---

Originally posted by snapfusion
...

P2P - everything the game has to offer equals 14.99 per month

F2P - everything the game has to offer equals 100's a month and up

---

FTW. Can't make it any simpler than this. Bravo, Snap!

Originally posted by thinktank001

Originally posted by Loktofeit

You state your (often false) assumptions as fact on a regular basis. Please, if you really want to contribute to the conversation, do some research. Below are expansions from the F2P games I recently played. There was no charge for any of them or for the expansions prior.

• Forsaken World: Nightfall - http://fw.perfectworld.com/nightfall
• Perfect World: Sirens of War - http://pwi.perfectworld.com/sirensofwar
• Eden Eternal: Everwinter Knights - http://www.aeriagames.com/playnow/ee/expansion
• Pirate Galaxy: Illegal Mines - http://pirategalaxy.com/battles-for-illegal-mines-the-new-conquest-system

That said, how does some F2P games having paid expansions change the fact that an expansion in a subscription game fits the definition of Pay to Win?

Cash shop based games can release content with no upfront cost, but still require players to purchase cash shop items to take advantage of the new content.

Simplest example is adding a new tier of equipment that requires players to upgrade with cash shop items. 

How is this free content if it still requires payment to progress through it?

And going back to the original point, how are P2P games any less P2W?  If you don't buy the new xpac in an expansion then you don't get to progress either, and you're still paying $15/month.  The whole point of that argument is that someone claimed F2P as P2W and then went on to define the classic P2P expansion.

Originally posted by Arclan

 

---

Originally posted by snapfusion
...

 

P2P - everything the game has to offer equals 14.99 per month

F2P - everything the game has to offer equals 100's a month and up

---

 

FTW. Can't make it any simpler than this. Bravo, Snap!

Funny, because I see it this way...

P2P - most of what the game has to offer for 100's per year plus whatever is in the cash shop... all rented for a limited time.

Sub-Free - pay what you want and use it until the servers shut down.

Every single Sub-Locked game I've played has cost me more per year than any Sub-Free game (B2P or F2P) I play.

It's a fairly free world though.  I see nothing wrong with you burning your money on a recurring basis for no additonal gain.  I've just chosen not to support that "limited rental" method any longer.

Answer to this question:

Until players quit paying to win!

Originally posted by Arclan

 

---

Originally posted by snapfusion
...

 

P2P - everything the game has to offer equals 14.99 per month

F2P - everything the game has to offer equals 100's a month and up

 

---

 

FTW. Can't make it any simpler than this. Bravo, Snap!

Well, ftw if you consider winning to be a completely inaccurate statement not reflective of the games that are currently being.  By all means ftw.

Personally I feelthat  completely fabricated statements are FTL.

Originally posted by maplestone
When people stop paying?

Yes sir.. Spot on!.  I used to Sub Mmo's in the past. Pay Nothing now. All this FTP/In-gameShop shite.

Originally posted by Gravarg
Not all free to play games are pay to win.  There's actually several games that I played that had purely cosmetic items for sell, and they made plenty of money.  It depends on what youre definition of Pay to Win means really.  Most games that are free to play also offer things like expirience boosts and things that make the game easier, but it's hardly pay to win.  Pay to win means that with enough money you have an advantage over players that don't.  Most Free to Play games that I've played, offer a way to buy some of the best things in the game, but they're still obtainable by free players with more work.  To me that's perfectly fine.  I'm more a journey guy anyways.  I'll never buy anything to make things easier or faster.  I miss games that used to take hours and hours of commitment to do something special.  I can remember sitting in my guild house for days in DAoC just crafting non-stop.  I can remember even older games where you could build houses, but it took 6000+ planks of wood, 1000s of ingots, and numerous other resources to build.  And to get those items you first had to go harvest them, then turn them into the items you needed to turn them into the items you needed to build the house.  It took months to do :)

How exactly do experience boosts not provide a significant advantage to those willing to pay for them?

Also, companies have a history of starting with "cosmetic only" and then adding boosts, items, classes, races and every other bit of content they can in the interest of making some cash.

I'm all about profitibility for a company; but not at the cost of me receiving an inferior product at a greater cost.

