Originally posted by Papadam

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

You can add me to the list of won't play F2P games but will play P2P. Item malls disgust me and I don't happen to be a cheap person. So I have no problem paying a sub each month for better quality and for a game where people can't shortcut their way to the top with a little bit of money.

 

The same goes for all games though, I have no problem going out and buying an FPS game. But I won't waste even a minute of my time on the F2P crap FPS games that exist on the net.

 

 

It's just another aspect that cheap America (yes I'm american) is ruining. Just like wanting everything cheap so people shop at Walmart and drive all the manufaturing jobs out of America and then sit there wondering why the economy collapsed. In another decade people will sit there wondering what happened to the MMO market without realizing it had everything to do with people being cheap.

 

Being cheap have nothing to do with this discussion. Its about making games accesible and give options to the players how they want to pay and play... A flat monthly fee means that someone who play 5 hours/ months have to pay the same as someone who plays 50 or even 150 hours/month.  Is this really good buisness?

People seem to have a very closeminded view on F2P MMOs just because most of them have been crappy korean grinders.

I agree with SnarlingWolf on many points though. There is a large group of gamers that despise f2p and will NEVER support it no matter how you dish it out. For this market, the only way to win them over is to make some type of payment model for the game to even attract enough respect from these players.

On the other hand, I don't believe that current mmo prices are good for the consumer over all as it limits all players to one game and one game alone. If monthly payments were reduced to $5 a month a player could subscribe to up to 3-4 mmos a month with no problem thus reducing the bloody competition battle for subs.

If f2p games would simply make a competitive price for p2p gamers, they would win a lot of them over, but until then you'll get no respect from certain p2p gamers. You lost a lot of our support by giving it away for free.

I am one who would give up mmos altogether if they all went f2p. 

Originally posted by KarmaCry7

Originally posted by Papadam

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

You can add me to the list of won't play F2P games but will play P2P. Item malls disgust me and I don't happen to be a cheap person. So I have no problem paying a sub each month for better quality and for a game where people can't shortcut their way to the top with a little bit of money.

 

The same goes for all games though, I have no problem going out and buying an FPS game. But I won't waste even a minute of my time on the F2P crap FPS games that exist on the net.

 

 

It's just another aspect that cheap America (yes I'm american) is ruining. Just like wanting everything cheap so people shop at Walmart and drive all the manufaturing jobs out of America and then sit there wondering why the economy collapsed. In another decade people will sit there wondering what happened to the MMO market without realizing it had everything to do with people being cheap.

 

Being cheap have nothing to do with this discussion. Its about making games accesible and give options to the players how they want to pay and play... A flat monthly fee means that someone who play 5 hours/ months have to pay the same as someone who plays 50 or even 150 hours/month.  Is this really good buisness?

People seem to have a very closeminded view on F2P MMOs just because most of them have been crappy korean grinders.

 

I agree with SnarlingWolf on many points though. There is a large group of gamers that despise f2p and will NEVER support it no matter how you dish it out. For this market, the only way to win them over is to make some type of payment model for the game to even attract enough respect from these players.

On the other hand, I don't believe that current mmo prices are good for the consumer over all as it limits all players to one game and one game alone. If monthly payments were reduced to $5 a month a player could subscribe to up to 3-4 mmos a month with no problem thus reducing the bloody competition battle for subs.

If f2p games would simply make a competitive price for p2p gamers, they would win a lot of them over, but until then you'll get no respect from certain p2p gamers. You lost a lot of our support by giving it away for free.

I am one who would give up mmos altogether if they all went f2p. 

F2P is a type of business model. While some players gravitate towards the extreme, such as paying no money or paying too much money, the business model basically says "we let our game speak for ourselves." Allowing somone to play a game for free before they invest any money is a showing of confidence in their product.

To me, it's very ignorant to ignore an entire business model, especially when your reasons are false assumptions. Put some real thought into this. Consider all view points, be objective about it, list all the pros and cons of each business model. From my angle, you haven't done this, thus making yourself look ignorant in my eyes. Sort of like a kid prejudice towards a certain race, yet they know only superficial things about them. They stereotype and generalize, not knowing the true nature of the person, thus showing their ignorance and lack of knowledge.

I used to be anti-F2P, anti-RMT, and anti-micro-transactions until I laid aside my prejudices, misconceptions, perceptions, and biases and gave it some real thought.

I've read several pages of this thread, and it seems the original poster basically created a thread where he can voice his own biased viewpoints at his liesure. He didn't open this discussion with any intention on opening his mind and considering all viewpoints and being objective about things. He argues for one side, and has no intention to argue for the other seriously to see the good in different business models.

Let this be a lesson. If you want to really learn about something, argue in favor of it. Let people force you to search for the good in it just as hard as you defended the good in what you really believe in. It'll open your eyes to things you never thought about or considered and then you won't be so critical or condescending towards what you once hated or didn't stand for.

He believes F2P games are dishonorable, not worthy of respect, and holds everyone who plays them to strong stereotypes.

Originally posted by nate1980

Originally posted by KarmaCry7

Originally posted by Papadam

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

You can add me to the list of won't play F2P games but will play P2P. Item malls disgust me and I don't happen to be a cheap person. So I have no problem paying a sub each month for better quality and for a game where people can't shortcut their way to the top with a little bit of money.

 

The same goes for all games though, I have no problem going out and buying an FPS game. But I won't waste even a minute of my time on the F2P crap FPS games that exist on the net.

 

 

It's just another aspect that cheap America (yes I'm american) is ruining. Just like wanting everything cheap so people shop at Walmart and drive all the manufaturing jobs out of America and then sit there wondering why the economy collapsed. In another decade people will sit there wondering what happened to the MMO market without realizing it had everything to do with people being cheap.

