Trending Games | ArcheAge | Destiny | Guild Wars 2 | World of Warcraft

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,856,375 Users Online:0
Games:740  Posts:6,239,600
Bluehole Studio | Official Site
MMORPG | Genre:Fantasy | Status:Final  (rel 05/01/12)  | Pub:En Masse Entertainment
PVP:Yes | Distribution:Download | Retail Price:Free | Pay Type:Hybrid | Monthly Fee:$14.99
System Req: PC | Out of date info? Let us know!

TERA Forum » General Discussion » WTF?!?!?! NO!!!!!

5 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 » Search
87 posts found
  strangiato2112

Spotlight Poster

Joined: 9/21/12
Posts: 1566

1/11/13 11:49:15 AM#41
Originally posted by sapphen
Originally posted by strangiato2112

LOTRO = new content worse after f2p

EQ2 = new content worse after f2p

games meant to be sub games tend to change for the worse after f2p.

And the community becomes worse as well, though that shouldnt matter in TERAs case.

So you're trying to tell me that the money F2P players spend make a lesser quaility product than the money of subscribers?  F2p creates additional revenue that would not have otherwise been made.  If there is a problem with the quaility it is the developers fault, not f2p.

 

You have to shift your philosophy towards making money, not making content.  Also f2p players are different target audience than sub players.  So what sub players look for in a game is different than what f2p players look for, so you have to account for that in hopes of retaining your f2p customers.  

  Onomas

Novice Member

Joined: 7/05/11
Posts: 1160

Sandbox is your only hope for a decent mmo ;)

1/11/13 11:52:36 AM#42
Originally posted by sapphen
Originally posted by strangiato2112

LOTRO = new content worse after f2p

EQ2 = new content worse after f2p

games meant to be sub games tend to change for the worse after f2p.

And the community becomes worse as well, though that shouldnt matter in TERAs case.

So you're trying to tell me that the money F2P players spend make a lesser quaility product than the money of subscribers?  F2p creates additional revenue that would not have otherwise been made.  If there is a problem with the quaility it is the developers fault, not f2p.

 

Originally posted by Onomas

Actualy yes, yes it does in most cases. It only provides those that cant pay the option to play with limits. Normaly you get a bad crowd also. If you didnt want to pay to play the game before, going f2p doesnt make the game any better, just cheaper. Cash shops are the worst thing in mmorpg history. F2P players will never be on equal grounds to someone that pays or buys from the cash shop. Its only good because you dont have to pay out of pocket, that is the only good thing about going f2p. And the majority of games you label F2P are not actualy free, not if you wish to be on par with others.

Some f2p games are ok, and some people confuse b2p with f2p.

Actually no, no it doesn't in most cases.  Do you mean those who can't pay or those who don't feel the product is worth 15 bucks a month?  I can see it now, a hobo sitting on the side of the street playing Tera on his labtop.  Those damn free players, they should go out and get a job.  As far as the community it brings in, I'd say it has a lot to do with what kind of glasses you're wearing.  If you think there are no asshats and trolls in subscription based MMOs then I would suggest you expand the way you see the world.

Going free2play does make the game better because it adds additional income and increases the population to play with.  A well made cash shop is one of the best thing to happen to the genre.  People who play for free shouldn't have the same accomadations as people who pay a monthly fee.  Tera has a very nice f2p model planned, it is not pay to win at all so your logic fails to convince me of your point.

I agree that too many times people and developers confuse buy2play with free2play.

red part- does it matter? If the game isnt worth 15 dollars a month to you when its P2P, why all of the sudden is the game so great when its free? If the game is good to begin with, the price to pay isnt the issue. If the game is bad, its bad no matter the pay model.

Yellow part- is funny because if you google it (im too lazy to post the link), in the past few years cash shop transactions have actualy dropped.  They arent getting a whole lot of additional income as you might think. Even Nauris, a lover of F2P games have posted this link. And the population thing, because a game that is already been out for awhile (LoTRO for example) is F2P, but the starting areas are barren, as most the higher up levels are all clustered at the newer released content areas. Which you have to pay for the expansion to get there. \

Everyone thinks f2p model is the future and the savior of mmorpgs. Just because you can play for free its ok for games to be released with horrible content and bad mechanics? If a game is a pretty damn good one, the 15/month price tag is trivial. F2P just promotes cheap titles to be pushed out and not great titles.

