Originally posted by Onomas

Originally posted by Slappy1

Originally posted by Onomas

There is far worse that TOR, i point at Atlantica Online as one example.

I've only played maybe 30 min of that game.

The question I have is,do you need to spend that much to progress in the game?Or is that for convenience/to be competetive?I'm betting it's convenience and you can actually play pretty cheap.

You need to upgrade your armor and weapons using cash shop items. You also need to upgrade your mercs/players you control via cash shop items. And much much more, it is a pay to win game, and costly. Play it longer and try it out, its one game i will never touch again. basicaly if you want a chance to be on par with other gamers you need to spend money. Again one reason why i hate F2P models.

I've read comment's about that game in the past,just didn't know it was ptw like that.I'm glad I uninstalled it.

Some games seem to get it right with ftp,or at least close.Other's are way off and just about $$$.

Originally posted by Onomas

Originally posted by Torvaldr

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

To get the same out of a f2p as a pay to play you are spending a great deal more than that $15 a month. 

Lets look at SWTOR, probably the worste example but... lets use it anyways. 

As a free to play player in SWTOR it's first going to cost you $100-$180 off the rip to unlock everything. Then it's going to cost you an additional $56 a month to get access to everything lol. 

"You have to pay for four different passes to unlock four of the game's five content avenues (all but the story) and each weekly pass is 240 cartel coins. As each cartel coin costs a little over 0.727 cents USD each, 240 per pass, four passes per character, two characters, four passes a month = 7680CC, or $55.84.

Now obviously, no sane person is going to actually pay $56 a month for SWTOR. They're going to pay the $15 subscription fee, or they're not going to pay at all. Which makes one thing very painfully obvious: SWTOR's F2P isn't meant to be a free-to-play MMORPG; it's meant to be an excessively contrived demo to get people to sign up for subscriptions."

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/183525/the_burning_of_star_wars_the_old_.php

Your logic is horrible.  You can't take the example of one game and apply it to every game.  I don't play games, subscription or sub-free, that would require that much of investment.  It's like those sub games that make you purchase each and every expansion just to get caught up to date in addition to their sub fee.

None of the sub-free games I play (GW2, TSW, EQ2, STO, GW1, LotRO, RaiderZ, TL2) require that I pay that per month to enjoy the game to its fullest.  My only suggestion is don't play and pay for games that gouge.

I've spent spent nearly $300 on rift since release.  All of that will be gone and useless after my subscription expires in March.  The only games that have cost me that much were LotRO (most of that from the sub days) and GW1 ($250 - $300 over the last 7 years).  I still have access to all the content in my sub free games and can still login and enjoy them.  I can't say the same for my sub based games.

Like I've said, I don't really care if you like subs or not.  I don't and can play more for less money.  It works great for me.

And your example of games is pointless. First three of the games you mention are B2P, thus not using F2P model. LoTRO just had a release of an expensive expansion--59.99$ so your f2p game isnt "free". RaiderZ is still in beta testing, thus you are not 100% sure on how the market/cash shop will be further down the line. And TL2 is a single player game with multiplayer options, co-op play, not a mmorpg. And its B2P also.

People need to stop refering games that are not F2P as an example of how well F2P games are.

Actually my example is just fine.  You and the rest of the sub people get hung up on "F2P" and other marketing buzzwords and what they mean.  That's why I try and avoid them.  Nothing is free.  To me F2P is just a marketing blurb and it just means "subscription free".

I don't care if the games are "B2P" or "F2P".  I just care if my game is locked by subscription only access or not.  I don't care if it's an MMO or a multi-player game like D3 or TL2.  Those sorts of labels and restrictions are meaningless to me if I enjoy the game.

The LotRO expansion is expensive in my opinion and as such will wait for it to go on saie or will just buy the quest pack for less later.  I buy content on sale mostly.  The thing is when compared to the sub only xpac of rift ($40 - $60) I will still have the Rohan xpac once I buy it.  In a few months my $40 on rift would be locked and unaviable when my sub expires.  Six years later I still have access to all my LotRO content.  I can't say that for any other sub game, unless I pony up more cash for them.

