Originally posted by Edli

Originally posted by madeux

Originally posted by Edli

Originally posted by madeux

 Or you could take two seconds to see what he is ACTUALLY saying... the market is going to f2p, so if you don't like it, you're going to have to find something else to do.  And if it's allowed by the dev, then it's obviously  not cheating, so you're just making yourself look stupid when you say things like this.

 

Ok seriously how is the marketing going f2p? We p2p gamers are waiting for Sw tor, FFXIV, Tera, rift ect. How can we leave when all these games are coming for us?

 Well, for one, Bioware has left the RMT option open for SW:TOR.

Secondly, more people play f2p games than p2p games... that should be your clue of where the market is going.  Not to mention D&D, LOTRO... I'm not saying one is better than the other, just looking objectively and see what is happening.

 

I know that more peoples play f2p but you're saying that p2p is dieing and we should leave this genre when in fact is not true and great games are coming for us.

Really, really doubt that bioware will go the f2p route.

 Perhaps Bioware wouldnt, but EA sure as hell would, and theyr ethe ones calling the shots. Perhaps not in the game design itself, but when it comes to how theyre going to make money, you can bet EA is giving the orders. That means, yeah it wont be F2P, it will be P2P plus a cash shop. Perhaps not right away, for fear of pissing people off, but once they get their initial sales in and stuff, theyll add one in for sure.

Originally posted by kaiser3282

Originally posted by Edli

Originally posted by madeux

Originally posted by Edli

Originally posted by madeux

 Or you could take two seconds to see what he is ACTUALLY saying... the market is going to f2p, so if you don't like it, you're going to have to find something else to do.  And if it's allowed by the dev, then it's obviously  not cheating, so you're just making yourself look stupid when you say things like this.

 

Ok seriously how is the marketing going f2p? We p2p gamers are waiting for Sw tor, FFXIV, Tera, rift ect. How can we leave when all these games are coming for us?

 Well, for one, Bioware has left the RMT option open for SW:TOR.

Secondly, more people play f2p games than p2p games... that should be your clue of where the market is going.  Not to mention D&D, LOTRO... I'm not saying one is better than the other, just looking objectively and see what is happening.

 

I know that more peoples play f2p but you're saying that p2p is dieing and we should leave this genre when in fact is not true and great games are coming for us.

Really, really doubt that bioware will go the f2p route.

 Perhaps Bioware wouldnt, but EA sure as hell would, and theyr ethe ones calling the shots. Perhaps not in the game design itself, but when it comes to how theyre going to make money, you can bet EA is giving the orders. That means, yeah it wont be F2P, it will be P2P plus a cash shop. Perhaps not right away, for fear of pissing people off, but once they get their initial sales in and stuff, theyll add one in for sure.

If it will go sub + cs than I'll be the first to quit. That is still an if, just speculation. Now if they make a great game with 2 million or more subs than why should they even think about f2p or ruining it with cs? Of course f2p is a possibility only if they fail.

First of all f2p games have been around for a long time. There have been a lot of players playing in these games in the east. You just started to notice it now with ddo, lotro and quickly assumed that that's the future. The problem is that E3 doesn't really shows us that and we p2p players are here to stay.

Originally posted by Edli

Originally posted by kaiser3282

Originally posted by Edli

Originally posted by madeux

Originally posted by Edli

Originally posted by madeux

 Or you could take two seconds to see what he is ACTUALLY saying... the market is going to f2p, so if you don't like it, you're going to have to find something else to do.  And if it's allowed by the dev, then it's obviously  not cheating, so you're just making yourself look stupid when you say things like this.

 

Ok seriously how is the marketing going f2p? We p2p gamers are waiting for Sw tor, FFXIV, Tera, rift ect. How can we leave when all these games are coming for us?

 Well, for one, Bioware has left the RMT option open for SW:TOR.

Secondly, more people play f2p games than p2p games... that should be your clue of where the market is going.  Not to mention D&D, LOTRO... I'm not saying one is better than the other, just looking objectively and see what is happening.

 

I know that more peoples play f2p but you're saying that p2p is dieing and we should leave this genre when in fact is not true and great games are coming for us.

Really, really doubt that bioware will go the f2p route.

