It doesn't appear to be a disparity in standards, rather multiple payment options combined with the floodgates opened on a conversion channel. Had it been a disparity in standards, subs would not have gone up in games like SWTOR and LOTRO when switching to free to play.
I do believe that was the point being stated. The barriers for entry in F2P drops the personal or expected standards down in people's minds rather than the quality or standards of the game itself going up, resulting in an inundation of players.
It's the sentiment that's been mirrored before with people stating things like "I'd play if it were F2P", the very simple idea that the subscription model used shifts the players expectations of the game's quality and raises or lowers the bar according to where and when their investment is demanded.
"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
@Deivos ; Nice cherry picking. The number you quoted was through Sept of 2014. Read the rest of the article. By years end of 2014 will be well over $1 Billion
I fail to see how that has to do with anything I have talked about in this thread, but good for you?
EDIT: In other words check who you're commenting at, your response seems aimed at someone else in general. Likely Nariu given your back and forth up to this point. Possibly moosecat.
"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
It doesn't appear to be a disparity in standards, rather multiple payment options combined with the floodgates opened on a conversion channel. Had it been a disparity in standards, subs would not have gone up in games like SWTOR and LOTRO when switching to free to play.
I do believe that was the point being stated. The barriers for entry in F2P drops the personal or expected standards down in people's minds rather than the quality or standards of the game itself going up, resulting in an inundation of players.
It's the sentiment that's been mirrored before with people stating things like "I'd play if it were F2P", the very simple idea that the subscription model used shifts the players expectations of the game's quality and raises or lowers the bar according to where and when their investment is demanded.
You're saying that as sub-only, those people wouldn't sub, but once it went F2P people felt it was a lower quality so it was worth a sub? Not sure where you were going with that.
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're saying that as sub-only, those people wouldn't sub, but once it went F2P people felt it was a lower quality so it was worth a sub? Not sure where you were going with that.
There's not many simpler words for me to use here, and you're being uniquely obstinate about understanding what the effect of expectations does to a person's perception of a product's quality.
Let me break it down into some grade school terms.
If a person sees a product that costs money, they assess it directly on the merit of if they want to put forth money or not. This presents an immediate critical assessment with the consumer setting a high standard for what they expect of the product, resulting in a lower perceived quality due to a more firm opinion formed upfront.
Offer the same product to them for free, then that initial critical assessment does not tend to happen. The expectations of the product ends up being considerably lower as well, meaning the overall quality of the product is going to seem better in their mind or they are going to simply be more forgiving of any issues.
I don't even know how you managed to pull that conclusion you wrote out of it, but do try to form a reasonable response that relates to what's written when you want to troll about.
"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
Let me break it down into some grade school terms.
... but do try to form a reasonable response that relates to what's written when you want to troll about.
Whatis wrong with you, and why do you feel the need to be so antagonistic in every response? I mean, seriously, try to be somewhat civil, please.
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
Whatis wrong with you, and why do you feel the need to be so antagonistic in every response? I mean, seriously, try to be somewhat civil, please.
If your responses were naught simply that itself, my responses in kind would be different.
Given your repeat behavior in this thread alone in addition to my recollection of the regularity in your past quips with much the same behavior, you have rather done the opposite of deserving any kind of civility.
If you wish to refrain from offhand comments, misinformation, meaningless jabs, and erring for parroting the opinions of some others in favor of a rational discourse, then I would most certainly agree to being cordial.
My own derision, as people can see even in this most recent back and forth, comes after multiple attempts to address an individual who is bent on fulfilling the opposite of a reasonable discussion.
EDIT: Also of note, this does nothing to address the point that you had attempted to set askew. So I would repeat this point, "do try to form a reasonable response that relates to what's written". Calling out perpetually more meaningless herrings does nothing for furthering a topic.
"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
Back then when i started playing mmo, i played this china f2p game called tales of pirates.
Its pure pay to win cash shop. Imagine gear being auctioned to the highest bidder. I had a real life friend who spend $120 for gear and it is just enough to make him level without any problem for like 10 levels.
