Offering a game as a free experience with the option to use a cash shop is one thing. 

Having people spend hundreds on the shop only to screw them with subscriber only features is the worst thing a mmo developer could do.

I don't know how these guys sleep at night...

THankfully I have a game like LoL that offers a free experience with the option to make my gaming less of a grind or buy skins to increase my overall enjoyment. I've spent atleast 60 bucks in LoLs CS because I dont fell forced to use it.

Before I left Lotro everything was great, I was unlocking content by playing the game and occasionally I would sink cash into the CS to unlock classes or zones if i got lazy. It felt completely natural to do this and i was supporting the game. Until I wanted to pvp or fast travel and found out it was subscriber only.

Lotro isnt the only one that does this BS. And people wonder why F2p games get so much hate on community forums.

./end rant

The people that pay monthly for something get access or features that the people who play for free don't get. This, to you, is wrong or unfair?

Originally posted by Loktofeit

 

The people that pay monthly for something get access or features that the people who play for free don't get. This, to you, is wrong or unfair?

 

No I just want the option to buy those same features through a CS. 

If you pay a subscription the CS shouldnt even exist for you since all the content should be given to u. 

A micro-transaction model should be just that. I gain access to the game and buy what i want to experience. 

Probelm is to hook people into subs they only offer 90% of the features to those players and force you to subscribe to access the other stuff.

Why not add those features to the shop? Even if its expensive atleast its an option, right?

Originally posted by Loktofeit

 

The people that pay monthly for something get access or features that the people who play for free don't get. This, to you, is wrong or unfair?

 

Have to agree here. If someone is paying a sub fee they should be treated to more than someone who isnt giving a company money. People that arent paying arent helping keeping the game going....unless they use the cash shop as someone may only want couple xtra features of a game.

***Dances with kat Denning***

Originally posted by RavingRabbid

Originally posted by Loktofeit

 

The people that pay monthly for something get access or features that the people who play for free don't get. This, to you, is wrong or unfair?

 

Have to agree here. If someone is paying a sub fee they should be treated to more than someone who isnt giving a company money. People that arent paying arent helping keeping the game going.

***Dances with kat Denning***

Player that use a CS pay way more that subscribers up front... Why shouldnt all the content be offered in the shop?

It's ok for a CS user to spend 200 bucks on content and then find out that pvp, fast travel or crafting is only available to a subscriber? why cant i buy a pvp pass in the CS? 

Im willing to support the developer just like a subscriber, why exclude me from content im willing to pay for?

The best kind of CS is one, that doesn't make you feel forced into buying from it.

Originally posted by Z3R01

 

Offering a game as a free experience with the option to use a cash shop is one thing. 

Having people spend hundreds on the shop only to screw them with subscriber only features is the worst thing a mmo developer could do.

I don't know how these guys sleep at night...

THankfully I have a game like LoL that offers a free experience with the option to make my gaming less of a grind or buy skins to increase my overall enjoyment. I've spent atleast 60 bucks in LoLs CS because I dont fell forced to use it.

Before I left Lotro everything was great, I was unlocking content by playing the game and occasionally I would sink cash into the CS to unlock classes or zones if i got lazy. It felt completely natural to do this and i was supporting the game. Until I wanted to pvp or fast travel and found out it was subscriber only.

Lotro isnt the only one that does this BS. And people wonder why F2p games get so much hate on community forums.

 

./end rant

 

 

I hate to have to tell you this isn't the reason f2p get's so much hate on community forums.  I can't take away your right to an opinion but can say you are putting out an opinion that you are going to find yourself very much in the minority on, if a game that is free to play also offers a subscription fee I'd think it obvious that means the devs would prefer you subscribe.

If someone is spending hundreds in a cash shop (especially lotro) they are a fool when they can simply sub and get a pretty nice stipend of TP a month is that really on the devs now???

