I understand the OP, because I was there once. Those of us who have played MMOs for more than a couple years remember the early f2p games. Every one of them to the last was P2W. Every last one required massive purchases, well over the monthly expense of a sub, just to stay competitive. They were greedy cash cows. And when a game was sub and went F2P...well it was an obvious sign back then that the game was dying.

I remember when Richard Aoshi started his "free zone" column on this site. I almost stopped coming here. I was CONVINCED  Aoshi, and by extension MMORPG.com, were selling out and trying to indoctrinate us all into this money-grubbing f2p wave that was sweeping over MMOs. DDO and Lotro went free, and I remember thinking I'd never play them then.

Then a funny ting happened: League of Legends. I had some coworkers playing it, and they asked me to join in. F2P? in a PvP-only game? That's a recipe for disaster...but whatever, they'd get bored and I could go back to WoW or whatever. I played the game, and I poured over their cash shop, eager to find how they were shilling people into spending hundreds a month in order to play. And was shocked to find none. There was nothing I could get in the shop that I couldn't get without difficulty in game, and nothing that could decide a win or loss. As other games went F2P, I started to look at their shops and realize that they too offered similar designs. Oh, there's still P2W (APB....sigh...what you could have been), but it's becoming less popular.

And probably making less money. Ask me if I'd pay 2 dollars a month in cash shop purchases in order to be promised a pvp win. I'd tell you that I wouldn't spend a dime. But I look at GW2, and can reasonably see me throwing some money at a few char slots.

FACT: As long as a game is NOT P2W, it is more economically sensible for a player than a sub game. 0 is less than 15. That's all there is to it.

FACT: It is possible to make a F2P game that is now P2W. While many will dispute certain games, I have never heard a single person say a thing about LoL. And there are others.

FACT: Players will spend money on a F2P game they enoy. Riot makes good money, as does Wargaming.net, as do Turbine and Cryptic.

FACT: Most players hate P2W. I don't know a soul that would play a game they felt was P2W, and these forums certainly rail against the concept.

So if we look at all that, doesn't a fair F2P game make sense? Sure your money comes sporadically, in trickles, but it's still coming in. And in the long term probably makes more than a sub, even when you aren't suckering people for their life savings for a Sword Of Pwnage.

As a gaming publisher in tis day and age, I would take F2P seriously. It has the potential to bring in far more players, and possibly make more money than a traditional sub. Subs are good for when you start and you want to rack up a big chunk of change to show your investors, who don't get it yet. But once you have them...switch to F2P. Make the real  money.

I predicted it elsewhere and I repeat it here. TSW will be F2P in a year, WoW in 3.  And I bet you right now that ToR will be a greater financial success as a hybrid F2P title, especially if they avoid the P2W trap.

Youre (OP) not talking bout real f2p, youre talking about freemium. Big difference, and indeed freemium is, ussually, a worse then p2p model for the customer. If a game is real f2p tho ( with no DLC or p2w crap ),,, and quality game at same time, its pure awesomemness then.

Originally posted by Warley

You want to know why companies are pushing F2P so hard?  It's not that the F2P model is superior - for the customer.  It's so taht they can combine a subscription model with the F2P, but give players the illusion that they have options.   Sure, you have options -technically- because you don't have to play all the content offered.  In fact, you have even more options after you fork over the monthly subscription; like PAYING EVEN MORE to unlock content.

Here's some truth about SOE, and the other big companies; they're in it to MAKE MONEY,  AS MUCH AS THEY CAN, AT THE LOWEST COST TO THEM THAT THEY CAN.  So, here's the whole reason why they're so heavily shoving F2P down our throats.  Once all games adapt to the business model, only then will you see the true nature of the beast.   Take a moment and play some games like Perfect World (or the plethora of other Asian junk).  Try to level up past 15 or 20 without paying a dime, then watch and see how many options you have for enjoying that game.  That doesn't even get into the worse part about those games;  their world is absolutely dull and lifeless.