I respect your opinion, but there is a huge difference between games from 5 years aago compared to today. And F2P isnt making games better it just allows bad games to live a little longer.

  sapphen

Novice Member

Joined: 1/06/07
Posts: 918

1/11/13 11:58:04 AM#43
Originally posted by strangiato2112

You have to shift your philosophy towards making money, not making content.  Also f2p players are different target audience than sub players.  So what sub players look for in a game is different than what f2p players look for, so you have to account for that in hopes of retaining your f2p customers.  

There is no hard line between f2p, b2p or p2p customers.  What makes you think that these groups are so different from each other?  You say I should focus on money but then you say developers are going to try and retain free2players over pay2players -  this doesn't make sense to me.

  strangiato2112

Spotlight Poster

Joined: 9/21/12
Posts: 1566

1/11/13 12:10:14 PM#44
Originally posted by sapphen
Originally posted by strangiato2112

You have to shift your philosophy towards making money, not making content.  Also f2p players are different target audience than sub players.  So what sub players look for in a game is different than what f2p players look for, so you have to account for that in hopes of retaining your f2p customers.  

There is no hard line between f2p, b2p or p2p customers.  What makes you think that these groups are so different from each other?  You say I should focus on money but then you say developers are going to try and retain free2players over pay2players -  this doesn't make sense to me.

 

There is a very obvious age difference for one.  Not saying older people dont ever f2p, but there is definitely a larger skew towards younger people with a f2p model.  And a game like EQ2 or LOTRO that skewed towards older people, there is certainly a divide.  TERA might not see this because it skews so young to begin with.

 

Your p2pers are generally the people that are already hooked on your game and love your game.  the effort required to keep them isnt as much as the effort required to get money out of f2pers.  In addition, many companies (Turbine, Im looking right at you) try to squeeze even more money out of their p2p customers with things like shared bank space being cash shop only

  sapphen

Novice Member

Joined: 1/06/07
Posts: 918

1/11/13 12:28:08 PM#45
Originally posted by Onomas
Originally posted by sapphen

Actually no, no it doesn't in most cases.  Do you mean those who can't pay or those who don't feel the product is worth 15 bucks a month?  I can see it now, a hobo sitting on the side of the street playing Tera on his labtop.  Those damn free players, they should go out and get a job.  As far as the community it brings in, I'd say it has a lot to do with what kind of glasses you're wearing.  If you think there are no asshats and trolls in subscription based MMOs then I would suggest you expand the way you see the world.

Going free2play does make the game better because it adds additional income and increases the population to play with.  A well made cash shop is one of the best thing to happen to the genre.  People who play for free shouldn't have the same accomadations as people who pay a monthly fee.  Tera has a very nice f2p model planned, it is not pay to win at all so your logic fails to convince me of your point.

I agree that too many times people and developers confuse buy2play with free2play.

red part- does it matter? If the game isnt worth 15 dollars a month to you when its P2P, why all of the sudden is the game so great when its free? If the game is good to begin with, the price to pay isnt the issue. If the game is bad, its bad no matter the pay model.

No it doesn't matter.  The question was to bring attention to your stereotype that f2players have no money to spend.

Would you pay 15 bucks for a waffle?  I wouldn't but I'd be happy to pay a dollar for one.  Do you really want me to explain to you the basic economic principle of value versus cost?

I agree, if the game is bad it's gonna be bad no matter the payment model but Tera is a pretty decent game.  I think by passing out a few free waffles they are going to get a well deserved bump in profits.