 Perhaps Bioware wouldnt, but EA sure as hell would, and theyr ethe ones calling the shots. Perhaps not in the game design itself, but when it comes to how theyre going to make money, you can bet EA is giving the orders. That means, yeah it wont be F2P, it will be P2P plus a cash shop. Perhaps not right away, for fear of pissing people off, but once they get their initial sales in and stuff, theyll add one in for sure.

 

If it will go sub + cs than I'll be the first to quit. That is still an if, just speculation. Now if they make a great game with 2 million or more subs than why should they even think about f2p or ruining it with cs? Of course f2p is a possibility only if they fail.

First of all f2p games have been around for a long time. There have been a lot of players playing in these games in the east. You just started to notice it now with ddo, lotro and quickly assumed that that's the future. The problem is that E3 doesn't really shows us that and we p2p players are here to stay.

 Really? Why do you think Blizzard did with a lot mor ethan 2M subs? Greed, pure and simple.

Dont know if that 2nd paragraph was directed at me, but if so not sure why. Personally, im not one to say F2P is the wave of the future and P2P will die. Ive said before that they will both be viable options, as well as some other options popping up along the way like the hybrid models. I play both P2P and F2P games, dont claim either 1 to be bette rthan the other, they both have their good and bad qualities. Unlike most people who post on here regarding anti/pro F2P though I am able to see both sides of it rather than simply hating an entire sub genre of games based on 1 payment model or the other. Ive enjoyed several games on both sides, howeve rthe main thing F2P offers that P2P doesnt is flexibility and options. If i dont want to pay i dont have too, if i feel its worth it to buy a few things then i can pay. P2P requires you to pay to even touch the game.

Originally posted by kaiser3282

Originally posted by Edli

If it will go sub + cs than I'll be the first to quit. That is still an if, just speculation. Now if they make a great game with 2 million or more subs than why should they even think about f2p or ruining it with cs? Of course f2p is a possibility only if they fail.

First of all f2p games have been around for a long time. There have been a lot of players playing in these games in the east. You just started to notice it now with ddo, lotro and quickly assumed that that's the future. The problem is that E3 doesn't really shows us that and we p2p players are here to stay.

 Really? Why do you think Blizzard did with a lot mor ethan 2M subs? Greed, pure and simple.

Dont know if that 2nd paragraph was directed at me, but if so not sure why. Personally, im not one to say F2P is the wave of the future and P2P will die. Ive said before that they will both be viable options, as well as some other options popping up along the way like the hybrid models. I play both P2P and F2P games, dont claim either 1 to be bette rthan the other, they both have their good and bad qualities. Unlike most people who post on here regarding anti/pro F2P though I am able to see both sides of it rather than simply hating an entire sub genre of games based on 1 payment model or the other. Ive enjoyed several games on both sides, howeve rthe main thing F2P offers that P2P doesnt is flexibility and options. If i dont want to pay i dont have too, if i feel its worth it to buy a few things then i can pay. P2P requires you to pay to even touch the game.

As for wow cs I wasn't really happy with that but I can forgive a 6 year old game, cs of which have only a mount and 2 pets. I'm not even playing it anyway.

For the second paragraph, was directed to whoever things that p2p is dieing and we should move on. Is just not true and the games we're waiting for shows that. Both p2p and f2p will go on. Do I like to pay 15$ a month? Not really but I know that a quality game, especially mmo requires a lot of money to make and keep it going. There is no other way around that. Unless the devs do it voluntarily.

i dont understand why making money is considered greedy.  an item mall in an MMO is just a business venture. its not greed.  people are allowed to innovate, and market their creations as they see fit.

opening a store and then setting a revolving calender of deals and discounts wouldnt be greedy, it would be marketing and advertising.  stop being so hateful.  its obvious you cant produce any rational arguements without needing to paint your opponents as slobbering monsters.  its the oldest and dumbest trick in the book.  try being honest, and explaining why it makes you feel so bad that F2P with shops is becoming dominant. then maybe youll be taken seriously in you views, instead of just another WoW( or whatever) customer threatening to cancel his sub if he doesent immediately get his way.

