Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by FoeHammerJT

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by FoeHammerJT

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by FoeHammerJT

The primary reason there is a more and more vocal opposition to this model is because the Freemium model and F2P plague are eroding games in other ways:

- More game hopping eroding communities and detracting from long term playability

- More botters/farmers

- More Spam/Chat Issues

- More Trolling, after all banning a free account does little to deter negative behavior

- Longer Queues

- More Crowding of less committed gamers

 

This list could go on a long way. Its about more than just value, its about the impact the model has on the games which are essentially their communities.

Please provide details on how F2P improves the communities/games? (Other than, I get to play it and leech off of others' committment to a game.)

 

 I disagree that f2p caused more of that.  It was out of control before, nothing changed. 

How long have you been gaming?

 since 2000. 

In that 13 years, you honestly believe that the negativity and "trollish" behavior in modern F2P games isnt much higher than in the P2P games of 2000? Which games were you playing in 2000 that were P2P and had large populations of negitive gamers?

I realize this is fully subjective and "unprovable" without much greter research capabilities than I have, but I'd guess that you were very much in the minority with this belief. (All subjective etc etc)

 

 See my edits.  The trollish behaviour has gotten worse in general, not specific to f2p.

EQ community, despite what people think, was so bad the devs had to implement and enforce a play nice policy.

And if communities were nicer it was because they were smaller, again nothing to do with free or pay.

Back in an hour to continue this :)

I'll check out your response tomorrow.

I am curious as to how you are going to argue that allowing anyone to play a game doesnt increase the pool of players....

Originally posted by FoeHammerJT

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by FoeHammerJT

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by FoeHammerJT

The primary reason there is a more and more vocal opposition to this model is because the Freemium model and F2P plague are eroding games in other ways:

- More game hopping eroding communities and detracting from long term playability

- More botters/farmers

- More Spam/Chat Issues

- More Trolling, after all banning a free account does little to deter negative behavior

- Longer Queues

- More Crowding of less committed gamers

 

This list could go on a long way. Its about more than just value, its about the impact the model has on the games which are essentially their communities.

Please provide details on how F2P improves the communities/games? (Other than, I get to play it and leech off of others' committment to a game.)

 

 I disagree that f2p caused more of that.  It was out of control before, nothing changed. 

How long have you been gaming?

 since 2000. 

In that 13 years, you honestly believe that the negativity and "trollish" behavior in modern F2P games isnt much higher than in the P2P games of 2000? Which games were you playing in 2000 that were P2P and had large populations of negitive gamers?

I realize this is fully subjective and "unprovable" without much greter research capabilities than I have, but I'd guess that you were very much in the minority with this belief. (All subjective etc etc)

Edit: I'm certainly glad you added that.

Check this out for logic:

F2P increases the size of the community.

Larger communities create more negative envirnoments. (You just conceded this point in your post.)

Therefore, F2P contributes to the negitivity in a game's community.

That's just one example. I can continue.

Please provide an argument for F2P making a game community better?

 f2p can create a big community, however advertising does more.  There are many small f2p games.  So once f2p is not the determining factor.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by FoeHammerJT

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by FoeHammerJT

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by FoeHammerJT

The primary reason there is a more and more vocal opposition to this model is because the Freemium model and F2P plague are eroding games in other ways:

- More game hopping eroding communities and detracting from long term playability

- More botters/farmers

- More Spam/Chat Issues

- More Trolling, after all banning a free account does little to deter negative behavior

- Longer Queues

- More Crowding of less committed gamers

 

This list could go on a long way. Its about more than just value, its about the impact the model has on the games which are essentially their communities.

Please provide details on how F2P improves the communities/games? (Other than, I get to play it and leech off of others' committment to a game.)

 

 I disagree that f2p caused more of that.  It was out of control before, nothing changed. 

How long have you been gaming?

 since 2000. 

In that 13 years, you honestly believe that the negativity and "trollish" behavior in modern F2P games isnt much higher than in the P2P games of 2000? Which games were you playing in 2000 that were P2P and had large populations of negitive gamers?

I realize this is fully subjective and "unprovable" without much greter research capabilities than I have, but I'd guess that you were very much in the minority with this belief. (All subjective etc etc)

Edit: I'm certainly glad you added that.

Check this out for logic:

F2P increases the size of the community.

Larger communities create more negative envirnoments. (You just conceded this point in your post.)

Therefore, F2P contributes to the negitivity in a game's community.

That's just one example. I can continue.

Please provide an argument for F2P making a game community better?

 f2p can create a big community, however advertising does more.  There are many small f2p games.  So once f2p is not the determining factor.

It certainly isnt the sole determining factor, but surely you (and others) will concede it is a determining factor.

