I think its easy to see what is happening at mmorp.com.

Corporate shills, nothing more nothing less.

Wether you want or not you will like f2p.

We all know we are adopting the payment model because we think we can sucker you into paying more for less. But you know what, we don't care.

Face it people, they have decided that we want f2p. 

And if we don't like it we got to piss of.

Richard, telling people they are being stupid doesnt make them smarter...

It just makes them angry!

Why does he not defend his article? What I miss is a post from Richard. Apparently he just  writes a column and then that's it.

Originally posted by eyeswideopen

Originally posted by Yoottos'Horg

If you believe something is false then why wouldn't you defend it? Although I dislike Mr. Aihoshi I will at least defend the intent of his article: Silence is consent.

Why should you have to defend the intent of HIS article? As you say, apparently silence is consent. So since he is silent, I'd say that means he's consenting to what the rest of us are saying then according to your veiwpoint, correct?

If the man has the balls to submit his article, he should have the balls to stand up for it, right? Unless I am totally missing your point somehow.

 No, no, you get it.

I don't know. I'm torn between the fact that I really dislike Mr. Aihoshi as a journalist, which bleeds over to a general dislike of him as a human being, and the understanding that he can't address every single argument against F2P. Though I will admit that he should address some of the more moderate and what I would consider legitimate arguments made against the F2P model.

Originally posted by kaiser3282

Originally posted by RedRaptor22

I had litterally started downloading the trial about a half hour before I read about the switch to free to play, as soon as I read it I stopped the download.

After playing DDO for a week I have no interest in another turbine "free to play untill you want content and max level"

After looking at the screenshots of the market windows everyone can see that they did the same thing with LOTRO and put the interesting parts of the gamein the market place along with lots of stuff to make sure the bankrollers can litterally buy a better toon than the rest of the population.

Thats the case with most f2p mmos no matter how ignorant one may be they can't in good faith deny that someone with a fat wallet has a huge advantage, not even the ignoramous that created this column or the two posters above me.

 

 

Of course it is a choice as to whether or not one actually spends money in the game, but when you start offering content and advantages your just baiting people, not unlike 0% interest loans or cell phone plans, $30 a month but once you get done paying for features that should be standard  you end up with a $140 bill and are upset because you could have a bundle that would have only cost you $50.

 Cool story, problem is everything you said about DDO and LOTRO is wrong. Yes you CAN pay $ to unlock the stuff, but you can also unlock it 100% free by investing a bit of time in earning Favor points. Its up to you, time, money, or a combination of both, but nothing forces you to pay for content or levels or anything else.

Stop crying something isnt F2P  just because you cant get a full game + max level & uber gear instantly 100% free. Youre going to need to either work for it in game, or out of game for the $ (or at least pray your parents do if your etoo young).

 

I guess I just don't share your views on what makes or breaks a game, anytime you can buy things in an item mall that give your character an edge over someone who chooses to not be nickle and dimed to death is simply game breaking for me and pretty much anyone else who are accustomed to AAA titles where $15 a month will buy you an even playing field with everyone else, no need to buy 50 $2 potions a month, or $30 worth of quests, or $15 worth of armor just to be able to keep up with  your guild, freinds or be considered for a group because when you try to get a group up to just earn the stuff everyone just says "buy it".

Thats the way it was in Shaiya, SUN, 2Moons, 9Dragons, DDO, Allods and pretty much every other FTP game in this websites game list....I've tried pretty much every one of them and their all running the same scam.

You people are hopeless. I 100% support Richard Aihoshi's very unpopular, but truely valid opinion.

But the best thing is that soon there will be less and less of you. And in the end you'll be the ones which are "hard to understand" and support. Mark my words, you're going to be a minority sooner than you expect. And you didn't and still don't have to.

Originally posted by Sarr

You people are hopeless. I 100% support Richard Aihoshi's very unpopular, but truely valid opinion.

But the best thing is that soon there will be less and less of you. And in the end you'll be the ones which are "hard to understand" and support. Mark my words, you're going to be a minority sooner than you expect. And you didn't and still don't have to.

