Originally posted by ActionMMORPG

None of the above.   I don't believe it's fair to lump all Free To Play games into one category.

 

"Pay to Go Faster" In some the cash shop is not majorly imbalancing, nor will a non-purchasing player be much less competitive in the game than others.

 

"Pay to Win" In others, the cash shop is severely imbalancing and a non-purchaser is seriously less competitive in the game.

Well, it depends on your perspective.

I want a game where real currency doesn't entere the game world.

So, from my perspective, whether it's pay to win or pay to go faster is irrelevant.

If there are real world dollars in the game, I don't like it.

I want a game where the game world is cut off from the real world, and real world currency doesn't enter the game world. 

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by ActionMMORPG

None of the above.   I don't believe it's fair to lump all Free To Play games into one category.

 

"Pay to Go Faster" In some the cash shop is not majorly imbalancing, nor will a non-purchasing player be much less competitive in the game than others.

 

"Pay to Win" In others, the cash shop is severely imbalancing and a non-purchaser is seriously less competitive in the game.

 

Well, it depends on your perspective.

I want a game where real currency doesn't entere the game world.

So, from my perspective, whether it's pay to win or pay to go faster is irrelevant.

If there are real world dollars in the game, I don't like it.

I want a game where the game world is cut off from the real world, and real world currency doesn't enter the game world. 

Whether the other poster clearly CARE about how real currency enter the game world, and so do many who have posted.

And a majority of MMO players would only play F2P games, so clearly they don't care if real currency enter the game world, or that they want it to happen.

So yeah, i guess different perspectives, except very few (or a very small fraction) seem to have your stance.

Ofcourse Hybrid is the best because then everyone can CHOOSE how they want to pay.

99%of all MMOs will go that way sooner or later and its a win/win for both the games and the gamers.

The only people who dont agree are the people who just hear "F2P OMG IT SUXX PAY TO WIN!!!" and are stuck in 10 years ago...

I choose hybrid. I love the freemium model that DDO/LOTRO/Global Agenda have. Otherwise I want a sub system. I despise F2P games that make you spend money every month to choose how my character looks, items I have, and/or exp rates. I'd rather spend my monthly sub to have everything.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by ActionMMORPG

None of the above.   I don't believe it's fair to lump all Free To Play games into one category.

 

"Pay to Go Faster" In some the cash shop is not majorly imbalancing, nor will a non-purchasing player be much less competitive in the game than others.

 

"Pay to Win" In others, the cash shop is severely imbalancing and a non-purchaser is seriously less competitive in the game.

 

Well, it depends on your perspective.

I want a game where real currency doesn't entere the game world.

So, from my perspective, whether it's pay to win or pay to go faster is irrelevant.

If there are real world dollars in the game, I don't like it.

I want a game where the game world is cut off from the real world, and real world currency doesn't enter the game world. 

Whether the other poster clearly CARE about how real currency enter the game world, and so do many who have posted.

And a majority of MMO players would only play F2P games, so clearly they don't care if real currency enter the game world, or that they want it to happen.

So yeah, i guess different perspectives, except very few (or a very small fraction) seem to have your stance.

Very few? if anything i would say by far the majority have that stance.. or something akin to it.. if anything the number of players who prefer F2P for whatever reason are actually in the minority..  (not to be confused with B2P which is a different type altogether! - if anything they have more in common with P2P games than F2P) and if you check the poll, you'll see that the majority is clearly in the P2P court..  F2P may - if unjustly - have something of a dodgy rep, particularly the pay to win types.. the trouble is.. they all tend to be tarred with the same brush.. particularly if the game was developed in a certain 'area'  perhaps this goes some way to defining why a clear 'majority' of players will choose a 'subbed' game over a 'microtransaction' one.. 

Originally posted by Phry

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by ActionMMORPG

None of the above.   I don't believe it's fair to lump all Free To Play games into one category.

 

"Pay to Go Faster" In some the cash shop is not majorly imbalancing, nor will a non-purchasing player be much less competitive in the game than others.

 

"Pay to Win" In others, the cash shop is severely imbalancing and a non-purchaser is seriously less competitive in the game.

 

Well, it depends on your perspective.

I want a game where real currency doesn't entere the game world.

So, from my perspective, whether it's pay to win or pay to go faster is irrelevant.

If there are real world dollars in the game, I don't like it.