You think SWTOR was lifeless, wait until you get a load of the next-generation of F2P MMORPG's.   But, go ahead and allow the viral marketing (paid for forum posts, game site articles, and blog posts/comments) to engineer your thinking that F2P somehow brings more value to the player than a subscription model.    They're salvating at the fact that they'll ultimately get people to fully accept F2P models, and yet, maintain a form of subscription on top of it knowing that people will eventually accept the double dip business model as 'superior'.

Also, enjoy the time when you'll only truly ever be able to compete in future MMORPG's after you bought the $100 swords and $150 armor from the item shop; because F2P brings so much more value and options than subscriptions.

You're ill informed. SOE and all the other companies are pushing F2P because players chose it, but at the same time those options DO NOT nickle and dime those who subscribe. SOE lets me pay a subscription and I get everything as it has always been. No content is denied to me. You are nickle and dimed if you choose to play free, which then teaches you the true low cost of subbing. If you sub, you get all content updates for free, yet might have to buy expansions which is really no different than it has ever been. So yes they give options, it sucks for the free players, but for the subbing players life is no different. Stop being so doom and gloom about things [mod edit]

F2P is fine if done correctly. The issue right now is most companies do not.

I have no problem with F2P because in order for these companies to make money the game has to be good, no? Who is gonna waste money on something that is shitty? This atleast puts pressure on them to make something decent out of the gate instead of charging you $60 for something and you can't do anything about it afterwards.

Planetside 2, DUST 514 and Guild Wars 2 seem to have the right idea. The one thing about DUST though is that you can buy better (if slightly) stuff for cash. Of course if not familiar with DUST you do lose your stuff when you die so it's not like you just continue to respawn after X amount of deaths with the "Shotgun of Kick Ass" once your AUR (cash credits) run out. Doesn't seem to be "too" much of an issue at the moment. I'd say the issue is new players vs vets, and this may be an issue with Planetside 2, but we'll see.

Originally posted by Warley

You want to know why companies are pushing F2P so hard?  It's not that the F2P model is superior - for the customer.  It's so taht they can combine a subscription model with the F2P, but give players the illusion that they have options.   Sure, you have options -technically- because you don't have to play all the content offered.  In fact, you have even more options after you fork over the monthly subscription; like PAYING EVEN MORE to unlock content.

Here's some truth about SOE, and the other big companies; they're in it to MAKE MONEY,  AS MUCH AS THEY CAN, AT THE LOWEST COST TO THEM THAT THEY CAN.  So, here's the whole reason why they're so heavily shoving F2P down our throats.  Once all games adapt to the business model, only then will you see the true nature of the beast.   Take a moment and play some games like Perfect World (or the plethora of other Asian junk).  Try to level up past 15 or 20 without paying a dime, then watch and see how many options you have for enjoying that game.  That doesn't even get into the worse part about those games;  their world is absolutely dull and lifeless.

You think SWTOR was lifeless, wait until you get a load of the next-generation of F2P MMORPG's.   But, go ahead and allow the viral marketing (paid for forum posts, game site articles, and blog posts/comments) to engineer your thinking that F2P somehow brings more value to the player than a subscription model.    They're salvating at the fact that they'll ultimately get people to fully accept F2P models, and yet, maintain a form of subscription on top of it knowing that people will eventually accept the double dip business model as 'superior'.

Also, enjoy the time when you'll only truly ever be able to compete in future MMORPG's after you bought the $100 swords and $150 armor from the item shop; because F2P brings so much more value and options than subscriptions.

Please list ALL the f2p games you have played. I have found that people who predict this doom and gloom future due to F2P are all people who have ONLY played sub games for the last 10 years and have suddenly become area of the f2p option and are lashing out at it because its different.

Yes companies want to make money (OMG SHOCK)

Value is decided by the consumer, if said consumer is fickle enough to believe marketing and advertising saying that a f2p game is better value than a sub game then that is their problem. Why should companies have to deal with people who are not smart enough to make their own decisions?