 

Being cheap have nothing to do with this discussion. Its about making games accesible and give options to the players how they want to pay and play... A flat monthly fee means that someone who play 5 hours/ months have to pay the same as someone who plays 50 or even 150 hours/month.  Is this really good buisness?

People seem to have a very closeminded view on F2P MMOs just because most of them have been crappy korean grinders.

 

I agree with SnarlingWolf on many points though. There is a large group of gamers that despise f2p and will NEVER support it no matter how you dish it out. For this market, the only way to win them over is to make some type of payment model for the game to even attract enough respect from these players.

On the other hand, I don't believe that current mmo prices are good for the consumer over all as it limits all players to one game and one game alone. If monthly payments were reduced to $5 a month a player could subscribe to up to 3-4 mmos a month with no problem thus reducing the bloody competition battle for subs.

If f2p games would simply make a competitive price for p2p gamers, they would win a lot of them over, but until then you'll get no respect from certain p2p gamers. You lost a lot of our support by giving it away for free.

I am one who would give up mmos altogether if they all went f2p. 

 

F2P is a type of business model. While some players gravitate towards the extreme, such as paying no money or paying too much money, the business model basically says "we let our game speak for ourselves." Allowing somone to play a game for free before they invest any money is a showing of confidence in their product.

To me, it's very ignorant to ignore an entire business model, especially when your reasons are false assumptions. Put some real thought into this. Consider all view points, be objective about it, list all the pros and cons of each business model. From my angle, you haven't done this, thus making yourself look ignorant in my eyes. Sort of like a kid prejudice towards a certain race, yet they know only superficial things about them. They stereotype and generalize, not knowing the true nature of the person, thus showing their ignorance and lack of knowledge.

I used to be anti-F2P, anti-RMT, and anti-micro-transactions until I laid aside my prejudices, misconceptions, perceptions, and biases and gave it some real thought.

You can not consider someone ignorant because he/she has a steady opinion or perspective. If I don't care for blonds but like brunettes, you can lay down statistically why blonds are better than brunettes but it won't change my opinion even if I'm well informed about the matter.

1. I don't support item malls as most give an unfair advantage.

2. I don't support the idea of giving a game away for free. It attracts an element I don't want to hang around.

I don't believe f2p says confidence, it says just the opposite, that's one of the reasons f2p games get absolutely no respect from a lot of the p2p market. A free trial maybe, but once you give it up for free, I'll take my money else where. The funny thing about it is that I haven't heard a f2p supporter yet say that he/she has paid anything more than $15 with their f2p games and even if you did, good luck with that.

Originally posted by nate1980

I've read several pages of this thread, and it seems the original poster basically created a thread where he can voice his own biased viewpoints at his liesure. He didn't open this discussion with any intention on opening his mind and considering all viewpoints and being objective about things. He argues for one side, and has no intention to argue for the other seriously to see the good in different business models.

Let this be a lesson. If you want to really learn about something, argue in favor of it. Let people force you to search for the good in it just as hard as you defended the good in what you really believe in. It'll open your eyes to things you never thought about or considered and then you won't be so critical or condescending towards what you once hated or didn't stand for.

He believes F2P games are dishonorable, not worthy of respect, and holds everyone who plays them to strong stereotypes.

Also, this topic is open for debate. You can state your opinions and perspectives as often as you like. At the end of the day, I don't know if f2p will win over p2p but I've stated my honest opinions about both and anyone here can do the same. Many p2p games switched to f2p but I don't believe this means f2p is winning at all. I just believe the industry is sinking into a bottomless abyss of no return. Unless something is done of course...

Originally posted by KarmaCry7

You can not consider someone ignorant because he/she has a steady opinion or perspective. If I don't care for blonds but like brunettes, you can lay down statistically why blonds are better than brunettes but it won't change my opinion even if I'm well informed about the matter.

1. I don't support item malls as most give an unfair advantage.

2. I don't support the idea of giving a game away for free. It attracts an element I don't want to hang around.

I don't believe f2p says confidence, it says just the opposite, that's one of the reasons f2p games get absolutely no respect from a lot of the p2p market. A free trial maybe, but once you give it up for free, I'll take my money else where. The funny thing about it is that I haven't heard a f2p supporter yet say that he/she has paid anything more than $15 with their f2p games and even if you did, good luck with that.

We are all ignorant. The idea is that we know this and are constantly in search for further enlightenment. Anyhow, let's put this to the test.

1. How does an item mall give an unfair advantage? Does having more time to play a video game not give an unfair advantage?

2. So the P2P arena doesn't attract those you don't want to hang around?

It's your opinion that F2P doesn't say confidence, but if you look at things from another point-of-view, you shold be able to respect that others may interpret it that way, and give it the benefit of doubt. Because you don't actually know that F2P doesn't say confidence, you should give it the benefit of the doubt. To do otherwise is ignorance. You're closing your mind off against an opposite opinion, because you don't believe it yourself.

Do you know the majority of the P2P market? There's millions in that market, so I doubt you even know 1% of that market. Is it accurate to judge an entire market by 1% of it? Did you know I am in the P2P market? Because you haven't heard something, means it doesn't exist?

I'm not saying you don't have a right to your opinion, I'm saying what matters is how you came to that opinion. Your opinion is based on a lot of assumptions, thus making your opinion established on ignorance.

Originally posted by KarmaCry7

Originally posted by nate1980

I've read several pages of this thread, and it seems the original poster basically created a thread where he can voice his own biased viewpoints at his liesure. He didn't open this discussion with any intention on opening his mind and considering all viewpoints and being objective about things. He argues for one side, and has no intention to argue for the other seriously to see the good in different business models.

