I'm surprised there are still people saying "Well most western gamers feel this way", have you been paying any attention to recent market development whatsoever? Microtransactions are increasing everywhere and it's not just mmorpgs anymore. FPS and MOBA games have also embraced the model.

There are currently about 3 pay to play mmorpgs that are successful. Everything else is free to play. Some of the most popular mmorpgs in the West are free to play.

and again, the vast majority of those games are actually free.

Originally posted by thinktank001

Originally posted by Gameloading

In other related news: Cash shop mmorpgs continue to increase in popularity with more and more monthly fee mmorpgs switching over to the free to play model, proving that the op's laughable attempt at mispresenting free to play mmorpgs to be a failed attempt.

 

Developers calling their game free isn't mislabeling?

 

I doubt that developers changing their business model for a game is due to popularity.   If you take just 2 seconds and think about the P2W business model it makes sense to use it for a low population game.  

Why limit the buying power of a small population on a server? 

They are probably the most dedicated of your fanbase and would gladly pay more than $15 a month to support your game.

 

+++++++++++++++++

 

TBH, I don't think the term P2W is destructive at all.   Anytime that I have had a discussion in game with players there isn't any disagreement about if the game we are playing is P2W or not.  The only place you actually see disagreement is on forums.  I guess people either need to " see to believe ", or it is the publisher's spin doctors working hard.

How is it mislabeling? Developers label their game as free to play. Can you play those games for free? Yes you can. So what part about it is misleading?

It's not just small population mmorpgs that are switching to f2p. Games with big sized subscriber base also switched over. The switch is so successful that some publishers decided to make all of their games free to play after giving it a try.

The free to play model is very successful and its a good thing for the industry. The 50$ box model + 15$ standard monthly fee model + 30$ expansion packs has proven to not work well for most games in our industry. It encouraged players to stcik with one mmorpg only. In the p2p marker, there is no room for good games. Only the very best mmorpgs were able to work well with a monthly fee.

With free to play, more people are playing mmorpgs and more mmorpgs are successful, which means more mmos to play.

Originally posted by FrostWyrm

Originally posted by Gameloading

In other related news: Cash shop mmorpgs continue to increase in popularity with more and more monthly fee mmorpgs switching over to the free to play model, proving that the op's laughable attempt at mispresenting free to play mmorpgs to be a failed attempt.

1) Not all cash shop games are P2WIn. OP only mentioned P2Win games.

2) Many of the games going F2P are games that have gotten old and outdated which no longer hold the number of subs they used to. In many cases, these F2P games still offer a subscription option that gives access to pretty much everything a free player can purchase anyway.

1: If you look at some of the other threads made by the OP, it shows that he labels every micro transaction game as pay to win.

2. Many of the mmorpgs that switched to free to play are only a few years old.

Originally posted by ActionMMORPG

Originally posted by Gameloading

Using the term pay2win for mmos is utterly ridiculous.

mmorpgs are not a competition. You´re not winning anything by advancing in the game. Also, I don´t know of any game where you can actually advance in levels or buy equipment. that would defeat the point of an mmorpg.

 

Can I assume this is sarcasm?  Buying gear and advancement is the core concept of pay to win.

Then you don't understand how the business model works.

An MMORPG developer wants to keep its player base playing as long as possible. The reason to play an mmorpg is to advance in levels and gear. If a developer offers gear in the item shop store, it would defeat the whole point of playing mmorpgs. Its for this reason that you can buy XP boosters, but you can't buy level ups for your character. It's why you can buy items that help you upgrade your weapons and armor, but you can't buy the actual armor yourself.

Clearly you saying that buying gear and advancement is the core concept of "pay to win" shows that you have not as much as even looked at an item shop.

Oh and Stomseekaz? Buying XP boosters is not paying for XP. You still have to actually PLAY the game, defeating your whole argument.

In other related news: Cash shop mmorpgs continue to increase in popularity with more and more monthly fee mmorpgs switching over to the free to play model, proving that the op's laughable attempt at mispresenting free to play mmorpgs to be a failed attempt.

I have been paying attention to the free to play model and its evolution for quite a while, so be assured that my opinion is not based on wild speculation.

What you just described is a pvp scenario that only a small amount of people actually particupate in. PVP is not the focus of any MMORPG and most that have tried to make it so have failed and for good reason.

PVP is merely one aspect of any MMORPG and doing well at PVP is not winning the game. If you do well at a pvp scenario you just described, you get ingame financial benefits. You´re not competing with anyone when your character levels up and gets stronger by gear.

and lets face it, leveling up and getting gear is the only reason to play an mmorpg.

so does buying buffs help in the pvp scenario you just described? Yeah probably. It is only one aspect of the game and to describe the entire game as pay2win because of it is silly. I would argue that there are far bigger aspects in pvp in mmos that lead to imbalance and im not just talking about differences inside the game.