Did you watch E3? We p2p folks are far from a specie in danger of extintion.

Oh and we are a minority, we've been for a while now. Even before ddo lotro.

Nice reading. Some people dont like the truth spit all over his face, but nice reading.

Originally posted by Sarr

You people are hopeless. I 100% support Richard Aihoshi's very unpopular, but truely valid opinion.

But the best thing is that soon there will be less and less of you. And in the end you'll be the ones which are "hard to understand" and support. Mark my words, you're going to be a minority sooner than you expect. And you didn't and still don't have to.

 Ohhh Doom upon us !

Funny thing that these f2p folks and their aioshi prophet resort to insulting and cursing when their poor reasoning fails to convert the unfaithful.

You know, there's still someone that wants to go on thinking with his own head and refuses your kind of jihad-like intolerance.

Main point of the article was actually fairly valid, presentation was horrible. A few basic rebuttals to complaints that largely amount to "people are making claims without facts to back them up". Followed by a "This is the future, too bad the haters are in denial". Seriously, I browse random forum posts to get that much, I have higher expectations from a front page article.

While I personally believe the F2P model can be done well, the MMO scene is horribly bare of good examples these days. People wanting to legitimatize the business model on grounds beyond "everyone is doing it these days" need to go beyond the standard back-and-forth and actually spotlight the good examples. Lay things out in detail and explain precisely why a given example is worth looking at as more than a rebadged Skinner's Box or online casino. And god-forbid, let's have some reviews that actually take upcoming games to task over poor implementation. Accountability is the first step towards improvement, after all.

Originally posted by Malcanis

Originally posted by Kyleran

Sweet, they're letting the columnists troll the forums now, its open season baby.

I for one don't think the announcement heralds the end of MMORPG's or even the P2P model, however it does point the way to an increasingly hyrbid model of payment options and revenue streams which I think all MMO's will soon employ. (even my beloved EVE)

I do think its not fair to lump all alternate payment models under the single category of F2P, as there is considerable difference in how they are employed in a game like ROM vs that employed by DDO,  however its too complicated to invent a lot more new terms so what the hell, let's just stick with one and keep it simple.

 

EVE already has a "hybrid" payment option Kyleran, but can't you see - you foolish conservative dinosaur - that's it is the wrong kind of hybrid, beause it doesn't allow for soaking more dollars per account? It's a useless relic, because it still incentivises CCP to make the game worth subscibing to, instead of incentivising them to make it unplayable unless you're paying them two or three times as much as the normal $15 sub. Paleolithic is the only word to describe such an old-fashioned model.

Get with the times, old man.

Can't think of a good way to post a rebuttal to mine so you lead with slams regarding my age, common sense, or political views?  (BTW, I tend to be a fiscal conservative but a social liberal)

And you are correct, EVE's game design encourages multiple accounts (much as DAOC did) yet both games are extremely playable by a person who only has one account and that's how the majority of players in both games rolled. (just not me)

I'm not sure why you think game designs should not encourage players to sub to more than one account, its just yet another alternative payment model and truth is, everything in the game is available to a single account but certainly having multiple accounts imparts advantages.

And EVE has other RMT aspects BTW, they charge us to change our Avatars portraits and of course there's the PLEX system which doesn't directly feed into CCP, however indirectly it of course pays for more subs in the game.

I figure its a matter of time before they get sucked into the cash shop game, probably to give us something like ship customization (appearance only) or when/if Incarna comes, they'll be tempted to sell us alternate clothing or let us own a "house" in them that we can pay to furnish.

The lure of easy money has a very strong appeal.

As for getting with the times, I'm already there.  I've played F2P games in the past, and in fact I'm currently playing Earth Eternal (under this name) because someone stated it was a great example of a "good" F2P game so I decided to find out if the experience was better than the one I had with ROM.

I dunno, as a F2P proponent, I'm a little aghast at the article.  I daresay its definitely knocked the F2P side of the arguments back a few steps.  But then, maybe his intent was to sabotage?  Just sad though, I expect this kind of journalism from an IGN site, honestly surprised there weren't more grammatical errors.