Let this be a lesson. If you want to really learn about something, argue in favor of it. Let people force you to search for the good in it just as hard as you defended the good in what you really believe in. It'll open your eyes to things you never thought about or considered and then you won't be so critical or condescending towards what you once hated or didn't stand for.

He believes F2P games are dishonorable, not worthy of respect, and holds everyone who plays them to strong stereotypes.

Also, this topic is open for debate. You can state your opinions and perspectives as often as you like. At the end of the day, I don't know if f2p will win over p2p but I've stated my honest opinions about both and anyone here can do the same. Many p2p games switched to f2p but I don't believe this means f2p is winning at all. I just believe the industry is sinking into a bottomless abyss of no return. Unless something is done of course...

Well you've just earned some respect by responding maturely to my post, instead of giving a knee jerk insult for having your opinions challenged. I don't care what your beliefs or opinions are, because there will always be people having different opinions. So I'm not so much arguing against your opinions on which business model is better, because there's some good arguments on both sides. I'm arguing against the misconceptions based off ignorant beliefs. I do this, because this is how misinformation becomes common knowledge.

For example, you say that F2P is cheating. You believe this because it allows people to buy items that give them an advantage. Your opinion doesn't hold water, because that advantage is only time, since free players can obtain the same things if they put forth the time to get them. Cheating is when you gain an advantage others don't have. Money and time are interchangable, so substituting one for the other isn't cheating.

Now if there's a game that offers something on the item shop that gives an advantage that you can't earn with enough time, such as a better weapon or armor, then that is cheating. I don't know of such a game, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I do believe, however, that if such a game exists, it's in the minority. Because I believe it's in the minority, I don't believe an argument using it as an example holds any weight.

Originally posted by nate1980

Originally posted by KarmaCry7

Originally posted by nate1980

I've read several pages of this thread, and it seems the original poster basically created a thread where he can voice his own biased viewpoints at his liesure. He didn't open this discussion with any intention on opening his mind and considering all viewpoints and being objective about things. He argues for one side, and has no intention to argue for the other seriously to see the good in different business models.

Let this be a lesson. If you want to really learn about something, argue in favor of it. Let people force you to search for the good in it just as hard as you defended the good in what you really believe in. It'll open your eyes to things you never thought about or considered and then you won't be so critical or condescending towards what you once hated or didn't stand for.

He believes F2P games are dishonorable, not worthy of respect, and holds everyone who plays them to strong stereotypes.

Also, this topic is open for debate. You can state your opinions and perspectives as often as you like. At the end of the day, I don't know if f2p will win over p2p but I've stated my honest opinions about both and anyone here can do the same. Many p2p games switched to f2p but I don't believe this means f2p is winning at all. I just believe the industry is sinking into a bottomless abyss of no return. Unless something is done of course...

 

Well you've just earned some respect by responding maturely to my post, instead of giving a knee jerk insult for having your opinions challenged. I don't care what your beliefs or opinions are, because there will always be people having different opinions. So I'm not so much arguing against your opinions on which business model is better, because there's some good arguments on both sides. I'm arguing against the misconceptions based off ignorant beliefs. I do this, because this is how misinformation becomes common knowledge.

For example, you say that F2P is cheating. You believe this because it allows people to buy items that give them an advantage. Your opinion doesn't hold water, because that advantage is only time, since free players can obtain the same things if they put forth the time to get them. Cheating is when you gain an advantage others don't have. Money and time are interchangable, so substituting one for the other isn't cheating.

Now if there's a game that offers something on the item shop that gives an advantage that you can't earn with enough time, such as a better weapon or armor, then that is cheating. I don't know of such a game, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I do believe, however, that if such a game exists, it's in the minority. Because I believe it's in the minority, I don't believe an argument using it as an example holds any weight.

nate1980 I respect your perspective and opinions and you drive some valid points I can't deny. You seem like a cool person so please don't take it personally.

Even in the p2p market, you will find an element you don't like but all of us share one thing in common in the p2p market, we paid for the game we are playing thus in one way or the other, we are financially supporting the developer's efforts to improve the game, community and future of the company.

Don't take it personal, I can't support f2p any more than I can boot leg movies.

Originally posted by KarmaCry7

Originally posted by nate1980

Originally posted by KarmaCry7

Originally posted by nate1980

I've read several pages of this thread, and it seems the original poster basically created a thread where he can voice his own biased viewpoints at his liesure. He didn't open this discussion with any intention on opening his mind and considering all viewpoints and being objective about things. He argues for one side, and has no intention to argue for the other seriously to see the good in different business models.

Let this be a lesson. If you want to really learn about something, argue in favor of it. Let people force you to search for the good in it just as hard as you defended the good in what you really believe in. It'll open your eyes to things you never thought about or considered and then you won't be so critical or condescending towards what you once hated or didn't stand for.

He believes F2P games are dishonorable, not worthy of respect, and holds everyone who plays them to strong stereotypes.

Also, this topic is open for debate. You can state your opinions and perspectives as often as you like. At the end of the day, I don't know if f2p will win over p2p but I've stated my honest opinions about both and anyone here can do the same. Many p2p games switched to f2p but I don't believe this means f2p is winning at all. I just believe the industry is sinking into a bottomless abyss of no return. Unless something is done of course...

 

Well you've just earned some respect by responding maturely to my post, instead of giving a knee jerk insult for having your opinions challenged. I don't care what your beliefs or opinions are, because there will always be people having different opinions. So I'm not so much arguing against your opinions on which business model is better, because there's some good arguments on both sides. I'm arguing against the misconceptions based off ignorant beliefs. I do this, because this is how misinformation becomes common knowledge.