MMORPGS are not exclusively pvp.

Using the term pay2win for mmos is utterly ridiculous.

mmorpgs are not a competition. You´re not winning anything by advancing in the game. Also, I don´t know of any game where you can actually advance in levels or buy equipment. that would defeat the point of an mmorpg.

To reply to Warmaker.

Modern Warfare 2 is an enormous improvement over the first MW1, and here is just a list of new things added to MW2:

- Perks have 2nd functionality

- customizable killstreaks

- controllable killstreaks

- added the ability to use weapons such as automatic pistols and shotguns as your secondary weapons, added riotshield and lock on launchers

And yes, the graphics have improved. MW3 improves on the game even further. 

- Killstreaks have been completely overhauled and changed into point streaks, you can get more points by doing things such as capturing objectives, shooting down air support etc. You can now cycle through your rewards and use which ones you want to use first

- Added Weapon profincies, your weapon can now level up and you can pick a specific proficincy that makes that weapon better

- being able to pick between three different strike packages. Assault (typical rewards) Support (based on supporting your team, doesn't reset) and Specialist (You unlock more perks as you get more points)

- There is now matchmaking in spec ops mode, as well as a ranking up system

These are just the new features, there are also new point streak rewards, new weapons, new attachments, new perks, new game modes etc.

And you're seriously trying to argue that MW3 is the same game with no improvements? MW3 adds more to the franchise than BF3 did. What did BF3 do that the series didn't do before? It is pretty much Battlefield: BC2 with 64 players and the destruction dumbed down. Thats just on the PC, because the console version only has 24 players.

Originally posted by Mizzmo

I think it is funny how cross platform games have commercials and show the PC graphics instead of the actual console graphics. Especially when that company is concentrating on the console market the hardest. Example, BF3.  DIce has said repeatedly that they are focusing on the console market (even though the PC made DICE, but that is another discussion) but when they show their TV commercials they show the PC's graphics instead of the consoles. The console can only show a fraction of what the PC can, so I understand that they want it to look awesome so people will buy. But still....... It kinda makes my stomach turn.

 

Any thoughts on this?

I suggest you go read up some articles on Battlefield 3 because, unlike your claim, Dice has claimed that the PC is the lead platform for Battlefield 3.

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Gee, I don't know, maybe we Americans love our freedom a bit more than socialist loving Europeans.  Why is Europe about to crash and burn because of its big government programs that their countries can no longer afford?

Why is America, against all sound wisdom, trending in the same direction, when it is quite clear that these socialist spending programs cannot be maintained?

Because the risk taking from banks had nothing to do with the current economic crisis.

There is Castle Crashers and Scott Pilgrim, both are 2D beat em ups.

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Ho hum, another game from a Korean studio.  If it is a good game it will be popular in the east, but flop in the west.  Games made for the Korean market just do not do well here in the west.  Different style of play makes it extremely difficult to make a game that is successful in both markets.

So trumpet all you want, most of us here in the west will just shake our heads at someone who still has to learn.

 You're wrong. You imply that all games made by a Korean studios are all the same, which is simply not the case. There are also plenty of Korean games that do very well in the West. They are so popular that Western game developers are now following the business model of Korean games.

There is a large group of people still playing the same game for years, but there are more people switching from game to game. It is quite easy doing so now that there are more options than there used to be.

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe
 

1) Your foundation for saying that gay relationships are not the same as heterosexual relationships is downright terrible. Your very limited interaction with homosexuals is not at all a reliable source of information.

2)Also, why exactly is gay marriage a "dog and pony" show that brings down society?

1: Yes, I'm a horrible person for pointing out that the sexual and social interaction between two gay men or lesbians is different than the interaction between a heterosexual man and woman. After so many years around various gay people of all walks of life -- not to mention being bisexual myself -- I'm not quite sure what would qualify anyone as a "reliable source" of information on the gay community for you. Yes, the gay community is socially all over the map, but there are some common characterstics that have been widely criticized even from within the gay community. The first characteristic is the segregation between gay men and lesbians. Given, these two groups don't have much of a common interest, but both are a part of the gay community. The second characteristic, at least among gay men, is the idea of an open relationship. Male sexuality, being what it is, does not lend itself to absolute monogamy very well. I'm willing to bet that even those older gay couples that you (rarely) see will occasionally hook up with other old couples just for the sake of variety. That doesn't mean that these men don't love eachother, it just means that their relationship is significantly different than most heterosexual relationships.

2: Gay marriage is a dog and pony show because it is a purely political gesture with no real benefit for the gay community in either the long or the short run. Despite the fact that I am heterosexually married, I'll go so far as to say that the heterosexual community doesn't seem to benefit much from marriage either. With all of the other bullshit that goes along with living a homosexual lifestyle, gay marriage throws on shit like divorce litigation, domestic violence, economic blackmail, financial dependency, coercive monogamy, and giving the government a say over your personal relationship by way of the public (heterosexual controlled) courts.