Whine all you want. I've yet to see a refutation of the fact that to succeed all F2P games must warp the game mechanics to force sufficient people to pay up. Someone always pays it's not free. I prefer not to play games subsidized by the gullible. It's a not being a freeloader thing. Pay your own way. Don't tolerate those who won't.

He comes of as someone who is very angry and who has a vested intrest in the F2P market. I wonder who pays him....

Richard if things go bad for you at MMORPG I am sure you could find a job in some 3rd world dictatorship as their minister of information.

.

Originally posted by kb4blu

Richard if things go bad for you at MMORPG I am sure you could find a job in some 3rd world dictatorship as their minister of information.

.

ROFL!

"There are no Pay to Play games here! There is only Free to Play! Pay no attention to all of those monthly subscribers, they don't exist!"

Originally posted by MehveAccountability is the first step towards improvement, after all.

 

Strangely enough accountability appears to be non existent in the gaming industry.

What irks me the most is this recent development of "educating the ignorant".

And the claim that moving to F2P is for the benefit of the player.

Yea, just like patches were right?!

Then again, it all might be a sign of recent times. After all these days normal people can't think for themself let alone make a valid opinion about industries they are not part of.

Yea right ...

I did not read all comments, only the first few.. but..

If i can play game A for $15 dollar a month, or i can play game B, which is exactly like game A, but F2P, why should i prefer game A?

Also, most of you forget that P2P doesn't mean it's good. Everybody's bitching about every single game, like about SW:TOR or the new Warhammer MMO. Both will be P2P, but still you bitch.

Wheres the difference to LotrO then? You bitch about game A, which costs $15 a month, and you bitch about game B, which doesn't cost anything.

Another thing, i played DDO when it went F2P/Freemium. The free content is quite a lot, especially if you like to start over with new characters. Of course there are restrictions to what you can achieve for free, but to cite some post here, the $200 you need to spent to get access to a similar level like P2P players do translates to 10-20 months of subscription. If you play longer, which most do if they like a game, you pay more for the subscription then buying all the free content.

Also, they will keep the subscription model, so nothing will change for you, expect more players. Some of them might even like the game enough to subscribe, but would not have done so without the possibilty of trying it out.

--

Another quite amusing/disturbing (choose one) fact is that everytime the MMORPG.com staff does not just recite official press releases of the game companies, everyone rages. This section is called "Richard Aihoshi's Free Zone". Is the article from Richard Aihoshi? Yes. It is about F2P etc.? Yes.

Therefore, it's in the right section. And as this is not general news, but the personal section of an author, they are free to post anything. Not that they would be limited to post only specific news, it's their site, not yours.

Also, i remember many liked the posts about Dragon Age etc., or general E3/similar events coverage, which isn't even about MMOs, even when, as stated above, they do not recite official news.

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by Burntvet

How can someone report a columnist for trolling? :)

You can't. And this guy submits this type of "column" every other week or so. Apparently there really is nothing going on in the F2P space news worthy so he just submits a troll/rant at people voicing their opinions that differ from his. Only he's allowed to take shots and make innuendos about those people's perceived lack of intelligence. Stuff we'd get a warning or ban for.

This site is supposed to be for us. If that's true, then there should be some kinda of voting system for the columns written. If a particular columnist scores below a certain level they rotate him/her out. I never had anything against this guy (didn't even know he shared the same planet with me until he started writing for here) and don't care if people enjoy F2P games. Doesn't affect me. But when someone starts taking verbal shots at me just because I don't agree with their point of view and I can't respond in kind, yeah, that's a problem.

Well... remember... according to certain people in this thread, he's just trying to be informative about the F2P market and we're unfairly hating on him and bashing him for it.

Yep... his article this week, which could pass as a typical forum rant post from any of a number of joe-schmoe posters, was "informative" to some people here.

I think that says it all.