Originally posted by Cruoris

i dont understand why making money is considered greedy.  an item mall in an MMO is just a business venture. its not greed.  people are allowed to innovate, and market their creations as they see fit.

opening a store and then setting a revolving calender of deals and discounts wouldnt be greedy, it would be marketing and advertising.  stop being so hateful.  its obvious you cant produce any rational arguements without needing to paint your opponents as slobbering monsters.  its the oldest and dumbest trick in the book.  try being honest, and explaining why it makes you feel so bad that F2P with shops is becoming dominant. then maybe youll be taken seriously in you views, instead of just another WoW( or whatever) customer threatening to cancel his sub if he doesent immediately get his way.

Greed is also known as wanting more than your fair share.

Paying a monthly subscription makes sense. The servers cost money to run, staff needs to be paid, content patches made, etc. All in all, the $15 or so a month is a pretty damn good deal.

And then there's the $10 pet, and $25 mount... in the case of WoW.

Step back a moment and look at the price difference. $10 for a pet, $25 for a mount, when the monthly subscription costs $15 a month. In a game where new vanity pet and mount designs have been practically freely given away as accessible content in part of the subscription for years... they suddenly want to charge around the same amount of money that gets you access to 99.99999% of the rest of the game for a month.

Call me crazy, but that's a rip off.

Now, if there was no monthly subscription, different story. Then again, I wouldn't even give a flying flip about the game if it was F2P anyways for various other reasons.

Greed is also known as wanting more than your fair share.

And who determines "your fair share"?  Sounds more like someone whining more about the fact they can not afford the items.  If people did not want the items or the items were priced more than "their fair share" then no one would have bought them and games would stop offering them.  Calling it a companies greed is a lame response because you can not keep up with the Jones' because the Jones' buy more stuff.

Originally posted by Ceridith

Originally posted by Cruoris

i dont understand why making money is considered greedy.  an item mall in an MMO is just a business venture. its not greed.  people are allowed to innovate, and market their creations as they see fit.

opening a store and then setting a revolving calender of deals and discounts wouldnt be greedy, it would be marketing and advertising.  stop being so hateful.  its obvious you cant produce any rational arguements without needing to paint your opponents as slobbering monsters.  its the oldest and dumbest trick in the book.  try being honest, and explaining why it makes you feel so bad that F2P with shops is becoming dominant. then maybe youll be taken seriously in you views, instead of just another WoW( or whatever) customer threatening to cancel his sub if he doesent immediately get his way.

Greed is also known as wanting more than your fair share.

Paying a monthly subscription makes sense. The servers cost money to run, staff needs to be paid, content patches made, etc. All in all, the $15 or so a month is a pretty damn good deal.

And then there's the $10 pet, and $25 mount... in the case of WoW.

Step back a moment and look at the price difference. $10 for a pet, $25 for a mount, when the monthly subscription costs $15 a month. In a game where new vanity pet and mount designs have been practically freely given away as accessible content in part of the subscription for years... they suddenly want to charge around the same amount of money that gets you access to 99.99999% of the rest of the game for a month.

Call me crazy, but that's a rip off.

Now, if there was no monthly subscription, different story. Then again, I wouldn't even give a flying flip about the game if it was F2P anyways for various other reasons.

So, just what IS "your fair share"?  Who gets to make that determination? The Party?...

As far as the silly looking My Little Pony mount in WoW, no one forced anyone to purchase it.  But Blizzard certainly sold a great number of them.  I say more power to them. There was obviously a market for it, and they supplied that demand.

This entire P2P, F2P, hybrid question is taking on the elements of a religious crusade to some people.  Its simple. If you don't like the F2P or hybrid business model, don't play games that use them.

Originally posted by Scot

Anything you do in life that you stick with is an achievement, the other guy in a F2P game bought his way to top level. So I think it is fair for the sportsmen and women to say ‘that was our achievement’. Winning a game of football, beating the raid boss, slapping down the opposition in PvP, what’s the difference?

 

Paying to Win will always separate out the fashionista from the sportsman, as he does not mind anything being bought in a cash shop. Whereas be it Battelfield2 or Lotro a sportsman expects money to make no difference to your performance. PvP game effecting cash shop items are the performance drugs of the MMO world. Gotta beef up and get some steroids down me for the match.

 

That’s the dividing line between us, I don’t want all games to be P2P, quite happy their are F2P games for you guys to go to. It is those who want everything to be F2P who are showing their intolerance here.