I make my arguements on a case by case perspective and not with all sweeping F2P= bad SUB = good.

Examples (I have played):

SWTOR - Sub = BAD (game was below par for even some well polished f2p games that are avilable. missing feature etc etc etc, we have done this before)

Battle of the Immortals - F2P(cashshop) = Bad (I had fun for a while due to waiting for swtor (oops) then realised cashshop was extrmely P2W and I quit.

Luminary - F2P = GOOD I played this for AGES. this game was fun due to its unqiue crafting, loot system (everything was lootable was craftable etc) It was pretty much p2w but I still had a really good time for about 2 years (I paid nothing for this game ever)

SWG - Sub - GOOD ( Again I loved this game, was amazing, well worth the sub I paid for it until the CU. I dont see how cashshop would have worked in this game, would have ruined it much much more than cashshop is gonna ruin swtor)

Monster&Me - F2P - GOOD (This game was the ultimate grind and if you were into it it was awesome. basically infinte levels and infinte monster grind system. I had loads of fun with this game for 2 years and again I never paid a penny

Inbetween most of these games I tried a few other F2P games and found a lot that were terrible, offered nothing original like the ones I have mentioned above and was usually pretty obvious it was P2W.

I think we should move on from the internet of sweeping opinions of things, it does not make for productive discussion.

Originally posted by Warley

Also, enjoy the time when you'll only truly ever be able to compete in future MMORPG's after you bought the $100 swords and $150 armor from the item shop; because F2P brings so much more value and options than subscriptions.

The fact that you think that this is how f2p game cash shops work proves you have absolutely no idea how f2p games actually work.

Except for Alganon, but that game just sucks, so it is a bad example of everything save for being a good example of how to not make a game, p2p or f2p.

People have forgotten (or are too young to know) how this all started.

MMO's started as pay by the minute.

They changed to a flat monthly fee (based on how many minutes the average person played).

They have recently changed to free access, with a variety of secondary options (subscription, micro transactions, etc).

This is a very logical progression, based on how the costs to operate have changed. It used to be that the bandwidth and server cost was the main driver. Now this is so cheap it is negligible... but the cost of creating content has increased significantly.  None of this should be a suprise to anyone.

A good example of this exact market change is Email. Most people use a free email... but years ago everyone laughed when companies tried to launch free email services. They were told that no one would ever want to use them, and that they were lower quality services that should be scorned. Sound familiar?

Originally posted by Superman0X

People have forgotten (or are too young to know) how this all started.

 

MMO's started as pay by the minute.

They changed to a flat monthly fee (based on how many minutes the average person played).

They have recently changed to free access, with a variety of secondary options (subscription, micro transactions, etc).

 

This is a very logical progression, based on how the costs to operate have changed. It used to be that the bandwidth and server cost was the main driver. Now this is so cheap it is negligible... but the cost of creating content has increased significantly.  None of this should be a suprise to anyone.

 

A good example of this exact market change is Email. Most people use a free email... but years ago everyone laughed when companies tried to launch free email services. They were told that no one would ever want to use them, and that they were lower quality services that should be scorned. Sound familiar?

 

Your email example doesn't even remotely apply to F2P games. Plus when hotmail launched, and it was free... and not msn... no one laughed. We used it.

Originally posted by madazz

Originally posted by Superman0X

People have forgotten (or are too young to know) how this all started.

 

MMO's started as pay by the minute.

They changed to a flat monthly fee (based on how many minutes the average person played).

They have recently changed to free access, with a variety of secondary options (subscription, micro transactions, etc).

 

This is a very logical progression, based on how the costs to operate have changed. It used to be that the bandwidth and server cost was the main driver. Now this is so cheap it is negligible... but the cost of creating content has increased significantly.  None of this should be a suprise to anyone.

 

A good example of this exact market change is Email. Most people use a free email... but years ago everyone laughed when companies tried to launch free email services. They were told that no one would ever want to use them, and that they were lower quality services that should be scorned. Sound familiar?