Further, the P2P model does in fact discourage botting/farming by virtue of increasing the cost to do so.

Originally posted by FoeHammerJT

How has the F2P improved the quality of games supported by the model?

Can you provide specific examples of good communities in games with the F2P model on anything greater than the scale of a single guild?

From my personal experience: A game being F2P, B2P or P2P have little to no effect on communities or even on the quality of the game. Also I'm pretty sure the "goodness of communities" is largely subjective, so I wouldn't know how to go about measuring that.

The effects payment models have:

• P2P games tend to have more grind and timesinks in them, because it is in their best interest to make players play as long as possible.
• Many F2P games are designed so the cash shop is strongly encouraged by carefully inconveniencing the players. Again, in their best interest.
• B2P games need to churn out new content at a relatively rapid rate. Their only motivation is to make the game or expansion so good that the players will want to buy the next one.

Originally posted by FoeHammerJT

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by FoeHammerJT

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by FoeHammerJT

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by FoeHammerJT
 

In that 13 years, you honestly believe that the negativity and "trollish" behavior in modern F2P games isnt much higher than in the P2P games of 2000? Which games were you playing in 2000 that were P2P and had large populations of negitive gamers?

I realize this is fully subjective and "unprovable" without much greter research capabilities than I have, but I'd guess that you were very much in the minority with this belief. (All subjective etc etc)

Edit: I'm certainly glad you added that.

Check this out for logic:

F2P increases the size of the community.

Larger communities create more negative envirnoments. (You just conceded this point in your post.)

Therefore, F2P contributes to the negitivity in a game's community.

That's just one example. I can continue.

Please provide an argument for F2P making a game community better?

 f2p can create a big community, however advertising does more.  There are many small f2p games.  So once f2p is not the determining factor.

It certainly isnt the sole determining factor, but surely you (and others) will concede it is a determining factor.

Further, the P2P model does in fact discourage botting/farming by virtue of increasing the cost to do so.

 Back now.  I posit that the f2p actually did very little to increase the population (I will concede that it does a bit).  However lets look at what happens when a game announces it goes f2p:

We talk about it in the forums.

Gaming magazines talk about it

Gaming sites talk about it.

Everyone talks about it at the announcement, during the transition, the week before it goes live, the day it goes live, the days and weeks after.

I posit that that is an absolutely huge amount of advertising and word of mouth that is directly responsible for the influx in player.  I submit that if the game could generate that much free advertising and word of mouth (and WoW actually managed to do this) the population would be almost as high, if not the same level as if it was p2p.

If f2p was the determining factor in a large population there would be no small f2p games, this is of course a rediculous statement.  There are many small f2p games, there it being f2p is not the determinant of a large population.

If a game just went f2p and there wasn't all the hoopla surrounding it, do you really think it would have an increased population?

This also means that as more games become f2p that the hoopla will die down and therefore without all that talk, there won't be the population increase.  This actually may be starting to happen now.

In regards to the p2p model discouraging botting/farming, while this seems logical, like many other things that seem logical, IMO it does not hold up in reality.  1.  Many/Most p2p games have trials.  2. The biggest p2p games have a huge botting/farming problem.

Therefore I say once again that it is not f2p or p2p that determines a botters paradise, it is the size of the game.  A small f2p doesn't have a botting problem because there is no audience to sell the proceeds to. 

Originally posted by Torvaldr

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.

How are they less P2W?    The big one is that a player chooses to purchase the expansion they start at the same spot as the previous guy that purchased the expansion.   In a cash shop based game the player that spent $50 is 1/2 as powerful as the person that spent $100.

The real question is why would a player choose to never purchase the expansion and continue to play a P2P game?  I think the whole idea of using a ridiculous scenerio in the first place is where the discussion went wrong.    

I don’t think they are hiding P2W, they used to but those years have gone. What is an XP boost that allows you to get to top level more quickly and be more effective in PVP? That is P2W but already the ground rules have changed so much many or even most gamers do not regard xp boosts as P2W.

Cash shops were the first step, once you have one of those it opens up a P2W bonanza. If a game is not a MMO making nearly every game possible have an online PvP section to its gameplay is needed and that’s what has happened. Finally you need to have players in a social network where they will want to compete with each other and talk about the game, heard of Steam and Origin anyone?

You often see players pointing out that in their favourite MMO there is no raid gear being sold or the like. Yet many MMO’s are now offering extra passes to dungeons where you get the raid or best PvP gear.

P2W is with us here and now.

Originally posted by Scot

I don’t think they are hiding P2W, they used to but those years have gone. What is an XP boost that allows you to get to top level more quickly and be more effective in PVP? That is P2W but already the ground rules have changed so much many or even most gamers do not regard xp boosts as P2W.

