I believe a f2p without a CS is still a theoretical concept.

Greed Monger promissed it but ... it's not out yet, nor anywhere near a beta.

I always imagined a Grand Theft Auto - like mmo with bilboards in the city with various real-life company logos like coca cola or samsung... afterall real cities really have those logos already. it'd fit in just fine. in fact it'd ADD to the game instead of distract.

and the game could be financed by virtual ads like those.

does this exist yet? No.

a FFA PVP with territorial conquest and player-owned and built cities in a GTA universe remains the ultimate fantasy for me...:)

Play Vindictus if you want to know what's wrong with F2P.

You don't have 15k ATK?

-> You don't get to join groups until you do.

Want 15k ATK?

-> You have two options, you grind this scroll that drops in 1 out of 10,000 runs and has a 99% of failing, it will take you 6 months. OR you just buy scrolls and runes from the marketplace and you'll have your weapon in 2 miutes.

I don't play the game anymore, I never played it serious since I have my guild in another game, but this is what's wrong with F2P.

Originally posted by Robokapp

Originally posted by Theocritus
I dont really see anything wrong with it....The option to try games for free is very appealing....IMO its a much better business model than b2p or p2p....Theres jsut too many games out now to justify paying for each one......

but that's not F2P.

 

you're describing "Freemium". or free trials which bigger P2P games have. I played a trial for WoW and for EvE. My investment wasnt blind.

Freemium, F2P ... its all the same thing.  You dont have to pay (immediately) to enjoy a majority of the game.  EQ2 has F2P but under your definition I would consider it Freemium.  As you start to get to max level it begins to push you to sub to fully enjoy the game.  I dont think SOE lied or implemented a bad model.  If you played absolutely free up to level 80-90 and then you find you really need to sub to continue enjoying the game.  Then sub.  Playing a  game that long or getting that far demonstrates some level of interest to convince you a sub is worth your money.  This is where I think people become cheap.

I'm all for a sub, just not as the only/dominant model.  If you still feel you shouldnt pay a sub, then stop playing the game.  Its naive to think you can play something completely free.

Now a free trial and F2P are different.  A free trial typically has a time-based/level-based limitation.  You can only play WoW until level 20.  Then you sub or nothing.  SOE has F2P.  You start EQ2 F2P you can go up to max level (with effort).  There are still limitation like plat level (I think lifted for Kronos), etc but it doesnt have a hard stop at a particular level.

I argue all free trials should be F2P.  If you give someone the ability to play a game for months I would say it would present a better case to justify a sub.  You cant really experience what WoW has to offer in 20 levels.  Its just enough to get your appetite wet.

Originally posted by Robokapp

well...yeah.

I mean MY argument is obviously derived from my experiences and can't add examples from outside my experience. 

I'm not sure what's unusual or unexpected here.

 what's unusual is that, I dont know, some people may actually realize they dont know much about the genre and then either take the time to learn more...or not try to judge an entire market based on knowing shiznit about it. But, much like your other posts, you really do love to skip the refutes thrown at you and dodge them by talking about something else.

Your point, F2P limits bag space on purpose, a sign the developers are out to get us.

Your experience, EvE and WoW. EvE has large storage space....WoW does not, limited bag space. You avoid talking about that, turn to Eve instead because WoW defeats your own argument about F2P games.

Please, post again with yet more invented reasons to not like F2P, I am sure more people will be more than willing to shoot them down while you turn to talking about something unrelated so you may continue your diatribe based on nothing tangent.

Originally posted by CalmOceans

Play Vindictus if you want to know what's wrong with F2P.

 

You don't have 15k ATK?

-> You don't get to join groups until you do.

Want 15k ATK?

-> You have two options, you grind this scroll that drops in 1 out of 10,000 runs and has a 99% of failing, it will take you 6 months. OR you just buy scrolls and runes from the marketplace and you'll have your weapon in 2 miutes.

 

I don't play the game anymore, I never played it serious since I have my guild in another game, but this is what's wrong with F2P.

Thats not a problem with F2P.  Its a problem with the implementation that the developer of Vindictus chose to use.

You represent an example of my point.  If F2P is implemented poorly it will drive more players away then attract.  But an interesting question is if Vindictus had a sub would you pay it?  Or was the draw to vindictus the fact that it was F2P?

Originally posted by CalmOceans

Play Vindictus if you want to know what's wrong with F2P.

 

You don't have 15k ATK?

-> You don't get to join groups until you do.

 Play WoW if you want to know what's wrong with subs.

You dont have ____ gear score?

-> you dont get to join raids until you do.

Sorry, your point can be applied to P2P games as well thus proving once again, the arguments against F2P games are made by people with double standards or just plain dont know the market at all.

Originally posted by darkhalf357x

...because I'm not seeing it.  Open to all arguments but please try to stay logical and back them up.