 

Originally posted by Onomas

Yellow part- is funny because if you google it (im too lazy to post the link), in the past few years cash shop transactions have actualy dropped.  They arent getting a whole lot of additional income as you might think. Even Nauris, a lover of F2P games have posted this link. And the population thing, because a game that is already been out for awhile (LoTRO for example) is F2P, but the starting areas are barren, as most the higher up levels are all clustered at the newer released content areas. Which you have to pay for the expansion to get there. \

Everyone thinks f2p model is the future and the savior of mmorpgs. Just because you can play for free its ok for games to be released with horrible content and bad mechanics? If a game is a pretty damn good one, the 15/month price tag is trivial. F2P just promotes cheap titles to be pushed out and not great titles.

I respect your opinion, but there is a huge difference between games from 5 years aago compared to today. And F2P isnt making games better it just allows bad games to live a little longer.

I'm not lazy and googled it.  I haven't seen any information supporting this.  No matter if they dropped or not, everything I've read says that are making some money.  I don't know how much of a profit but I'm sure they're losing money on them.

No, not everyone thinks f2p model is the savior of mmos.  It's nothing more than another option to play a game.  I don't agree with your stereotype that free2play means worse content.  You are blaming the way they make money instead of the developers who make the game.

Many f2p games have been doing very well (look at League of Legends or HiRez Studios), why do you think that they are becoming more popular?  It's not to waste more time and resources on a dying game, although I would have to agree that at first f2p was used by dying games to try and scrap in more cash.

I respect your opinion as well but free2play has progressed since it first pop'd up in MMOs.  It is becoming a valid way to make money (even if it's just a little bit), populate servers and advertise the quailty of a game.  If it is a bad game it's the fault of the developers, not the payment model.

  sapphen

Novice Member

Joined: 1/06/07
Posts: 918

1/11/13 12:52:20 PM#46
Originally posted by sapphen

What makes you think that these groups (f2p and p2p players) are so different from each other?

Originally posted by Onomas

There is a very obvious age difference for one.  Not saying older people dont ever f2p, but there is definitely a larger skew towards younger people with a f2p model.  And a game like EQ2 or LOTRO that skewed towards older people, there is certainly a divide.  TERA might not see this because it skews so young to begin with.

I think you're fogetting that all of them are MMO players.  I don't believe that the payment model is greater than the audience the game is designed for, people are not going to play a game they don't like just because it's free2play.

 

Originally posted by sapphen

You say I should focus on money but then you say developers are going to try and retain free2players over pay2players -  this doesn't make sense to me.

Originally posted by Onomas

Your p2pers are generally the people that are already hooked on your game and love your game.  the effort required to keep them isnt as much as the effort required to get money out of f2pers.  In addition, many companies (Turbine, Im looking right at you) try to squeeze even more money out of their p2p customers with things like shared bank space being cash shop only

F2p players are just as capable to get hooked or fall in love with a game.  They are not trying to 'keep' f2p, they are trying to get them to spend money.  They want to keep the subscribers and milk the freebies or convert them to p2p.

Many companies have made some bad decisions in this area (Bioware, I'm looking at you).  I understand and respect your opinion.  There has been many horrible cash shop/f2p models that stained the phrase 'free2play'.  Many games and developers are working hard to change these preconceived notions.

  oafuape

Novice Member

Joined: 2/10/09
Posts: 34

1/11/13 12:56:34 PM#47
and this was suppose to be one of the games competing with GW2. Please can we get a moment of silence?......game didn't even last a year, amen.
  strangiato2112

Spotlight Poster

Joined: 9/21/12
Posts: 1566

1/11/13 12:56:57 PM#48
Originally posted by sapphen
Originally posted by sapphen

What makes you think that these groups (f2p and p2p players) are so different from each other?

Originally posted by Onomas

There is a very obvious age difference for one.  Not saying older people dont ever f2p, but there is definitely a larger skew towards younger people with a f2p model.  And a game like EQ2 or LOTRO that skewed towards older people, there is certainly a divide.  TERA might not see this because it skews so young to begin with.

I think you're fogetting that all of them are MMO players.  I don't believe that the payment model is greater than the audience the game is designed for, people are not going to play a game they don't like just because it's free2play.