 

Your email example doesn't even remotely apply to F2P games. Plus when hotmail launched, and it was free... and not msn... no one laughed. We used it.

Here we go, people getting WE and I mixed up again. Maybe you did, and maybe you knew some people who also did but can you categorically state that there was never ever any backlash to the idea of a free email service over a paid one?

YOUR opinion is that you don't beleive there was ever a backlash to free email from people beleiving it would go no where. this does not mean that such a bashlash never happened.

Otherwise I could end this WHOLE thread right now with:

"Who doesnt like F2P? I...We Like it so its all good."

Originally posted by Macecard

Originally posted by madazz

Originally posted by Superman0X

People have forgotten (or are too young to know) how this all started.

 

MMO's started as pay by the minute.

They changed to a flat monthly fee (based on how many minutes the average person played).

They have recently changed to free access, with a variety of secondary options (subscription, micro transactions, etc).

 

This is a very logical progression, based on how the costs to operate have changed. It used to be that the bandwidth and server cost was the main driver. Now this is so cheap it is negligible... but the cost of creating content has increased significantly.  None of this should be a suprise to anyone.

 

A good example of this exact market change is Email. Most people use a free email... but years ago everyone laughed when companies tried to launch free email services. They were told that no one would ever want to use them, and that they were lower quality services that should be scorned. Sound familiar?

 

Your email example doesn't even remotely apply to F2P games. Plus when hotmail launched, and it was free... and not msn... no one laughed. We used it.

Here we go, people getting WE and I mixed up again. Maybe you did, and maybe you knew some people who also did but can you categorically state that there was never ever any backlash to the idea of a free email service over a paid one?

YOUR opinion is that you don't beleive there was ever a backlash to free email from people beleiving it would go no where. this does not mean that such a bashlash never happened.

Otherwise I could end this WHOLE thread right now with:

"Who doesnt like F2P? I...We Like it so its all good."

The big year for Free Email was 96 where a few startups were able to get enough VC funding to go big with free email as a service. This is the year that Hotmail and Rocketmail were able to push free email to the masses as the new, hot thing. The services were seen as substandard, and neither of these were able to break even... but they were able to reach critical mass, and in doing so, were bought out.

In 97 (??) they were both bought out (Microsoft and Yahoo) and became the foundation of the email system used by most today. It took a few years before they were able to turn a profit, and to be accepted as 'legitimate' services (I can remember when most companies would just block all email from them out of hand).

In fact, it wasnt until 2001/2002 that Microsoft decided to make Hotmail 'legitimate' by converting the service to its own product, Exchange. This was the first major acceptance that free email services were not just for spammers, those with something to hide, or the lower class. It was a move to recognize that free email was something that corporate america would be using.

That puts us at a timeline of 5+ years. F2P has been around (in the US) for a few years, but it wasnt until 2011/12 that big companies decided it was time to jump in (equivelent to 97 for email). This tells me that there is still a few years until it is accepted as 'normal' but it might come along faster this time.

Nice Superman0X. I can never be bothered to go get facts, especially when its replying to ppl who made their arguement without even thinking about facts. 

Originally posted by Macecard

Here we go, people getting WE and I mixed up again. Maybe you did, and maybe you knew some people who also did but can you categorically state that there was never ever any backlash to the idea of a free email service over a paid one?

YOUR opinion is that you don't beleive there was ever a backlash to free email from people beleiving it would go no where. this does not mean that such a bashlash never happened.

Otherwise I could end this WHOLE thread right now with:

"Who doesnt like F2P? I...We Like it so its all good."

Well it's a clear expectation that there is resistance to change.  Most people have a hard time dealing with change.

This thread wouldn't even exist without a dislike of change, and a misunderstanding of the factors at play with F2P gaming.

But F2P is the inevitable norm for at least a big chunk of gaming (and probably a very large majority of gaming.)

