Ahh.... not so fast. You haven't met my request. You've dodged it.
There are people who will *always* want to level faster, no matter how fast the leveling already is. There are people right on these forums who would tell you that a week to get to level cap is too slow. Even P2P MMOs will give players xp potions or trinkets as in-game rewards. FFXI has had xp bonus rings as in-game items for years now.
I didn't ask for proof that Turbine or Funcom are selling xp potions. I could have told you that myself.
My question/challenge to you was to provide me with one verifiable example of Turbine or Funcom altering the gameplay in a significant way to blatantly push those items in order to make the pace seem more acceptable. Has Turbine increased the grind and/or decreased the xp rate substantially in DDO or LoTRO? Last time I played (~1 month and ~2 months respectively), the pacing in both was exactly the same as before they went hybrid.
If you can provide verifiable proof that they have made those changes, then great. Otherwise, my point remains valid.
How is the existance of an XP potion ( or any other item mall only item ) available in the item mall not enough proof? I think your reasoning that players will always complain about the gind is considerably more circumstantial, and your justification that the XP potion is irrelevant, since you found the leveling speed ideal is even more ridiculous. Are you really going to compare a FFXI in-game items to LOTRO item mall available items?
Besides XP potions, isn't the existence that Item mall only items proof enough that game design/philosphy has changed?
I wish folks would understand how buying in game rewards, even just vanity ones, changes the core nature of what defines a game.
I know it's an abstract concept and one that dosent appeal to notions of instant gratification or the laziness of users, but it's one that more people should try to understand because it effects everything. It requires seeing a bigger picture outside of the personal bubble though, and that isnt a strength in many.
The relabelling of games into the vague grey realm of 'entertainment products', and everything that means, should actually worry gamers everywhere.
But then I am a gamer, not a shopper, and I buy these games to play them, not to use a virtual mall to buy pretend product for real cash, so I guess I will never get it.
I wish folks would understand how buying in game rewards, even just vanity ones, changes the core nature of what defines a game.
I imagine you are criticising P2P games also here since they also have a store where you can buy vanity items. Blizzard for example sells not only mounts and pets outside of the game but also services like WoW Remote(already available) and Cross-realm LFD using Real ID(not yet released).
I wish folks would understand how buying in game rewards, even just vanity ones, changes the core nature of what defines a game.
I imagine you are criticising P2P games also here since they also have a store where you can buy vanity items. Blizzard for example sells not only mounts and pets outside of the game but also services like WoW Remote(already available) and Cross-realm LFD using Real ID(not yet released).
You imagine right.
Though services have nothing to do with the point I made, and in general are pretty tolerable as extra charges (though in an ideal world would be included in the sub you already pay... what does that cover again?)
Ultimately, games are fun. You spend money to play games usually, so yeah, really need a better argument there.
well, you might choose to define your games as nothing more then 'an amusement or past time', and I guess shopping falls under that defintion nicely.
That definition is selective and narrow though, and in no way is what defines a game on it's own
I choose them closer to point 3 from the same link;
"a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance"
IMO, the core Key components of games are goals, rules, and challenge. Virtual shopping for me dosent meet those requirements.
So, no, I do not feel I need a better argument, not based on your point anyhow.
Other defintions;
"A game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome."
"A game is a form of art in which participants, termed players, make decisions in order to manage resources through game tokens in the pursuit of a goal." (Greg Costikyan)[8] According to this definitions, some "games" that do not involve choices, such as Chutes and Ladders, Candy Land, and War (card game) are not technically games any more than a slot machine is.
"A game is an activity among two or more independent decision-makers seeking to achieve their objectives in some limiting context."
"At its most elementary level then we can define game as an exercise of voluntary control systems in which there is an opposition between forces, confined by a procedure and rules in order to produce a disequilibrial outcome."
"A game is a form of play with goals and structure."
Well, you can enjoy the basics of the game without putting down cash., They do it for mental reasons, if you like the game enough you are going to play non stop. Once you get so addicted in it, you want nothing more but to have the best items or add-ons. So you can pwn anyone,
Ultimately, games are fun. You spend money to play games usually, so yeah, really need a better argument there.
well, you might choose to define your games as nothing more then 'an amusement or past time', and I guess shopping falls under that defintion nicely.
That definition is selective and narrow though, and in no way is what defines a game on it's own
I choose them closer to point 3 from the same link;
"a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance"
IMO, the core Key components of games are goals, rules, and challenge. Virtual shopping for me dosent meet those requirements.