By the way, RaiderZ is not in beta and has the same style of cash shop as most other cash shop games, a mixture of convenience and advantage.  Not unlike the xpac in rift.  I pay more for the xpac I get the advantage of progression and better gear.  Since I didn't all my rift characters are stuck at a disadvantage even though I've paid for that sub time.

That is really all irelevant though.  The topic is why the sub is so expensive and how that is't fair.  How is the expensive sub not fair?  The OP doesn't have to pay it, but wants the advantage of the status.  It seems a fairly ridiculous complaint.

Originally posted by Onomas

Originally posted by Torvaldr

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

Originally posted by Torvaldr

Originally posted by Onomas

Shouldnt have cried about a 15$ a month or 50 cents a day sub lol. Now you are stuck with outrageous f2p cash shops which more go pay to win lol.

 

Actually it's the SUBSCRIPTION that costs more not the F2P.  I spend nowhere near that much a month per game for any of my games.

But, since it's a sub, what's wrong with paying a dollar a day.  I mean if 50 cents is pocket change surely another 50 is peanuts as well.  Why are the sub people complaining about the cost of their subs?

To get the same out of a f2p as a pay to play you are spending a great deal more than that $15 a month. 

Lets look at SWTOR, probably the worste example but... lets use it anyways. 

As a free to play player in SWTOR it's first going to cost you $100-$180 off the rip to unlock everything. Then it's going to cost you an additional $56 a month to get access to everything lol. 

"You have to pay for four different passes to unlock four of the game's five content avenues (all but the story) and each weekly pass is 240 cartel coins. As each cartel coin costs a little over 0.727 cents USD each, 240 per pass, four passes per character, two characters, four passes a month = 7680CC, or $55.84.

Now obviously, no sane person is going to actually pay $56 a month for SWTOR. They're going to pay the $15 subscription fee, or they're not going to pay at all. Which makes one thing very painfully obvious: SWTOR's F2P isn't meant to be a free-to-play MMORPG; it's meant to be an excessively contrived demo to get people to sign up for subscriptions."

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/183525/the_burning_of_star_wars_the_old_.php

Your logic is horrible.  You can't take the example of one game and apply it to every game.  I don't play games, subscription or sub-free, that would require that much of investment.  It's like those sub games that make you purchase each and every expansion just to get caught up to date in addition to their sub fee.

None of the sub-free games I play (GW2, TSW, EQ2, STO, GW1, LotRO, RaiderZ, TL2) require that I pay that per month to enjoy the game to its fullest.  My only suggestion is don't play and pay for games that gouge.

I've spent spent nearly $300 on rift since release.  All of that will be gone and useless after my subscription expires in March.  The only games that have cost me that much were LotRO (most of that from the sub days) and GW1 ($250 - $300 over the last 7 years).  I still have access to all the content in my sub free games and can still login and enjoy them.  I can't say the same for my sub based games.

Like I've said, I don't really care if you like subs or not.  I don't and can play more for less money.  It works great for me.

 

 

 

And your example of games is pointless. First three of the games you mention are B2P, thus not using F2P model. LoTRO just had a release of an expensive expansion--59.99$ so your f2p game isnt "free". RaiderZ is still in beta testing, thus you are not 100% sure on how the market/cash shop will be further down the line. And TL2 is a single player game with multiplayer options, co-op play, not a mmorpg. And its B2P also.

People need to stop refering games that are not F2P as an example of how well F2P games are.

Actually RaiderZ isn't in beta any more. I have a level 35 defender and a level 34 berzerker.  My main interest in the game is the combat system.  The cash shop is quite restrained as these things go.  Once they get around to raising the level cap, and adding more content, I plan to go back.  Once again, I have no problem with spending money on games I enjoy. B2P, F2P, subscription, or some hybrid. All that matters to me is if I enjoy the game.

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

 

I agree there are good models like Planet Side 2, but that isn't what people are complaining about. People are complaining about the assinine f2p models like SWTOR. 

 

Then don't play TOR, and the ones you don't like. It is an entertainment product. It is not a necessity of life.