F2P is better for everyone.  Players get to experience a game before paying, which is a really big deal and protects them from being suckered into paying for crappy games (which happens in any game where money changes hands before the player has played.)

I guess it's not better for everyone.  F2P is bad for two groups: Bad Developers (who want to be able to sucker players into paying by hyping their bad game) and Advertisers (who do the hyping.)

Originally posted by Macecard

Originally posted by madazz

Originally posted by Superman0X

People have forgotten (or are too young to know) how this all started.

 

MMO's started as pay by the minute.

They changed to a flat monthly fee (based on how many minutes the average person played).

They have recently changed to free access, with a variety of secondary options (subscription, micro transactions, etc).

 

This is a very logical progression, based on how the costs to operate have changed. It used to be that the bandwidth and server cost was the main driver. Now this is so cheap it is negligible... but the cost of creating content has increased significantly.  None of this should be a suprise to anyone.

 

A good example of this exact market change is Email. Most people use a free email... but years ago everyone laughed when companies tried to launch free email services. They were told that no one would ever want to use them, and that they were lower quality services that should be scorned. Sound familiar?

 

Your email example doesn't even remotely apply to F2P games. Plus when hotmail launched, and it was free... and not msn... no one laughed. We used it.

Here we go, people getting WE and I mixed up again. Maybe you did, and maybe you knew some people who also did but can you categorically state that there was never ever any backlash to the idea of a free email service over a paid one?

YOUR opinion is that you don't beleive there was ever a backlash to free email from people beleiving it would go no where. this does not mean that such a bashlash never happened.

Otherwise I could end this WHOLE thread right now with:

"Who doesnt like F2P? I...We Like it so its all good."

Dude.. not opinion. You were 9 or 10 when it came out. It wasn't considered a joke. It was accepted and considered popular. It grew WAY to fast for them to handle because it was so accepted. Its not my opinion... ITS WHAT HAPPENED! Hotmail did have its struggle not long afterwards. This is typically due to security flaws the site had. Regardless, your comparison doesn't even remotely apply to MMO's.

Originally posted by Macecard

Nice Superman0X. I can never be bothered to go get facts, especially when its replying to ppl who made their arguement without even thinking about facts. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotmail

There are some facts. You can read. Do so. Also where is his reasearch or facts? All I see is a guy writing stuff.... oh well.

You are also comparing a completely free email service to a game that requires micro-transactions to fully take advantage of it. I do not understand what you aren't getting.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Macecard

Here we go, people getting WE and I mixed up again. Maybe you did, and maybe you knew some people who also did but can you categorically state that there was never ever any backlash to the idea of a free email service over a paid one?

YOUR opinion is that you don't beleive there was ever a backlash to free email from people beleiving it would go no where. this does not mean that such a bashlash never happened.

Otherwise I could end this WHOLE thread right now with:

"Who doesnt like F2P? I...We Like it so its all good."

Well it's a clear expectation that there is resistance to change.  Most people have a hard time dealing with change.

This thread wouldn't even exist without a dislike of change, and a misunderstanding of the factors at play with F2P gaming.

But F2P is the inevitable norm for at least a big chunk of gaming (and probably a very large majority of gaming.)

F2P is better for everyone.  Players get to experience a game before paying, which is a really big deal and protects them from being suckered into paying for crappy games (which happens in any game where money changes hands before the player has played.)

I guess it's not better for everyone.  F2P is bad for two groups: Bad Developers (who want to be able to sucker players into paying by hyping their bad game) and Advertisers (who do the hyping.)

By December 1997, it reported more than 8.5 million subscribers. (hotmail #'s via wiki) Back in 1997 those are HUGE numbers. HUGE.

Come on guys.... this information is available ALL OVER THE WEB. 

Originally posted by xdemonhunter

Originally posted by blognorg

I see what you're saying, and your right; D3 is totally a P2W game. However, I'll mention two things. 

