Having developers code in hindrances that make you have to use the Cash Shop to get any real enjoyment out of our games. Is that really what MMO's are moving into?

Who asked for this? It sure as hell wasnt me! 

I personally like the F2P format... it lets you try the game out and see if it is something you want to invest in, then you can invest as much or as little as you want to play. The hardcore types are going to be willing to pay for all the bells and whistles, and the casual players can pay for only the things they want. How is this a bad thing?

Originally posted by MrDoogan

I personally like the F2P format... it lets you try the game out and see if it is something you want to invest in, then you can invest as much or as little as you want to play. The hardcore types are going to be willing to pay for all the bells and whistles, and the casual players can pay for only the things they want. How is this a bad thing?

 It's not actually the format that's the problem. It's the fact that the business model requires turning the game into over priced crap to make money.

Hell no!

Not me. I can see the advantages with the F2P model, but I still think that the P2P model is much better. Why? I know that I would be certainly spending 15 bucks for each month of play for certain, BUT I NEVER HAVE TO PAY MORE, and there are no artifical hindrances in-game to force me to pay more.

This gives me a feeling of ''security'', for the lack of a better word to explain it.

Cheers.

PS; The game would also be more balanced as there shan't be no ''pay to win'' system in place, meaning that there won't be some unfair advantage for the paying customers in comparasion to ''free players'' in PVP and etc.

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.

F2P is wanted by:

• people who believe it's really free
• people without a single cent to spend
• people with lots of money to spend, so they can buy their wins

Originally posted by maji

F2P is wanted by:

• people who believe it's really free
• people without a single cent to spend
• people with lots of money to spend, so they can buy their wins

 

That's a huge group. No wonder it's successful. I'd always stick to P2P myself. I don't like games where I'm either forced to grind my ass off, unless I pay more thab a subscription would cost each month. And where I am constantly killed by players only because they pay more. It's unbalanced, grindier, slower and more expensive than P2P.

 That's not f2p tho, that's pay2win =P Assuming every f2p is also pay2win makes for a silly discussion.

I think most mmorpgs should take the apporach were some of the content is free and up to a certain level cap you can get and if you want more play a monthly fee

I am all for F2P games however its been my experience that most of the companies running these games have not perfected or mastered the item shop yet or are just plain greedy and until they get it right these games will be a turn off for many gamers..

My preference is pay once play forever with full game rights and drops with an optional convenience/luxury item shop for goodies i may want now like basic tradeskill items but could get or drop in game if i choose and perhaps items that look awesome and show my support of the game but dont effect the balance of the game..

Most cash shop items are insanely overpriced and a player can easily spend way more than a traditional sub game per month if not careful..

With that said when some of these existing and or new creative less greedy f2p companies catch up to full scale traditional mmos content and quality wise and find the right and fair way to implement their cash shops they will dominate the market in a big way...

To have this discussion you have to define what you mean by 'F2P'.

Do you mean;

A)  the failed AAA games that have resorted to a 'Freemium' model because they cannot attract subs?

Or

 B)  true (so called) 'F2P' games that we see advertised all over that are designed from the ground up to promote cash shop use in the most insidious ways?

This is worth underlining because the industry, including this site, is deliberatly confusing the two and a lot of players who don't know better thinks F2P is cool because they play LotR or whatever

(To be clear, I am a fan of neither to say the least, I like to play for my in game rewards because I am a gamer and not a shopper, but many players use A to demonstrate the strengths of both models when in reality they are very different animals and should be talked about as seperate cases)

If you are talking about B then obviously I don't want 'games' like these within 1000 yards of my PC. They are exploitative, dishonest, and destroy the very essence of what makes a game a game. They are for the stupid and gullible that percieve a sub of £2.50 a week as 'too expensive' but will then spend that in multiples as their addiction driven impulse buys dictate.

Independent websites need to start talking about this whole subject more honestly and stop waving around the Freemium games as poster children of the F2P 'movement', because they are not the same thing at all and making out that they are is dishonest (making me wonder who are the paymasters behind the pro F2P shilling I see all over the net).

Folks should start asking themselves where the balanced 'official' critical discussion about this core issue is taking place, because right now I am not seeing it.

People need to grasp that the AAA MMORPGs that use a Freemium model would never have been made with the core mechanics and philosophy they were under the F2P model.

Originally posted by Mimzel

Having developers code in hindrances that make you have to use the Cash Shop to get any real enjoyment out of our games. Is that really what MMO's are moving into?

Who asked for this? It sure as hell wasnt me! 

F2P has a wide variety of forms. Take the Lotro or EQ2X formats for example, they are awesome.