Had an ex guildie who spend $2000 usd to compete and he's just like an entry level pvper if i compared him to leading guild who dumps tons of money to the cash shop and had everything +9.
1) Gear being sold in CS 2) Gambling system that encourages you to spend money at a chance to upgrade your weapon 3) Pet system that encourages you to spend money on ration and if you had no pet(it provides a significant buff to primary stat), you are basically useless
Came to the realization that its just dumb and here i am now playing wow, teso, gw2.
The difference between game created ground up to be F2p and games who converted from b2p to f2p or sub to f2p is like night and day.
I don't mind mounts , apparels or gambling boxes in cash shop only if they are for cosmetics.
Back then when i started playing mmo, i played this china f2p game called tales of pirates.
Its pure pay to win cash shop. Imagine gear being auctioned to the highest bidder. I had a real life friend who spend $120 for gear and it is just enough to make him level without any problem for like 10 levels.
Had an ex guildie who spend $2000 usd to compete and he's just like an entry level pvper if i compared him to leading guild who dumps tons of money to the cash shop and had everything +9.
1) Gear being sold in CS 2) Gambling system that encourages you to spend money at a chance to upgrade your weapon 3) Pet system that encourages you to spend money on ration and if you had no pet(it provides a significant buff to primary stat), you are basically useless
Came to the realization that its just dumb and here i am now playing wow, teso, gw2.
The difference between game created ground up to be F2p and games who converted from b2p to f2p or sub to f2p is like night and day.
I don't mind mounts , apparels or gambling boxes in cash shop only if they are for cosmetics.
Tales of Pirates is a good example of how the feeling of P2W is very dependent on the gameplay you take part in. Sailing (loved my turtleboat) ,fishing, or land PVE didn't really require any money and nothing really seemed gated. However, to take part in PvP was... an investment.
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're saying that as sub-only, those people wouldn't sub, but once it went F2P people felt it was a lower quality so it was worth a sub? Not sure where you were going with that.
There's not many simpler words for me to use here, and you're being uniquely obstinate about understanding what the effect of expectations does to a person's perception of a product's quality.
Let me break it down into some grade school terms.
If a person sees a product that costs money, they assess it directly on the merit of if they want to put forth money or not. This presents an immediate critical assessment with the consumer setting a high standard for what they expect of the product, resulting in a lower perceived quality due to a more firm opinion formed upfront.
Offer the same product to them for free, then that initial critical assessment does not tend to happen. The expectations of the product ends up being considerably lower as well, meaning the overall quality of the product is going to seem better in their mind or they are going to simply be more forgiving of any issues.
I don't even know how you managed to pull that conclusion you wrote out of it, but do try to form a reasonable response that relates to what's written when you want to troll about.
Offer the same product to them for free, then that initial critical
assessment does not tend to happen. The expectations of the product ends
up being considerably lower as well, meaning the overall quality of the
product is going to seem better in their mind or they are going to
simply be more forgiving of any issues.
For me , in all my experiences with the F2P model , this is not true at all , i still expect a quality product as advertised (because i know they are trying to convince me to make a purchase ) So they had better hit the ground runnin or the critical assessment comes fast ..And i am no less forgiving of issues because of the same reason , many of the f2p put themselves out there as AAA products , and if they want my money they dam well better be up to the smell test , or uninstall comes quickly with 0 purchases ...
Again this is my expeience and imo .. i also tend to really prefer to sub , and also i will be more forgiving of a dev/project that is f2p like Project Gorgon , as i believe this dev (for ex..) actually has and is following a true vision , and not developing to solely get in my wallet..
Offer the same product to them for free, then that initial critical assessment does not tend to happen. The expectations of the product ends up being considerably lower as well, meaning the overall quality of the product is going to seem better in their mind or they are going to simply be more forgiving of any issues.
That predicate on the erroneous assumption that there is only ONE game. If there are many choices, they will assess if THIS game has better quality than the other ones. If everything is free, i should go with the higher quality (obviously subjective though) ones ... because there is no point wasting time playing a game that is less fun.
Your argument will work ONLY if players are assessing only ONE f2p game. If there are many (as in the real world), they will compare ... and that competition drives up quality.