But you are consistently missing the point that not all F2P players are "pay to win" types.  Even in a PvP game, my approach is "best effort basis" -- meaning that the quality of my life or the value of my enjoyment of the game aren't reallly affected by my kill:death ratio.  For me, it's fun just to be there doin' it.  I don't trash talk, don't brag, etc.  Heck, losing is great if I learn something in the process.

And I'm pretty sure that the majority of F2P players don't spend much/any money in the cash shop.  Maybe f2p attracts a certain type of person who's willing to spend big money -- but those people are losers and not worth worrying about.

I just wanna have fun.   I dont care how you get your thing on, and you shouldn't care how I do mine.  You might believe that my willingness to support F2P hurts your chances of finding the game you want -- but that's like saying that pool players are ruining it for people who like 3-cushion billiards.  It's not my concern.  Not one bit.  Heck, it might even be TRUE that F2P players are killing the P2P market.  I care not one tiny tiny bit, nor should I. 

Originally posted by Scot

Anything you do in life that you stick with is an achievement, the other guy in a F2P game bought his way to top level. So I think it is fair for the sportsmen and women to say ‘that was our achievement’. Winning a game of football, beating the raid boss, slapping down the opposition in PvP, what’s the difference?

 

Paying to Win will always separate out the fashionista from the sportsman, as he does not mind anything being bought in a cash shop. Whereas be it Battelfield2 or Lotro a sportsman expects money to make no difference to your performance. PvP game effecting cash shop items are the performance drugs of the MMO world. Gotta beef up and get some steroids down me for the match.

 

That’s the dividing line between us, I don’t want all games to be P2P, quite happy their are F2P games for you guys to go to. It is those who want everything to be F2P who are showing their intolerance here.

Right.  You feel the need to label people as either "fashionistas" or "sportsmen" and we're the intolerant ones?  Shit, I call us all "gamers".  We play games.  Games are fun.  If you're not having fun, don't play.  I really don't get how people complicate that.

Originally posted by madeux

Originally posted by Edli

Originally posted by madeux

Originally posted by Kordesh

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by nariusseldon

 

Personally i have no problem with RMT. I always have a choice of what to buy and what not.

For those who cannot stand RMT, find another hobby. There are more entertainment in the world then just video games.

 

So you believe people should not be allowed to play MMORPGs, unless they like the same payment model you do. Interesting.

That one is particularly interesting because not only is he suggesting that everyone MUST agree with RMT (IE: Cheat to win) but its especially arrogant given that his preferred method of play that he feels everyone else should find another hobby for happens to be a bannable offense in most games.

 Or you could take two seconds to see what he is ACTUALLY saying... the market is going to f2p, so if you don't like it, you're going to have to find something else to do.  And if it's allowed by the dev, then it's obviously  not cheating, so you're just making yourself look stupid when you say things like this.

 

Ok seriously how is the marketing going f2p? We p2p gamers are waiting for Sw tor, FFXIV, Tera, rift ect. How can we leave when all these games are coming for us?

 Well, for one, Bioware has left the RMT option open for SW:TOR.

Secondly, more people play f2p games than p2p games... that should be your clue of where the market is going.  Not to mention D&D, LOTRO... I'm not saying one is better than the other, just looking objectively and see what is happening.

If you understand the nature of markets, then you know how ephemeral this kind of statement is. 3 months ago, the "market" was going face-book/social gaming as that was the hype/buzzword of the day, today it's F2P/Hybrid...3 months from now who knows what it will be. There are always exec's with more fancy ties then brains who will go chasing after the next hyped up flashy "magic recipie for business success" that comes along and there will always be a ton of pundits hyping that buzz as "the next big thing". That's how we end up with dot com bubbles and sub-prime mortgage crisis. In the end, most of these trends end up with about the same amount of staying power as a Milli-Vanilli album.

Does F2P, RMT have staying power in Western Markets? I don't know, maybe....but the fact that it's being hyped to high heaven right now doesn't mean it has any real legs. Even if F2P does end up having more long term staying power, that's a far cry from pretending the P2P model is dead as an option for gamers.

When the automatic transmission for cars first came out it was predicted to be the death of the standard transmission. Yet even after decades, you can still pretty much purchase a car with a standard transmission from nearly every manufacturer and nearly every model if you want it....Your choices may be a bit more limited but they are there.

I expect the same will hold true for P2P gamers. If there is a significant market demand for something...and you can't claim that there isn't a significant demand for P2P out there... SOMEONE is going to be scrambling to try to meet that demand.

