---

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

the reason for the huge explosion of them in the 70's however it was not the immedate reason for it's success.  

 

 

---

It was a reason for huge explosion but not a reason for it's success.

[mod edit]

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by KingGator

f2p is an inferior model, the only people it benefits are those either too cheap to pay a sub fee or too poor to afford one. Well that isn't true, it also benefits people with more money than sense who wish to pay to win. And spare me with the "most of the stuff is available in game" nonsense, yes for a huge grind, like more grindy than the sub model grinds in most games you can indeed farm the stuff up. 

 

This model is worse for the casual gamer all the way around. College kids with no job, and I suspect no friends or girl friends in many cases, can commit the hours and hours to grind the gear away, and rich people can just buy everything, and the rest of the normal people find themselves at a competitive disadvantage and are forced to consider paying 2 win themselves.

 

Subscription fees are the most fair system for the devs to get their money back and server maintainence, although 15 dollars a month is probably grossly over charging given what servers cost to maintain these days, should be 9.99 a month.

 

Anyways, these are just my thoughts based off of 15 years of playing mmos and having played both payment models.

I"m a casual gamer and I find the f2p model to be the superior model.  It lets me pick and choose what I wish, I dont' worry about wasted sub fees.  The company has to make the game enjoyable before they get a dime out of me, unlike the sub model where I first give them money to buy the game, then give them a months sub before I really know if the game is enjoyable or not.  F2P requires the game to actually be fun and doesn't depend on hyped box sales.  As you stated it also benefits the ones that can't afford a sub fee and the ones that want to pay more.  So it benefits everyone. 

The F2P I've played aren't any more or less grindy than the sub ones.  Pretty much the same actually. 

Subscription fee's, I don't mind paying them if I like the game, however IMO it is the most unfair system.  As I stated by the game, pay a sub, 1 week in I"m bored and quit, what a waste of all that money.  The devs want my money they have to make it fun.

Anyway these are just my thoughts based on 13 years of playing MMO and having played both payment models. 

No, by making a game pay 2 win it is automatically the least fair model possible, and I am sorry mate...........I am calling shens on your assertion that f2p games let you grind gear at the same grind rate as sub games, especially items in their cash shop. See that is counter intuitive to their model.

I will go ahead and put you in the willing to pay 2 win category and move along.

I disagree that they are pay 2 win.   And if not P2W then F2P is the most fair model. 

---

Originally posted by KingGator

f2p is an inferior model, the only people it benefits are those either too cheap to pay a sub fee or too poor to afford one. Well that isn't true, it also benefits people with more money than sense who wish to pay to win.

---

That does not make it an inferior model tho.

If there is enough people that like the model and such model can make more money, then it is superior.

You cannot judge by your own bias only, there are thousands of others that do the same and only full sample applies.

F2P games are EXPENSIVE!

Only if you have no self control.....

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

I disagree that they are pay 2 win.   And if not P2W then F2P is the most fair model. 

You moved the goal post on me. If a game is f2p but offers no pay 2 win then it may be the most fair model, but pay 2 win is inevitable in a f2p model. If that is the only revenue stream for the dev team they will naturally want to make more money, which I cannot blame them for, but this ultimately will lead to the temptation of putting elite gear in their cash shops and thus pay 2 win is born.

---

Originally posted by KingGator

but pay 2 win is inevitable in a f2p model. If that is the only revenue stream

---

Those two statements are mutually exclusive.

If revenue stream is conditional, it means there must be some other streams but then it cannot be inevitable.

So you say that powerful game affecting items are the only revenue stream possible for F2P games?

This is how discussions work. There is a premise, the premise is conversed and (in a good discussion) a variety of views arise from this discourse. When it becomes apparent that some people lack the ability to reason, the discussion no longer serves a purpose, we all move on.

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by KingGator

 

but pay 2 win is inevitable in a f2p model. If that is the only revenue stream

 

---

 

Those two statements are mutually exclusive.

If revenue stream is conditional, it means there must be some other streams but then it cannot be inevitable.

So you say that powerful game affecting items are the only revenue stream possible for F2P games?

I agree.  The two conditions are mutually exclusive.

But I guess it really depends on how we define P2W.

edit - too many threads, too many different discussion in the same thread so I'm not going to discuss science vs pseudoscience anymore :)

---

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

edit - too many threads, too many different discussion in the same thread so I'm not going to discuss science vs pseudoscience anymore :)

---

Okey.

*puts the mighty Snyders thinking cap off*

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by dave6660

Originally posted by Xthos

If no one payed, these games would be out of business, someone is spending....

 

I myself prefer sub games, with no cash shop...I like knowing what I am spending, and I do not like the lure/chances of a f2p cash shop becoming a p2w...

It does make you wonder when you read the majority of the comments here from people claiming they don't spend a dime.  Somebody is lying.

Why? It is a documented FACT that MOST F2P MMO players do NOT pay. I have posted a link of that research.

It is pretty obvious that a small minority is paying a lot to subsidize the majority. As long as I am not one of the "whales", i am more than happy to let them subsidize my game.

If most players don't pay then explain the enormous amount of revenue gained through F2P models that don't use content restriction. You can't have one while the other is so positive. Obviously it's working the way it was intended, to bring in revenue which is the goal of the companies making these games ultimately.

Originally posted by itgrowls

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by dave6660

Originally posted by Xthos

If no one payed, these games would be out of business, someone is spending....

 

I myself prefer sub games, with no cash shop...I like knowing what I am spending, and I do not like the lure/chances of a f2p cash shop becoming a p2w...