I want a game where the game world is cut off from the real world, and real world currency doesn't enter the game world. 

Whether the other poster clearly CARE about how real currency enter the game world, and so do many who have posted.

And a majority of MMO players would only play F2P games, so clearly they don't care if real currency enter the game world, or that they want it to happen.

So yeah, i guess different perspectives, except very few (or a very small fraction) seem to have your stance.

Very few? if anything i would say by far the majority have that stance.. or something akin to it.. if anything the number of players who prefer F2P for whatever reason are actually in the minority..  (not to be confused with B2P which is a different type altogether! - if anything they have more in common with P2P games than F2P) and if you check the poll, you'll see that the majority is clearly in the P2P court..  F2P may - if unjustly - have something of a dodgy rep, particularly the pay to win types.. the trouble is.. they all tend to be tarred with the same brush.. particularly if the game was developed in a certain 'area'  perhaps this goes some way to defining why a clear 'majority' of players will choose a 'subbed' game over a 'microtransaction' one.. 

Most P2P MMOs have microtransactions so a huge majority is playing games where real money is a currency in the game. And B2P is more like a hybrid and often makes most money from microtransactions and players paying for more content (similar to LotrO/DDO which most people seems to prefer)

And this forum is far from representive, most people here are old school hardcore MMO players, ofcourse a sub is best for them.

Originally posted by Phry

 

Very few? if anything i would say by far the majority have that stance.. or something akin to it.. if anything the number of players who prefer F2P for whatever reason are actually in the minority..  (not to be confused with B2P which is a different type altogether! - if anything they have more in common with P2P games than F2P) and if you check the poll, you'll see that the majority is clearly in the P2P court..  F2P may - if unjustly - have something of a dodgy rep, particularly the pay to win types.. the trouble is.. they all tend to be tarred with the same brush.. particularly if the game was developed in a certain 'area'  perhaps this goes some way to defining why a clear 'majority' of players will choose a 'subbed' game over a 'microtransaction' one.. 

Yes, VERY few. Poll in this website is OBVIOUSLY not representative. RESEARCH (which has been posted again and again) shows that 70%+ MMO players ONLY play f2p games, vs 17% only play P2P (the rest play both). Oh that is US data.

http://www.newzoo.com/ENG/1570-MMO_Market_Report.html

So you are just wrong. Learn how to google & find evidence. F2P is OVERWHELMING favored in Germany (79% vs 9%), US (74% vs 17%), UK (78% vs 13%), France (83% vs 11%)  ... essentially ALL western countries this research includes.

And btw, before any ignorant poster, who can't read a website, comes along and complains .. this data does NOT include FB, and other social network games. Those are in a separate category.

I prefer to pay for subscriptions in the form of chewing gum and bits of string.

Okay seriously, I like a Hybrid. I feel that games that are entirely subscription based produce a lot of biased fucks in their communities.

I like subscriptions.  I'm more than happy to pay my $10 - $15/month for the full meal deal.

I've played EQ2, DDO, and LotRO all before they were F2P and they were better then.  We'll see how Conan turns out.

I've played other F2P titles and I just like P2P games better.  I like how they're designed and how they let you immmerse yourself in the game play and not the store buy.

Subs are a total rip-off.  MMOs simply don't need them to run and you certainly don't get enough content to justify tossing money for 4 or more new games a year -- heck, I don't know of an MMO where you even get 1 new game of content per year.

I think GW2 has the right idea.  B2P is the way to go with maybe some sort of non-essential cosmetic shop.  Sell content you make for what it is worth when it comes out via expansion and the like.

i love the proposed gw2 model and the current global agenda model.

f2p is good too as long as its not pay to win (pay to look good is nice).

i dont like hybrid models that withhold some major and important features for subbers only with no possible way for nonsubbers to access them. such a model does not make the game unfun. i just dont like the business model.

I'd take B2P over anything else, unless the games are crap of coarse.

If GW2 is an actual MMO and not some lobby instance game like part 1, I hope they can change how things are done.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Phry

 

Very few? if anything i would say by far the majority have that stance.. or something akin to it.. if anything the number of players who prefer F2P for whatever reason are actually in the minority..  (not to be confused with B2P which is a different type altogether! - if anything they have more in common with P2P games than F2P) and if you check the poll, you'll see that the majority is clearly in the P2P court..  F2P may - if unjustly - have something of a dodgy rep, particularly the pay to win types.. the trouble is.. they all tend to be tarred with the same brush.. particularly if the game was developed in a certain 'area'  perhaps this goes some way to defining why a clear 'majority' of players will choose a 'subbed' game over a 'microtransaction' one.. 