How about cash shops and micro-transactions shouldn't even exist in MMO's. Subs should be the only way. Especially considering they are "suppose" to be long adventures. Not fast instant gratification RPG console games in an MMO wrapper. And for Christ sakes....they offer the option to buy content and advancement?!!? ...............sad. For the OP....

/world's smallest violin begins strumming.

 That is another part of why I have yet to enjoy any of the former P2P's turned F2P (and fyi i'm a F2Per).

 Those games aren't at all like regular F2P's either.. where in most I can usually go through it's entire content from start to finish without buying a single thing and most CS items are just PvP focused or time savers (in other words, can be bought later on at the end of the game if you want to continue, or entirely optional).

  But in P2P converted to F2P, the CS still has all those PvP/time saver options, but then they also take it up a few notches by selling other more game breaking things by limiting content or major game features.

 Imo they should not even be considered or called F2P, they are their own dirty monsters, and in all honesty are the dirge of both worlds.

Originally posted by Z3R01

Originally posted by RavingRabbid

Originally posted by Loktofeit

 

The people that pay monthly for something get access or features that the people who play for free don't get. This, to you, is wrong or unfair?

 

Have to agree here. If someone is paying a sub fee they should be treated to more than someone who isnt giving a company money. People that arent paying arent helping keeping the game going.

***Dances with kat Denning***

Player that use a CS pay way more that subscribers up front... Why shouldnt all the content be offered in the shop?

It's ok for a CS user to spend 200 bucks on content and then find out that pvp, fast travel or crafting is only available to a subscriber? why cant i buy a pvp pass in the CS? 

Im willing to support the developer just like a subscriber, why exclude me from content im willing to pay for?

 

Your post assumes that all free to play players use the cash shop or spend more money than a subscriber period and that isn't the case a small percent of people who spend money in the cash shop spend lot's of money in it whereas we all know subscribers are a steady source of income.....

Look I don't like to call bs on someone but suddenly you begin throwing out numbers like 200 bucks and I think when I hear someone claim to have spent 200 on a game not free to play for a year I have to forget about your original rant and ask why in the hell don't you just subscribe????And if it's so easy to throw that kind of money away why complain about the peanuts it costs to sub?

Originally posted by Z3R01

 

Offering a game as a free experience with the option to use a cash shop is one thing. 

Having people spend hundreds on the shop only to screw them with subscriber only features is the worst thing a mmo developer could do.

I don't know how these guys sleep at night...

THankfully I have a game like LoL that offers a free experience with the option to make my gaming less of a grind or buy skins to increase my overall enjoyment. I've spent atleast 60 bucks in LoLs CS because I dont fell forced to use it.

Before I left Lotro everything was great, I was unlocking content by playing the game and occasionally I would sink cash into the CS to unlock classes or zones if i got lazy. It felt completely natural to do this and i was supporting the game. Until I wanted to pvp or fast travel and found out it was subscriber only.

Lotro isnt the only one that does this BS. And people wonder why F2p games get so much hate on community forums.

./end rant

You know what is worse?  Adding cash shop only features that subscribers have to pay extra to use!

If LotRO was a PvP centric game I would sympathize with you.  If LotRO didn't offer a F2P pvp option, and they do, then I would agree with you.  But LotRO is a pve centric game that has an option for pvp.  If you want full pvp access then you must currently subscribe, but don't think for one minute if they can make money by offering "Freep" access to pvp through the store that they won't do it asap.

I do agree with you main point though, but would modify it in this way: Hiding game features exclusively behind one payment option, in a hybrid model, takes a lot of the fun and freedom of play out of the game.  My biggest grive with LotRO, other than they design by committee and have no inspired leadership, is that they double dip for subscribers.  They add key game elements and new features as store exclusives that subscribers must pay extra for.  On the other hand EQ2x and AoC hide fun game play behind their subscriptions, offerinig only rented unlocks, if that, at best.