Originally posted by Blasphim

 

---

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

---

Originally posted by Arclan MMO companies are taking a huge gamble; and enduring significant losses. All in the hopes that P2W becomes increasingly accepted every day. MMO companies don't mind losing a generation (the anti-P2W crowd of UO, EQ, etc) as long as the incoming generation accepts P2W as the norm. The result is you will be paying a lot more for less entertainment. MMOs are engineered, it seems, to last a few months. They want you to spend as much P2W money as possible in that time frame.

---

You'll spend as much as you choose to, nothing or lots.  It's your choice.

 

More choices re good.

---

 

Except when those choices provide a rift based on economic situations. If player A only has $15 a month to spare for his gaming hobby, but player B has $115 to spare, why should player A be "punished" cause he can't spend more in the cash shop?

They aren't. No one is forcing them to play games like that.  Its all a matter of choice.  Not to mention that "P2W" is so vague that defining it is very much a matter of personal bias, in all too many cases.

Originally posted by FoeHammerJT

Originally posted by Gravarg
Not all free to play games are pay to win.  There's actually several games that I played that had purely cosmetic items for sell, and they made plenty of money.  It depends on what youre definition of Pay to Win means really.  Most games that are free to play also offer things like expirience boosts and things that make the game easier, but it's hardly pay to win.  Pay to win means that with enough money you have an advantage over players that don't.  Most Free to Play games that I've played, offer a way to buy some of the best things in the game, but they're still obtainable by free players with more work.  To me that's perfectly fine.  I'm more a journey guy anyways.  I'll never buy anything to make things easier or faster.  I miss games that used to take hours and hours of commitment to do something special.  I can remember sitting in my guild house for days in DAoC just crafting non-stop.  I can remember even older games where you could build houses, but it took 6000+ planks of wood, 1000s of ingots, and numerous other resources to build.  And to get those items you first had to go harvest them, then turn them into the items you needed to turn them into the items you needed to build the house.  It took months to do :)

How exactly do experience boosts not provide a significant advantage to those willing to pay for them?

Also, companies have a history of starting with "cosmetic only" and then adding boosts, items, classes, races and every other bit of content they can in the interest of making some cash.

I'm all about profitibility for a company; but not at the cost of me receiving an inferior product at a greater cost.

What significant advantage do those people get?  What should they get for paying money?

You complain about significant advantage for xp boosts and then complain about the cost of receiving an inferior product?  So what should one get for the money they spend?  What is worth the money spent?

Some P2P games have offered xp boosts, among other veteran rewards, for subbing a long time.  How is that any less P2W than just selling them in a cash shop?  You must pay over several years to get those.  Someone who is new to the game is at a severe disadvantage by comparison.

Originally posted by Wraithone

Originally posted by Blasphim

---

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

---

Originally posted by Arclan MMO companies are taking a huge gamble; and enduring significant losses. All in the hopes that P2W becomes increasingly accepted every day. MMO companies don't mind losing a generation (the anti-P2W crowd of UO, EQ, etc) as long as the incoming generation accepts P2W as the norm. The result is you will be paying a lot more for less entertainment. MMOs are engineered, it seems, to last a few months. They want you to spend as much P2W money as possible in that time frame.

---

You'll spend as much as you choose to, nothing or lots.  It's your choice.

 

More choices re good.

---

Except when those choices provide a rift based on economic situations. If player A only has $15 a month to spare for his gaming hobby, but player B has $115 to spare, why should player A be "punished" cause he can't spend more in the cash shop?

They aren't. No one is forcing them to play games like that.  Its all a matter of choice.  Not to mention that "P2W" is so vague that defining it is very much a matter of personal bias, in all too many cases.

That is true, but also the same logic could be applied to P2P system.  If player A doesn't have $15 per month but Player B does, why should Player A be punished because he can't afford the subscription?  That's the way life works.  If you can't afford something then you don't get to buy it.

Most of us can afford some things, but not very many of us can afford everything, and a few of us can't afford any of the luxeries.  That's what we're all talking about here though, luxuries.  If you can't afford a luxury then you can't.  It's that simple.  Fortunately Sub-Free games doesn't require $115 / month to access the luxury.  They are actually more generous than the sub-locked games in that you can access them for no fees.

That's really not the case in every single mmo out there and it's a logical fallacy to conclude that just because you've had a bad experience with one or two titles like the freemium SOE and the SWTOR model that every game is like that. There are plenty that aren't. 