 

One, you can still technically buy most of the same stuff with in-game gold, so people that use real money don't have a unique advantage.

 

Two, they recieved a ton of flack for it, and they damaged their company name in doing so. People are starting to turn on Blizzard. If they make too many more money grabs like they did with Diablo 3, then it's going to start costing them financially.

 

Another thing is that developers have to be a lot more careful with F2P, because if there's no box charge and they drive away their player-base with crummy money grabs, then they're going to fail. D3 was a special case; the IP is huge, and very few, if any, games could get away with what they did. I really don't expect that to become the norm; it's the exception.

This kind comes down to each person definition on Pay to Win, the way i see it if someone for the sake of example with umlimited funds can obtain items or anything else that would take a regular player months to get by farming gold or farming for rares thats pay to win for me.The only definition that everybody seems to agree on is that of cash shops that sell items that are superior than anything else in the game and can only be bought from the cash shop but there are other kinds as i just mentioned even though it varies from player to player.

 

As far as i can tell Blizzard received alot of negative response from Diablo 3 mostly because the player base thinks the game is bad i didnt see many complains regarding the real money auction house, i could be wrong of course just saying that the complains i saw werent so much adressed at that feature as it was to the gameplay.You should also notice that what billzard did on Diablo 3 is sort of a "test drive" they were experimenting on this bussness model and wanted to see the kind of response and money they could make out of it.Sadly none other than Blizzard itself has the number concerning the RMAH so we dont know if it is providing to be a sucess or not but assuming it turns out to be making alot of money despite complains or not do u honestly think they wouldnt add such feature to their future games if they believe it is a winning strategy? Gotta keep in mind that the big companys tend to follow trends, like P2P is the bussness model that majority uses if it turns out F2W provides more revenue of course majority of the AAA games will follow that model.

 

As i said i believe you can create a very good free to play game with a cash shop that wont affect players gameplay based on how much they spend, there are a few sucessfull examples on the market even though most are FSP or MOBA the issue i have is even if u do start it off fair nothing stoping the ones in charge from chaning it to P2W in the future.

 

There are 2 main reasons to mess with a good F2P game:

1-It aint paying itself up, like it or not if u release an AAA game as free to play right of the bat u need to make plenty of money to pay up for developming costs, u need people to buy stuff of the cash shop and cosmetic stuff alone prolly wont generate alot of revenue so they will add more advantages in hopes of getting more players to spent and get enought money to pay for the game

 

2-Game is doing fine but the ones in charge want more money.People mention this over and over again on this forums, companys are in for the profit.They might be making money but want more so they start slowly changing the cash shop into P2W in baby-steps, add new items that provide small advantages and see the community response and sales and see how far they can go and get away with.I have seen couple games that did such thing, some even started of without a cash shop and it slowly evolved into the P2W model.

You're right; there is some subjective variation in the P2W definition. There's kind of a thick, hazy line, but from what I've seen (and in the interviews I posted), developers want to be a safe distance on the right side of it.

Yes, it possible that a game may start adding in P2W features, but I doubt they would push it too far if thay are actually generating revenue with the game. Here's why: once that line has been crossed and it gets labeled as a P2W by the community, it's going to be really hard to recover from that. Especially if there is stiff competition from other AAA games that aren't trying to pull that crap. I'm not saying that won't ever happen, but I don't think it's something that's going to happen large-scale by every company... unless we, the players, let it happen. Then that's kind of on us though. And that goes back to my original point, F2P puts the power into the players. If we let P2W happen, of course they'll get away with it. However, most gamers seem pretty adamant about hating P2W. It's something that we're just ging to have to wait and see, but I have faith it'll turn out okay.

Originally posted by Warley

Originally posted by blognorg

 

---

Originally posted by Warley Plus, people won't decide, anything.  Companies will just use deceptive marketing (paid forum posters, etc), and push it down our throats how that $100 sword, $20 dungeon, or $5 xp potion are of great value.  It's called nickle & diming, but making you think that you're getting the last laugh because of the 'high value' you seen these items have by forum posters that mostly consist of blind sheep or paid shills.