Bottom line is F2P is about gouging your customers for as much as possible and relying on player churn, rather than long term loyalty, to maximize revenue.  There isn't a Western publisher I can think of that offers a true hybrid payment model where you get a P2P experience while subbed, but have the option of dropping a sub and just using the cash shop to get your full game experience.  It sucks!

Originally posted by raistlinm

Originally posted by Z3R01

Originally posted by RavingRabbid

Originally posted by Loktofeit

 

The people that pay monthly for something get access or features that the people who play for free don't get. This, to you, is wrong or unfair?

 

Have to agree here. If someone is paying a sub fee they should be treated to more than someone who isnt giving a company money. People that arent paying arent helping keeping the game going.

***Dances with kat Denning***

Player that use a CS pay way more that subscribers up front... Why shouldnt all the content be offered in the shop?

It's ok for a CS user to spend 200 bucks on content and then find out that pvp, fast travel or crafting is only available to a subscriber? why cant i buy a pvp pass in the CS? 

Im willing to support the developer just like a subscriber, why exclude me from content im willing to pay for?

 

Your post assumes that all free to play players use the cash shop or spend more money than a subscriber period and that isn't the case a small percent of people who spend money in the cash shop spend lot's of money in it whereas we all know subscribers are a steady source of income.....

Look I don't like to call bs on someone but suddenly you begin throwing out numbers like 200 bucks and I think when I hear someone claim to have spent 200 on a game not free to play for a year I have to forget about your original rant and ask why in the hell don't you just subscribe????And if it's so easy to throw that kind of money away why complain about the peanuts it costs to sub?

Probably (And just guessing here) because then he is forced to actually progress through the content instead of having the option to simply skip steps and buy it to get 1337 faster. /eyeroll

Personally...I feel in the long run you are spending far more to use a CS than just paying a monthly sub. I mean, I played Allods Online for a year and nearly EVERYONE there spent stupid amounts of money on runes. You'd have bunches of lvl 30's running around with lvl 10+ runes on them (Highest was 13 at the time). Hundreds of dollars just to pwn (As they'd put it). Retarded.

People who pay more should get more whether they pay through an item shop, a sub or any other way. People who complain about this should probably become anti-capitalist activists.

Originally posted by Z3R01

Originally posted by RavingRabbid

Originally posted by Loktofeit

 

The people that pay monthly for something get access or features that the people who play for free don't get. This, to you, is wrong or unfair?

 

Have to agree here. If someone is paying a sub fee they should be treated to more than someone who isnt giving a company money. People that arent paying arent helping keeping the game going.

***Dances with kat Denning***

Player that use a CS pay way more that subscribers up front... Why shouldnt all the content be offered in the shop?

 It's enterily possible that people paying for dungeon content in the cash shop are outweighed by the number of people paying a sub and using the dungeon content. In that light, the value is there more for the sub users to have exclusive initial access before opening it later to CS users. 

• Some additional info because it's bound to come up:
• Most free players pay nothing up front and barely anything for the first few months.
• Only 10% spend money at all, and the big spenders (whales) are a subset of that 10% 
• ARPU in most F2P environments is about 2-7 USD. ARPU for most sub models is 15 USD.

Sources:

• http://games4networks.posterous.com/raphs-website-arpu-vs-arppu
• http://www.raphkoster.com/2009/03/16/arpu-vs-arppu/
• http://www.slideshare.net/MargaretWallace/inner-workings-of-virtual-goods-economies
• http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=23970
• http://gigaom.com/2008/02/03/the-gigaom-show-k2-networks-joshua-hong/

Originally posted by just2duh

 That is another part of why I have yet to enjoy any of the former P2P's turned F2P (and fyi i'm a F2Per).

 Those games aren't at all like regular F2P's either.. where in most I can usually go through it's entire content from start to finish without buying a single thing and most CS items are just PvP focused or time savers (in other words, can be bought later on at the end of the game if you want to continue, or entirely optional).

  But in P2P converted to F2P, the CS still has all those PvP/time saver options, but then they also take it up a few notches by selling other more game breaking things by limiting content or major game features.