Originally posted by zeowyrm

Originally posted by Scot

Anything you do in life that you stick with is an achievement, the other guy in a F2P game bought his way to top level. So I think it is fair for the sportsmen and women to say ‘that was our achievement’. Winning a game of football, beating the raid boss, slapping down the opposition in PvP, what’s the difference?

 

Paying to Win will always separate out the fashionista from the sportsman, as he does not mind anything being bought in a cash shop. Whereas be it Battelfield2 or Lotro a sportsman expects money to make no difference to your performance. PvP game effecting cash shop items are the performance drugs of the MMO world. Gotta beef up and get some steroids down me for the match.

 

That’s the dividing line between us, I don’t want all games to be P2P, quite happy their are F2P games for you guys to go to. It is those who want everything to be F2P who are showing their intolerance here.

Right.  You feel the need to label people as either "fashionistas" or "sportsmen" and we're the intolerant ones?  Shit, I call us all "gamers".  We play games.  Games are fun.  If you're not having fun, don't play.  I really don't get how people complicate that.

Basic tribalism. One sees it in many aspects of human activity.  Just remember; "You're either with us, or you're with the fashionista's!"... <grin>

As I mentioned, this P2P, F2P hybrid question is taking on aspects of a religious crusade with some people.  Can't  you just see one of them standing with a copy of Das Kapitol clutched in one hand, over their head as they shout' "Gamers of the world UNITE! You have nothing to lose but your F2P!"...

Come on guys, this is just about GAMES! If you don't like F2P or hybrids don't play them.

Originally posted by Wraithone

Basic tribalism. One sees it in many aspects of human activity.  Just remember; "You're either with us, or you're with the fashionista's!"...

As I mentioned, this P2P, F2P hybrid question is taking on aspects of a religious crusade with some people.  Can't  you just see one of them standing with a copy of Das Kapitol clutched in one hand, over their head as they shout' "Gamers of the world UNITE! You have nothing to lose but your F2P!"...

Come on guys, this is just about GAMES! If you don't like F2P or hybrids don't play them.

That's pretty much my personal stance. I don't like F2P or subscription games with an item mall, cash shop, or whatever else you want to call RMT.

I don't have a problem with games like this existing, I just won't play them. I do however, have a problem with a game I have been enjoying that previously did not have RMT, suddenly being changed to include RMT. In my eyes, such a change is greedy and/or underhanded.

But aside from that, I don't see what the big problem is. Some people like one model, some people like the other. I don't think it's fair to be labeled by some pro-F2P gamers as being "irrationally hateful" or "ignorant" of the F2P model. Does it really matter why I don't like the F2P model? I just don't like it, that's my personal preference, and all the name calling and rationization from their perspective isn't going to change that.

I wish that gamers and developers would just accept that no one model is superior for everyone, and that there are many players who like or dislike both payment models. Trying to push everything one way or another is bound to upset someone. Why can't we just have variety and choice?

Originally posted by Wraithone

Originally posted by Ceridith

Originally posted by Cruoris

i dont understand why making money is considered greedy.  an item mall in an MMO is just a business venture. its not greed.  people are allowed to innovate, and market their creations as they see fit.

opening a store and then setting a revolving calender of deals and discounts wouldnt be greedy, it would be marketing and advertising.  stop being so hateful.  its obvious you cant produce any rational arguements without needing to paint your opponents as slobbering monsters.  its the oldest and dumbest trick in the book.  try being honest, and explaining why it makes you feel so bad that F2P with shops is becoming dominant. then maybe youll be taken seriously in you views, instead of just another WoW( or whatever) customer threatening to cancel his sub if he doesent immediately get his way.

Greed is also known as wanting more than your fair share.

Paying a monthly subscription makes sense. The servers cost money to run, staff needs to be paid, content patches made, etc. All in all, the $15 or so a month is a pretty damn good deal.

And then there's the $10 pet, and $25 mount... in the case of WoW.

Step back a moment and look at the price difference. $10 for a pet, $25 for a mount, when the monthly subscription costs $15 a month. In a game where new vanity pet and mount designs have been practically freely given away as accessible content in part of the subscription for years... they suddenly want to charge around the same amount of money that gets you access to 99.99999% of the rest of the game for a month.

