Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by jimdandy26

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

In your opinion.  Nothing you stated is factual of course.

What?

You stated, "The "line" between whats p2w and not is "is this available in game".

This is strictly opinion.  Just as no one agrees on what pay two win items are, no one agrees on where the line is.  This is not fact, don't present it as such.

Its the only logical conclusion you can draw. especially in any game based on rng. Calling xp boosters p2w is like calling the guys who take a couple days off from work p2w because they now have more time to play. Or that player who gets lucky with that low level drop that sells for stupid amounts of currency. Even directly selling in game currency is not p2w, though that has its own issues, like not being able to effectively sink out what is flowing in making the entire economy inflate.

 

Originally posted by Rider071

Any F2P game that is P2W usually gets a nice bit of commotion and either the dev fixes the issue or the players leave.

http://www.slideshare.net/bcousins/paying-to-win#postComment

Disagrees with your assertion, and is one that is often repeated.

Originally posted by jtcgs

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

 Furcadia 1996

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-play

 

 I hate Wikipedia...they left Nexus: Kingdom of the Winds off that list and that was the first major success in the F2P field, came out in 1996 also.

That game created the monster that is Nexon today...1.2 billion in profits two years straight and only EA is a larger gaming company.

Actually, that is why you should love wikipedia... in any other place, you could do nothing except complaining in a comment box (if there's any) that they left it out, in wikipedia you can just dive in and add it yourself.. :)

It's only in the west that P2W is looked at as a negative thing.  Tons of east asia/russian games have P2W models, and the players support it.  You read about it all the time with games having to change the cash shop to be more western friendly.

Originally posted by jimdandy26

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Bossalinie
@Blasphim Is that any worse than an individual who can't play the game at all because he can't front X amount of money a month for a subscription?

At least the individual gets to play the game in P2W situations...

Plus, it is only fair that those who subsidize the game get a little advantage.

If you want to be on a level playing field, you have the same choice as they do to pay up.

Depends on how you term advantage. There is a vast difference between putting bullets in the store that deal 10 more damage than anything that you can get in game and someone getting an xp booster. Everyone will cap out eventually. There is no way to make up for one person just flat doing more damage. One is convience, one is flat buying power.

Actually there is a strictly ingame way: you hire a person ingame who has the 10xdamage bullet to fight for you. That way you've made up for the difference in power; it may be costy ingame wise, it may take a long time but it is very much possible.

Originally posted by tollbooth
It's only in the west that P2W is looked at as a negative thing.  Tons of east asia/russian games have P2W models, and the players support it.  You read about it all the time with games having to change the cash shop to be more western friendly.

Korea is also known for having a massive racism issue (if  they even consider it to be an issue): Just because another country thinks something is alright, it doesn't mean that another country has to agree.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by Arclan

MMO companies are taking a huge gamble; and enduring significant losses. All in the hopes that P2W becomes increasingly accepted every day. MMO companies don't mind losing a generation (the anti-P2W crowd of UO, EQ, etc) as long as the incoming generation accepts P2W as the norm. The result is you will be paying a lot more for less entertainment.

MMOs are engineered, it seems, to last a few months. They want you to spend as much P2W money as possible in that time frame.

You'll spend as much as you choose to, nothing or lots.  It's your choice.

More choices re good.

Too bad its not that simple when how much you pay is tied to what you can accomplish in a resonable time, something that used to happen with a flat charge of 14.99 per month.  And yes you can CHOOSE to pay more than 14.99 for the same thing that used to cost you that much.  And this choice is good how?  And you can never pay less than 14.99 for the same stuff that cost you 14.99  So again in this case choice is good how?

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Free to PLay is an actual industry acknowledged payment model. P2W and B2W and terms that players have created to describe games but they are not actual categories. I'm sure you knew this, so I'm wondering why so much antagonism from you today. 

 

P2W actually describes the payment model of cash shop based games.  Players can purchase items to advance faster, or further through the game.

 

F2P is just the standard/only advertising term used to describe cash shop based games.  It doesn't describe the payment model, but just highlights a possible way to play the game.   

 

 

 

 

I am pro F2P but I really wish they would have called it Share To Play (S2P) instead.  It would have calmed a lot of upset because nothing in life is truely "free" and that word always makes you feel like you're getting gypped.

Originally posted by thinktank001

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Free to PLay is an actual industry acknowledged payment model. P2W and B2W and terms that players have created to describe games but they are not actual categories. I'm sure you knew this, so I'm wondering why so much antagonism from you today. 

P2W actually describes the payment model of cash shop based games.  Players can purchase items to advance faster, or further through the game.

F2P is just the standard/only advertising term used to describe cash shop based games.  It doesn't describe the payment model, but just highlights a possible way to play the game.   

 Free to Play is a payment model. Pay to win is a term players have come up with to describe how they feel about it. I have no problem with anyone's personal opinions of the payment model, good or bad, but it gets ridiculous when you are not only unfamiliar with the terminology of the discussion but show little interest in understanding the subject matter you choose to argue about to begin with.