For example, STO. It's taken them a while but they really have a great balance going. The best gear is no longer RNG it's actually from being in a fleet and maxing the fleet projects. It's no longer from doing instances on the hardest setting which cut off content for people much like the infamous "lobby dungeon only games-people" who make the OP's argument are so fond of holding onto for nothing else but epeens and bragging rights. It's not longer based solely on a type of currency that's only available via the store thru converting the bought currency into the main currency of the game that's used for all upgrades and projects (unlike GW2's current model which requires gems be converted to gold unless you enjoy running a single dungeon endlessly for the only drops available in the game or farming for an entire year for pennies a day). Lotro has a similar one to STO, I think tho that STO enhanced the LOTRO F2P system to the max. Requiring participation in the way STO has done doesn't require endless Raid planning or the problems that go with that. And the Foundry is a nice touch now that they've tied it in with the current repeatable quest system (missions i know) (Foundry is the player created content). So honestly, all the nonsense that I read when we learned Cryptic was bought out by PW was just that, nonsense. They've done a fantastic job. 

The issues I'm seeing from lesser developers are those that are brought on by execubots that want to squeeze every penny out of the players. That's where the freemium model comes in. Sure you can play our game, but you can't do this this or this, you won't have enough bad space for the drops you get, you won't have access to dungeons, you won't be able to progress, UNLESS you pay the monthly fee, which is what brought about the problems in the first place. So really, should you say F2P OP or should you say Freemium. 

Originally posted by Arclan

MMO companies are taking a huge gamble; and enduring significant losses. All in the hopes that P2W becomes increasingly accepted every day. MMO companies don't mind losing a generation (the anti-P2W crowd of UO, EQ, etc) as long as the incoming generation accepts P2W as the norm. The result is you will be paying a lot more for less entertainment.

MMOs are engineered, it seems, to last a few months. They want you to spend as much P2W money as possible in that time frame.

Agreed, they're banking on winning=sex, there will always be people willing to pay for it.  What they seem to be missing is that when it comes to winning or sex, it's the anticipation that pulls people in and once the deed is completed they've lost that customer, many never to return.

Originally posted by Torvaldr

Originally posted by FoeHammerJT

Originally posted by Gravarg
Not all free to play games are pay to win.  There's actually several games that I played that had purely cosmetic items for sell, and they made plenty of money.  It depends on what youre definition of Pay to Win means really.  Most games that are free to play also offer things like expirience boosts and things that make the game easier, but it's hardly pay to win.  Pay to win means that with enough money you have an advantage over players that don't.  Most Free to Play games that I've played, offer a way to buy some of the best things in the game, but they're still obtainable by free players with more work.  To me that's perfectly fine.  I'm more a journey guy anyways.  I'll never buy anything to make things easier or faster.  I miss games that used to take hours and hours of commitment to do something special.  I can remember sitting in my guild house for days in DAoC just crafting non-stop.  I can remember even older games where you could build houses, but it took 6000+ planks of wood, 1000s of ingots, and numerous other resources to build.  And to get those items you first had to go harvest them, then turn them into the items you needed to turn them into the items you needed to build the house.  It took months to do :)

How exactly do experience boosts not provide a significant advantage to those willing to pay for them?

Also, companies have a history of starting with "cosmetic only" and then adding boosts, items, classes, races and every other bit of content they can in the interest of making some cash.

I'm all about profitibility for a company; but not at the cost of me receiving an inferior product at a greater cost.

What significant advantage do those people get?  What should they get for paying money?

You complain about significant advantage for xp boosts and then complain about the cost of receiving an inferior product?  So what should one get for the money they spend?  What is worth the money spent?

Some P2P games have offered xp boosts, among other veteran rewards, for subbing a long time.  How is that any less P2W than just selling them in a cash shop?  You must pay over several years to get those.  Someone who is new to the game is at a severe disadvantage by comparison.

You are begining to wax philosophical here. What is worth the money spent? Really?

Should we being a conversation about value and the very subjective ideals thereof?

Or perhaps we could look at where gaming is heading?

Another genre as been down this road: The FPS.

I like to use the First Person Shooter model as another prime example of "new business models" and this is why. Back in the day, someone made a First Person Shooter game, the consumer paid for it, and the gamers were allowed to create a community around them.  The players added content, created maps, hosted servers, enhanced the game over years...

Now? You pay for content every year (or more often in the case of BF3). (Modern Warfare)

Player made content? Gone.

