lets see I played SWTOR for several months.

so lets say I paid the 6 month sub, wich is like $14 a month. during that time there were no cash shops so lets say I spent $28 for 2 months. Since SWTOR has gone f2p I've tried the game out for roughly 2 months, how much have I spent? nothing

Has the quality decreased? nope, basically the same game. yet it seems to many deluded minds that since it has the f2p tag in front of it it is now a "worse" game.

other things that f2p has allowed me to do

retry aion, yup still hate it, but it didn't cost me a penny

retry lotro, find out that I'm enjoying it enough to want to spend some money some time, the ammount of time spent playing vs the sub I would have paid, well lets say i'm FAR ahead.

so how is it that the sudden addition of a f2p tag made these games worse? seems that they stayed the same from a first hand perception.

In  general the f2p tag fits my time/money constraints. I do not feel that I should be required to pay for a game/several games when I may not touch them for several months just for the ability to say that I'm a sub. Yes I can go through the whole time consuming process of unsubbing and resubbing all the time, but I find that simply annoying.

I might be interested in actually subbing for/trying games like FFXIV however since they do not have a trial or even f2p version then they are simply not going to recieve my money. I'm not going to waste the box price just to find out that the game is crap. I feel that is a far greater waste when compared to liking a f2p game.

Originally posted by VoreDock

 

I am sick of all you people saying free to play is a sell out or a bad

 

thank you, I love you too, can I come to your birthday party?

+ no, the reason is not to give current fe wplayers someone to play with, it's a buffer to get people -that are scared off by negative news- to know the game and lure them in as subscribers......the well known horse-carrot tactic.

Nonetheless, noone is forced to play a f2p trial game.

I think F2P is still a new concept and developers are not really sure how to do it right.

I agree that most F2P is not good. If you can't put stuff in your bags, have limited content or have an unfair advantage because of the difference between a Free player and a paying player I don't think it is going to be as good a a game that is designed from the beginning as a Free to Play game.

Specifically i am thinking about 2 games that are at the ends of the proper F2P method. Planetside 2 and World of Tanks.

World of Tanks i think does it wrong. Free players really get screwed in that game. You barely make enough Experience and Money to keep your tanks running if you are not a subsciber. And even worse, if you pay for tanks or ammo, you get a noticeable increase in power. It isn't even fair really. 

Planetside 2 on the other hand does it a LOT smarter. You get everything and All content for free. The stuff you pay for is increased Experience gain but the base level is not terrible like it is in Tanks. You don't have to get EXP just to keep playing. 

You can also buy weapons. But they are all available for in game experience points too. I usually make about 100 Points per night of gaming (3-5 hours)  Many people make a lot more than that. And a new weapon is typically 1000 points. So it takes about 10 days or 30-50 hours for me to make enough cert points to buy a gun. 

But here is where the difference is, those guns are not necessarily more powerful than the base guns. They do trade offs for everything in PS2. Want a gun that does more damage per shot? It has bad recoil, small clips, and long reload times.

All of the weapon attachments are not even available for cash, you have to use cert points (EXP) to get them.

Same thing with all the abilities. You have to earn all of them, you can't buy them. Of course, PS2 isn't a traditional MMO where you need gear in order to be able to do the higher level content. So it is simpler.

Where SOE is making all their money right now is people that don't want to wait for the in game cert gains, and for things like Decorations for your character and vehicles - Camo, skull masks, hood ornaments, etc.

The way that most MMO games do it, i just don't like. I hate that I can't do all the content. I hate that i don't have any room for bags. I hate that i can't gain enough cash to do anything.

It would be a lot smarter if they did things more like PS2. Cash for a different look for your armor, Cash for improved personal mounts is OK i think. Cash for increased EXP gain. Cash for Non-Gameplay related items like Housing or avatar pets, or something.  But to force people to pay just to experience the game i think is wrong.

I can't wait to see what SOE is going to do with EQ Next. They have already said that it is going ot be F2P and way different than just another clone MMO. It is going to be awesome.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by spizz

Originally posted by krevra
Haters gonna hate on f2p. State your opionions all you want. All im saying is thar was at ime when alot of f2p games where just grinders and extremly generic but more and more quality games are becoming f2p or going out as f2p. F2P is here to stay and its a quality model. We are currently in a evolution in pc gaming where f2p no longer means generic and low quality. And if you cant accept that then you are simlply blinding yourself to whats going on. Companies dont move to f2p model to make less money, its to attract a larger audiance and increase revenue. P2P isnt going away anytime soon but less and less games will adopt that model and if they do like we have already seen more then enough times as proof, they will go f2p in the end. F2P is just a more attractive model. The whole only shit games go f2p is pretty naive, just thought i would throw that out thar since its based on the vocal minority.