Offer the same product to them for free, then that initial critical assessment does not tend to happen. The expectations of the product ends up being considerably lower as well, meaning the overall quality of the product is going to seem better in their mind or they are going to simply be more forgiving of any issues.
That predicate on the erroneous assumption that there is only ONE game. If there are many choices, they will assess if THIS game has better quality than the other ones. If everything is free, i should go with the higher quality (obviously subjective though) ones ... because there is no point wasting time playing a game that is less fun.
Your argument will work ONLY if players are assessing only ONE f2p game. If there are many (as in the real world), they will compare ... and that competition drives up quality.
That misses the point. It also falls victim to the point.
For one, you have erroneously defined the quality of the initial game as "bad" where there was no specific assertion to the quality beyond the perceived value.
Secondly, it misses the fact pointed out by the phrase "I'd play if it were F2P" that was previously mentioned. The assertion itself that ends up being made is the fact that "for a F2P" the quality is good, yet the very same title is simply not good enough to be B2P. Your counterargument ends up being neither here nor there on the matter.
We've also covered in the past that "quality" in a game can very easily be front-loaded and used as a way to lure people into an otherwise mediocre title that can take a bit of time and investment before one realizes they are not getting what they were initially expecting. Besides which, the notion that competition drives up quality is, while technically true, not exceptionally applicable to reality. More often than not competition is pursuant of itself, as in developers have a much greater proclivity to make titles that are derivative of each other than they are to go out on a limb and gamble on a design to make a higher quality game.
This would again be why the market has become so statistics driven as opposed to developers actually stopping and going "is this design fun, or just exploitative?" It's a mistake being made in general, and has quite the prevalence in our developing F2P, casual, and mobile markets.
That would go down to your individual preference for the most part. It's worth pointing out that what you stated you're looking at as an example (Project Gorgon) does not rest in the mainstream of development nor publicity.
The main element was pointing at the games that have converted to F2P. Titles like SWtoR, ESO, etc that all retain the same fundamental and sometimes glaring flaws that they did as B2P titles, while yet finding much more financial stability in their conversion to F2P. Yeah, there's plenty of eventual improvements, but that is a scenario that is necessary for the title's longevity regardless of B2P or F2P. The thing that changed with the greatest impact on people's perception of those titles is ultimately that the barriers to enter and experience the core gameplay was lowered, and in doing so there are more people accepting of the flaws in the games willing to play them.
"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
He stated "so many players aren't happy" that is an incorrect statement. The correct statement is a very small minority is not happy.
Just curious, do you have any numbers to back up your statement? "So many players" is NOT a defined number, but your "very small minority" is a definite number. This comment brings to my mind maybe 10% of all MMO players? Do you have some citation for this statement of yours?
In MMORPGs, the game rules say that if you reduce your opponent's HP to zero, you win. That's the win condition of each battle, established by the game itself. Creating a personal goal to have the nicest hat on the server isn't part of any win condition, so it isn't winning.
You mean to tell me I have "won" every MMO I have ever played when I killed my very first level 1 opponent? I was unaware that MMOs (the whole game) could be "won", especially in such a simple fashion. I have yet to read in any MMO "ruleset" how to "win the game." Could you show me where this is stated? In any MMO? Or is this just your personal rule for "winning?"
@Flyte27 They are working in the entertainment industry. They deserve every penny they get. You need to stop and consider why they get paid like they do. Their employment comes in cycles. If it isn't a big enough studio that knows how to cycle work, the programmers and artists are usually the first ones to go when a title launches and may or may not be brought back in for the live team and from expansion to update to expansion, etc. Definately not the most stable working conditions for people to work in.
This is not an excuse I accept, though you seem to.
Entertainment industry people have no easier/harder time of employment than anyone else in any other field. A janitoer can lose his job just as easily if a company "downsizes", like game studios do.
The biggest problem I have is that these people chose their profession, knowing full well how it works (I hope they knew). They can choose to work elsewhere, if they can not find work in the gaming industry, they can work for marketnig companies, ad companies, commission work. Lots of ways to make money, if they are any good. Just like every person working today. Nobody is "guaranteed" lengthy employment.
