Im ok with goldfarming. people who use that services usually end up getting hacked by them

and when they complain they got hacked, the devs investigate the issue, find out the gold transaction, and ban them without restoring their accounts.

so a goldfarmer's customers ends up losing the money for the game, the money  for the gold, the items/gold after the hack, and finally the account itself

goldfarming work as a force of nature. it helps with natural selection. the idiots that use goldfarming services get hacked and banned, the smart ones that shy away from it get to play the game without them

having the convenience to make a new account in the blink of an eye is just 50% of the reasons why hackers-exploiers are prevalent in F2P titles

the other 50% is the likely chance of getting away with it

lets call a spade a spade. most F2P publishers dont bother setting up a customer service , antihacking measures or the staff manpower required to police their entire playerbase. actually many of them simply cut spendings short and put NOBODY to fill that positions.

losing a char that you took time to develop is always painful to everybody, even if you can start anew for free, noone really wants to do it all again.

but the potential gain greaty outweigths the potential cons in F2P games, because there are increased chances that you will actually get away with it. it is a fact, most F2P publishers simply doesnt care enough about hackers-cheaters-exploiters to spend money figthing them, and people doesnt demand them to do because mos accept that you get wha you paid for...since your not paying money, most accept as a matter of life getting no support whatsoever.

Originally posted by ZedTheRock

[mod edit]

except it isnt as black and white as your trying it to be

take for example Neverwinter Online. follow me here for a second:

they have an enchantment system that grants heyfty amounts of power at the highest level of enchantment

likewise, the higher the enchantment level, the lowers the chances of succeeding in enchanting your items, up to 1% at level 5. 

and of course, there is a cash shop item that gratns 100% success chance per enchantment attempt. but, and here's the kicker, you can get an ingame currency that trades directly for cash shop currency.

this is a pretty standard practice in F2P games, many sport similar systems.

it has been calculated that to be fully decked in the best possible enchantment level would cost someone close to $600

getting the amount of ingame currency to trade for cash shop currency would take years. YEARS, devoted to farm for it with your soul.

or....you could skip both the ingame currency and the cash shop, and try your luck at 1% per attempt...which again, would probably represent a multi-year quest for getting to the same level of a cash shop user.

but of course, on the paper, that possibility exists. 

dunno about you, but that still sounds like pure, absolute pay to win to me, even tho technically you can get there without paying

I think we all agree that there's a point where the grind becomes so absolutly ridicule and borderline clinically insane, that it actually defies th advertisements and it simply stops being a reasonable alternative to paying

but grind is a very subjetive term, so its impossible to quantify at what point a game is or isnt pay to win. grind depends on the eye of the beholder.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter

It seems to me people should grow up and decide what is best for them and let others decide what is best for themselves.

Definitely. If an RPG was a bottle of your favorite beverage, your standard P2P MMORPG would be that same bottle poured into a barrel and filled brim with water. It takes a whole lot more time to drink all that but at the same time it might be too diluted for you to enjoy anymore.

and your standard F2P game would be that same bottle poured into a barrel and filled brim with horse manure, and you must drink it all before being allowed to reach the bottle. but of course, the developer offers to remove a gallon of shit for every dollar you give him.

and if you were to do some quick maths, to remove all the shit you would have paid a lot more than the cost of the bottle...or drank a lot of shit...your call, really

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by barasawa

Player C has been playing for several months, and has finally reached an advanced level.

Then a whole bunch of fake crap that doesn't happen.

Players D and C meet.

Which one has the advantage?

Look, we get it that you have some burning hatred against a business model, but you either a) have no clue what you are talking about or b) are lying and hoping you won't get called on it. 

Rolling into a PVP game and buying up epic gear from the cash shop that isn't otherwise obtainable in game?

It's kinda silly. As silly as always using these PVP example when the majority of people will rarely if ever see such a scenario because they do not like and will not be involved in PVP.  After all, from a PvE perspective your argument falls apart.