So, no, I do not feel I need a better argument, not based on your point anyhow.
Other defintions;
"A game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome."
"A game is a form of art in which participants, termed players, make decisions in order to manage resources through game tokens in the pursuit of a goal." (Greg Costikyan)[8] According to this definitions, some "games" that do not involve choices, such as Chutes and Ladders, Candy Land, and War (card game) are not technically games any more than a slot machine is.
"A game is an activity among two or more independent decision-makers seeking to achieve their objectives in some limiting context."
"At its most elementary level then we can define game as an exercise of voluntary control systems in which there is an opposition between forces, confined by a procedure and rules in order to produce a disequilibrial outcome."
"A game is a form of play with goals and structure."
Ultimately, it's about having fun. As long as I'm having fun, my definition is right. As long as you're having fun, your definition is right. Frankly, if you're not having fun, you should just stop bitching and do something else.
Ultimately, it's about having fun. As long as I'm having fun, my definition is right. As long as you're having fun, your definition is right. Frankly, if you're not having fun, you should just stop bitching and do something else.
Sadly, defintions of terms arnt based on what Zeowyrm enjoys.
You find virtual shopping fun, I get that, but that fact dosent change the definition of makes a game a game.
It dosent change the fact that purchasing in game rewards changes the nature of what you are playing into something else.
Every company that makes mmo's want to be as successful as Blizzard. So they keep making crappy knock off's
with the same old formula. So because with so many MMO's out there , its hard to make any real money with a P2p model.
Unless the game is absolutley just epic. Lets be honest here.. only p2p game thats made it after WoW is Aion. Aion is still here and stil p2p , and still has a healthy playerbase which keeps improving.
Rift will stay a float for awhile..but it has hit its peak..and will eventually end up like WAR..p2p game with a low population.
Anyway my point is this...
It doesnt matter what we want..F2p models with CS is how crappy games make money. Not all f2p games are crappy , but the majority of them are.
Me on a personal level dont care either way. F2p or P2p as long as its not P2w ***cough*** Allods***cough***
No, we do not want F2P. Only people who are addle-brained think they can get something for free. Nothing is for free. Only death.
What we want is "Buy once, play forever" - like GW does and GW2 will do.
Simple as that.
Regards.
Then how have so many people enjoyed a game like League of Legends for over a year without ever paying a dime? As a sociologist, one of my (unfortunately) many concerns is the disproportionate distribution of wealth among the global population. You've probably heard similar figures before, but to repeat, the wealthiest 1% of adults own over 40% of the world's wealth The richest 10% own over 85% of the world's wealth. That leaves the remaining 15% for the remaining 90% of the population. Pretty uneven, and the gap is only increasing.
From a purely socio-economic standpoint, I'm extremely interested in the potential f2p models have in redistributing wealth. Even if we're talking about something as insignificant as gaming, any system that moves us in a positive direction is a step forward and something worth looking at. A game like LoL actually manages to allow a huge portion of its players to play and enjoy complete services entirely for free. It offers enough solid "fluff" incentives--in the form of skins, a more immediate experience of new champions, and IP boosts--to entice those who have money (broadly, the wealthy) to spend that money. The result is a game that, theoretically, can be entirely funded by those who have the money to spend and are willing to spend it, while the "poor" (broadly, those who are really better off allocating their funds elsewhere and not on video games for the time being) can still enjoy the service and play the game for free.
Obviously we're dealing with gray area here. We're not talking about billionaires versus homeless. We're talking about those who can casually spend a couple hundred dollars a month on entertainment (movies, going out to dinner, sporting events, concerts, and yes, games) without a care versus those who are struggling to pay their bills each month and are forced to live very modestly. Proper implementation of the f2p model can allow for gaming equality regardless of your socio-economic class.
No, I do not want F2P. Only people who are addle-brained think they can get something for free. Nothing is for free. Only death.
What I want is "Buy once, play forever" - like GW does and GW2 will do.
Simple as that.
Regards.
Fixed it for ya. Which ultimately is what this comes down to. Entitlement. Everyone else thinks they know what's best for everyone. Again, it's just a fucking game.
Ultimately, it's about having fun. As long as I'm having fun, my definition is right. As long as you're having fun, your definition is right. Frankly, if you're not having fun, you should just stop bitching and do something else.
Sadly, defintions of terms arnt based on what Zeowyrm enjoys.
You find virtual shopping fun, I get that, but that fact dosent change the definition of makes a game a game.
It dosent change the fact that purchasing in game rewards changes the nature of what you are playing into something else.