For example, you say that F2P is cheating. You believe this because it allows people to buy items that give them an advantage. Your opinion doesn't hold water, because that advantage is only time, since free players can obtain the same things if they put forth the time to get them. Cheating is when you gain an advantage others don't have. Money and time are interchangable, so substituting one for the other isn't cheating.

Now if there's a game that offers something on the item shop that gives an advantage that you can't earn with enough time, such as a better weapon or armor, then that is cheating. I don't know of such a game, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I do believe, however, that if such a game exists, it's in the minority. Because I believe it's in the minority, I don't believe an argument using it as an example holds any weight.

 

nate1980 I respect your perspective and opinions and you drive some valid points I can't deny. You seem like a cool person so please don't take it personally.

Even in the p2p market, you will find an element you don't like but all of us share one thing in common in the p2p market, we paid for the game we are playing thus in one way or the other, we are financially supporting the developer's efforts to improve the game, community and future of the company.

Don't take it personal, I can't support f2p any more than I can boot leg movies.

Then I have another question for you. Do you support P2P games, that also offer a RMT or Item Shop service? It still allows the busy people to trade more money for time, making it so that the people without lives don't have an advantage anymore. Yet, it also allows the company to draw subscription money from all people, to continually develop the game.

I personally don't like the idea of subscription based games, even though I play them. I don't like the idea, because I don't think we get our money's worth. It also encourages lazy development and ideas by developers and management. I think paying for content is a much better approach. Guild Wars followed this model, and it worked out really well. The game was also enjoyable at all points, not feeling overly grindy at all. When developers are forced to earn money in this way, they're motivated to create content that's actually entertaining versus the motivation to make things grindy when you abide by a subscription model.

However, asking for a small subscription is understandable, because developers cost money even after the product has been sold, as does servers, and server upkeep. Additional staff also costs money. Fair business practices would have the subscription amount based on the amount of subscribers. The more subscribers, the lower the subscription. The goal is to charge enough subscription money to cover the ongoing costs. Profit should be gained through the selling of the actual product.  Development time spent on fixing bugs and other stuff that isn't the players fault is not subscription worthy.

Basically, the $15/mo charged is pure greed. A company doesn't need $15/mo from 500k subscribers to stay afloat. At that point, their swimming in money. But another approach, which some games take is to charge subscription, but not charge additionally for content updates and expansions. I think this can be fair in the content is worth the subscription fee.

Originally posted by nate1980

Originally posted by KarmaCry7

Originally posted by nate1980

Originally posted by KarmaCry7

Originally posted by nate1980

I've read several pages of this thread, and it seems the original poster basically created a thread where he can voice his own biased viewpoints at his liesure. He didn't open this discussion with any intention on opening his mind and considering all viewpoints and being objective about things. He argues for one side, and has no intention to argue for the other seriously to see the good in different business models.

Let this be a lesson. If you want to really learn about something, argue in favor of it. Let people force you to search for the good in it just as hard as you defended the good in what you really believe in. It'll open your eyes to things you never thought about or considered and then you won't be so critical or condescending towards what you once hated or didn't stand for.

He believes F2P games are dishonorable, not worthy of respect, and holds everyone who plays them to strong stereotypes.

Also, this topic is open for debate. You can state your opinions and perspectives as often as you like. At the end of the day, I don't know if f2p will win over p2p but I've stated my honest opinions about both and anyone here can do the same. Many p2p games switched to f2p but I don't believe this means f2p is winning at all. I just believe the industry is sinking into a bottomless abyss of no return. Unless something is done of course...

 

Well you've just earned some respect by responding maturely to my post, instead of giving a knee jerk insult for having your opinions challenged. I don't care what your beliefs or opinions are, because there will always be people having different opinions. So I'm not so much arguing against your opinions on which business model is better, because there's some good arguments on both sides. I'm arguing against the misconceptions based off ignorant beliefs. I do this, because this is how misinformation becomes common knowledge.

For example, you say that F2P is cheating. You believe this because it allows people to buy items that give them an advantage. Your opinion doesn't hold water, because that advantage is only time, since free players can obtain the same things if they put forth the time to get them. Cheating is when you gain an advantage others don't have. Money and time are interchangable, so substituting one for the other isn't cheating.

Now if there's a game that offers something on the item shop that gives an advantage that you can't earn with enough time, such as a better weapon or armor, then that is cheating. I don't know of such a game, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I do believe, however, that if such a game exists, it's in the minority. Because I believe it's in the minority, I don't believe an argument using it as an example holds any weight.

 

nate1980 I respect your perspective and opinions and you drive some valid points I can't deny. You seem like a cool person so please don't take it personally.

Even in the p2p market, you will find an element you don't like but all of us share one thing in common in the p2p market, we paid for the game we are playing thus in one way or the other, we are financially supporting the developer's efforts to improve the game, community and future of the company.

Don't take it personal, I can't support f2p any more than I can boot leg movies.

 

Then I have another question for you. Do you support P2P games, that also offer a RMT or Item Shop service? It still allows the busy people to trade more money for time, making it so that the people without lives don't have an advantage anymore. Yet, it also allows the company to draw subscription money from all people, to continually develop the game.

I personally don't like the idea of subscription based games, even though I play them. I don't like the idea, because I don't think we get our money's worth. It also encourages lazy development and ideas by developers and management. I think paying for content is a much better approach. Guild Wars followed this model, and it worked out really well. The game was also enjoyable at all points, not feeling overly grindy at all. When developers are forced to earn money in this way, they're motivated to create content that's actually entertaining versus the motivation to make things grindy when you abide by a subscription model.