As for Aioshi's spin that Turbine refers to their model as "F2P" - not "F2P with subscription" or "hybrid"...

I'm not sure where he's getting his information from, because he's completely wrong. Turbine has repeatedly and consistently referred to it as a Hybrid payment model. Hell, didn't Turbine coin the term 'Hybrid' to describe their payment model in the first place?

I did a Google search for 'Turbine DDO hybrid', and got numerous results where Turbine quite openly *do* call it a hybrid - and even explain in at least one case why they prefer that over the pure F2P setup and feel it's the better setup, particularly for the Western market. Even when I did a search for 'Turbine DDO F2P', the results I looked at came back with Turbine *still* referring to it as a Hybrid model... not "F2P".

Every instance I've seen of the term F2P regarding DDO or LoTRO has been from the author's side, not Turbine's. Turbine has consistently regarded the F2P portion in regards to it being *part* of their Hybrid setup... not as the model itself.

Soo... why would Aioshi make such a glaring and easily avoided misstep as to state, "Turbine calls the business model F2P", and "But the company is obviously willing to have both LOTRO and DDO labelled as F2P.  Not F2P with subscription, not hybrid... just F2P"? I mean, those are emphatic statements. Not "opinions". He's making those statements as fact. Why would he say such a thing when it's so easily proven wrong?

Well... I'll call a spade a spade here and just state what many of us here already know: Aioshi has an obvious agenda of pushing F2P on the Western Market. He is not - as many seem to insist - innocently "informing us about it". To that end, he's willing to spin, twist, quote-mine, cherry-pick, omit or - as demonstrated here - mis-state the facts in order to further it.

It's not at all surprising that he'd be willilng to ignore the subscription/VIP portion of the model, and insist on calling it "F2P". Acknowledging that a subscription model still exists implies that there are enough people who still prefer it... Which of course does nothing for his dreams of "F2P World Domination" (yes, I'm being tongue-in-cheek there... but only partially). So, of course, he'd rather ignore that portion of it as much as he can. The fact that Turbine have noted an increase in their subscriptions since the change must really drive him nuts; "Turbine's doing it all wrong!! Truth Obfuscation Systems, engage! Spin mode, activate!!"

Now, some might say "Well, when people call it F2P, Turbine doesn't object". It would be an obvious rebuttal... but also entirely disingenuous. Why would they object to using F2P as part of the model? It does, after all, describe one half of their *hybrid* setup. See, 'cause that's what a hybrid is... a combination of two or more different things. And of course, the "F2P" portion is the one generating the news... The subscription, or "VIP", portion is the same as it's always been... Pay a flat fee, get full access to the game. Not so news-worthy.

So... did Aioshi simply mis-speak? Has he simply and innocently managed to completely miss the myriad examples of where Turbine have specifically labeled and described their model as Hybrid? Or... is he simply being intellectually dishonest, mucking with the facts and hoping no one will notice?

Call me crazy... but I'm betting on the latter.

And before someone says I'm playing semantics or whatever... No... Pure "F2P" as it's known, and Turbine's Hybrid model are not the same thing. Pure F2P doesn't offer subscription options. The Hybrid model does. This is why there are those, by their own say so on these forums, who would never accept a F2P model, but are fine with the Hybrid model. Because the option to avoid microtransactions and pay a flat sub-fee is still there. That crucial difference in mind, Aioshi's omission of the facts in his remarks is abundantly and shamefully clear.

See... this is the fundamental flaw in Aioshi's mentality that, in his smug arrogance, he fails to realize... Not everyone reading his columns take what he says as fact, consider him "the informed expert", and leave it at that. Many of us do our own research, check things out for ourselves, and come to our own conclusions. Thus, many of us are able to see right through it when he starts spinning and can call him out on it. Which he responds to with nerd-rage rants such as this week's "article", wherein he routinely takes pot-shots and cheap jabs at those who *dare* disagree with him, or call him out on his BS.

Will we get another f2p column next week? 

First you take the good part of the f2p model, then its about the annoying community here at mmorpg and now I wonder what will be next.