 

Yes, VERY few. Poll in this website is OBVIOUSLY not representative. RESEARCH (which has been posted again and again) shows that 70%+ MMO players ONLY play f2p games, vs 17% only play P2P (the rest play both). Oh that is US data.

http://www.newzoo.com/ENG/1570-MMO_Market_Report.html

So you are just wrong. Learn how to google & find evidence. F2P is OVERWHELMING favored in Germany (79% vs 9%), US (74% vs 17%), UK (78% vs 13%), France (83% vs 11%)  ... essentially ALL western countries this research includes.

And btw, before any ignorant poster, who can't read a website, comes along and complains .. this data does NOT include FB, and other social network games. Those are in a separate category.

 

The leading games in the occidental market are P2P. The ones that went F2P were most of the times failing ones. Latest example, AOC.

Originally posted by Papadam

Ofcourse Hybrid is the best because then everyone can CHOOSE how they want to pay.

99%of all MMOs will go that way sooner or later and its a win/win for both the games and the gamers.

The only people who dont agree are the people who just hear "F2P OMG IT SUXX PAY TO WIN!!!" and are stuck in 10 years ago...

What happens when I choose to play a game with no item mall?

What you really mean, is everyone can "choose" to play the I like, which is a game with an item mall.

Obviously there's a pretty big missing choice there, the choice to play a game with no item mall.

This is a huge fail in logic. 

You're playing a game with an item mall. You can't "choose" to be playing a game with no item mall in a game that has one.

Whether you use the item mall or not, it's a game with an item mall.

My "choice" is to play a game with no item mall.

Originally posted by gordiflu

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Phry

 

Very few? if anything i would say by far the majority have that stance.. or something akin to it.. if anything the number of players who prefer F2P for whatever reason are actually in the minority..  (not to be confused with B2P which is a different type altogether! - if anything they have more in common with P2P games than F2P) and if you check the poll, you'll see that the majority is clearly in the P2P court..  F2P may - if unjustly - have something of a dodgy rep, particularly the pay to win types.. the trouble is.. they all tend to be tarred with the same brush.. particularly if the game was developed in a certain 'area'  perhaps this goes some way to defining why a clear 'majority' of players will choose a 'subbed' game over a 'microtransaction' one.. 

 

Yes, VERY few. Poll in this website is OBVIOUSLY not representative. RESEARCH (which has been posted again and again) shows that 70%+ MMO players ONLY play f2p games, vs 17% only play P2P (the rest play both). Oh that is US data.

http://www.newzoo.com/ENG/1570-MMO_Market_Report.html

So you are just wrong. Learn how to google & find evidence. F2P is OVERWHELMING favored in Germany (79% vs 9%), US (74% vs 17%), UK (78% vs 13%), France (83% vs 11%)  ... essentially ALL western countries this research includes.

And btw, before any ignorant poster, who can't read a website, comes along and complains .. this data does NOT include FB, and other social network games. Those are in a separate category.

 

The leading games in the occidental market are P2P. The ones that went F2P were most of the times failing ones. Latest example, AOC.

And now those games that have done that have skyrocketed in people playing and increased sales.

None of the above.

First off, being a long time player in this genre, starting back in 2002, I am sick and tired of the gameplay the genre has to offer. Other genres have evolved and games that you have interest in a person finds fun. For example, if I like the RPG genre and Oblivion looks interesting, I'll likely buy it and probably enjoy that game.

The MMORPG genre for us pre-WoW players pulled us in because the main feature of the genre was supposed to be 1) A Persistent World; and 2) That served as an alternate reality that we can play in. Some may prefer playing in a fantasy world, others a Sci Fi universe and so on. The point I'm making is that since WoW came out, the genre hasn't progressed the way we envisioned it would over a decade. Instead, developers and new members to the genre seem to think that hotkeys, turn-based combat, quest grinding, and grinding in general defines the genre. This has resulted in a genre that has become stale and is oversaturated with the same types of games, only with different names and maps. So at this point, the genre isn't even worth being a part of for me.