Looking to see if this is more a personal choice (opinion) or actually a bonafide benefit (or constraint) to the player.

Whats your view?

Go!

Balancing the game around the Cash Shop.

Originally posted by moosecatlol

Originally posted by darkhalf357x

...because I'm not seeing it.  Open to all arguments but please try to stay logical and back them up.

Looking to see if this is more a personal choice (opinion) or actually a bonafide benefit (or constraint) to the player.

Whats your view?

Go!

Balancing the game around the Cash Shop.

Interesting.  Can you expand on your point so I get a better idea of what you mean?

Making assumptions, if we agree that F2P are not really free and that games need to be subsidized for cost isnt balance around the cash shop the core of the model?

Second, is your argument that cash shops are inbalanced?  And if so what would be your recommendation to balance?

Definitely the sensitive area of F2P where developers need to tread lightly.

Originally posted by moosecatlol

Originally posted by darkhalf357x

...because I'm not seeing it.  Open to all arguments but please try to stay logical and back them up.

Looking to see if this is more a personal choice (opinion) or actually a bonafide benefit (or constraint) to the player.

Whats your view?

Go!

Balancing the game around the Cash Shop.

 I would take that any day of the week.

The cash shop feeds the company money to make the game so its an actual complete circle. Game wont keep players if it isnt fun, so it remains in focus. the shop feeds the game.

Now lets flip your arugment to P2P.

Balancing the game around PvP...can wreck PvE because its not part of the circle, PvP is a small part of most games yet changing it can ruin the whole.

Taadaa!

Originally posted by Gruug
So-called "f2p" is anything but free. Let's face it, companies do not make games in which they can not MAKE MONEY. There is nothing wrong with that concept. What is totally illogical is to buy into the concept of "f2p" in the first place. SOMEONE has to pay in order to let one person to even attempt to play one of those "f2p" games for free. The fact that anyone is paying means that the game IS NOT free. The whole use of the term "free" in f2p  is invalid.

 The fact that needs to be faced is that the vast majority of western MMO players have no concept of what F2P is, what the market is like and that there are companies making massive amounts of money off of F2P games.

There are FREE F2P games and they DO MAKE MONEY. They make so much money that some western companies figured they can take that concept, change it and get one of the many millions of idiots in the west to still give them money by tricking them into thinking they are getting a deal, and know that there are even more people willing to defend that deal by stating they are getting something for free and should feel lucky about it!

And the freemium market was born. Well, as we say in the US of A...there is a sucker born every minute...and most of them just love giving a company money every month to pay to play a game...they purchased!

The only problem to me about free to play is that it tends to encourage casual play.  That is not a bad thing in and of itself however to create an immersive world I would imagine players should be more involved in that world, correct?  Free to play enforces a mind set of not having to play as often or as "hardcore" as games in the past may have incentivized. 

There is nothing wrong with that and in fact the amount of people playing one game or another at any one time may point towards this or that success story until later on when that game fades off as people that have no real stake in the game peel off. 

Now there are many people here and everywhere that applaud casual play, everyone has a life to lead outside of gaming.  Family, friends, social life, etc.  But there is a strong audience here and elsewhere that I think desire something more immersive.  A sub tends to encourage more playtime and dedication, at least in my experience. 

Boiling it down, it has just seemed to me over the past few years that a F2P/cash shop game is casual outside of a small percentage of people.  A sub game  keeps a player logging in more often.  Both have pros and cons, but there is a reason besides IP that WoW is still as popular as it is.  Not only ties from the past that people stay on with but that people also feel like if they don't log in they are wasting their money.

In the future though for a sub based to be successful it better be a damn good game or have an IP that keeps people drawn into it.  And I think SWTOR has shown that even an IP can't do it on it's own. 

Originally posted by darkhalf357x

Originally posted by moosecatlol

Originally posted by darkhalf357x

...because I'm not seeing it.  Open to all arguments but please try to stay logical and back them up.

Looking to see if this is more a personal choice (opinion) or actually a bonafide benefit (or constraint) to the player.

Whats your view?

Go!

Balancing the game around the Cash Shop.

Interesting.  Can you expand on your point so I get a better idea of what you mean?

Making assumptions, if we agree that F2P are not really free and that games need to be subsidized for cost isnt balance around the cash shop the core of the model?

Second, is your argument that cash shops are inbalanced?  And if so what would be your recommendation to balance?

Definitely the sensitive area of F2P where developers need to tread lightly.

Fiesta a free to play mmo from Outspark sold percent increases to stat boost. Around level 60 content not only demanded a player to have maxed out weapons, but also needed be using these boosts in hopes of being successful.