Which great quality games are actually real F2P games, developed around a cash shop  ? 

 

• Vindictus
• Perfect World International
• Forsaken World
• Eden Eternal
• C9
• Shaiya
• Wizard 101
• Mabinogi

Now, your turn. Tell me all about how they don't count because they're asian or because 'the graphics suck' or because they are kids games.

 

I'd like to add in a few, :P. 

PlanetSide 2 and World of Tanks/Warplanes(As sgtalon typed). Upcoming MMO's that(To me) look pretty good that are based around the "Cash shop F2P model"? Neverwinter and Age of Wushu/Wulin.

Originally posted by spizz

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by spizz

Originally posted by krevra
Haters gonna hate on f2p. State your opionions all you want. All im saying is thar was at ime when alot of f2p games where just grinders and extremly generic but more and more quality games are becoming f2p or going out as f2p. F2P is here to stay and its a quality model. We are currently in a evolution in pc gaming where f2p no longer means generic and low quality. And if you cant accept that then you are simlply blinding yourself to whats going on. Companies dont move to f2p model to make less money, its to attract a larger audiance and increase revenue. P2P isnt going away anytime soon but less and less games will adopt that model and if they do like we have already seen more then enough times as proof, they will go f2p in the end. F2P is just a more attractive model. The whole only shit games go f2p is pretty naive, just thought i would throw that out thar since its based on the vocal minority.

Which great quality games are actually real F2P games, developed around a cash shop  ? 

• Vindictus
• Perfect World International
• Forsaken World
• Eden Eternal
• C9
• Shaiya
• Wizard 101
• Mabinogi

Now, your turn. Tell me all about how they don't count because they're asian or because 'the graphics suck' or because they are kids games.

Well, its just a confirmation what I already assumed.

Ah, cool. I thought you might have been one of those people consumed with such blind hatred that fact or reason would get in the way of discussion. Good to see you acknowledge such titles do exist.

Originally posted by Digirono

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by spizz

Which great quality games are actually real F2P games, developed around a cash shop  ? 

• Vindictus
• Perfect World International
• Forsaken World
• Eden Eternal
• C9
• Shaiya
• Wizard 101
• Mabinogi

Now, your turn. Tell me all about how they don't count because they're asian or because 'the graphics suck' or because they are kids games.

I'd like to add in a few, :P. 

PlanetSide 2 and World of Tanks/Warplanes(As sgtalon typed). Upcoming MMO's that(To me) look pretty good that are based around the "Cash shop F2P model"? Neverwinter and Age of Wushu/Wulin.

AoW looks like it's shaping up to be a really nice game. I'm really interested in seeing how that does in the West.

Originally posted by VoreDock

 

I am sick of all you people saying free to play is a sell out or a bad

 

Tera , SWTOR , Aion  all for teas games went  F2P for one reason  to  give  sub players more people to play with

 

All had   good numbers but Dev’s can’t justify a games life to publishers on anything less than great numbers

So F2P was added  you can still sub and many do

 

F2P is a good thing after all without it publishers like EA would kill games and even the sub players would be left out

 

Or have we all forgot SWG   (Star Wars Galaxys )

I understand your post and why you are presenting this perspective. However, please understand that the "Mona Lisa" isn't going to be traded for free, not now, not ever. Since the dawn of time items are traded based on their value. WoW has been a corner stone of MMOs since 2004. And, WoW  is still a subscription based game. F2P will always be labeled as the charity games that could not make the cut. It does not mean that they suck, their bad, or that they are in anyway less valuable to a particular person then WoW. It simply means that the majority of players prefer WoW, and it's subcription cost, to that of a F2P mmo.

Originally posted by coretex666
I am a proud hater of F2P (or B2P as some people refer to F2P MMOs with box price) business model for MMOs.

Waiting for: The Repopulation

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by spizz

Which great quality games are actually real F2P games, developed around a cash shop  ? 