I equate this to people who live in flood plains, tornado alleys, or earthquake areas and then cry when these disasters hit them. It is their choice, NOT covered by my sympathy.
@Flyte27 ;Dude, it's high pay because it is seasonal work. It's not if but when the pink slip is coming. Let me ask you, what is better: A $75k a year job that last six months or a $45k a year job that is permanent? No one is saying have a pity party for devs. Just saying working in the gaming industry is ultra stressful and they do it for the love of the game more than the money.
So seasonal farm workers get paid mega-bucks, too? Or just these artists?
Whales are not only in free to play games. You should checkout all others. That's a sub.game that's a whales dream.
Correct... and whales spend at the same general level (thousands per month) in P2P games.
How can any player spend significant amounts of money on a P2P game?
To me the biggest "disadvantage" of the P2P model from a business point is the fact that you are effectively putting a cap on how much a person can spend.
If the subscription is 15$ a month, you are effectively limiting a person spending 15$ a month.
The rub is that an MMO with a sub ONLY is rare indeed. Most "sub games" also have cash shops, where whales go wild. No limit at all.
Back then when i started playing mmo, i played this china f2p game called tales of pirates.
Its pure pay to win cash shop. Imagine gear being auctioned to the highest bidder. I had a real life friend who spend $120 for gear and it is just enough to make him level without any problem for like 10 levels.
Had an ex guildie who spend $2000 usd to compete and he's just like an entry level pvper if i compared him to leading guild who dumps tons of money to the cash shop and had everything +9.
1) Gear being sold in CS 2) Gambling system that encourages you to spend money at a chance to upgrade your weapon 3) Pet system that encourages you to spend money on ration and if you had no pet(it provides a significant buff to primary stat), you are basically useless
Came to the realization that its just dumb and here i am now playing wow, teso, gw2.
The difference between game created ground up to be F2p and games who converted from b2p to f2p or sub to f2p is like night and day.
I don't mind mounts , apparels or gambling boxes in cash shop only if they are for cosmetics.
Tales of Pirates is a good example of how the feeling of P2W is very dependent on the gameplay you take part in. Sailing (loved my turtleboat) ,fishing, or land PVE didn't really require any money and nothing really seemed gated. However, to take part in PvP was... an investment.
I had levelled before without using exp pots and party hbs. Its quite a torture lol. Its like 0.1% per mob kill..
Idk if much had changed after i left off but when i was playing, no one quested for exp. Gather a party where theres a high density of mob and respawn rate and kill em off lol.
Dungeons like demonic world requires one to be fully geared for chesting, killing the boss as well as to ward off enemy players cause its a public dungeon..
In MMORPGs, the game rules say that if you reduce your opponent's HP to zero, you win. That's the win condition of each battle, established by the game itself. Creating a personal goal to have the nicest hat on the server isn't part of any win condition, so it isn't winning.
You mean to tell me I have "won" every MMO I have ever played when I killed my very first level 1 opponent? I was unaware that MMOs (the whole game) could be "won", especially in such a simple fashion. I have yet to read in any MMO "ruleset" how to "win the game." Could you show me where this is stated? In any MMO? Or is this just your personal rule for "winning?"
Short answer, yes. Medium answer, Axehilt believes that his opinion on P2W is also everyone else's opinion. Discussion is a mute point, because he has his opinion.. and you do as well. Long answer... wait for his reply.
We've also covered in the past that "quality" in a game can very easily be front-loaded and used as a way to lure people into an otherwise mediocre title that can take a bit of time and investment before one realizes they are not getting what they were initially expecting.
Everything you said makes little sense .. except this point.
So you admit that f2p games needs "front loaded" quality to "lure people in". Then what is wrong with players who just enjoy the high INITIAL quality of the games, then quit?
If enough people do that, don't they have to make better quality to keep the players ... particularly the whales?
Remember that luring someone in for 15 min, does not mean that you have enough time to find out if they are a whale. So you have to front-load a big enough free quality game to give yourself time to do that. And so ... everyone else (in addition to the whales) get a quality front load part of the game.
That's so far removed from reality it's not even funny.