Another more modern game would be Warframe, a game where you can level you gear as well as your "rank". All equipment is stat locked at level 15, and a player can only gain access to level 30 with the use of Catalysts/Reactors. These Reactors can be obtained through "special" Alerts, which only occur about 3 times each day, the chance that a catalyst will be rewarded is about once a week. Reactors however are about once a month, and they are used for your Warframe, which is arguably the most important piece of your gear. The other option is daily log-in reward, upon receiving 7 daily log in rewards you can have a chance to get Reactors/Catalyst. Getting a reactor/catalyst from these daily log ins are near impossible. So essentially the item that you need to progress within Warframe cannot be farmed, but only awarded through RNG events. However you could always spend cash to progress.

Originally posted by jtcgs

Originally posted by Gruug
...snip

...snip

And the freemium market was born. Well, as we say in the US of A...there is a sucker born every minute...and most of them just love giving a company money every month to pay to play a game...they purchased!

Oh reawwy, so you are saying that NO ONE is there to maintain a game once it releases. NO ONE does the server maintenance, NO ONE answers customer service, NO ONE moderates the forum and writes posts to respond to questions, NO ONE makes content updates and the documentation and schedule to release the information to players.

An MMO is made and that's where the manpower ends eh?

Bologna.

As long as there are people on staff and bandwidth costs to communicate from our computers to theirs, they need a stipend of some sort. If you can name some MMO's that have 0 staff that are free then you have some semblance of a case to believe that you can release a game and walk away. It's only the sub games that have operating costs - bullshit, they both do and if you don't see it then you aren't rational.

Maybe you think they spent hundreds of hours learning their craft to be paid minimum wage. Maybe you think they went to schools to be paid as much as someone flipping burgers. They want to be paid, they want to paid so much that they are MAKING the game make you pay to stay and found a way to get more money from some of you.

Those are the real suckers. The problem is they aren't suckers, they are stupid people or people trying to buy attention and admiration. It's like women who never pay on dates and expect a man to pick up their tab. There are men that go broke dating and women that tell them that's just the way it should be. I call bull again. Women have jobs, women can pay their own way and I'm a woman. They call those women golddiggers, maybe one day someone will give a name to the people that won't pay games to operate - oh yeah, freeloaders.

Originally posted by jtcgs

Originally posted by CalmOceans

Play Vindictus if you want to know what's wrong with F2P.

 

You don't have 15k ATK?

-> You don't get to join groups until you do.

 Play WoW if you want to know what's wrong with subs.

You dont have ____ gear score?

-> you dont get to join raids until you do.

Sorry, your point can be applied to P2P games as well thus proving once again, the arguments against F2P games are made by people with double standards or just plain dont know the market at all.

Then something is wrong with WoW to, I have played EQ for 6 years now and not once have I asked the stats of someone when grouping, not once in 6 years and not once in 6 years have I seen anyone ask the stats of anyone. It would be considered pretty rude to do that.

i dont see anything wrong with F2P either :3

as long as i enjoy a game, im happy with it whether its F2P, B2P or P2P heh :P

Originally posted by 123443211234
Because f2p games tend to revolve around ways the devs can extract more money out of you rather than just focusing on creating a good game.

Yeah, there never been P2P MMOs like that... 

But really, the bad thing with F2P games is that they tend to make devs that are already greedy greedier. Some of them charge a huge amount far beyond what a monthly fee would cost for people to play the game after the initial noob game. If you want a good example, look on EQ2.

F2P is in itself not bad as long as the developer sell enough stuff to earn money but not so much that you always have to buy to be able to play the game as intended.

Freemium on the other hand is usually a rip off. To get anywhere you more or less both have to pay a monthly fee and buy stuff. Not always but usually (DDO seems pretty fair to me for example).

Originally posted by Loke666

Originally posted by 123443211234
Because f2p games tend to revolve around ways the devs can extract more money out of you rather than just focusing on creating a good game.

Yeah, there never been P2P MMOs like that... 

I dont know, seems to me that when you sub to a P2P, they got your money... and thats it. How could they extract more? At that point the plan would be to keep you "as a customer", by providing just that, a good game. By adding new content, updates, etc.

Not the same with F2P. I mean, in the games I've tried in the past, I'd say 50% of "updates" were in fact additions to the cash shop "look, we added this new weapon! Or this or that!", instead of focusing on adding actual content or fixing actual bugs.

I know, its free, they can do whatever they want, but honestly I'd rather pay 15$/month for a quality product than play a shitty game for free. My time is limited

IMO:

f2p = how to nickel and dime your playerbase in order to gain profit .

p2p = how to create a fun game and keep content going on in order to keep subs (to gain profit)

Originally posted by Skuall

IMO:

f2p = how to nickel and dime your playerbase in order to gain profit without impacting gameplay and supplying content updates on a far more regular basis than P2P .

p2p = how to create a grindy game and keep content going on in order to keep subs going through achievements/reinforced scarcity in late game items (to gain profit)

 

Fixed it for you dear sir as I doubt you were not drunk when you posted.