 

• Vindictus
• Perfect World International
• Forsaken World
• Eden Eternal
• C9
• Shaiya
• Wizard 101
• Mabinogi

Now, your turn. Tell me all about how they don't count because they're asian or because 'the graphics suck' or because they are kids games.

 

An impressive list indeed! I lust no more.

Think I'll just leave it at that as you've done all of the leg work

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by coretex666
I am a proud hater of F2P (or B2P as some people refer to F2P MMOs with box price) business model for MMOs.

Waiting for: The Repopulation

And?

I'd like to add a different spin to this discussion from a more historical pov.

Rewind to 1999: Everquest is launched which brought the first MMO to the masses (I know UO came out first but EQ was the first 3D world and really the game that began to shape the industry). When it first launched they had a sub fee of $10 a month. This was later increased to the eventual $15 you see today. However, in 1999 the technology for servers was much different than it is today. SOE's expenses to keep these servers up and running was astronomical compared to the cost of today's servers. On top of a monthly subscription SOE began pumping out expansions on a yearly basis. So you paid to have the servers maintained and you paid to get new content.

FF 2004: WoW is released: Most of the substantial content is still coming from expansions however Blizzard starts the new standard of free content updates for subscribers. This continues with most MMOs today.

Resume 2013: Server tech has never been better. Companies are able to more reliably host their servers and do so more affordably. As a percentage of your sub fees the cost to maintian servers has gone dramatically down. This has lead to most of our dollars to actually go towards new content instead of just server maintenance.

Many free to play titles still have p2p expansions but by and large there are alternative ways to get the features you want instead of paying for everything as a package.

Question: Since the amount of dollars has shifted from server maintenance to content development is it that much of a crime to allow players the choice in which type of content they choose to invest in? If you love arenas and structured pvp why not have a developer make a new map and charge $3-5 for its use? If 85% of the population purchase this then it will inform the developer that this type of content has a high demand and they will produce more thus giving the users exactly what they want. Alternatively, if the community decides they prefer PVE content or cosmetics they have every right to use their democratic dollar the way they see fit. This also works in reverse, if a developer puts out some crappy item for $70 (EVE) and nobody buys it then they'll better understand their customers. A pay for services type model gives every player a voice in the type of content that they would like to see more of rather than contribute $15 a month to a general fund and then leaving it up to the game developers' surveys to determine where to allot the resources for new development.

Thoughts?

Originally posted by jfarr

I'd like to add a different spin to this discussion from a more historical pov.

Rewind to 1999: Everquest is launched which brought the first MMO to the masses (I know UO came out first but EQ was the first 3D world and really the game that began to shape the industry). When it first launched they had a sub fee of $10 a month. This was later increased to the eventual $15 you see today. However, in 1999 the technology for servers was much different than it is today. SOE's expenses to keep these servers up and running was astronomical compared to the cost of today's servers. On top of a monthly subscription SOE began pumping out expansions on a yearly basis. So you paid to have the servers maintained and you paid to get new content.

FF 2004: WoW is released: Most of the substantial content is still coming from expansions however Blizzard starts the new standard of free content updates for subscribers. This continues with most MMOs today.

Resume 2013: Server tech has never been better. Companies are able to more reliably host their servers and do so more affordably. As a percentage of your sub fees the cost to maintian servers has gone dramatically down. This has lead to most of our dollars to actually go towards new content instead of just server maintenance.

Many free to play titles still have p2p expansions but by and large there are alternative ways to get the features you want instead of paying for everything as a package.

Question: Since the amount of dollars has shifted from server maintenance to content development is it that much of a crime to allow players the choice in which type of content they choose to invest in? If you love arenas and structured pvp why not have a developer make a new map and charge $3-5 for its use? If 85% of the population purchase this then it will inform the developer that this type of content has a high demand and they will produce more thus giving the users exactly what they want. Alternatively, if the community decides they prefer PVE content or cosmetics they have every right to use their democratic dollar the way they see fit. This also works in reverse, if a developer puts out some crappy item for $70 (EVE) and nobody buys it then they'll better understand their customers. A pay for services type model gives every player a voice in the type of content that they would like to see more of rather than contribute $15 a month to a general fund and then leaving it up to the game developers' surveys to determine where to allot the resources for new development.

Thoughts?

I could not have said  it better  you have a great pont of view  

and think of this 

even  WoW  is looking at  F2P  ( the Lv 20 trial )  what will the haters say when WoW is  Free to play ?