XP boost is a shortcut - not an advantage in PvP.

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.

Don't be stupid. Since the advent of RMT (Gold farmers) you can consider ANY game out there P2W no matter the subscription model or cash shop presence and content.

You entire premise is invalid. MMO companies have nothing to do with it. It's the players and always have been.

Originally posted by FoeHammerJT

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by FoeHammerJT

I'll research that some.

Can you refute my other statements?

Logic does not work like that. You have the burden of proof, not us.

Here's a helpful video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY

Except for the fact that the two have no correlation at all.

One is my opinion that gamers are growing increasing dissatisfied with the trend of Freemium models.

The second list is a group of statements about how F2P models have been detrimintal to the MMO gaming community and the games the model support in general.

1) "The primary reason there is a more and more vocal opposition to this model is ... "   <--You presented it as a statement of fact. Even as an opinion, it's not up to me to disprove it, it's up to you to provide some kind of data to support it, especially when it directly contradicts all other data we have seen for the past few years.

2) The conversation isn't about what you perceive is a better business model for fostering community. Unfortunately, Venge fell for your deflection and you successfully led him off on that tangent, but I'd much rather stick to the conversation at hand which you can revisit here if you'd like to get back on track.

The biggest culprits are the Freemium games, rather than the true F2P or B2P games.

In Freemium games like the SoE stable, LOTRO and SWTOR there is no way to be competitive as a free member, its simply not possible. Most of the new wave of F2P and B2P games are quite the opposite however, since they have realised that you make more money that way. Even SoE seems to be learning with PS2.  

Everything except that which requires skill or skill to defeat should be able to be bought.

You see, the every increasing population of MMO players are at work 55-60hrs per week paying tax to fund unemployed/student's/children's TIME to grind out things to advance their character. It's only fair the working people should be able to defeat the time sync. Not the skill requirment though.

I just wish they would put MMO's up to $50 per month subs and get rid of all the unemployed/students/children - would be a much smaller and better community with much more entertainment based MMO content available.

Instead, because we have people with infintie time to waste, we get endless grind.

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.

i wouldnt pay 1c to keep playing a video game but i would pay 50$ to keep the toxic/trash \F2P community away.

answer to thread : as long as tehy think it will make them money.

and guess what it is cause most people who complain about it still go and do it

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Scot

I don’t think they are hiding P2W, they used to but those years have gone. What is an XP boost that allows you to get to top level more quickly and be more effective in PVP? That is P2W but already the ground rules have changed so much many or even most gamers do not regard xp boosts as P2W.

XP boost is a shortcut - not an advantage in PvP.

if you have a shortcut into taking part in PVP more effectively because you are a higher level then that is a PvP advantage.

Originally posted by haplo602

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.

 

Don't be stupid. Since the advent of RMT (Gold farmers) you can consider ANY game out there P2W no matter the subscription model or cash shop presence and content.

 

You entire premise is invalid. MMO companies have nothing to do with it. It's the players and always have been.

Correct. In the absence of sufficient demand, the RMT and other such would not exist.

Originally posted by thinktank001

Originally posted by Torvaldr

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.

How are they less P2W?    The big one is that a player chooses to purchase the expansion they start at the same spot as the previous guy that purchased the expansion.   In a cash shop based game the player that spent $50 is 1/2 as powerful as the person that spent $100.

The real question is why would a player choose to never purchase the expansion and continue to play a P2P game?  I think the whole idea of using a ridiculous scenerio in the first place is where the discussion went wrong.    

You're making up anecdotal evidence and applying it broadly to every scenario.  In GW2, TSW, STO, and now Tera, if I spend $100 on the game I'm not twice as powerful as someone who purchased $50 in cash store items.

The P2P scenario isn't ridiculous at all.  I didn't buy Rift's Storm Legion and I'm at a disadvantage compared to other players even though I still have active sub time.  It doesn't matter that it's p2p or f2p.  They are selling advantage and restricting those who don't pay more than their subscription.

It's not ridiculous because p2p zealots are applying the standard to p2p one way and to f2p another.  You could make the same statement about f2p: why would a player choose never to purchase content and continue play a f2p game?  Just because a p2p game can lock you out of their servers when your subscription ends doesn't mean that them selling an xpac is any less p2w than a f2p game selling stuff.

You could even go so far as to apply the 50/100 rule you stated above to p2p.  If I can only afford $50 worth of sub time a year but someone else can afford $100 worth of sub time then they have purchased an advantage over me.  How is that different from f2p other than in f2p I can actually still improve my character where the sub game I'm locked out.