Nice attempt to be insulting at the end though.
Nor are they based on what you enjoy. Ultimately, just because you don't enjoy F2P/Hybrids, doesn't mean others don't. They're fucking games ffs. If you aren't having fun, why bother?
I was against it for a long time, but since lotro went f2p and I tried it I have changed my mind. As long as they dont turn it into pay2win (which is ofc tempting for them) then I dont see the problem. I still prefer subs tho.
Edit: I dont choose a game based on payment model. If its a good game, I'll play it regardless. If it sucks for whatever reason, I wont.
This is basically my take on the matter as well. Very well put
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
A la cart isn't bad at all. I buy and pay for what I want and what I feel is worth my money. I don't buy the easy mode items or gear just typically vanity items, zones, quests, classes etc.
For the competative nerds I can see why they dislike them, but if I feel like competing I'll go play a fps where actual skill is required not time spent farming gear.
No, we do not want F2P. Only people who are addle-brained think they can get something for free. Nothing is for free. Only death.
What we want is "Buy once, play forever" - like GW does and GW2 will do.
Simple as that.
Regards.
Then how have so many people enjoyed a game like League of Legends for over a year without ever paying a dime? As a sociologist, one of my (unfortunately) many concerns is the disproportionate distribution of wealth among the global population. You've probably heard similar figures before, but to repeat, the wealthiest 1% of adults own over 40% of the world's wealth The richest 10% own over 85% of the world's wealth. That leaves the remaining 15% for the remaining 90% of the population. Pretty uneven, and the gap is only increasing.
From a purely socio-economic standpoint, I'm extremely interested in the potential f2p models have in redistributing wealth. Even if we're talking about something as insignificant as gaming, any system that moves us in a positive direction is a step forward and something worth looking at. A game like LoL actually manages to allow a huge portion of its players to play and enjoy complete services entirely for free. It offers enough solid "fluff" incentives--in the form of skins, a more immediate experience of new champions, and IP boosts--to entice those who have money (broadly, the wealthy) to spend that money. The result is a game that, theoretically, can be entirely funded by those who have the money to spend and are willing to spend it, while the "poor" (broadly, those who are really better off allocating their funds elsewhere and not on video games for the time being) can still enjoy the service and play the game for free.
Obviously we're dealing with gray area here. We're not talking about billionaires versus homeless. We're talking about those who can casually spend a couple hundred dollars a month on entertainment (movies, going out to dinner, sporting events, concerts, and yes, games) without a care versus those who are struggling to pay their bills each month and are forced to live very modestly. Proper implementation of the f2p model can allow for gaming equality regardless of your socio-economic class.
Well that's an interesting analysis. So now we will begin categorizing players into "rich" and "poor" people. We make virtual worlds, and the universes that were filled with equal potential and superheros and dreams, suddenly get inundated with real life social stratas. Never really thought about that before. You will get underclasses in games like that, perhaps?
I'm not proclaiming the world is falling. It's just the mmorpg universe I was used to that is falling. Not the same thing. I'm in my right not to like it though :P
Here I was hoping MMORPGs would change. And indeed they have. I just wish they would concentrate on changing their bloody themes and gameplays instead of billing types.
As a free to play only game, no. But as a game where you can choose to play either with a sub or F2P with a reasonable cash shop like Lotro, sure. I absolutely love how Turbine has set up their F2P model.
I've gained a lot of enjoyment out of Lord of the Rings Online F2P, Battlefield Play 4 Free, and a few other titles.
Yes it's what I want. I've paid for things I felt I needed, passed on things I didn't want, and have enjoyed the experiences completely.
You can be frugal or wasteful, but it's your decision. The game companies make a bit of profit and get to fund their projects that they've worked on for ages.
People just are prone to resist change.
The King orders you to deal with it. Oh and he has the free market on his side too.
Play the game you like. It should be irrelevant what other people like ,and why they like it.
People that like F2P and think it's "better" than P2P will never understand why P2P gamers disagree.
People that like P2P and think it's "better" than F2P will never understand why F2P gamers disagree.
Both models should exist, for both types of players.
You're not a better person, or a better gamer, because you like one, and not the other.
Some people like coke, some people like pepsi.
they are both colas, niether is better, and there is nothing wrong with people that like the one you don't.
Sorry to come raining on your parade, Imotepp, but it's not quite like that from my view point. You forget the business part of MMORPG. It's an industry, and right now it's spewing out games just like the Ford factory. If the majority of players want F2P games, then the majority of games will be just that - built upon the F2P (lies!) model. Thus, excluding people like myself who dont enjoy that model very much because I dont like shopping in real life, and I dont like it in my virtual worlds either.