Originally posted by VoreDock

 

I am sick of all you people saying free to play is a sell out or a bad

 

Tera , SWTOR , Aion  all for teas games went  F2P for one reason  to  give  sub players more people to play with

 

All had   good numbers but Dev’s can’t justify a games life to publishers on anything less than great numbers

So F2P was added  you can still sub and many do

 

F2P is a good thing after all without it publishers like EA would kill games and even the sub players would be left out

 

Or have we all forgot SWG   (Star Wars Galaxys )

For you it may not be a bad thing, and to the game companies, maybe not as well. To me, and other people like myself that prefer a subscription based MMORPG and also prefer it to be a sandbox/sandpark, Free to Play or Buy to Play is a bad thing.

I'll be honest, and some may think it a bit snobbish, and I don't deny that, but I don't like playing mmorpg's with the type of people (kiddies and casual players) that prefer Free to Play or Buy to Play games. Also, I find Free to Play and Buy To play MMORPG's are  typical, handholding, themepark, cesspools of mediocrity, that try to pass themselves off as next generation.

Originally posted by Tayah

Originally posted by VoreDock

 

I am sick of all you people saying free to play is a sell out or a bad

 

Tera , SWTOR , Aion  all for teas games went  F2P for one reason  to  give  sub players more people to play with

 

All had   good numbers but Dev’s can’t justify a games life to publishers on anything less than great numbers

So F2P was added  you can still sub and many do

 

F2P is a good thing after all without it publishers like EA would kill games and even the sub players would be left out

 

Or have we all forgot SWG   (Star Wars Galaxys )

For you it may not be a bad thing, and to the game companies, maybe not as well. To me, and other people like myself that prefer a subscription based MMORPG and also prefer it to be a sandbox/sandpark, Free to Play or Buy to Play is a bad thing.

I'll be honest, and some may think it a bit snobbish, and I don't deny that, but I don't like playing mmorpg's with the type of people (kiddies and casual players) that prefer Free to Play or Buy to Play games. Also, I find Free to Play and Buy To play MMORPG's are  typical, handholding, themepark, cesspools of mediocrity, that try to pass themselves off as next generation.

Not sure if this was mentioned in this long thread, but there is a difference in a game that had subs and is now f2p and one that started as f2p tobegin with.  Yes a game that had subs and then goes f2p is a failure because it didnt have enough to keep the people paying.  

The problem is not the F2P model, but those which throw the term around and use it to describe games which are simply not that.

F2P should mean Free to Play all content that the game has to offer.

A traditional demo will have restrictions in content, or duration of play.  Restrictions that exist in many titles that use the F2P description, so I would argue those are demo's rather than actual F2P titles.

Any game which restricts or prevents access to playable content without payment is a smear on the reputation of the F2P model.

Question:

Have you ever seen a game with subs to feed all the people that work with the game +  a profit or more go F2P?

I myself think every mmorpg game that goes F2P only does it because they can not affort or go around with the subs they had.

Subs pay more every month than F2P does, ofcourse depending on how many. My point is that if a game had lots of subs they

would not go F2P. And yes F2P is last cry for help before closing the game down if it doesn´t work as a F2P model.

Think of F2P as: "Ok we dont have enough subs to pay all the employees and make a small profit. Lets try F2P before we shut the game down, and dont even get the money back that we put into it in the first place".

Originally posted by patrikd23

Question:

 

Have you ever seen a game with subs to feed all the people that work with the game +  a profit or more go F2P?

I myself think every mmorpg game that goes F2P only does it because they can not affort or go around with the subs they had.

Subs pay more every month than F2P does, ofcourse depending on how many. My point is that if a game had lots of subs they

would not go F2P. And yes F2P is last cry for help before closing the game down if it doesn´t work as a F2P model.

Think of F2P as: "Ok we dont have enough subs to pay all the employees and make a small profit. Lets try F2P before we shut the game down, and dont even get the money back that we put into it in the first place".

this is also not  true

SWTOR for example was turning a profit  it went F2P on presher from EA  ( witch  EA has now destroyed Biowere )  F2P for  SWTOR was never about Money  it was about  justiy the game to  EA  so that EA would leave them alone 

Aion has always made a profit look it up 

planetside  well in the black 

and Second Life is a cash cow 

their are meny more