To address the topic of this thread, and assuming the genre started producing games worthy of being called a MMORPG, I think that none of the options the OP presented is preferable for me. Let's face the facts, once a new member to the genre has mastered their game, they've practically mastered the genre as a whole. So they're not likely to play a game for years like their first MMORPG. What's more likely to happen is that they'll play heavy when the game first releases, and then taper off to the point that a subscription isn't worth keeping. The OP says the only two options is F2P and P2P.

In my opinion, F2P isn't good, because developers must make their game grindy so that there are incentives to purchase items from the item mall. I'm referring mainly to Asian F2P MMO's, not games like DDO and LoTRO. F2P games also don't foster a good and continuous community, since the barrier to entry is low (just download and play). Furthermore, the production value of the game is low, since the game isn't likely to become a big market success, so they seem cheep, which is why you find many members referring to them as either Asian clones or poor knock offs of P2P games.

P2P games aren't good either, due to an early point I made about active play-time tapering off. Instead, I suggest the following.

Sell the game at the going rate for PC games (ie. $50). For $50, you should be able to play all of the content released with the box, plus patch up any fixes that should of been done before release or would have been done before release if the bugs were caught during beta. It shouldn't matter if it takes you 2 weeks or 2 years to finish that content, it should be included with the box price. Finally, the company can charge you for content downloads and expansions. The content should be worth the price charged for it, and expansions should (content-wise) be just as much as the original games content, and cost around $30. This is because you already paid for the development of the toolset and all the features that come standard with a game with the original box price.

What this means for gamers is that they get what they pay for and have access to what they pay for. They can pop in and out of the game as they desire, allowing them to treat the game more as entertainment and a hobby than a job, which is how many gamers feel about their MMORPG's when they know they're paying monthly for it. This also means that developers earn their money by being forced to release quality products. Developers get paid for the man hours spent creating content by selling their product. If the product is worth the purchase, they'll recoup their costs and then some (make profit). In other words, their pay is performance based. As for the costs of maintaining servers and all that sort of stuff, there could be some kind of fee players pay. Maybe each time an expansion or large content patch is bought, quarterly, monthly, or annually. It sounds like a subscription, but it really isn't, since their costs for providing those services isn't worth $15/mo. People familiar with service charges associated with cable, electricity, or even a gym membership know what I'm talking about. Another thing to consider is being charged these fees based on the amount of time spent in the game. 

--- Free to play is almost exclusively pay to win. So, if you want to commit to a game for longer than the 'game hoppers' (who play F2P games like single player games, for 3-6 weeks) you'll end up paying _a lot_ more than 15 bucks a month. Some f**ked up kids leech 50, 60, 100 bucks off their parents credit cards for swords and sorcery.

--- Freemium games, as long as they offer the LotRO/DnD model with a possible 15 bucks subscription and access to all competetive content, are okish. Still, you end up spending more money than the 15 bucks for fluff because there's still a shop and hairstyles/cosmetic clothing/housing etc. will still be in the shop and not in ther premium-membership.

--- Buy to play games. Only Guild Wars has done it so far and this game didn't have a persistent world, crafting, alternate advancement paths, any socializing stuff ... Nothing against GW, but it was a CRPG, so the b2p model has never really been tested.

--- Sub-based with item shop- --> Star Trek Online. It's a 100% greed driven model. And it works. At least in theory, Cryptic has pushed it a little too far and they may fall on their faces, but the idea is straight from the fat belly of an entertainment industrial. Take a famous IP, make a skeleton game, put the most popular items into a cash shop (like TNG uniforms, galaxy class starship for admirals, etc) and milk away.

--- Subscription based --> The industry tricked people, imo especially youngsters, into the belief that the classic P2P was leeching their money and was practically more expensive than any of the other models (xcept sub-based with cash shop). Which is a downright lie of course. For any gamer that wants to commit to a game for a longer period of time (longer than 6 weeks that is) subscription based gives you the most content for your money.

I'd even agree to kyleran's request of a 29.99$ monthly fee for a finished, quality, sandbox, persistent world MMORPG. It would still be cheaper than playing any other model and browsing through their cash shops...

... unfortunately, if support from the game hoppers, casual gamers, little girls, retards and 8-yo's increases, well, we'll have to spend more money on our hobby then. Because the sad fact is: If you commit to a game, P2P is the cheapest model you can get.

M