 

If you're interested in getting up to speed, here's a few links:

http://casualconnect.org/mag/summer2012/CGA_F2PGames_Report.pdf

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-08-25-how-to-monetize-of-free-to-play-games

http://www.raphkoster.com/2012/01/11/f2p-vs-subs/

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/180759/Freetoplay_Its_what_Western_MMO_players_are_coming_to_expect.php#.UQQ5kWcYtAY

 

"Free to Play" is about as standard a term as "Mature" is to this industry: it's a good way to portray your product, but it says little about the truth of the product.

Because "Mature" rated games aren't designed to appeal to "Mature" players.  They are designed to appeal to adolecent boys.

And "Free to Play" games aren't designed to appeal to the thrifty.  They are designed to appeal to the spendthrifts.

Originally posted by snapfusion

 

Too bad its not that simple when how much you pay is tied to what you can accomplish in a resonable time, something that used to happen with a flat charge of 14.99 per month.  And yes you can CHOOSE to pay more than 14.99 for the same thing that used to cost you that much.  And this choice is good how?  And you can never pay less than 14.99 for the same stuff that cost you 14.99  So again in this case choice is good how?

It is that simple. YOu choose to spend more, you accomplish more in the same time. What is not simple about that choice?

 

Originally posted by jimdandy26

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by jimdandy26

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

In your opinion.  Nothing you stated is factual of course.

What?

You stated, "The "line" between whats p2w and not is "is this available in game".

This is strictly opinion.  Just as no one agrees on what pay two win items are, no one agrees on where the line is.  This is not fact, don't present it as such.

Its the only logical conclusion you can draw. especially in any game based on rng. Calling xp boosters p2w is like calling the guys who take a couple days off from work p2w because they now have more time to play. Or that player who gets lucky with that low level drop that sells for stupid amounts of currency. Even directly selling in game currency is not p2w, though that has its own issues, like not being able to effectively sink out what is flowing in making the entire economy inflate.

 

Originally posted by Rider071

Any F2P game that is P2W usually gets a nice bit of commotion and either the dev fixes the issue or the players leave.

http://www.slideshare.net/bcousins/paying-to-win#postComment

Disagrees with your assertion, and is one that is often repeated.

That may be the only conclusion you can draw that is not the only conclusion I can draw and it is not really vrey logical either.  Actually "logic" has very little to do with this conversation since it is inherently about subjective enjoyment and subjective value.  Chief among those values are 1. Time.   and 2. Convenience. 

Your comparison of xp boosters an people taking time off work is again rife with problems but still chief amont them is the time vs convience debate.  The logic of the situation will be different depending on your particular values and resources. 

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by snapfusion

 

Too bad its not that simple when how much you pay is tied to what you can accomplish in a resonable time, something that used to happen with a flat charge of 14.99 per month.  And yes you can CHOOSE to pay more than 14.99 for the same thing that used to cost you that much.  And this choice is good how?  And you can never pay less than 14.99 for the same stuff that cost you 14.99  So again in this case choice is good how?

It is that simple. YOu choose to spend more, you accomplish more in the same time. What is not simple about that choice?

 

Too bad that what you choose to accomplish is completely a personal choice.  Too bad that a "reasonable time" is a completely arbitrary number that is different for each person.

Is spending 5 years to get a max character in WoW a reasonable time?  To me it is... actually I still don't have a max character.

So yes it is completely that simple.

You choose your values.  You choose what is reasonable for you.  You choose the games you play.  If the game you choose doesn't meet the first 2 criteria then you have a problem, however it is a problem you created.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by snapfusion

 

Too bad its not that simple when how much you pay is tied to what you can accomplish in a resonable time, something that used to happen with a flat charge of 14.99 per month.  And yes you can CHOOSE to pay more than 14.99 for the same thing that used to cost you that much.  And this choice is good how?  And you can never pay less than 14.99 for the same stuff that cost you 14.99  So again in this case choice is good how?

It is that simple. YOu choose to spend more, you accomplish more in the same time. What is not simple about that choice?

 

Too bad that what you choose to accomplish is completely a personal choice.  Too bad that a "reasonable time" is a completely arbitrary number that is different for each person.

Is spending 5 years to get a max character in WoW a reasonable time?  To me it is... actually I still don't have a max character.

So yes it is completely that simple.

You choose your values.  You choose what is reasonable for you.  You choose the games you play.  If the game you choose doesn't meet the first 2 criteria then you have a problem, however it is a problem you created.

Again no its not that simple, you are moving from a platform that was once driven simply by  a set fee and and a reasonable time of achievemnt to a system that is based on how much you spend and someones perception of "something".  Reasonable is not subjective when your talking about the majority of people.  If the majority of people agree something is unreasonable then it is, regardless whether or not the minority thinks it isnt, You cant base arguments on the minority. 

If you want to compare F2P games to some new world order of choice where the value of a dollar is subjective then fine.  I though am comparing the F2P experience DIRECTLY to the P2P cost model that includes everything a game has to offer for one set price, not a comparision full of philosophical analogys and ambigious statements.