For clarification, what you just described is very simply not good for the economy, neither for the game nor for any "whales". It's the exact problem that me and axe both tried to point out to you previously when you made the same argument elsewhere.
Also, people certainly can choose to "just enjoy the high INITIAL quality of the games, then quit", but that mandates that they have the desire to quit as opposed to thinking that the initial experience defines the entirety of the game and fall into the trap of recapturing an experience in that game which simply won't happen again.
As for everything else that "makes little sense", take an econ class or something then. This isn't complicated or high concept stuff. The points were pretty simple. People judge the quality of products differently based on the apparent cost of the product. Developers produce a lot of content as derivative and statistically "proven" designs considerably more often than choosing to go out on any limbs. And developers frequently mistake methods that extort with those that entertain because both statistically deliver the desired income.
Your first glaring mistake on this tirade was assuming the subject of the game's objective quality when that was an undefined aspect. The focus was the player's expectations that skews what they think of the game based on whether or not they have the immediate need to invest in a title. Simple fact being, F2P games have a lower expected set of standards. You can argue competition as much as you want, but the buying habits and behaviors of the player market reaffirms this point, with F2P conversions being consistent examples in making this fact clear.
"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
So you admit that f2p games needs "front loaded" quality to "lure people in". Then what is wrong with players who just enjoy the high INITIAL quality of the games, then quit?
P2P games need to be 'front loaded' to get people to buy in. This is usually what they use for the marketting, to get the money, before people realize that there is no depth.
F2P games need to be 'back loaded' to get people to pay money once they are already in the game. The F2P game has to sell itself every day to get your money. The P2P game already has your money, so doesn't need to follow through with anything.
So you admit that f2p games needs "front loaded" quality to "lure people in". Then what is wrong with players who just enjoy the high INITIAL quality of the games, then quit?
P2P games need to be 'front loaded' to get people to buy in. This is usually what they use for the marketting, to get the money, before people realize that there is no depth.
F2P games need to be 'back loaded' to get people to pay money once they are already in the game. The F2P game has to sell itself every day to get your money. The P2P game already has your money, so doesn't need to follow through with anything.
Wouldn't really agree with that assessment. P2P games under the pretense that they "already have your money" really have no requirement on front or back loading, functionally it's ultimately whatever the pacing desired out of the title mandates. The phrasing you used matches that axehilt has stated prior, with a bit of an obvious bias that is not informing on the scenario faced with B2P. Namely, the fact that the title has such a hard sell to deal with upfront has pushed plenty of developers to buy into the method of showcasing the game itself in many places.
F2P does actually have a reasonable advantage if they front load their user experience even when aiming for a longer term investment with players because it gives the player a sense of what "could be" in the title which can spur on an emotional if not monetary investment to recapture that initial experience. Rather than a game necessarily having to be good in that regard, it simply needs to offer enough to make the players chase something that's not even necessarily there.
Fact is in this regard that even if one wanted to believe B2P was not beholden to quality because they can sell an illusion, F2P is no different in this manner. The only change is that the "illusion" they're selling is tacked on as the thing you first experience in the game before it wanes.
In a perfect world an F2P game might be subject to daily scrutiny, but the reality is that there are plenty of ways to get a player rolling without proving a whole lot. If you are going to make the assertion that it is entirely necessary, then that notion stands equally true for P2P titles as people would ultimately cancel subs if they felt you have stopped providing incentive.
In the case of one-off B2P purchases, the cost of the title generally is the cover charge for the whole experience and it's ultimately just a matter of what was stated in the first paragraph.
"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
So you admit that f2p games needs "front loaded" quality to "lure people in". Then what is wrong with players who just enjoy the high INITIAL quality of the games, then quit?
P2P games need to be 'front loaded' to get people to buy in. This is usually what they use for the marketting, to get the money, before people realize that there is no depth.
F2P games need to be 'back loaded' to get people to pay money once they are already in the game. The F2P game has to sell itself every day to get your money. The P2P game already has your money, so doesn't need to follow through with anything.