However, asking for a small subscription is understandable, because developers cost money even after the product has been sold, as does servers, and server upkeep. Additional staff also costs money. Fair business practices would have the subscription amount based on the amount of subscribers. The more subscribers, the lower the subscription. The goal is to charge enough subscription money to cover the ongoing costs. Profit should be gained through the selling of the actual product.  Development time spent on fixing bugs and other stuff that isn't the players fault is not subscription worthy.

Basically, the $15/mo charged is pure greed. A company doesn't need $15/mo from 500k subscribers to stay afloat. At that point, their swimming in money. But another approach, which some games take is to charge subscription, but not charge additionally for content updates and expansions. I think this can be fair in the content is worth the subscription fee.

I agree with most of what you stated in the last post. One of the main issues I have with p2p is the monthly cost and I do believe it is motivated by greed. I believe Warhammer and AoC would get more subs back and perhaps even more new players if they lowered their monthly payment to $7-$5 a month. P2P gamers do not have a problem with paying $15 a month for a game they like, the problem is that if they like 4 games, they have to dish out $60 a month for all of their games. This makes it harder for players to have more than one mmo they can play at a time. I believe this has to change or else monopolies like blizzard will always win over the subs. When p2p mmos can be more creative with payment options, it will bring in more supportive players.

I supported Guild Wars payment model where they had you pay once and then had shop options that didn't alter the fairness of the game too much. I like ideas like this. You can even limit access to special areas and shops if you like but don't give out resources for payment. Everything you get in game should be earned. Guild Wars had options like opening all pvp items which didn't effect the PVE play and that was fine.

Originally posted by KarmaCry7

I agree with most of what you stated in the last post. One of the main issues I have with p2p is the monthly cost and I do believe it is motivated by greed. I believe Warhammer and AoC would get more subs back and perhaps even more new players if they lowered their monthly payment to $7-$5 a month. P2P gamers do not have a problem with paying $15 a month for a game they like, the problem is that if they like 4 games, they have to dish out $60 a month for all of their games. This makes it harder for players to have more than one mmo they can play at a time. I believe this has to change or else monopolies like blizzard will always win over the subs. When p2p mmos can be more creative with payment options, it will bring in more supportive players.

I supported Guild Wars payment model where they had you pay once and then had shop options that didn't alter the fairness of the game too much. I like ideas like this. You can even limit access to special areas and shops if you like but don't give out resources for payment. Everything you get in game should be earned. Guild Wars had options like opening all pvp items which didn't effect the PVE play and that was fine.

Guild Wars also allowed you to unlock all your skills through the shop, which was one of their popular options.

I agree with you about the difference the price of subscription makes. When subscription prices are $15/mo, and the trend is to charge that much, it comes down to which MMORPG offers the most bang for the buck. When a game can be compared to each other, and one wins out over the other, then it's clear that MMORPG's are not worth the same amount as others. There's an hierarchy in this industry, and the top games get the most customers. People with more time and money may subscribe to a couple MMO's, but that pales in comparison to the amount of games actually offered. In other words, the industry as a whole could make more money by lowering the rate across the board. Not only would it attract new subscribers, but it'd also encourage people to play more games simultaneously.

Blizzard has monopolized the market partly because they offer more for the money. As long as this happens, people will choose it over the others. When that happens, they make more money, which enables them to add more features, making the game worth even more for the money compared to other games. So basically, it'd be a good business move to charge less than your competitors if you have less of a product.

Originally posted by nate1980

Originally posted by KarmaCry7

I agree with most of what you stated in the last post. One of the main issues I have with p2p is the monthly cost and I do believe it is motivated by greed. I believe Warhammer and AoC would get more subs back and perhaps even more new players if they lowered their monthly payment to $7-$5 a month. P2P gamers do not have a problem with paying $15 a month for a game they like, the problem is that if they like 4 games, they have to dish out $60 a month for all of their games. This makes it harder for players to have more than one mmo they can play at a time. I believe this has to change or else monopolies like blizzard will always win over the subs. When p2p mmos can be more creative with payment options, it will bring in more supportive players.

I supported Guild Wars payment model where they had you pay once and then had shop options that didn't alter the fairness of the game too much. I like ideas like this. You can even limit access to special areas and shops if you like but don't give out resources for payment. Everything you get in game should be earned. Guild Wars had options like opening all pvp items which didn't effect the PVE play and that was fine.

 

Guild Wars also allowed you to unlock all your skills through the shop, which was one of their popular options.

I agree with you about the difference the price of subscription makes. When subscription prices are $15/mo, and the trend is to charge that much, it comes down to which MMORPG offers the most bang for the buck. When a game can be compared to each other, and one wins out over the other, then it's clear that MMORPG's are not worth the same amount as others. There's an hierarchy in this industry, and the top games get the most customers. People with more time and money may subscribe to a couple MMO's, but that pales in comparison to the amount of games actually offered. In other words, the industry as a whole could make more money by lowering the rate across the board. Not only would it attract new subscribers, but it'd also encourage people to play more games simultaneously.

Blizzard has monopolized the market partly because they offer more for the money. As long as this happens, people will choose it over the others. When that happens, they make more money, which enables them to add more features, making the game worth even more for the money compared to other games. So basically, it'd be a good business move to charge less than your competitors if you have less of a product.

Well put. I can't add a thing to it. ;)

The industry is praying for P2P. Some would like to combine ALL payment options into one, not as options just monthly, MT store and such...