Furthermore, gay marriage promotes the idea that homosexuals are not people without the blessing of heterosexuals as expressed by inclusion into oppressive, heterosexual, patriarchal institutions. Gay marriage is all about faux assimilation and nothing about gay equality.

 I wonder why you decided to write so much when you would have said the exact same thing by admitting that you have no reliable statistics that show that homosexual married couples are more likely to have open relationships aside from your own very limited interaction with homosexuals. How exactly is male sexuality an issue in this?

2. Saying it is a political gesture is far from a dog and pony show. Your views on what you consider negative aspects is merely your opinion, while some of those might be seen as a positive aspect by others. It is actually entirely about equality, because currently there is inequality. Face it, If there was currently a law that forbid black people from getting married, we'd have outrage everywhere. If that was the case, would black people be merely trying to get the approval of white people?

You claim that this has nothing to do with gay equality, but that is completely wrong. It has everything to do with equality because right now, the reason why gay marriage isn't legalized is because they are not considered to be equal to hetereosexual relations.

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

"Cure" is something that we only do to people that are threat to others. A chronic alcoholic or a PCP addict are legally compelled to seek treatment in the name of public safety. That's a rougher road to hoe when you're talking about homosexuality. AIDS spreads just as quickly through promiscous heterosexual relations and dirty needles as it does through gay sex. So you would have to prove an absolute threat to the public (heterosexual) health.

The thing that has always gotten me about the genetic angle is that it's based on an appeal to a higher power. On closer inspection you realize that it devalues humanity and reduces all behavior to robotic genetic determinism. Why try to incarcerate and rehabilitate criminals if their behavior is all genetic? Why not kill them and all of their offspring so that they don't spread their genetic impurity to future generations? This is ultimately the logical end to the genetic debate.

And the original author is right to question the hereditary nature of homosexuality. What is the probability of the exact same mutation recurring -- independantly -- every single generation for thousands of years? And what about people like me? they've found a so-called gay gene but have yet to isolate a gene that swings both ways. Wouldn't it be more likely that the gay gene is really just a bisexual gene? That would certainly explain why there are still homosexuals despite the fact that such a gene would die out after a few generations. But that would take the wind out of genetic predestination wouldn't it?

And on the gay marriage issue, why is marriage a prerequisite to equality? Gay relationships are not even remotely the same as heterosexual relationships. Out of all the commited gay male couples I have ever met, all of them had open relationships. The institution of marriage renders open relationships completely illegal. In order to be equal to straight people we have to adopt their oppressive institutions?

Why is it so hard for people to understand that two things can be different AND equal. When I walk into the "Everything For a Dollar" store, all the merchandise has the same value. Paper towels cost the same as soda, but they're two completely different things. Maybe it's time to grow up and demand true equality and not some mocking imitation of heterosexual life.

 Your foundation for saying that gay relationships are not the same as heterosexual relationships is downright terrible. Your very limited interaction with homosexuals is not at all a reliable source of information.

Also, why exactly is gay marriage a "dog and pony" show that brings down society?

Originally posted by youngkg

Why clone DAOC which had like 500k+ subs in its prime when you can try to clone WOW which had like what?, 7+ million subs?....

 

Thats my take as to why it hasnt been done yet but i think it will eventually when the industry stops aiming for WOW's market...

 

It just wont be mythic.

 

p.s i was crushed when i heard WAR had only 2 factions lol....

 Dark Age of Camelot had nowhere near 500k subs at its prime. It was somewhere around 250k. DaOC is not a very strong brand name.

There seem to be a common trend in games that make fun of other MMORPGS in that they all tend to flop.

Originally posted by Fearlessbro

What still haunts me is Blizzard is now acquired by Activi$ion. If they port Diablo 3 to the consoles, i'll never buy another blizzard game. Ages ago the CEO of blizzard said they were strictly PC only.

I seriously doubt he actually said that considering that Blizzard games have been ported to consoles multiple times.

Originally posted by ironfungus

Originally posted by Werthe

Uhm, so what ? I completed the first Diablo on Playstation. There was nothing wrong with it. As a matter of fact, it was a blast playing it together with my friends on one TV screen.

Because it's common knowledge that when you take an AWESOME series on the PC then port it to consoles, it dies. Example: Call of Duty.

It's exactly for this kind of attitude that PC gamers are mostly being ignored. Not only is your attitude eltiist, it is also completely incorrect.

The Call of Duty series has improved significantly over time. The series has been on consoles since part 2. To even suggest that the first Call of Duty was the best of the series is downright laughable.

It seems that some people here don't understand what an RPG in terms of video games is. A game being an RPG has absolutely nothing to do with it involving any kind of roleplaying whatsoever. An RPG is a game that uses similar mechanics for stats that can be found in tabletop RPG games such as DnD.