Wouldn't really agree with that assessment. P2P games under the pretense that they "already have your money" really have no requirement on front or back loading, functionally it's ultimately whatever the pacing desired out of the title mandates. The phrasing you used matches that axehilt has stated prior, with a bit of an obvious bias that is not informing on the scenario faced with B2P. Namely, the fact that the title has such a hard sell to deal with upfront has pushed plenty of developers to buy into the method of showcasing the game itself in many places.
F2P does actually have a reasonable advantage if they front load their user experience even when aiming for a longer term investment with players because it gives the player a sense of what "could be" in the title which can spur on an emotional if not monetary investment to recapture that initial experience. Rather than a game necessarily having to be good in that regard, it simply needs to offer enough to make the players chase something that's not even necessarily there.
Fact is in this regard that even if one wanted to believe B2P was not beholden to quality because they can sell an illusion, F2P is no different in this manner. The only change is that the "illusion" they're selling is tacked on as the thing you first experience in the game before it wanes.
In a perfect world an F2P game might be subject to daily scrutiny, but the reality is that there are plenty of ways to get a player rolling without proving a whole lot. If you are going to make the assertion that it is entirely necessary, then that notion stands equally true for P2P titles as people would ultimately cancel subs if they felt you have stopped providing incentive.
In the case of one-off B2P purchases, the cost of the title generally is the cover charge for the whole experience and it's ultimately just a matter of what was stated in the first paragraph.
P2P makes it money based on marketing. By this, I mean that they make their money based on a sales pitch (or promise of fun). This can include things such as word of mouth, but this is minor in comparison to their ability to project an image that people feel is worth the money. Based on this, they have much less at risk once a player is in the game, because they have already gotten their money. However, some forms of P2P (manditory sub) also charge you monthly, to avoid losing what you have already earned. This is why frontloading the player experience is more beneficial to them. They can develop/improve their content at a later date if they find it makes good financial sense.... but today they are also changing to F2P at this point (because it makes more sense).
F2P makes its money based on the game experience. They have to 'make the sale' every single time, because the user can choose to just not pay anymore, and to keep playing. This makes 'backloading' the game more beneficial. They need to keep the content coming, or else the revenue just stops. This is also the reason why P2P changes to F2P once they have developed more depth of content later in the game. It changes the point where they can monetize better. This is especially true because it is not uncommon for players to spend 2-3 months in a F2P game before they spend anything. Without that depth of content, they dont make ANY money.
Comments
It's the sentiment that's been mirrored before with people stating things like "I'd play if it were F2P", the very simple idea that the subscription model used shifts the players expectations of the game's quality and raises or lowers the bar according to where and when their investment is demanded.
"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
EDIT: In other words check who you're commenting at, your response seems aimed at someone else in general. Likely Nariu given your back and forth up to this point. Possibly moosecat.
"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 it makes $1B or not, has little to do with the fact that f2p whale seeking games are now dominant.
You're saying that as sub-only, those people wouldn't sub, but once it went F2P people felt it was a lower quality so it was worth a sub? Not sure where you were going with that.
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
Let me break it down into some grade school terms.
If a person sees a product that costs money, they assess it directly on the merit of if they want to put forth money or not. This presents an immediate critical assessment with the consumer setting a high standard for what they expect of the product, resulting in a lower perceived quality due to a more firm opinion formed upfront.
Offer the same product to them for free, then that initial critical assessment does not tend to happen. The expectations of the product ends up being considerably lower as well, meaning the overall quality of the product is going to seem better in their mind or they are going to simply be more forgiving of any issues.
I don't even know how you managed to pull that conclusion you wrote out of it, but do try to form a reasonable response that relates to what's written when you want to troll about.
"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
Given your repeat behavior in this thread alone in addition to my recollection of the regularity in your past quips with much the same behavior, you have rather done the opposite of deserving any kind of civility.
If you wish to refrain from offhand comments, misinformation, meaningless jabs, and erring for parroting the opinions of some others in favor of a rational discourse, then I would most certainly agree to being cordial.
My own derision, as people can see even in this most recent back and forth, comes after multiple attempts to address an individual who is bent on fulfilling the opposite of a reasonable discussion.