Call me crazy, but that's a rip off.

Now, if there was no monthly subscription, different story. Then again, I wouldn't even give a flying flip about the game if it was F2P anyways for various other reasons.

So, just what IS "your fair share"?  Who gets to make that determination? The Party?...

As far as the silly looking My Little Pony mount in WoW, no one forced anyone to purchase it.  But Blizzard certainly sold a great number of them.  I say more power to them. There was obviously a market for it, and they supplied that demand.

This entire P2P, F2P, hybrid question is taking on the elements of a religious crusade to some people.  Its simple. If you don't like the F2P or hybrid business model, don't play games that use them.

"Fair share" is determined as a mutualy agreeable trade between the seller and purchaser of goods. With a P2P/subscription based model it's pretty straightforward what that bargain is. You pay a set fee up front and you get to enjoy as much or as little of the content as you want for that fee. If the game provides enough entertainment to the individual to be worth the fee, then it's a fair bargain.

The F2P/Hybrid model is a bit more complicated. Essentialy they allow you "Free" access to the service but then limit your access to those services or put in things that will negatively impact your enjoyment of that service unless you pay to remedy those restrictions. Labeling/Marketing it as "Free" is actualy somewhat deceptive since in order to get what most would consider a decent level of service it's anything but that. Then you have the developers that try to impliment cash shops on top of a standard subscription. 

In essence what Developers are doing is trying to change the bargain to make us pay more for, what many of us percieve, as a lower level of service. There is nothing wrong with a for profit company trying to maximize it's profits. However, if a company does that to a degree that most of it's customers consider unreasonable, there is nothing wrong or inaccurate with those customers labeling such a move as "greedy" and reconsidering thier business relationship with it.

In essence, what alot of us see happening here are companies advertising "Free" cars....but when you get the car it lacks tires, a windshield, transmission, doors, etc....all of which you have to pay for....and when all is said and done, by the time you end up with a complete car...you've paid $20,000 for a Yugo. Most consumers would consider that a raw deal.

All that you are seeing here is a group of gamers (consumers) rather verbosely....

- Puncturing the Developers "Free to Play" marketing hype to point out that these games are anything but that when all is said and done.

- Pointing out very loudly and clearly that we are well aware that the Developers are seeking to change the nature of the existing bargain ....and that we will pay very close attention to what terms they try to set for that bargain

- Pointing out to existing subscription model games that we expect our subscription fee SHOULD cover full access to thier games and ALL items in them. In other words, putting in a cash shop is unacceptable to us in terms of what we feel our subscription fees should cover.

-  Pointing out that F2P/RMT models DO have some effects of the game design and play atmosphere that we consider negative.

As a Consumer, even if you are a F2P fan, you should actualy be happy about some of this....especialy the first point about penetrating the marketing hype and really getting to the bottom of what services you actualy get at what price. The only people who wouldn't be happy about that would be the developers marketing people.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

Originally posted by Wraithone

Originally posted by Ceridith

Originally posted by Cruoris

i dont understand why making money is considered greedy.  an item mall in an MMO is just a business venture. its not greed.  people are allowed to innovate, and market their creations as they see fit.

opening a store and then setting a revolving calender of deals and discounts wouldnt be greedy, it would be marketing and advertising.  stop being so hateful.  its obvious you cant produce any rational arguements without needing to paint your opponents as slobbering monsters.  its the oldest and dumbest trick in the book.  try being honest, and explaining why it makes you feel so bad that F2P with shops is becoming dominant. then maybe youll be taken seriously in you views, instead of just another WoW( or whatever) customer threatening to cancel his sub if he doesent immediately get his way.

Greed is also known as wanting more than your fair share.

Paying a monthly subscription makes sense. The servers cost money to run, staff needs to be paid, content patches made, etc. All in all, the $15 or so a month is a pretty damn good deal.

And then there's the $10 pet, and $25 mount... in the case of WoW.

Step back a moment and look at the price difference. $10 for a pet, $25 for a mount, when the monthly subscription costs $15 a month. In a game where new vanity pet and mount designs have been practically freely given away as accessible content in part of the subscription for years... they suddenly want to charge around the same amount of money that gets you access to 99.99999% of the rest of the game for a month.

Call me crazy, but that's a rip off.