Originally posted by nate1980

Originally posted by KarmaCry7

You can not consider someone ignorant because he/she has a steady opinion or perspective. If I don't care for blonds but like brunettes, you can lay down statistically why blonds are better than brunettes but it won't change my opinion even if I'm well informed about the matter.

1. I don't support item malls as most give an unfair advantage.

2. I don't support the idea of giving a game away for free. It attracts an element I don't want to hang around.

I don't believe f2p says confidence, it says just the opposite, that's one of the reasons f2p games get absolutely no respect from a lot of the p2p market. A free trial maybe, but once you give it up for free, I'll take my money else where. The funny thing about it is that I haven't heard a f2p supporter yet say that he/she has paid anything more than $15 with their f2p games and even if you did, good luck with that.

 

We are all ignorant. The idea is that we know this and are constantly in search for further enlightenment. Anyhow, let's put this to the test.

1. How does an item mall give an unfair advantage? Does having more time to play a video game not give an unfair advantage?

This is a matter of opinion, like preferring the color orange to the color green. It cannot be won by objective arguments, because it is a subjective opinion.

In my opinion, no more time to play a video game does not give an unfair advantage. I'll tell you why I feel that way, but completely grant you the right to feel the opposite. Neither of us are wrong, just like it would not be wrong to like the color orange, or the color green.

I feel there is no unfair advantage because character progress is roughly measured in hours played.

Sure, it's not exact, I may chat more than you, etc., but roughly we will advance the same rate for hours played.

So, if I play the game 100 hours, and you play the game 100 hours, we will be about the same in character advancement.

In my opinion, that's completely fair.

Really makes no difference to me if you play one hour, quit the game for two years, reactivate your account, play some more, and it takes you 5 years to play the 100 hours.

No matter what, once you play 100 hours, you'll be the same as my character, roughtly, that was played 100 hours .

I may play that 100 hours in two weeks.

But if you play the 100 hours in 5 years, and I play the 100 hours in two weeks, we both have 100 hour characters.

Neither of us skipped any content. We both had to kill the exact same number of mobs, do the exact same number of quests to get to our level.

So yes, completely fair in my opinion.

But it's ok for you to think this is completley unfair, again like we might prefer different colors, or different flavors of ice cream. Neither is right or wrong.

I'll never convince you this is fair, you'll never convince me this is unfair.

Originally posted by nate1980

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

F2P means you can substitute money for time in the game. Some people think this is fair. Others think this is not fair.

P2P means there is no substitute for time in the game. ALL players must do quests and grind mobs in order to make character progress, and this cannot be avoided with money. Some players think this is fair. Others think this is not fair.

There will always be both types of players, and therefore developers will cater to both so they can get their money.

I don't play F2P games. A developer will not get any of my money in an item shop. However, I will pay 14.95 a month to play a good game. Some developers will want my 14.95 a month, that they could not get in an item shop.

Some players will not pay 14.95 a month. But they will buy items in an item shop. Some developers will want the item shop money they could not get with a monthly sub.

 

What's the difference between paying $15/mo as a sub and $15/mo in item shops?

Flexibility and control. Playing a $15 sub game .. you have NO CHOICE but to pay $15 whether you are playing 1 hr or 100 hrs.

$15/mo on item shop is better if i don't play that much. Heck, i don't HAVE to play $15 a month if i don't want to and i still get to play the game. Much better deal for 2nd or 3rd MMOs.

Originally posted by KarmaCry7

Don't take it personal, I can't support f2p any more than I can boot leg movies.

The beauty is the f2p market is big enough without your support. DDO seems to be quite successful after turning f2p. Maple story, ROM, Perfect World are all doing well.

Sure there are people who won't play f2p games, just like there are people who won't play solo-friendly games. But that customer segment is small enough that it has little effect on the market.

Ive played Perfect World for several months.

It was a nice game. It was f2p. What was the problem? The game started having a Cash Shop, and cash shoppers could sold to players those items though ingame coins.

The major problem is that those players, just because they were playing, they were getting money faster, bcs if you didnt pay you had to grind to buy those items, and some of them NEEDED to be bought (like charms).

So far, it was free market price of the Gold (coin you bought thourgh real money). Ppl were happy and playing, even though cash shopper ofc did have a bit of advantage.

But there was a time when there was a Sale... this sale included hard ingame items to found in it... so cash shoppers started to get a unfair advantage. Weapons that could be obtained only through hard raids, etc, etc.

Thats the problem with f2p. Most of the DO give unfair advantage... or they might seem not to, but you just a future sale or patch to change that.

In a p2p only time matters (and thats not entirely true, it also matter efficiency). But what I dont get, why is unfair that someone who spends a lot of time in something has an advantage over others?

I mean, if you go to college and spend a lot of time studying, well, theres your advantage... your wouldnt like someone coming and paying for your "title", like doctor, or anything.

 I think in the long run, the whole "Free to play the game and buy in game content" will be the next biggest thing.

As it stands, it's what... about 50 bucks to buy the game before you've even played it (not counting beta because beta is not a representative for final release), then pay 15 bucks a month with hopes that they balance the game, update content, fix bugs, improve gameplay... whatever. Having played enough MMO's since the dawn of UO, I already have it in mind that any MMO is going to be fubar'd for at LEAST the first 3 months (due to said balance, content, bugs, gameplay problems that weren't taken care of during beta). So if I buy the game on release, I'll have payed 50 bucks to see if I like the game, endure the first month's bullshit of things that were left unchecked in beta, then pay another 15 bucks for the next month to see if they promise to make the game better, and another installment of 15 dollars to see if they really live up to their word. By this time you have over 80 dollars and 3 months into a game you're hoping will improve or has gotten better. In my minds eye, a P2P game is an investment of which I have to justify paying for in the first place, then justify the money a month with the potential amount of time I have to devote to the money justified.

