F2P fans have yet to realize how much of a negative effect it has on their game. Repost this poll in a few years and I think it will change in the favor of P2P.

Enjoy developers creating skins, pets, mounts and toys while leaving the bugs, content and classes untouched. And that's not even considering that almost every F2P game is actually pay to win.

Originally posted by FreeJack2000

What I have found with Free To Play MMOs that I play or have played.

1. Unless there is some sort of Buy to Play as The Secret World has done. The player has no skin in the game and can  make the community seem unfriendly and immature.  If a player can just create a new account after getting banned or suspended, they just return and continue their shenanigans.

2. It seems that every MMO that I have played that has gone F2P suddenly drops content creation and moves more towards making items they can sell in game.  Sure some of the games that have gone F2P are making more money, but at what cost?  The cost seems to be long content droughts.

3. Some MMOs that have gone F2P are so limited that they are no fun. A good example would be The Old Republic. If you happened to be one of the folks that pre-ordered the Collector’s edition they game you a few in game tokens to buy a few things. So you need to decide, hey do I want to Hide my Headgear, keep my surname.. etc.  They did not give enough tokens to make the game at least a little easier to stomach the loss of  pre-purchase

 

Nr. 1 can apply to any game really, if that respective person has the money to spare he/she will do it even if it costs him more than the time required to make a new game/mail account.

Nr. 2 and nr. 3 apply almost exclusively to converted MMOs though some converts (Star Trek Online comes to mind) are still quality games getting content updates roughly on the same schedual as WoW.

True F2P games will never have the issues you mentioned at points 2 and 3, the issues with content droughts is something linked strictly to themepark MMOs, a sandbox F2P MMO that allows emergent gameplay with the right balance between F2P and premium users and the right economy will be a beast to reckon with and games such as Neverwinter bring up the rear of the F2P scene by giving you a themepark were you can create your own rides.

Without reading the responses yet (sorry if this was already stated), here I go :)

I voted "No."
The "gaming industry" is booming. There are more players now then ever before. F2P is a big reason for this.

Now, if you would have said "Has F2P killed the quality of games." I would have given a heart-felt and resounding "YES!"

---

Originally posted by rojo6934

---

Originally posted by Rhinotones
I believe the old saying is true, that you get what you pay for.

---

It has been proven that sub based mmos that go "free" make more money. So... since you say the old saying is true. Shoulnt "Free" mmos be better quality? (not saying higher quality than sub ones, those are the ones switching models but even as good as them). They obviously make more money even without being P2W garbage or forcing you to pay.

---

Originally posted by AlBQuirky

Without reading the responses yet (sorry if this was already stated), here I go :)

I voted "No."
The "gaming industry" is booming. There are more players now then ever before. F2P is a big reason for this.

Now, if you would have said "Has F2P killed the quality of games." I would have given a heart-felt and resounding "YES!"

And not to mention F2P is making the same amount of money in the market as P2P. Soon f2p MMOs will be making more money.

Originally posted by AlBQuirky

 

---

Originally posted by rojo6934

---

Originally posted by Rhinotones
I believe the old saying is true, that you get what you pay for.

---

It has been proven that sub based mmos that go "free" make more money. So... since you say the old saying is true. Shoulnt "Free" mmos be better quality? (not saying higher quality than sub ones, those are the ones switching models but even as good as them). They obviously make more money even without being P2W garbage or forcing you to pay.

---

I think that there should be a qualifier in your statement. "Struggling" sub-based MMOs that convert to F2P make more money. There are many, many sub-based MMOs that would lose money if they went F2P. If not, why haven't they?

 

Transitional costs not being worth it *yet* or it impacting the pre-existing metagame negatively (example: if EVE-Online went free to play it would almost certainly lose the plex system and a sizeable chunk of its current userbase because 0.0 would become a real clusterfuck due to the new influx of conscript level players to use as cannon fodder and a opposite example: if League of Legends went B2P or P2P it would stop drawing in newer people and in time it's influence on the gaming scene would wane).

---

Originally posted by Dihoru

---

Originally posted by AlBQuirky

---

Originally posted by rojo6934

---

Originally posted by Rhinotones
I believe the old saying is true, that you get what you pay for.

---

It has been proven that sub based mmos that go "free" make more money. So... since you say the old saying is true. Shoulnt "Free" mmos be better quality? (not saying higher quality than sub ones, those are the ones switching models but even as good as them). They obviously make more money even without being P2W garbage or forcing you to pay.

---

I think that there should be a qualifier in your statement. "Struggling" sub-based MMOs that convert to F2P make more money. There are many, many sub-based MMOs that would lose money if they went F2P. If not, why haven't they?