New maps for free? Gone. Micro-transaction DLC.

See a trend here?

Today its F2P MMOs. Download the demo version free, then pay for hotbars, bags, items, experience (you used to earn this as did everyone else in your community at the base rate...), and on and on this keeps going.

You think this will save you money? At the end of this journey is a place where you are paying for every bit of content you get. Soon you'll be paying for each dungeon, each armor set, each new class. You think this will save you money over time? 

The players, playing those games, might not even remember that Asheron's Call or Dark Age provided monthly content upgrades, and additional large chunks of content via Expansion Packs. At a price its gamers happily paid, and without all the gold farmers, botters, moochers and looters grabbing a free account, cause hey look you can jump in and spam general chat for free!

I sure havent seen a lot of F2P games of superior quality in the last couple of years, so yes, I call today's F2P MMO product inferior.

P.S.  GW2 was not F2P so please dont go there.

Originally posted by Torvaldr

Originally posted by jtcgs

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

 Furcadia 1996

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-play

 

 I hate Wikipedia...they left Nexus: Kingdom of the Winds off that list and that was the first major success in the F2P field, came out in 1996 also.

That game created the monster that is Nexon today...1.2 billion in profits two years straight and only EA is a larger gaming company.

Yeah, people must have hated that game.  Stupid F2P.  No one really likes those games or the payment model.

This post is taking off quickly, I missed this comment.

This makes my point exactly. Free to play is making companies rich. You think it is doing that by providing more content at a lower price?

Originally posted by FoeHammerJT

Originally posted by Torvaldr

Originally posted by jtcgs

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

 Furcadia 1996

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-play

 

 I hate Wikipedia...they left Nexus: Kingdom of the Winds off that list and that was the first major success in the F2P field, came out in 1996 also.

That game created the monster that is Nexon today...1.2 billion in profits two years straight and only EA is a larger gaming company.

Yeah, people must have hated that game.  Stupid F2P.  No one really likes those games or the payment model.

This post is taking off quickly, I missed this comment.

This makes my point exactly. Free to play is making companies rich. You think it is doing that by providing more content at a lower price?

It's doing that by providing content people want at a price they are willing to pay.

Or are you suggesting it's something else?

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by FoeHammerJT

Originally posted by Torvaldr

Originally posted by jtcgs

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

 Furcadia 1996

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-play

 

 I hate Wikipedia...they left Nexus: Kingdom of the Winds off that list and that was the first major success in the F2P field, came out in 1996 also.

That game created the monster that is Nexon today...1.2 billion in profits two years straight and only EA is a larger gaming company.

Yeah, people must have hated that game.  Stupid F2P.  No one really likes those games or the payment model.

This post is taking off quickly, I missed this comment.

This makes my point exactly. Free to play is making companies rich. You think it is doing that by providing more content at a lower price?

It's doing that by providing content people want at a price they are willing to pay.

 

Or are you suggesting it's something else?

Perhaps I'm saying people are willing to pay more, for less content. And perhaps, I am asking said people to please look at what they are doing and ask themselves if it is a good thing.

Originally posted by FoeHammerJT

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by FoeHammerJT

Originally posted by Torvaldr

Originally posted by jtcgs

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

 Furcadia 1996

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-play

 

 I hate Wikipedia...they left Nexus: Kingdom of the Winds off that list and that was the first major success in the F2P field, came out in 1996 also.

That game created the monster that is Nexon today...1.2 billion in profits two years straight and only EA is a larger gaming company.

Yeah, people must have hated that game.  Stupid F2P.  No one really likes those games or the payment model.

This post is taking off quickly, I missed this comment.

This makes my point exactly. Free to play is making companies rich. You think it is doing that by providing more content at a lower price?

It's doing that by providing content people want at a price they are willing to pay.

 

Or are you suggesting it's something else?

Perhaps I'm saying people are willing to pay more, for less content. And perhaps, I am asking said people to please look at what they are doing and ask themselves if it is a good thing.

Perhaps.  Maybe you need to prove a claim like paying more for less.  I've paid more for may subscription games than any of my sub-free games by a wide margin.  There is this odd and horrible logic floating about that because there are a few games and a few people that have spent thousands of dollars in a cash shop in China that everyone must pay and play this way.