As Alakram says, it really depends on what the model entails.  If done right, F2P can be excellent.  I also like the GW model of buy the box, pay no sub.  Maybe it'll gain traction, so long as GW2's shop doesn't screw the pooch.

Originally posted by BillMurphy

As Alakram says, it really depends on what the model entails.  If done right, F2P can be excellent.  I also like the GW model of buy the box, pay no sub.  Maybe it'll gain traction, so long as GW2's shop doesn't screw the pooch.

Please give us examples of this 'excellence'? Just so we have a idea of your measure.

Please do not include any of the previously sub model AAA games that have converted, for the reasons I mention above.

Or are you still insisting on lumping them under the same banner?

Originally posted by vesavius

Originally posted by BillMurphy

As Alakram says, it really depends on what the model entails.  If done right, F2P can be excellent.  I also like the GW model of buy the box, pay no sub.  Maybe it'll gain traction, so long as GW2's shop doesn't screw the pooch.

 

 

Please give us examples of this 'excellence'? Just so we have a idea of your measure.

 

Please do not include any of the previously sub model AAA games that have converted, for the reasons I mention above.

 

Or are you still insisting on lumping them under the same banner?

Trying to seperate the two is arbitrary and rediculous.  Regardless of how they ended up as f2p, they're still all f2p and are competing in the same markets.

Originally posted by madeux

Originally posted by vesavius

Originally posted by BillMurphy

As Alakram says, it really depends on what the model entails.  If done right, F2P can be excellent.  I also like the GW model of buy the box, pay no sub.  Maybe it'll gain traction, so long as GW2's shop doesn't screw the pooch.

 

 

Please give us examples of this 'excellence'? Just so we have a idea of your measure.

 

Please do not include any of the previously sub model AAA games that have converted, for the reasons I mention above.

 

Or are you still insisting on lumping them under the same banner?

Trying to seperate the two is arbitrary and rediculous.  Regardless of how they ended up as f2p, they're still all f2p and are competing in the same markets.

it is not 'arbitrary' in the slightest, and if you think it is ridiculous then you do not understand the core design philosophies behind the play of both types of games, as dictated by their original payment models. They are worlds apart.

Although I prefer to pay a monthly subscription over so called F2P, I think F2P will be the nearest future game model. It is simply how the market progresses, not only in mmo sector, but overall: multimedia/advertisment/cellular and Internet providing companies/banks/life and health insurance etc - they all develop the same business model which is focused on acquiring a user in a first place, even if it means that the product/service will be unprofitable for some time required to "lure" the customer. This is because it is well known, that acquiring a new customer is much more difficult and costly, then selling something to someone who is already hooked up.

Originally posted by vesavius

Originally posted by madeux

Originally posted by vesavius

Originally posted by BillMurphy

As Alakram says, it really depends on what the model entails.  If done right, F2P can be excellent.  I also like the GW model of buy the box, pay no sub.  Maybe it'll gain traction, so long as GW2's shop doesn't screw the pooch.

 

 

Please give us examples of this 'excellence'? Just so we have a idea of your measure.

 

Please do not include any of the previously sub model AAA games that have converted, for the reasons I mention above.

 

Or are you still insisting on lumping them under the same banner?

Trying to seperate the two is arbitrary and rediculous.  Regardless of how they ended up as f2p, they're still all f2p and are competing in the same markets.

 

it is not 'arbitrary' in the slightest, and if you think it is ridiculous then you do not understand the core design philosophies behind the game design of both types of games as dictated by their original payment models. They are worlds apart.

If you think it is not ridiculous then you do not understand the core design philosophies behind the game designs of both types of games as dictated by their original payment models.  They are incredibly similar.  Plus, and perhaps you're not completely aware of this, but devs have the ability to actually change the programs they write to suit their current needs.

Everything Allods does to convince you to give them money can just as easily be incorporated into a p2p game that is moving to f2p, and that's exactly what they do.  They're all searching for the model that will bring them the biggest return on investment, which means getting the maximum amount of money from the least amount of players.

I couldn't be arsed with the hassle of constantly making sure i'm stocked up on x, y and z or running out of the crap you needed to be competitive in the middle of PvP. I prefer to just stick my credit card on the account and forget about it.

Originally posted by Kabaal

I couldn't be arsed with the hassle of constantly making sure i'm stocked up on x, y and z or running out of the crap you needed to be competitive in the middle of PvP. I prefer to just stick my credit card on the account and forget about it.

The PvP aspect of f2p games is definitely the touchiest issue and the hardest one for them to pull off in a manner that will be satisfactory to everyone.