It does make you wonder when you read the majority of the comments here from people claiming they don't spend a dime.  Somebody is lying.

Why? It is a documented FACT that MOST F2P MMO players do NOT pay. I have posted a link of that research.

It is pretty obvious that a small minority is paying a lot to subsidize the majority. As long as I am not one of the "whales", i am more than happy to let them subsidize my game.

If most players don't pay then explain the enormous amount of revenue gained through F2P models that don't use content restriction. You can't have one while the other is so positive. Obviously it's working the way it was intended, to bring in revenue which is the goal of the companies making these games ultimately.

Of course you can.  Most don't pay anything, some pay a small amount, a very small amount of people pay a huge amount (the so called whales).

Pretty well-established and documented by now. 

---

Originally posted by Gdemami

---

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

However the company correctly guessed that people would be convinced that the product would save them time, so the need was created.  

---

Erm no.

The demand for microwaves raised up once women left their households for work and home meal cuisine was replaced with prefabricated food products.

But believe whatever you want, invalid logic can justify just anything.

---

Originally posted by fenistil

Originally posted by KingGator

 Moreover these games ae my escape, my fantasy world, the minute you bring real world economic considerations into the game you bring the real world into the game and make them far less interesting to me.

This. 

Same for me.

Double agree.

Originally posted by AlBQuirky

 

---

Originally posted by Gdemami

---

Originally posted by Vesavius

 

OK, fine, you know it all. I have no need to educate you in Marketing 101. Believe what you will.

Do yourself a favour though and Google 'Marketing creating demand' and have a read.

---

 

Ah, famous "google it" argument...or rather lack of...

---

Was there a demand for a Pet Rock back in the 70's? Did the person responsible for that meet a demand from customers?

 

Were there people clammering for a Hoola Hoop when Whamo introduced it in the 50's?

That is the introduction of a new product/service, which has nothing to do with the manner in which people choose to pay for products/services, the latter being the topic at hand.

ANY F2P game I have been playing (starting with Rappelz) at the end of month went MUCH more expensive then P2P model. Usually, with very few exceptions, one gets crappy game with even crappiest performance in F2P version compared to much better P2P. But sure, there are P2P games that should not exist not even as F2P.

Originally posted by mrw0lf

Here's the thing I don't get and this thread is a prime example of it. It's full of posts saying 2 things, "the devs have to make money for the game to continue running", I think we can all agree with this. Those posts are only outnumbered by those proclaiming that they have been playing f2p games for 2-5 years and in all that time have spend miniscule amounts of money or nothing at all. Now I'm no mathematician but we either have a very focused group of f2p players here at mmorpg.com and there is another forum somewhere with f2p gamers complaining about having spend millions on the game. Or people talk utter shit, I'm going to go with the latter (hey I'm a realist).

 Maybe people who spent thousands of dollar on a F2P game just aren't very proud of that. No need to tell people who don't 'need' to win a game that they're talking utter shit. About 80% of F2P gamers spend almost no money on the game. 20% of the players spend more on them than they would spend in a P2P game. The majority isn't talking utter shit, they're telling it like it is.

The amount of money a person spends on a thing is based entirely on how much they WANT to spend on a thing.

I have played many F2P games and not spent a penny. In some cases, I've decided to fork over X amount of money where I feel it's worth it/where I want to.

That's all it comes down to. OF COURSE developers and publishers are going to put in place methods to encourage people to spend money, otherwise there would be no prompt to spend money. That's true of every platform and payment model, including P2P games (where longer subscriptions enjoy discounts).

To suggest that the F2P model is inherently corrupt when it affords the user a degree of choice that doesn't exist in the P2P model is, I'm afraid, moronic.

Well you see, if a FTP game had a spending cap of $35 per month (double the normal subscription) then a lot more people would actually pay that $35.  It is the people spending $350+ that turn those $35 spenders off -- as the playing field is not at all equal at that point.  But I wonder just what percentage of the money coming into a FTP comes from people who spend say $350 or more per month on the FTP game.  I have this sneaking suspicion that it may be a higher percentage than people realize.  I mean it doesnt take all that many $2,000 per month whales to marginalize the contributions of the normal player who isnt free-riding.

Originally posted by JoeyMMO

Originally posted by mrw0lf

Here's the thing I don't get and this thread is a prime example of it. It's full of posts saying 2 things, "the devs have to make money for the game to continue running", I think we can all agree with this. Those posts are only outnumbered by those proclaiming that they have been playing f2p games for 2-5 years and in all that time have spend miniscule amounts of money or nothing at all. Now I'm no mathematician but we either have a very focused group of f2p players here at mmorpg.com and there is another forum somewhere with f2p gamers complaining about having spend millions on the game. Or people talk utter shit, I'm going to go with the latter (hey I'm a realist).

 Maybe people who spent thousands of dollar on a F2P game just aren't very proud of that. No need to tell people who don't 'need' to win a game that they're talking utter shit. About 80% of F2P gamers spend almost no money on the game. 20% of the players spend more on them than they would spend in a P2P game. The majority isn't talking utter shit, they're telling it like it is.

If you feel that you need to spend thousands of dollars to have fun and enjoy the game there is no reason for others to have a problem with it. But someone that is not very rich spending that much anyway could be in trouble. It is up to the individual. Personally I think its better to play a game with a different business model. A P2P or a true B2P game. Because I feel that I need and want to spend that much when playing F2P games. But its not very good for my economy. If others can play them without spending much or anything and have fun its good for them. But people are different. And there is no way they can know what others need to do or how much they will need to spend to have fun.