And what do you care if I do pay more for less?  Not that I am, but your concern is puzzling.  I'm not sure why you would care what I'm paying for entertainment if I can obviously afford it.  It's like anything else, if I like the deal then I'll buy it.  If I don't then I won't.  This isn't a moral issue unless they screw me out of my purchase.

In fact my decision to move away from sub-locked games towards sub-free was based on me not liking the idea of renting access to my games.

Originally posted by FoeHammerJT

Originally posted by Torvaldr

Originally posted by FoeHammerJT

Originally posted by Gravarg
Not all free to play games are pay to win.  There's actually several games that I played that had purely cosmetic items for sell, and they made plenty of money.  It depends on what youre definition of Pay to Win means really.  Most games that are free to play also offer things like expirience boosts and things that make the game easier, but it's hardly pay to win.  Pay to win means that with enough money you have an advantage over players that don't.  Most Free to Play games that I've played, offer a way to buy some of the best things in the game, but they're still obtainable by free players with more work.  To me that's perfectly fine.  I'm more a journey guy anyways.  I'll never buy anything to make things easier or faster.  I miss games that used to take hours and hours of commitment to do something special.  I can remember sitting in my guild house for days in DAoC just crafting non-stop.  I can remember even older games where you could build houses, but it took 6000+ planks of wood, 1000s of ingots, and numerous other resources to build.  And to get those items you first had to go harvest them, then turn them into the items you needed to turn them into the items you needed to build the house.  It took months to do :)

How exactly do experience boosts not provide a significant advantage to those willing to pay for them?

Also, companies have a history of starting with "cosmetic only" and then adding boosts, items, classes, races and every other bit of content they can in the interest of making some cash.

I'm all about profitibility for a company; but not at the cost of me receiving an inferior product at a greater cost.

What significant advantage do those people get?  What should they get for paying money?

You complain about significant advantage for xp boosts and then complain about the cost of receiving an inferior product?  So what should one get for the money they spend?  What is worth the money spent?

Some P2P games have offered xp boosts, among other veteran rewards, for subbing a long time.  How is that any less P2W than just selling them in a cash shop?  You must pay over several years to get those.  Someone who is new to the game is at a severe disadvantage by comparison.

You are begining to wax philosophical here. What is worth the money spent? Really?

Should we being a conversation about value and the very subjective ideals thereof?

Or perhaps we could look at where gaming is heading?

Another genre as been down this road: The FPS.

I like to use the First Person Shooter model as another prime example of "new business models" and this is why. Back in the day, someone made a First Person Shooter game, the consumer paid for it, and the gamers were allowed to create a community around them.  The players added content, created maps, hosted servers, enhanced the game over years...

Now? You pay for content every year (or more often in the case of BF3). (Modern Warfare)

Player made content? Gone.

New maps for free? Gone. Micro-transaction DLC.

See a trend here?

Today its F2P MMOs. Download the demo version free, then pay for hotbars, bags, items, experience (you used to earn this as did everyone else in your community at the base rate...), and on and on this keeps going.

You think this will save you money? At the end of this journey is a place where you are paying for every bit of content you get. Soon you'll be paying for each dungeon, each armor set, each new class. You think this will save you money over time? 

The players, playing those games, might not even remember that Asheron's Call or Dark Age provided monthly content upgrades, and additional large chunks of content via Expansion Packs. At a price its gamers happily paid, and without all the gold farmers, botters, moochers and looters grabbing a free account, cause hey look you can jump in and spam general chat for free!

I sure havent seen a lot of F2P games of superior quality in the last couple of years, so yes, I call today's F2P MMO product inferior.

P.S.  GW2 was not F2P so please dont go there.

You're the one who brought up value for money spent and you didn't answer my questions.

Originally posted by FoeHammerJT

Originally posted by Loktofeit

It's doing that by providing content people want at a price they are willing to pay.

Or are you suggesting it's something else?

Perhaps I'm saying people are willing to pay more, for less content. And perhaps, I am asking said people to please look at what they are doing and ask themselves if it is a good thing.

One thing I've learned about this community is that many of it's members have a serious lack of foresight. You seem like a logical fellow, but I don't think you're going to get through to many of the people in this thread. They quite literally believe that this "F2P" trend is in their best interest and cannot see the forest for the trees.

I've been saying for years that "F2P" is simply a system where you pay more and get less (if you want to have the option to play a game in it's entirety). This path was never going to lead to a very nice place.

It never ceases to amaze how anyone would settle for this nonsense.