Now, if there was no monthly subscription, different story. Then again, I wouldn't even give a flying flip about the game if it was F2P anyways for various other reasons.

So, just what IS "your fair share"?  Who gets to make that determination? The Party?...

As far as the silly looking My Little Pony mount in WoW, no one forced anyone to purchase it.  But Blizzard certainly sold a great number of them.  I say more power to them. There was obviously a market for it, and they supplied that demand.

This entire P2P, F2P, hybrid question is taking on the elements of a religious crusade to some people.  Its simple. If you don't like the F2P or hybrid business model, don't play games that use them.

"Fair share" is determined as a mutualy agreeable trade between the seller and purchaser of goods. With a P2P/subscription based model it's pretty straightforward what that bargain is. You pay a set fee up front and you get to enjoy as much or as little of the content as you want for that fee. If the game provides enough entertainment to the individual to be worth the fee, then it's a fair bargain.

The F2P/Hybrid model is a bit more complicated. Essentialy they allow you "Free" access to the service but then limit your access to those services or put in things that will negatively impact your enjoyment of that service unless you pay to remedy those restrictions. Labeling/Marketing it as "Free" is actualy somewhat deceptive since in order to get what most would consider a decent level of service it's anything but that. Then you have the developers that try to impliment cash shops on top of a standard subscription. 

In essence what Developers are doing is trying to change the bargain to make us pay more for, what many of us percieve, as a lower level of service. There is nothing wrong with a for profit company trying to maximize it's profits. However, if a company does that to a degree that most of it's customers consider unreasonable, there is nothing wrong or inaccurate with those customers labeling such a move as "greedy" and reconsidering thier business relationship with it.

In essence, what alot of us see happening here are companies advertising "Free" cars....but when you get the car it lacks tires, a windshield, transmission, doors, etc....all of which you have to pay for....and when all is said and done, by the time you end up with a complete car...you've paid $20,000 for a Yugo. Most consumers would consider that a raw deal.

All that you are seeing here is a group of gamers (consumers) rather verbosely....

- Puncturing the Developers "Free to Play" marketing hype to point out that these games are anything but that when all is said and done.

- Pointing out very loudly and clearly that we are well aware that the Developers are seeking to change the nature of the existing bargain ....and that we will pay very close attention to what terms they try to set for that bargain

- Pointing out to existing subscription model games that we expect our subscription fee SHOULD cover full access to thier games and ALL items in them. In other words, putting in a cash shop is unacceptable to us in terms of what we feel our subscription fees should cover.

-  Pointing out that F2P/RMT models DO have some effects of the game design and play atmosphere that we consider negative.

As a Consumer, even if you are a F2P fan, you should actualy be happy about some of this....especialy the first point about penetrating the marketing hype and really getting to the bottom of what services you actualy get at what price. The only people who wouldn't be happy about that would be the developers marketing people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks, thats much better than anyone else has managed to this point.  That *is* much closer to classical Austrian economics, in terms of the agreement (be it implicit or explicit) between the parties in question.  The question then remains one of the on going terms of the agreement.

Personally, since one of the parties(the player) makes the final determination about continuing the agreement, I'd say that its up to the developers to be aware that their actions can cause that agreement to end.  Thus that has to be part of their decisions on changing (or establishing) their business model.

That having been said, "greed" still remains an emotional hot button, more useful to elicit a reflexive knee jerk reaction, than an attempt at clear communication. 

As for "free" to play, being "free".  Yes, it is deceptive in the sense that it allows people to believe that it is "free" in a total sense, rather than partial.  Yes, one is not forced to pay anything for the basic game. But if one wants much beyond the basics, its going to cost money. 

Lets face it, this is about making a profit.  Making even the most basic MMO takes time, talent and money.  If I enjoy a game(no matter the business model involved) I want the Dev's to make a profit for their hard work.  That is after all in my own self interest, as they are more likely to keep the game going(and perhaps add to it) if they make a profit.

Bottom line,  those who don't like the F2P or hybrid business systems shouldn't play those games.  If your current P2P goes hybrid or F2P, then by all means find another game to play that you enjoy. Let market dynamics sort these things out.

Originally posted by Wraithone

Bottom line,  those who do don't like the F2P or hybrid business systems shouldn't play those games.  If your current P2P goes hybrid or F2P, then by all means find another game to play that you enjoy. Let market dynamics sort these things out.