Personally i play F2P MMOs .. and i don't play TOR because i think they don't make enough of the game free. However, i support their freedom of charging whatever they want. Just that you won't see my playing.

It is a pretty fair world .. they have the freedom to charge anything for their content, and you have the freedom to play other games. Given how many F2P games are out there ... i won't miss some over-priced ones.

Aren't the people who are buying thirty to fifty dollars worth of stuff in cash shops doing it of their own free will? I mean, they are choosing to buy the stuff...it's not being forced upon them, right? There are also other games available to play that don't cost nearly as much, yes? So they are choosing to play the expensive games in the first place, right?

I would say it's never not been okay to charge anyone whatever you want to charge them in a game. If people are willing to pay the price you charge, then not only is it okay, it's profitable.

I would be fine with games moving towards B2P rather than F2P myself. I don't know if games will move more in that direction, but it at least seems like a possibility.

** edit **
Heh. What nariusseldon said.

Originally posted by delete5230

 and all others don't have the same package as you !

 

Since everyone else seems to be picking this post apart, I just thought I'd bring a little humor to it...

Originally posted by Varthander
i think that MMO'S should be B2P, i dont think that will lead any of them to ruin.

I think b2p has a strict disadvantage over f2p in that it discourages new players. I think B2P can only fundamentally work if you have the hype behind it like Guild Wars 2 did. I think it is almost better to have f2p with a founder's pack for most games.

for the two examples that set this off:

Ghost Recon Online sells their boosters at the rate of about $15 for a 7 day item.

C9 is selling "premium service" (AKA booster) for $33.60 a month.

neither game actually -needs- those boosters to progress at a realistic pace, so they are actually a boost instead of a requirement (which is why I still play them), but I still find it puzzling that publishers seem to have no real reservation about posting prices like that. there are plenty of other games out there that are way worse than those two, and actually require long term players to buy into "full service" packages to avoid hitting progression walls, but those were the two that brought my attention to how F2P service packages have really started to balloon.

I mean, sure most F2P games have some means of fucking dedicated players (not F2P hating, I'm a F2P player through and through: no sub for me ever) with end game pay or GTFO traps; but those are usually hidden expenses instead of just flat out extortion ...

This is why I am happy paying my monthly subscription to a subscription game.

All this talk of F2P being the way forward by guest writers on mmorpg.com was insightful but at the same time did not take account of the greed of human kind.

By all means charge me monthly for a superb game but do not ever rip me off for what seems to be mediocre games.

Only 3 games have done F2P right for me, CoX, TSW, PS2.

say thanks to the "I'll play it when it goes f2p" folks.

Ya know, those jerks who think when a businessmodel name contains "free" it actually means.. not paying anything

quality lies with the design, not the pricing structure; there are plenty of P2P games that are total shit from day one.

games that were developed to be F2P from the ground up are typically exceptional titles. granted that they tend to be smaller titles with a heavier slant on PVP to fill in the gaps, but they are still generally worth playing and (IMO) are a little more rewarding due to their quick progression.

it's all in how you look at it: F2P monetizes things that P2P gives out for free, but progression in such games is usually MUCH faster, with higher rewards for your effort VS P2P progression rates. P2P gives you everything for free, but typically makes the requirements for said items unbelievably time consuming. When it comes down to it, $50 for a high level mount may actually be more affordable than the cost in sub fees it will take you to get to the point you can actually access the comparable content.

the worst ones (which happen to most of the early F2P conversions, and the root cause for the stigma against F2P) are the ones that were designed with P2P progression rates, then converted to F2P; resulting in games that progress at the P2P snail's pace, but still make you pay for notable items in a cash shop.

Originally posted by zymurgeist
I think all the " you don't need to pay that much" posts miss the point. Of course you don't need to pay anything at all. What staggers my imagination is how is even possible to pay that much? At some point don't these companies say "Ok this is just too outrageous?" It's like the joke about selling pencils (or whatever)  for a million dollars each because you only need to sell one.

yeah, and it's biting them in the ass now: notice how few new F2P localizations have come out this year VS last?

there is still just as many upcoming MMO's in Korea that could be localized, but western F2P localizers have poached off too many "Whales" and the return just aren't what they used to be.