Comments
How is the existance of an XP potion ( or any other item mall only item ) available in the item mall not enough proof? I think your reasoning that players will always complain about the gind is considerably more circumstantial, and your justification that the XP potion is irrelevant, since you found the leveling speed ideal is even more ridiculous. Are you really going to compare a FFXI in-game items to LOTRO item mall available items?
Besides XP potions, isn't the existence that Item mall only items proof enough that game design/philosphy has changed?
I wish folks would understand how buying in game rewards, even just vanity ones, changes the core nature of what defines a game.
I know it's an abstract concept and one that dosent appeal to notions of instant gratification or the laziness of users, but it's one that more people should try to understand because it effects everything. It requires seeing a bigger picture outside of the personal bubble though, and that isnt a strength in many.
The relabelling of games into the vague grey realm of 'entertainment products', and everything that means, should actually worry gamers everywhere.
But then I am a gamer, not a shopper, and I buy these games to play them, not to use a virtual mall to buy pretend product for real cash, so I guess I will never get it.
I imagine you are criticising P2P games also here since they also have a store where you can buy vanity items. Blizzard for example sells not only mounts and pets outside of the game but also services like WoW Remote(already available) and Cross-realm LFD using Real ID(not yet released).
You imagine right.
Though services have nothing to do with the point I made, and in general are pretty tolerable as extra charges (though in an ideal world would be included in the sub you already pay... what does that cover again?)
I, and most people, define game like so: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/game
Note 1.
Ultimately, games are fun. You spend money to play games usually, so yeah, really need a better argument there.
well, you might choose to define your games as nothing more then 'an amusement or past time', and I guess shopping falls under that defintion nicely.
That definition is selective and narrow though, and in no way is what defines a game on it's own
I choose them closer to point 3 from the same link;
"a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance"
IMO, the core Key components of games are goals, rules, and challenge. Virtual shopping for me dosent meet those requirements.
So, no, I do not feel I need a better argument, not based on your point anyhow.
Other defintions;
"A game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome."
"A game is a form of art in which participants, termed players, make decisions in order to manage resources through game tokens in the pursuit of a goal." (Greg Costikyan)[8] According to this definitions, some "games" that do not involve choices, such as Chutes and Ladders, Candy Land, and War (card game) are not technically games any more than a slot machine is.
"A game is an activity among two or more independent decision-makers seeking to achieve their objectives in some limiting context."
"At its most elementary level then we can define game as an exercise of voluntary control systems in which there is an opposition between forces, confined by a procedure and rules in order to produce a disequilibrial outcome."
"A game is a form of play with goals and structure."
Well, you can enjoy the basics of the game without putting down cash., They do it for mental reasons, if you like the game enough you are going to play non stop. Once you get so addicted in it, you want nothing more but to have the best items or add-ons. So you can pwn anyone,
I'm not a big proponent of F2P, but as long as its primarily cosmetic items & space increasers and they offer a full sub, I am happy.
Ultimately, it's about having fun. As long as I'm having fun, my definition is right. As long as you're having fun, your definition is right. Frankly, if you're not having fun, you should just stop bitching and do something else.
No, we do not want F2P. Only people who are addle-brained think they can get something for free. Nothing is for free. Only death.
What we want is "Buy once, play forever" - like GW does and GW2 will do.
Simple as that.
Regards.
Sadly, defintions of terms arnt based on what Zeowyrm enjoys.
You find virtual shopping fun, I get that, but that fact dosent change the definition of makes a game a game.
It dosent change the fact that purchasing in game rewards changes the nature of what you are playing into something else.
Nice attempt to be insulting at the end though.
As a casual player, I like F2P games,
The problem is there are to many mmorpg's!
Every company that makes mmo's want to be as successful as Blizzard. So they keep making crappy knock off's
with the same old formula. So because with so many MMO's out there , its hard to make any real money with a P2p model.
Unless the game is absolutley just epic. Lets be honest here.. only p2p game thats made it after WoW is Aion. Aion is still here and stil p2p , and still has a healthy playerbase which keeps improving.
Rift will stay a float for awhile..but it has hit its peak..and will eventually end up like WAR..p2p game with a low population.
Anyway my point is this...
It doesnt matter what we want..F2p models with CS is how crappy games make money. Not all f2p games are crappy , but the majority of them are.