It's really about math, and math really isnt that hard to understand.

P2P - everything the game has to offer equals 14.99 per month

F2P - everything the game has to offer equals 100's a month and up

Reasonable is completely subjective. I highly doubt there is any concessus on what reasonable time is.

P2p has never been one cost for all. There has always been collectors editions and expansions.

You have always chosen how much time you are willing to spend and how much money you are willing to spend. Now there are just more choices ranging from free to horribly expensive to years or instantaneous

Previous message sent from phone - corrected.

Originally posted by Beatnik59

"Free to Play" is about as standard a term as "Mature" is to this industry: it's a good way to portray your product, but it says little about the truth of the product.

Because "Mature" rated games aren't designed to appeal to "Mature" players.  They are designed to appeal to adolecent boys.

And "Free to Play" games aren't designed to appeal to the thrifty.  They are designed to appeal to the spendthrifts.

Excellent point.

Originally posted by snapfusion

It's really about math, and math really isnt that hard to understand.

P2P - everything the game has to offer equals 14.99 per month

F2P - everything the game has to offer equals 100's a month and up

Sounds great. Can you link the source to that data? The reason I ask is because I haven't seem many, if any, F2P games that cost "100's a month and up" to access everything. I also haven't seen but a small handful of subscription MMOs where you get everything for 14.99 a month as there are also extra services and expansion packs that you pat for as well.

Since both of your claims seem they may possibley be a tad bit, y'know... completely made up numbers being passed off as fact right after saying "math really isn't that hard to understand" it would be great to see the source of your data.

Note: Yes, we all know you're going to pull out Runes of Magic or War Rock. Yes, they are off the charts. No, they are not representative of the average Free to Play game.

With that out of the way, it would be awesome to see some numbers that support your two claims, especially due to the snarky lead-in you had to it.

 

Not every MMO that is FTP is pay to win. The problem is that there is a large grey area of what is acceptable or not because it varies from player to player.

 

Unobtainable vertical progression is immediately pay to win to me and I won't play anything with that design. The worst example is gambling for power items. Time saving items can vary if they are unacceptable to me because while I don't mind small boosts some games sell things that are technically avaliable in game but require an astronomical amount of time to get as a free player and offer a vertical upgrade. An example of this is the stat items in DDO or some of the higher end STO stuff. I stay away from this type of content.

 

For example allods had that cash shop dust that gave you a large buff for each day you used it. This essentially turned the game into a subscription game if you wanted to constantly have that buff. And that buff was huge. But the benefit of the rest of the cash shop was relatively minor.

 

League of Legends has a very non agregious cash shop because once you are max level and have a champion and a rune setup you are competitively the same as everyone else. The cash shop here, besides for the xp boosts, is just horizonal as it unlocks more options for champions/runes in its power and includes skins for vanity sales.

 

I don't mind paying a subscription fee at all for a game and if the cost from free to play to playing at full player power is less than 20 bucks a month then I am fine with that. I have a problem with the games that try and live off whales who can drop 1000 dollars a month and get a competitive advantage from that.

 

And don't get me wrong. Those games that are truly pay to win should exist as there is definately a market for them. In fact, I want them to exist so that pay to win gamers can go somewhere else.  I just want some games that suit my tastes too.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by snapfusion

It's really about math, and math really isnt that hard to understand.

P2P - everything the game has to offer equals 14.99 per month

F2P - everything the game has to offer equals 100's a month and up

Sounds great. Can you link the source to that data? The reason I ask is because I haven't seem many, if any, F2P games that cost "100's a month and up" to access everything. I also haven't seen but a small handful of subscription MMOs where you get everything for 14.99 a month as there are also extra services and expansion packs that you pat for as well.

Since both of your claims seem they may possibley be a tad bit, y'know... completely made up numbers being passed off as fact right after saying "math really isn't that hard to understand" it would be great to see the source of your data.

Note: Yes, we all know you're going to pull out Runes of Magic or War Rock. Yes, they are off the charts. No, they are not representative of the average Free to Play game.

With that out of the way, it would be awesome to see some numbers that support your two claims, especially due to the snarky lead-in you had to it.

 

Sure I can offer some examples.

 

Aika- offered weapon synthing where each successful synth gave a HUGE damage boost. The problem was the break chance versus the success chance was extremely low. You could get to +6 with relative ease but after that, the break chance was greater then the success chance. The item to do the synth and the item to prevent your weapon from being destroyed were sold in the cash shop. On average it took about 200 dollars to synth the best item. When they expanded the game, new weapons were created released that you can to replace your weapon with...and synth to max again.

 

Battle of the Immortals has zodiac pets the best of which had to be found randomly in a cash shop box (these pets auto attack during combat, and they basically can do about the same damage you do, very important to have and huge difference between bad and good pet). The drop rate of these are incredibly low and people would spend 500 dollars and not get one.

 

If you want to be competitive in one of these games you will pay an arm and a leg to do so. Also both games were designed to have the best compete against each other to increase the drive to be better then others.