more of a game firsthand before paying. B2P players must pay prior to experiencing any significant portion of the game firsthand. It's not even a contest, and I'm not sure where you thought you "proved" this was subjective.
This isn't about my experience. It's how the models work.
Your words cannot change how the models work. One model asks for money prior to the gameplay, the other asks for it after. Reality isn't going to magically change if you insist this is an "assumption" -- it still won't be an assumption, because it's how the models work.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."