Me on a personal level dont care either way. F2p or P2p as long as its not P2w ***cough*** Allods***cough***
Then how have so many people enjoyed a game like League of Legends for over a year without ever paying a dime? As a sociologist, one of my (unfortunately) many concerns is the disproportionate distribution of wealth among the global population. You've probably heard similar figures before, but to repeat, the wealthiest 1% of adults own over 40% of the world's wealth The richest 10% own over 85% of the world's wealth. That leaves the remaining 15% for the remaining 90% of the population. Pretty uneven, and the gap is only increasing.
From a purely socio-economic standpoint, I'm extremely interested in the potential f2p models have in redistributing wealth. Even if we're talking about something as insignificant as gaming, any system that moves us in a positive direction is a step forward and something worth looking at. A game like LoL actually manages to allow a huge portion of its players to play and enjoy complete services entirely for free. It offers enough solid "fluff" incentives--in the form of skins, a more immediate experience of new champions, and IP boosts--to entice those who have money (broadly, the wealthy) to spend that money. The result is a game that, theoretically, can be entirely funded by those who have the money to spend and are willing to spend it, while the "poor" (broadly, those who are really better off allocating their funds elsewhere and not on video games for the time being) can still enjoy the service and play the game for free.
Obviously we're dealing with gray area here. We're not talking about billionaires versus homeless. We're talking about those who can casually spend a couple hundred dollars a month on entertainment (movies, going out to dinner, sporting events, concerts, and yes, games) without a care versus those who are struggling to pay their bills each month and are forced to live very modestly. Proper implementation of the f2p model can allow for gaming equality regardless of your socio-economic class.
Fixed it for ya. Which ultimately is what this comes down to. Entitlement. Everyone else thinks they know what's best for everyone. Again, it's just a fucking game.
Nor are they based on what you enjoy. Ultimately, just because you don't enjoy F2P/Hybrids, doesn't mean others don't. They're fucking games ffs. If you aren't having fun, why bother?
This is basically my take on the matter as well. Very well put
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
Customers have always demanded a Free Trial.
But now that free trials include too much gameplay (aka F2P games), whoa suddenly it's a vile bad thing!
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
A la cart isn't bad at all. I buy and pay for what I want and what I feel is worth my money. I don't buy the easy mode items or gear just typically vanity items, zones, quests, classes etc.
For the competative nerds I can see why they dislike them, but if I feel like competing I'll go play a fps where actual skill is required not time spent farming gear.
Well that's an interesting analysis. So now we will begin categorizing players into "rich" and "poor" people. We make virtual worlds, and the universes that were filled with equal potential and superheros and dreams, suddenly get inundated with real life social stratas. Never really thought about that before. You will get underclasses in games like that, perhaps?
I'm not proclaiming the world is falling. It's just the mmorpg universe I was used to that is falling. Not the same thing. I'm in my right not to like it though :P
Here I was hoping MMORPGs would change. And indeed they have. I just wish they would concentrate on changing their bloody themes and gameplays instead of billing types.
As a free to play only game, no. But as a game where you can choose to play either with a sub or F2P with a reasonable cash shop like Lotro, sure. I absolutely love how Turbine has set up their F2P model.
I've gained a lot of enjoyment out of Lord of the Rings Online F2P, Battlefield Play 4 Free, and a few other titles.
Yes it's what I want. I've paid for things I felt I needed, passed on things I didn't want, and have enjoyed the experiences completely.
You can be frugal or wasteful, but it's your decision. The game companies make a bit of profit and get to fund their projects that they've worked on for ages.
People just are prone to resist change.
The King orders you to deal with it. Oh and he has the free market on his side too.
Not what i want. Buy to play is the model i like.
Archlinux ftw
Play the game you like. It should be irrelevant what other people like ,and why they like it.
People that like F2P and think it's "better" than P2P will never understand why P2P gamers disagree.
People that like P2P and think it's "better" than F2P will never understand why F2P gamers disagree.
Both models should exist, for both types of players.
You're not a better person, or a better gamer, because you like one, and not the other.
Some people like coke, some people like pepsi.
they are both colas, niether is better, and there is nothing wrong with people that like the one you don't.
Sorry to come raining on your parade, Imotepp, but it's not quite like that from my view point. You forget the business part of MMORPG. It's an industry, and right now it's spewing out games just like the Ford factory. If the majority of players want F2P games, then the majority of games will be just that - built upon the F2P (lies!) model. Thus, excluding people like myself who dont enjoy that model very much because I dont like shopping in real life, and I dont like it in my virtual worlds either.