 

sadly for you, F2P devs are smarter than that

many (hell, nearly all) F2P MMOs that sport pay-to-win cash shop items also:

1) have Open World PvP, so you cannot possibly run away from it

2) tune the difficulty of the endgame for the cash shop buyer's level, meaning that if your char hasnt invested a fairly big amount of money in the cash shop to enhance his enchantments, damage, gear score, whatever.... your figthing an uphill battle

3) #1 and #2 both at once

whats even funnier is that most of the time, the devs themselves wont even have to bother reminding you that without paying a shitload of money your undesirable.

the community will do it for them.

- join raid group

- leader inspects you and finds out your not fully decked thru cash shop means

- kicks you out and replaces you with someone who has paid money to be better than you, hence more relevant to the raid's interest, greater guarantee of success, faster run, you name it

- you wander around alone for a while, till you finally come into terms with the notion that noone wants to take freeloaders in endgame content because...well...the game's difficulty is purposedly set to make them a bad pick

- quit game, jump to another game hoping it will be different, just to have the same cycle repeat

not so smart cookie, sorry

Originally posted by Axehilt
As free as you can stomach them to be.

FTFYM ;)

Originally posted by Ramanadjinn

is this a serious thread?

was thinking the same...

Even without the cash shop shenanigans, GW2 is esily better in everything with one possible exception: player made content....which currently is being abused by the playerbase to create zones that award massive exp/hour or massive items/hour, so its a double edged sword.

NW has so many critical bugs its almost sad, and many of them involve the systems that deal directly or indirectly with real money, like the AH or the mail, so people are LOSING REAL MONEy due to the bugs, with no response or even acknowledgement from the devs so far

now, since this is a PWE game, it just isnt bad, it will STAY bad, and the monetization will become increasingly more malicious with time.

PWE games are white collar robbery.sadly for all the NW fans, this one is no exception

Originally posted by colddog04

Originally posted by Sagasaint

Originally posted by colddog04

Originally posted by CalmOceans

In a P2P game everyone is equal.

That certainly isn't true. Some people have huge amounts of time to spend over others which leads to huge advantages in game.

it is still true. they way they are will be exactly the same way youl'll be when you have clocked the same hours as that people. they jut reached there faster, but nothing is stopping you from reaching there just the same.

f2p games on the other hand....heh...good luck playing catch up with a dude that spends several hundreds per month on power not available thru ingame means...

Well, you are speaking about very heavily P2W games now which are different than the games I meant to refer to.

yep,I can see that

the problem here is that any game that can be downloaded and registered for free is being lumped in the same box...F2P

people should really come up with new terminologies to divide F2P games further. its almost illogical that games like LoL or PoE are put in the same group as games like Neverwinter and the rest of PWE games, or Aeria games, and the likes

while all are on the surface F2P, the business antics and way to treat their customers are radically different. night and day, really.

thats why Im so combative to the F2P supporters. Sure, 5, 10 at most games have done things right or half right, but you are validating the dozens if not hundreds other f2p games that are essentially pure evilness incarnated.

Originally posted by colddog04

Originally posted by CalmOceans

In a P2P game everyone is equal.

That certainly isn't true. Some people have huge amounts of time to spend over others which leads to huge advantages in game.

it is still true. they way they are will be exactly the same way youl'll be when you have clocked the same hours as that people. they jut reached there faster, but nothing is stopping you from reaching there just the same.

f2p games on the other hand....heh...good luck playing catch up with a dude that spends several hundreds per month on power not available thru ingame means...

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

The opposite, that people prefer p2p over f2p, is also false and has even less evidence. 

cant say I agree with this

at all

edit - all we can state currently is that there are more f2p players than p2p.  Anything related to their motivation for playing that particular game and/or payment plan is sheer speculation.

you call it speculation, I call it educated guess based on VERY realistic arguments

but I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. good discussion nonetheless.

the point Im tring to make here is that articles like the one in the OP cannot, and should not be used as a gauge to measure what the population favours for their gaming model of choice.

many f2pers didnt choose anything. or to be more specific, they chose between playing f2p or not playing anything at all (mmo related, I mean)

trying to make a leap of logic and infer from the numbers in the article that more people prefers f2p over p2p is wrong and false. thats not the choice that many of them were presented.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