---

Transitional costs not being worth it *yet* or it impacting the pre-existing metagame negatively (example: if EVE-Online went free to play it would almost certainly lose the plex system and a sizeable chunk of its current userbase because 0.0 would become a real clusterfuck due to the new influx of conscript level players to use as cannon fodder and a opposite example: if League of Legends went B2P or P2P it would stop drawing in newer people and in time it's influence on the gaming scene would wane).

---

I've often wondered how WoW would fare if they went F2P...

Ftp has saved a bunch of games that would be pushing up daisies.

With no ftp D&D = DoA, LotRO set sail with the elves, STO vanished in a puff of pissed off Lifetimers, Uncharted Waters sunk, PotBS plundered for scrap, just to name a few.

Ftp can't save all middle of the road MMOs, but it can save some from the chopping block and I believe more games and more choices are a good thing.

Yes and No. I mustly say this as the models have started to negatively support players. A lot of western games in particular have a heavy focus on cash shop, in which a dedicated player will shell out MORE then a monthly subscription. This can be a bit troubling as a game itself can quickly become pay to win and really negatively impact a game. DDO did a pretty good job in terms of riding along the edge making content locked but doing it in a way where play can unlock more for you if you try, in a way managing to take advantage of its design in just the right way to give an illusion its not P2Win without just giving away everything for free.

Eastern games have done a great job lately with games like Aion or Tera adapting F2P models that focus the cash shop elements primarily on cosmetic or 'conveinence' items. While some conveinence items can be called 'p2w' I personally don't really view them as such and find them vastly better options compared to the more greedy cash shop models of western games and some eastern trying to nickle and dime you anyway they can making it vastly more expensive then a monthly subscription.

Still, even games that do shy away from locking content and forcing you to buy stuff stlll take away an element in game that can be earned (cosmetics) in order to make money which can be considered a negative thing. I personally feel that F2P is NOT a bad thing so long as it progresses the right way, and freemium in particular can help bolster the player base while also potentially garnishing subscribers, so long as they make sure subscribers can get full access without having to spend extra in a cash shop, minus perhaps a few silly things that could MAYBE slip by without being looked down on.

Originally posted by Purutzil

Yes and No. I mustly say this as the models have started to negatively support players. A lot of western games in particular have a heavy focus on cash shop, in which a dedicated player will shell out MORE then a monthly subscription. This can be a bit troubling as a game itself can quickly become pay to win and really negatively impact a game. DDO did a pretty good job in terms of riding along the edge making content locked but doing it in a way where play can unlock more for you if you try, in a way managing to take advantage of its design in just the right way to give an illusion its not P2Win without just giving away everything for free.

Eastern games have done a great job lately with games like Aion or Tera adapting F2P models that focus the cash shop elements primarily on cosmetic or 'conveinence' items. While some conveinence items can be called 'p2w' I personally don't really view them as such and find them vastly better options compared to the more greedy cash shop models of western games and some eastern trying to nickle and dime you anyway they can making it vastly more expensive then a monthly subscription.

 

Still, even games that do shy away from locking content and forcing you to buy stuff stlll take away an element in game that can be earned (cosmetics) in order to make money which can be considered a negative thing. I personally feel that F2P is NOT a bad thing so long as it progresses the right way, and freemium in particular can help bolster the player base while also potentially garnishing subscribers, so long as they make sure subscribers can get full access without having to spend extra in a cash shop, minus perhaps a few silly things that could MAYBE slip by without being looked down on.

That's why some F2P games are adopting systems where you can trade for cash shop items with in-game money or have exchanges where players sell cash shop currency for another type of currency (the Dilithium Exchange from STO for example). This way no one's forced to pay and those people who want or need more than they can get by themselves and have the income to spare they can fork over a few $ for cash shop items/currency and trade with other players for what they'd need. This way you balance things out for everyone, the only difference is if you want to play for free you'll have to work for your even footing (may sound unfair but.. imma say this much about it from personal experience :7 years of EVE Online, let that sink in for a moment, 7 years, now let the following sink in next to it: 3 of those years were spent saving up isk for plexes, well back then they were called 30 day GTCs but I digress, using trial accounts and I still had to invest 3 months worth of sub and get a little help from old friend in-game to finally become solvent in-game and pay off all my debts and have enough left over to outfit myself and pay for my gametime on my own... 4 years down the line I am helping every new guy I can get a leg up in this game, I gifted one guy with a +3 set of implants and a retriever... he was positively falling over himself... and then I also gave him a hookbill just to give him something to work on level 2 missions while missioning, none of this could've happened without the plex system and in a P2P game and lemme tell you the journey was long but it has been worth it ^^ ).