---

 

This is highly unlikely. P2W has a very negative association; no AAA game company would shoot themselves in the foot like that. As I mentioned, pretty much all the devs of upcoming games have made explicit mention of the cash shops not being P2W.

Neverwinter

RaiderZ

Firefall

Planetside 2

It's possible that they could be lying, but it's clear that they're aware that P2W is bad. If they launch as a P2W, then they'll get eaten alive. I think the stigma of old F2P games needs to die... and it is to a degree. I used to be fairly anti-F2P, but I started noticing a change in the trend. I think that the model will improve end become good for players and developers alike.

For now...  once enough people 'accept f2p', then it becomes 'some advantage', then 'bigger advantage', and before we know it, you have to spend 100+ a month just to compete.  IT WILL HAPPEN.  That's the natural progression based upon the 'need' of corporations to 'MAKE MORE MONEY'.

your right because you understand the mind of a suit, alot of these other posters dont and never will so just leave it alone lol.

This whole rant is silly.

It is well known that only a minority of players ever pay in a F2P MMO.

Secondly, i found MANY f2p mmos are fun. So i *am* getting free fun already. Why should i stop? And this "have to buy $150 sword" claim is just silly. Many have fun without spending a dime ... including me.

Originally posted by Warley

You want to know why companies are pushing F2P so hard?  It's not that the F2P model is superior - for the customer.  It's so taht they can combine a subscription model with the F2P, but give players the illusion that they have options.  

 Another thread by someone that does not know what the difference between F2P and Paytrap is.

Just because a company calls it F2P, it doesnt mean it actually is. SWTOR is a paytrap...I dont recall ANYONE stating that SWTOR should be paytrap...I do however remember seeing everyone say F2P.

Let Bioware use the paytrap model, just another in a long line of idiotic mistakes that will lead to more people being "moved" out of the company.

Originally posted by alexanys1982

Originally posted by Warley

Originally posted by blognorg

 

---

Originally posted by Warley Plus, people won't decide, anything.  Companies will just use deceptive marketing (paid forum posters, etc), and push it down our throats how that $100 sword, $20 dungeon, or $5 xp potion are of great value.  It's called nickle & diming, but making you think that you're getting the last laugh because of the 'high value' you seen these items have by forum posters that mostly consist of blind sheep or paid shills.

---

 

This is highly unlikely. P2W has a very negative association; no AAA game company would shoot themselves in the foot like that. As I mentioned, pretty much all the devs of upcoming games have made explicit mention of the cash shops not being P2W.

Neverwinter

RaiderZ

Firefall

Planetside 2

It's possible that they could be lying, but it's clear that they're aware that P2W is bad. If they launch as a P2W, then they'll get eaten alive. I think the stigma of old F2P games needs to die... and it is to a degree. I used to be fairly anti-F2P, but I started noticing a change in the trend. I think that the model will improve end become good for players and developers alike.

For now...  once enough people 'accept f2p', then it becomes 'some advantage', then 'bigger advantage', and before we know it, you have to spend 100+ a month just to compete.  IT WILL HAPPEN.  That's the natural progression based upon the 'need' of corporations to 'MAKE MORE MONEY'.

your right because you understand the mind of a suit, alot of these other posters dont and never will so just leave it alone lol.

You both seem to be missing the point. Companies can't make money with an unpopular product. P2W games are not favorable in the gaming community. That's why devs are constantly stressing that cash shops are NOT P2W. You can speculate about the future all you want, but right now (and the trend leading to the future) is not having P2W chash shops. You're right; "suits" want to make money, and they're not going to do that by enraging their fanbase... especially in the F2P market, where they'll need to keep people playing their game. Speculating that unabashed, blind greed will circumvent common busineess practices, such as simple market resaech, is silly.

You both seem to be arguging some hypothetical future with no evidence or reasoning, other than your own bais.