 I did not state that the vast majority would change.  I did not state that the majority would change.  I said many would change, and many would not.

many would not? be honest here

and having someone else pay for your sub is a red herring, for the person playing it then becomes a f2p.

thats irrelevant. the divide between f2p and p2p goes further than a monthly sub or lack thereof. its about cash shops and the lenght they interfere in the gameplay, about the company running the game, the prospects of game lifespawn, the expected quality of the title ...the very community that surrounds you.

they would be in a P2P environment. for them its f2p, but the game itself remains as p2p, its model is p2p...just someone else is paying, be it you, me, or their daddy.it doesnt matter

they would PREFER p2p.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

If most change their game if given the chance to get rid of the monetary fee, that does not mean that circumstances beyond their taste or control is stopping them.

I dont understand you. Your holding one position and the contrary at the same time.

first you admit that the vast majority of people would change their pick, from f2p wo p2p, without hesitation, on the spot, simply by removing the costs upfront. You even saw it was such a glaring truth, that quicky dismissed it as a red hearring.

but on the next line you say that doesnt mean said costs are the sole reason why they favor one model over the other, when by premise, is the ONLY thing we are removing from the equation.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by Sagasaint

 "forum communities are a minority" is yet another well known cop out. unless you have studies that back up that, dont use it as a premise.

 

also, your assuming that everybody chooses, when thats patently false.

we can only be sure that all p2p players choose.

 

theres a significant (I wont dare say a %, lets leave it at "significant" and that will suffice) amount of f2p players that play f2p because they cannot afford otherwise.

if somenone offered to pay them for the box and a subscription to a P2P game of their choice, do you affirm that they'd prefer to stay with the f2p games?

 You have no idea how significant that number is, or really if it even is significant.

I would agree there is some percentage that can't afford.  I don't think it is very high.  But I have no numbers for that either.

If someone offered to pay for their subscription many would take it.  That is a red herring argument.  Not many people would turn down someone for someone else's entertainment.

I'm saying if given a choice between playing a game for free, and paying for it, more people would choose to play it for free.  About 6:1 more apparently.

what we'r discussing here is about people that favors one model over the other

if you admit that most would change their pick if given the chance to get rid of the monetary restrictions, then that people arent really favoring the f2p model. its obvious that circumstances beyond their taste shft them towards it.

if you notice, the inverse isnt true. people that favor the p2p model could effortlessly swich to f2p, it would be a simple matter of taste. and yet they decide against it.

 "forum communities are a minority" is yet another well known cop out. unless you have studies that back up that, dont use it as a premise.

also, your assuming that everybody chooses, when thats patently false.

we can only be sure that all p2p players choose.

theres a significant (I wont dare say a %, lets leave it at "significant" and that will suffice) amount of f2p players that play f2p because they cannot afford otherwise.

if somenone offered to pay them for the box and a subscription to a P2P game of their choice, do you affirm that they'd prefer to stay with the f2p games?

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Not a cop out at all, it is directly related to your point

You stated, “ and the 5 most mentioned MMOs were P2P games from inception. and if you ask people, rarely they will mention a game that was F2P from the ground up in their top 10”

Lokto stated on these forums

You responded by saying here and ten ton hammer and massively. Then stated he loves to toss aside metrics, then went on to talk about an invisible army of people that disagree, and asked how he learned there stance

It seems to me you are tossing aside the biggest metrics. 

Forum users are a minority, and p2p has more people playing them.  Those are the metrics.  More people playing show that more people disagree, they are the people that disagree.

Ignore them all you want.  That is the biggest metric of all.

They are and have been counted.  They have actively chosen.  That is the army that you ignore and say "cop out"

 

I'll be willing to accept your point as soon as you prove me, empirically, how it is statistically possible that the people that favors P2P  (lets call them  A) prefers to post on forums over playing their games, while the people that favors f2p (call them B) do the polar opposite.

my maths are a bit rusty, so please, comment each step of your formulas

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Because there are more people playing those games.  Seems like a pretty clear metric to me.

officially nominated for the "cop out of the year" award