EDIT: Also of note, this does nothing to address the point that you had attempted to set askew. So I would repeat this point, "do try to form a reasonable response that relates to what's written". Calling out perpetually more meaningless herrings does nothing for furthering a topic.
"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
Back then when i started playing mmo, i played this china f2p game called tales of pirates.
Its pure pay to win cash shop. Imagine gear being auctioned to the highest bidder. I had a real life friend who spend $120 for gear and it is just enough to make him level without any problem for like 10 levels.
Had an ex guildie who spend $2000 usd to compete and he's just like an entry level pvper if i compared him to leading guild who dumps tons of money to the cash shop and had everything +9.
1) Gear being sold in CS
2) Gambling system that encourages you to spend money at a chance to upgrade your weapon
3) Pet system that encourages you to spend money on ration and if you had no pet(it provides a significant buff to primary stat), you are basically useless
Came to the realization that its just dumb and here i am now playing wow, teso, gw2.
The difference between game created ground up to be F2p and games who converted from b2p to f2p or sub to f2p is like night and day.
I don't mind mounts , apparels or gambling boxes in cash shop only if they are for cosmetics.
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
For me , in all my experiences with the F2P model , this is not true at all , i still expect a quality product as advertised (because i know they are trying to convince me to make a purchase ) So they had better hit the ground runnin or the critical assessment comes fast ..And i am no less forgiving of issues because of the same reason , many of the f2p put themselves out there as AAA products , and if they want my money they dam well better be up to the smell test , or uninstall comes quickly with 0 purchases ...
Again this is my expeience and imo .. i also tend to really prefer to sub , and also i will be more forgiving of a dev/project that is f2p like Project Gorgon , as i believe this dev (for ex..) actually has and is following a true vision , and not developing to solely get in my wallet..
Your argument will work ONLY if players are assessing only ONE f2p game. If there are many (as in the real world), they will compare ... and that competition drives up quality.
For one, you have erroneously defined the quality of the initial game as "bad" where there was no specific assertion to the quality beyond the perceived value.
Secondly, it misses the fact pointed out by the phrase "I'd play if it were F2P" that was previously mentioned. The assertion itself that ends up being made is the fact that "for a F2P" the quality is good, yet the very same title is simply not good enough to be B2P. Your counterargument ends up being neither here nor there on the matter.
We've also covered in the past that "quality" in a game can very easily be front-loaded and used as a way to lure people into an otherwise mediocre title that can take a bit of time and investment before one realizes they are not getting what they were initially expecting. Besides which, the notion that competition drives up quality is, while technically true, not exceptionally applicable to reality. More often than not competition is pursuant of itself, as in developers have a much greater proclivity to make titles that are derivative of each other than they are to go out on a limb and gamble on a design to make a higher quality game.
This would again be why the market has become so statistics driven as opposed to developers actually stopping and going "is this design fun, or just exploitative?" It's a mistake being made in general, and has quite the prevalence in our developing F2P, casual, and mobile markets.
As for @Scorchien
That would go down to your individual preference for the most part. It's worth pointing out that what you stated you're looking at as an example (Project Gorgon) does not rest in the mainstream of development nor publicity.
The main element was pointing at the games that have converted to F2P. Titles like SWtoR, ESO, etc that all retain the same fundamental and sometimes glaring flaws that they did as B2P titles, while yet finding much more financial stability in their conversion to F2P. Yeah, there's plenty of eventual improvements, but that is a scenario that is necessary for the title's longevity regardless of B2P or F2P. The thing that changed with the greatest impact on people's perception of those titles is ultimately that the barriers to enter and experience the core gameplay was lowered, and in doing so there are more people accepting of the flaws in the games willing to play them.
"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
VG
VG
Entertainment industry people have no easier/harder time of employment than anyone else in any other field. A janitoer can lose his job just as easily if a company "downsizes", like game studios do.
The biggest problem I have is that these people chose their profession, knowing full well how it works (I hope they knew). They can choose to work elsewhere, if they can not find work in the gaming industry, they can work for marketnig companies, ad companies, commission work. Lots of ways to make money, if they are any good. Just like every person working today. Nobody is "guaranteed" lengthy employment.