 Imo they should not even be considered or called F2P, they are their own dirty monsters, and in all honesty are the dirge of both worlds.

I'm interested in the F2P games you've played that don't double dip like the conversion games do.  I wouldn't mind trying a couple, but everytime I follow one they end up having some shady side where they have rigged power up purchases, rigged items gambling, or some other shady practice.  I would like to experience a better F2P model to contrast this with the games I've played.

Originally posted by Torvaldr

Originally posted by just2duh

 That is another part of why I have yet to enjoy any of the former P2P's turned F2P (and fyi i'm a F2Per).

 Those games aren't at all like regular F2P's either.. where in most I can usually go through it's entire content from start to finish without buying a single thing and most CS items are just PvP focused or time savers (in other words, can be bought later on at the end of the game if you want to continue, or entirely optional).

  But in P2P converted to F2P, the CS still has all those PvP/time saver options, but then they also take it up a few notches by selling other more game breaking things by limiting content or major game features.

 Imo they should not even be considered or called F2P, they are their own dirty monsters, and in all honesty are the dirge of both worlds.

I'm interested in the F2P games you've played that don't double dip like the conversion games do.  I wouldn't mind trying a couple, but everytime I follow one they end up having some shady side where they have rigged power up purchases, rigged items gambling, or some other shady practice.  I would like to experience a better F2P model to contrast this with the games I've played.

Well of course they do...that is how they make their cash. They know there are TONS of players out there with no patience, and who play MMO's like they were a marathon race to get all the 1st....er.. 1st, and are usual willing to pay through the nose to get it first. I feel this is why so many are going to this craptastic new CS and Micro-transaction BS model.

Only an idiot would spend mass money on a video game. And you can spend 200+  a month but cant afford a 15/month sub??????

Originally posted by Goatgod76

How about cash shops and micro-transactions shouldn't even exist in MMO's. Subs should be the only way. Especially considering they are "suppose" to be long adventures. Not fast instant gratification RPG console games in an MMO wrapper. And for Christ sakes....they offer the option to buy content and advancement?!!? ...............sad. For the OP....

The only problem with subscriptions from my own perspective is that artificial grind is added to nearly every aspect of gameplay to keep you subbing for longer periods. This includes things like lockouts, rare mob timers, etc.

I don't think subscription = quality content. I'd much rather have free access to a game and purchase content when I'm ready for it. All subscription models do is reward those with the most free time.

Originally posted by pierth

Originally posted by Goatgod76

How about cash shops and micro-transactions shouldn't even exist in MMO's. Subs should be the only way. Especially considering they are "suppose" to be long adventures. Not fast instant gratification RPG console games in an MMO wrapper. And for Christ sakes....they offer the option to buy content and advancement?!!? ...............sad. For the OP....

The only problem with subscriptions from my own perspective is that artificial grind is added to nearly every aspect of gameplay to keep you subbing for longer periods. This includes things like lockouts, rare mob timers, etc.

 

I don't think subscription = quality content. I'd much rather have free access to a game and purchase content when I'm ready for it. All subscription models do is reward those with the most free time.

I have played many f2p games that have worse grinding that p2p.

F2P games you normaly spend a lot more than 15/month sub, not always but a lot are a little rough on the pocket togame experience ratio.

And either f2p or p2p, the ones with more free time normaly are ahead anyways.

You can also go to the extent and say f2p have a large advantage because you can buy your way to the top. No different than a gold farmer/seller just that the money you spend goes to game company and not to a 3rd party.

Every 'Freemium' game I've seen does offer everything you can get with a sub in the cash shop. It's kinda the whole point of the business model... 3 ways to play/2 ways to pay. You can play an abreviated game for free, you can buy the extra content a little at a time through the CS or you can get everything up front by paying a sub. EQ II Extended, LotRO, DDO and CO all use this model. I'm not sure what the OP is on about.

Bren