Originally posted by Torvaldr

That is really all irelevant though.  The topic is why the sub is so expensive and how that is't fair.  How is the expensive sub not fair?  The OP doesn't have to pay it, but wants the advantage of the status.  It seems a fairly ridiculous complaint.

OP wants to know why P2W games charge more than sub prices for the same gaming experience.  I didn't see him/her asking for the same gaming experience for free.  

I don't find the OP's logic to be to out of line.  Everyone that has played a sub based game doesn't expect to ever pay more than $15.00 month for entire access to a game.  

Originally posted by zymurgeist
At some point don't these companies say "Ok this is just too outrageous?"

A corporate board room with a conscience? I think not.

Their goal is to bleed customers (us) out of every stinkin' cent they can get away with. Consider what might happen to board room members that question the greed machine with terms like "outrageous" and you'll have your answer.

Originally posted by Sogi-Ya

I'm seeing F2P game after F2P game price gouge the fuck out of "premium services" and "boosters," sometimes for double or tripple the cost of what it would take for a monthly subscription to a P2P game .... when did this becoime ok to do?

 

I guess this is the victory lap F2P beating P2P or something: now that F2P has is clearly winning the battle VS P2P it dosen't have to keep competitive on comparable subscriptions pricing.

 

[mod edit]: the whole reason F2P took off was because it was more accessible and affordable than P2P, shit gets too bad people will just shift back in the other direction ... espacally if going B2P works out for TSW and western P2P holdouts realise that there are other options to stay competitive.

It's always been "ok" to do.  If not enough people pay that price, they will either lower it or go out of business.  Why shouldn't they charge what people are willing to pay?  This is why I don't buy Apple products.  When did it become ok to charge 1000.00 for 300.00 worth of parts?

Originally posted by Sogi-Ya

I'm seeing F2P game after F2P game price gouge the fuck out of "premium services" and "boosters," sometimes for double or tripple the cost of what it would take for a monthly subscription to a P2P game .... when did this becoime ok to do?

 

I guess this is the victory lap F2P beating P2P or something: now that F2P has is clearly winning the battle VS P2P it dosen't have to keep competitive on comparable subscriptions pricing.

 

[mod edit]: the whole reason F2P took off was because it was more accessible and affordable than P2P, shit gets too bad people will just shift back in the other direction ... espacally if going B2P works out for TSW and western P2P holdouts realise that there are other options to stay competitive.

The frogs have been slow boiled and are still sitting in the pan.

It became ok when the buying public said it was ok, and argued on the forums and whatever to try and convince others it was also ok in order to validate their state of mind.

The carpet bagging of the games industry... at least you get to say you was here.

Originally posted by Sogi-Ya

quality lies with the design, not the pricing structure; there are plenty of P2P games that are total shit from day one.

games that were developed to be F2P from the ground up are typically exceptional titles. granted that they tend to be smaller titles with a heavier slant on PVP to fill in the gaps, but they are still generally worth playing and (IMO) are a little more rewarding due to their quick progression.

it's all in how you look at it: F2P monetizes things that P2P gives out for free, but progression in such games is usually MUCH faster, with higher rewards for your effort VS P2P progression rates. P2P gives you everything for free, but typically makes the requirements for said items unbelievably time consuming. When it comes down to it, $50 for a high level mount may actually be more affordable than the cost in sub fees it will take you to get to the point you can actually access the comparable content.

the worst ones (which happen to most of the early F2P conversions, and the root cause for the stigma against F2P) are the ones that were designed with P2P progression rates, then converted to F2P; resulting in games that progress at the P2P snail's pace, but still make you pay for notable items in a cash shop.

Your statements are BS.  The fundamental design of P2W games is based on monetization.  Without this core design these companies don't make money, and the tradeoff for this design phliosphy is quality. 

Your progression rate statements are ridiculous.  The core design of the cash shop model is to throw in hurdles so people purchase the advancement (item).   It is there to encourage you to purchase items.   Why would they make things easier so you would be less inclined to purchase?