In F2P land, I make the account, dload the game and try it out at my leisure. If I like said game, I can keep it on my drive and play as much or as little as I want to, and don't feel forced into justifying time set aside to get my moneys worth. To date I've tried just about every F2P game they've advertised here in MMORPG.com, and test driven a few obscure ones. Many have item malls, and vary vastly in what they offer and how they effect gameplay. There are about 4 that I play around with back and forth... and the two I mess around with the most are DDO, and DFO. DFO reminded me of playing "Dungeons & Dragons: Shadow over Mystara" in the arcade, but if someone put it online. Has an item mall for avatar looks, and in game items. Haven't played this long enough to know if I want to put some money towards it or not. In DDO, they do have an item mall where you can buy content, in game items, race and classes, some can be unlocked or found, some have to be bought. So far I have not ran into a "you need to buy stuff in order to progress" kind of wall with DDO... but more than likely I will spend some money because so far I'm enjoying the game. Ironically I bought this game at release, tried to play it for a day... deleted the game, broke each disc, set it on fire and pissed on the box. The ONLY reason I gave it another chance is because it went F2P... and I think a lot of other people did as well. I'm not saying DDO is the best thing since sliced bread, but in hindsight I would never have given it a thought to pay money towards DDO had it not gone F2P to show me how it had changed since release.

Seriously ask yourselves... if all the games you played in the past, or never tried that WERE P2P, went F2P, wouldn't you be more likely to give it a try, or a second chance? (minus the initial negativity towards item mall stuff, because there's so many different ways it can be implemented in different games)

Originally posted by Lansid

 I think in the long run, the whole "Free to play the game and buy in game content" will be the next biggest thing.

As it stands, it's what... about 50 bucks to buy the game before you've even played it (not counting beta because beta is not a representative for final release), then pay 15 bucks a month with hopes that they balance the game, update content, fix bugs, improve gameplay... whatever. Having played enough MMO's since the dawn of UO, I already have it in mind that any MMO is going to be fubar'd for at LEAST the first 3 months (due to said balance, content, bugs, gameplay problems that weren't taken care of during beta). So if I buy the game on release, I'll have payed 50 bucks to see if I like the game, endure the first month's bullshit of things that were left unchecked in beta, then pay another 15 bucks for the next month to see if they promise to make the game better, and another installment of 15 dollars to see if they really live up to their word. By this time you have over 80 dollars and 3 months into a game you're hoping will improve or has gotten better. In my minds eye, a P2P game is an investment of which I have to justify paying for in the first place, then justify the money a month with the potential amount of time I have to devote to the money justified.

In F2P land, I make the account, dload the game and try it out at my leisure. If I like said game, I can keep it on my drive and play as much or as little as I want to, and don't feel forced into justifying time set aside to get my moneys worth. To date I've tried just about every F2P game they've advertised here in MMORPG.com, and test driven a few obscure ones. Many have item malls, and vary vastly in what they offer and how they effect gameplay. There are about 4 that I play around with back and forth... and the two I mess around with the most are DDO, and DFO. DFO reminded me of playing "Dungeons & Dragons: Shadow over Mystara" in the arcade, but if someone put it online. Has an item mall for avatar looks, and in game items. Haven't played this long enough to know if I want to put some money towards it or not. In DDO, they do have an item mall where you can buy content, in game items, race and classes, some can be unlocked or found, some have to be bought. So far I have not ran into a "you need to buy stuff in order to progress" kind of wall with DDO... but more than likely I will spend some money because so far I'm enjoying the game. Ironically I bought this game at release, tried to play it for a day... deleted the game, broke each disc, set it on fire and pissed on the box. The ONLY reason I gave it another chance is because it went F2P... and I think a lot of other people did as well. I'm not saying DDO is the best thing since sliced bread, but in hindsight I would never have given it a thought to pay money towards DDO had it not gone F2P to show me how it had changed since release.

Seriously ask yourselves... if all the games you played in the past, or never tried that WERE P2P, went F2P, wouldn't you be more likely to give it a try, or a second chance? (minus the initial negativity towards item mall stuff, because there's so many different ways it can be implemented in different games)

Another gamer that makes some very good points about f2p. I read your post and I know how you feel about some issues as I agree with a lot of what you stated. F2P is good for us in many ways in the long run but NOT good for the gaming industry as a whole. I believe it is breeding a lack of appreciation for mmos and over time, players collectively aren't going to want to spend anything with any company, they are just going to want a better game for free. This is just ONE of the major issues I have with f2p. The US economy wouldn't have entered a dangerous period in history if we would have taken notice of warning signs that could have prevented the devastation of progress for our nation.

Most players here who have given their testimony about f2p admit that they don't spend money with the company and this is a big problem. After a game gives you free access, another f2p game comes out that attempts to compete with p2p games and makes even better improvements to their game (spending more money to get us to play the game), the earlier company then puts money into more advertising and even gives away free items and in some cases money just to keep their current players active. On the surface, we see great success for these companies in the beginning as more active players look like success to us, but over time, we ignore the struggle these companies go through in order to stay in business. Because we see more players, we assume this means more spending, or if a f2p game loses a lot of players because of competition but remains up, we assume that they are doing fine. I believe over time our spending habits for f2p (honorable or not) will come to a complete halt. We are expecting more from mmo companies but financially, we are assuming no responsibility for what they can or can't give us.