I equate this to people who live in flood plains, tornado alleys, or earthquake areas and then cry when these disasters hit them. It is their choice, NOT covered by my sympathy.
VG
VG
VG
Idk if much had changed after i left off but when i was playing, no one quested for exp. Gather a party where theres a high density of mob and respawn rate and kill em off lol.
Dungeons like demonic world requires one to be fully geared for chesting, killing the boss as well as to ward off enemy players cause its a public dungeon..
Medium answer, Axehilt believes that his opinion on P2W is also everyone else's opinion. Discussion is a mute point, because he has his opinion.. and you do as well.
Long answer... wait for his reply.
But otherwise, yes .. they are dominant because the top f2p companies are better at finding the whales and making them pay.
Everything you said makes little sense .. except this point.
So you admit that f2p games needs "front loaded" quality to "lure people in". Then what is wrong with players who just enjoy the high INITIAL quality of the games, then quit?
If enough people do that, don't they have to make better quality to keep the players ... particularly the whales?
Remember that luring someone in for 15 min, does not mean that you have enough time to find out if they are a whale. So you have to front-load a big enough free quality game to give yourself time to do that. And so ... everyone else (in addition to the whales) get a quality front load part of the game.
Looks like a good deal to me!
For clarification, what you just described is very simply not good for the economy, neither for the game nor for any "whales". It's the exact problem that me and axe both tried to point out to you previously when you made the same argument elsewhere.
Also, people certainly can choose to "just enjoy the high INITIAL quality of the games, then quit", but that mandates that they have the desire to quit as opposed to thinking that the initial experience defines the entirety of the game and fall into the trap of recapturing an experience in that game which simply won't happen again.
As for everything else that "makes little sense", take an econ class or something then. This isn't complicated or high concept stuff. The points were pretty simple. People judge the quality of products differently based on the apparent cost of the product. Developers produce a lot of content as derivative and statistically "proven" designs considerably more often than choosing to go out on any limbs. And developers frequently mistake methods that extort with those that entertain because both statistically deliver the desired income.
Your first glaring mistake on this tirade was assuming the subject of the game's objective quality when that was an undefined aspect. The focus was the player's expectations that skews what they think of the game based on whether or not they have the immediate need to invest in a title. Simple fact being, F2P games have a lower expected set of standards. You can argue competition as much as you want, but the buying habits and behaviors of the player market reaffirms this point, with F2P conversions being consistent examples in making this fact clear.
"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
F2P games need to be 'back loaded' to get people to pay money once they are already in the game. The F2P game has to sell itself every day to get your money. The P2P game already has your money, so doesn't need to follow through with anything.
F2P does actually have a reasonable advantage if they front load their user experience even when aiming for a longer term investment with players because it gives the player a sense of what "could be" in the title which can spur on an emotional if not monetary investment to recapture that initial experience. Rather than a game necessarily having to be good in that regard, it simply needs to offer enough to make the players chase something that's not even necessarily there.
Fact is in this regard that even if one wanted to believe B2P was not beholden to quality because they can sell an illusion, F2P is no different in this manner. The only change is that the "illusion" they're selling is tacked on as the thing you first experience in the game before it wanes.
In a perfect world an F2P game might be subject to daily scrutiny, but the reality is that there are plenty of ways to get a player rolling without proving a whole lot. If you are going to make the assertion that it is entirely necessary, then that notion stands equally true for P2P titles as people would ultimately cancel subs if they felt you have stopped providing incentive.
In the case of one-off B2P purchases, the cost of the title generally is the cover charge for the whole experience and it's ultimately just a matter of what was stated in the first paragraph.
"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
F2P makes its money based on the game experience. They have to 'make the sale' every single time, because the user can choose to just not pay anymore, and to keep playing. This makes 'backloading' the game more beneficial. They need to keep the content coming, or else the revenue just stops. This is also the reason why P2P changes to F2P once they have developed more depth of content later in the game. It changes the point where they can monetize better. This is especially true because it is not uncommon for players to spend 2-3 months in a F2P game before they spend anything. Without that depth of content, they dont make ANY money.