Which is essentially what those of us who greatly dislike the F2P and/or hybrid RMT payment models are doing.

What I find ridiculous is the trend in certain posters berating those of us who would make the aformentioned choice.

We are labeled as 'irrational', 'ignorant', and even 'blindly hateful' of F2P and RMT in general. These same people tend to claim that F2P is the future of the entire industry, where subscription games are a thing of the past. Furthermore, that any resistance to the industry shifting to F2P and/or RMT is nothing less than lunacy.

The sentiments from each side to be very uneven.

"I don't like F2P games or RMT, so I'm going to avoid MMOs with those things."

Versus...

"F2P and RMT is the future. Accept it, anything else is just blind ignorance and hate."

Maybe it's my perception of it, but things seem rather skewed, which is a bit suspect.

Originally posted by Ceridith

Originally posted by Wraithone

Bottom line,  those who do don't like the F2P or hybrid business systems shouldn't play those games.  If your current P2P goes hybrid or F2P, then by all means find another game to play that you enjoy. Let market dynamics sort these things out.

Which is essentially what those of us who greatly dislike the F2P and/or hybrid RMT payment models are doing.

What I find ridiculous is the trend in certain posters berating those of us who would make the aformentioned choice.

We are labeled as 'irrational', 'ignorant', and even 'blindly hateful' of F2P and RMT in general. These same people tend to claim that F2P is the future of the entire industry, where subscription games are a thing of the past. Furthermore, that any resistance to the industry shifting to F2P and/or RMT is nothing less than lunacy.

The sentiments from each side to be very uneven.

"I don't like F2P games or RMT, so I'm going to avoid MMOs with those things."

Versus...

"F2P and RMT is the future. Accept it, anything else is just blind ignorance and hate."

Maybe it's my perception of it, but things seem rather skewed, which is a bit suspect.

Its probably just bias.  Personally I see a lot of f2p opponents just making up random things to make their point.  There are a few, like yourself, that present their argument in a sensible fashion that I respect, but there are many that are just flat out knee jerking. 

TL:DR There are asshats on both sides of the argument, and there are good reasonable arguments on both sides.

In essence what Developers are doing is trying to change the bargain to make us pay more for, what many of us percieve, as a lower level of service.

*This* is total bullshit.

If a large % of F2P players are paying NOTHING, how can this be framed as "make us pay more"?

Sure the level of service is lower than a P2P service but you get it FOR FREE. I have been playing DDO here and there and yet to pay a cent. At this price, i don't expect WOW.

I don't think there is anything "unfair" in giving many players part of the game for free. If you read the fine print, you can even play to the end game for free.

I would have spend money & time on DDO or LOTRO. Now i can have some fun at no money. Tell me how that is not a good deal and why i should not be supporting it?

Originally posted by nariusseldon

In essence what Developers are doing is trying to change the bargain to make us pay more for, what many of us percieve, as a lower level of service.

*This* is total bullshit.

If a large % of F2P players are paying NOTHING, how can this be framed as "make us pay more"?

Sure the level of service is lower than a P2P service but you get it FOR FREE. I have been playing DDO here and there and yet to pay a cent. At this price, i don't expect WOW.

I don't think there is anything "unfair" in giving many players part of the game for free. If you read the fine print, you can even play to the end game for free.

I would have spend money & time on DDO or LOTRO. Now i can have some fun at no money. Tell me how that is not a good deal and why i should not be supporting it?

If it fits your needs, then there's no reason why you shouldn't.

But, that does not mean that the F2P model is for everyone else.

The only reason for developers to change the payment model of a game is to make more money. It's non-sensicle for a for-profit business to intentionally reduce their profit. Therefore, the change to a F2P model is specifically to get more money out of customers. There's two ways to do this, which is to charge players more, or by increasing the sheer volume of those paying. Of course, with more players means more cost in overhead to maintain the servers. When you take into consideration that the majority of new players to a game that goes F2P won't pay a dime, then the increase in profit obviously has to come from somewhere... which is where the existing playerbase comes in.

Either way, the shift to F2P is to make more money. Whether it's by hooking a lot of "free" players and then convincing them to spend a little, or to push existing customers to open their wallets even more with the newly instated item shop. That's what Turbine is betting the game on.