After reading a few posts through and thinking about it, the players take less responsibility for this issue. The companies who created this f2p market are so much more to blame. You are already seeing the desperate measures some f2p companies are doing to maintain their players during a time of intense competition. When money runs out, there is nothing left you can give the people. I believe f2p is a big disaster waiting to happen and it will effect the entire mmo market when they plummet into oblivion. Just like the banks, it only takes one big institution to fail before the domino effect ensues.
 

Originally posted by KarmaCry7

Originally posted by Lansid

 I think in the long run, the whole "Free to play the game and buy in game content" will be the next biggest thing.

As it stands, it's what... about 50 bucks to buy the game before you've even played it (not counting beta because beta is not a representative for final release), then pay 15 bucks a month with hopes that they balance the game, update content, fix bugs, improve gameplay... whatever. Having played enough MMO's since the dawn of UO, I already have it in mind that any MMO is going to be fubar'd for at LEAST the first 3 months (due to said balance, content, bugs, gameplay problems that weren't taken care of during beta). So if I buy the game on release, I'll have payed 50 bucks to see if I like the game, endure the first month's bullshit of things that were left unchecked in beta, then pay another 15 bucks for the next month to see if they promise to make the game better, and another installment of 15 dollars to see if they really live up to their word. By this time you have over 80 dollars and 3 months into a game you're hoping will improve or has gotten better. In my minds eye, a P2P game is an investment of which I have to justify paying for in the first place, then justify the money a month with the potential amount of time I have to devote to the money justified.

In F2P land, I make the account, dload the game and try it out at my leisure. If I like said game, I can keep it on my drive and play as much or as little as I want to, and don't feel forced into justifying time set aside to get my moneys worth. To date I've tried just about every F2P game they've advertised here in MMORPG.com, and test driven a few obscure ones. Many have item malls, and vary vastly in what they offer and how they effect gameplay. There are about 4 that I play around with back and forth... and the two I mess around with the most are DDO, and DFO. DFO reminded me of playing "Dungeons & Dragons: Shadow over Mystara" in the arcade, but if someone put it online. Has an item mall for avatar looks, and in game items. Haven't played this long enough to know if I want to put some money towards it or not. In DDO, they do have an item mall where you can buy content, in game items, race and classes, some can be unlocked or found, some have to be bought. So far I have not ran into a "you need to buy stuff in order to progress" kind of wall with DDO... but more than likely I will spend some money because so far I'm enjoying the game. Ironically I bought this game at release, tried to play it for a day... deleted the game, broke each disc, set it on fire and pissed on the box. The ONLY reason I gave it another chance is because it went F2P... and I think a lot of other people did as well. I'm not saying DDO is the best thing since sliced bread, but in hindsight I would never have given it a thought to pay money towards DDO had it not gone F2P to show me how it had changed since release.

Seriously ask yourselves... if all the games you played in the past, or never tried that WERE P2P, went F2P, wouldn't you be more likely to give it a try, or a second chance? (minus the initial negativity towards item mall stuff, because there's so many different ways it can be implemented in different games)

 

Another gamer that makes some very good points about f2p. I read your post and I know how you feel about some issues as I agree with a lot of what you stated. F2P is good for us in many ways in the long run but NOT good for the gaming industry as a whole. I believe it is breeding a lack of appreciation for mmos and over time, players collectively aren't going to want to spend anything with any company, they are just going to want a better game for free. This is just ONE of the major issues I have with f2p. The US economy wouldn't have entered a dangerous period in history if we would have taken notice of warning signs that could have prevented the devastation of progress for our nation.

Most players here who have given their testimony about f2p admit that they don't spend money with the company and this is a big problem. After a game gives you free access, another f2p game comes out that attempts to compete with p2p games and makes even better improvements to their game (spending more money to get us to play the game), the earlier company then puts money into more advertising and even gives away free items and in some cases money just to keep their current players active. On the surface, we see great success for these companies in the beginning as more active players look like success to us, but over time, we ignore the struggle these companies go through in order to stay in business. Because we see more players, we assume this means more spending, or if a f2p game loses a lot of players because of competition but remains up, we assume that they are doing fine. I believe over time our spending habits for f2p (honorable or not) will come to a complete halt. We are expecting more from mmo companies but financially, we are assuming no responsibility for what they can or can't give us.

After reading a few posts through and thinking about it, the players take less responsibility for this issue. The companies who created this f2p market are so much more to blame. You are already seeing the desperate measures some f2p companies are doing to maintain their players during a time of intense competition. When money runs out, there is nothing left you can give the people. I believe f2p is a big disaster waiting to happen and it will effect the entire mmo market when they plummet into oblivion. Just like the banks, it only takes one big institution to fail before the domino effect ensues.
 

So you are still making alot of asumptions about F2P based on nothing.
 

Champions online (client+sub) released about the same time as DDO went "F2P" - look at the xfire trends on thoose 2 games. CO have lost about 3/4 of their xfire players and DDO have lost about 1/4 of theirs during the almost 2 months the games have benn out. How do you explain that DDO have had an 40% increase in people who play 15/month since the game went F2P and how does that add up with: "players collectively aren't going to want to spend anything with any company"? I think people are more willing to pay if they are in control over how they pay instead of only being stuck with the $15/month option. Lately we have seen most MMO release with as P2P and their numbers have dropped like stones. How is this good for the companies and the idnustry?

Can you explain why its good that someone who play 5 hours/month should pay the same as someone who play 150 hours/month?

Yes the F2P market is currently flooded with crappy korean grinders with awfull item shops but it doesnt mean that its the only way a F2P game can be.

I think the future will be that a MMO release with the Guild wars model, paying for the client perhaps even with a optional monthly sub, and then maybe 1 year later the client become free and the model becomes more similar to the one in DDO