 

I think you are forgetting that all MMO players arent the same.  TERA players and EQ1 players are both MMO players.  Now spend some time observing their respective communities and get back to me.

  strangiato2112

Spotlight Poster

Joined: 9/21/12
Posts: 1566

1/11/13 1:00:30 PM#49
Originally posted by oafuape
and this was suppose to be one of the games competing with GW2. Please can we get a moment of silence?......game didn't even last a year, amen.

This was *never* a game that had any chance it competing with GW2.  Its upside was 250k.  To expect more than 100k given how poorly L2 and Aion did in the west was just being optimistic.

  sapphen

Novice Member

Joined: 1/06/07
Posts: 918

1/11/13 1:04:10 PM#50
Originally posted by strangiato2112

I think you are forgetting that all MMO players arent the same.  TERA players and EQ1 players are both MMO players.  Now spend some time observing their respective communities and get back to me.

Very true, I haven't forgetten this.  The differences between MMO player's preferences (how they want to play the game) is not effected by how they want to pay for it.

  kertin

Advanced Member

Joined: 8/14/09
Posts: 76

1/11/13 1:07:12 PM#51

Wow, Onomas is so huge troll, its obvious.

Dear Onomas, your f2p restrictions you mentioned are for discovery edition (Its f2p model which wont be available in February 2013 because Tera goes absolutely f2p), you are really amazing guy and your informations are so brilliant man.

And now seriously, here we have true f2p restrictions and different account types and how can you see f2p Tera will have one of the best models on the market if not the best together with Aion.

http://support.enmasse.com/tera/tera-rising-play-for-free#What_are_the_different_account_tiers?

  Onomas

Novice Member

Joined: 7/05/11
Posts: 1160

Sandbox is your only hope for a decent mmo ;)

1/11/13 1:33:35 PM#52
Originally posted by kertin

Wow, Onomas is so huge troll, its obvious.

Dear Onomas, your f2p restrictions you mentioned are for discovery edition (Its f2p model which wont be available in February 2013 because Tera goes absolutely f2p), you are really amazing guy and your informations are so brilliant man.

And now seriously, here we have true f2p restrictions and different account types and how can you see f2p Tera will have one of the best models on the market if not the best together with Aion.

http://support.enmasse.com/tera/tera-rising-play-for-free#What_are_the_different_account_tiers?

 

A troll would not have spent the time to correct theirself. As I did 3 posts later with the link and correction. Thank you for the personal attack perhaps you should have spent your time better by reading further. And you just violated the forum rules a few times in your post, may wish to edit your post. Mods love to suspended people here lol.
  strangiato2112

Spotlight Poster

Joined: 9/21/12
Posts: 1566

1/11/13 1:35:55 PM#53
Originally posted by sapphen
  The differences between MMO player's preferences (how they want to play the game) is not effected by how they want to pay for it.

Of course it is.  Younger players and older players have different tastes.  Younger players are extremely more likely to do f2p than older.  yes, this generalization and of course doesnt mean 'older players dont f2p'.  but generally a person in their 30s isnt petty about 'I like this game but i think 15 is too much'.   

 

Now where f2p can help is gettng more people to try your game, because any person is more likely to try if there is no cost involved.  but that doesnt help as much in weaker games like TERA, especially with 1-10 being quite poor.

  mbd1968

Hard Core Member

Joined: 2/21/07
Posts: 1938

1/11/13 1:41:25 PM#54
Originally posted by Kain_Dale

Guess there is a new method for making new games: Game box with cd to sell for 60 bucks... then 1 year later make it go free 2 play with cash shop for more money.  

Company still thinks greed > fun which is really sad.

I don't belive they are a non-profit organization so what else would they put first? Fun doesn'y pay the bills.

  sapphen

Novice Member

Joined: 1/06/07
Posts: 918

1/11/13 2:09:55 PM#55
Originally posted by strangiato2112

Of course it is.  Younger players and older players have different tastes.  Younger players are extremely more likely to do f2p than older.  yes, this generalization and of course doesnt mean 'older players dont f2p'.  but generally a person in their 30s isnt petty about 'I like this game but i think 15 is too much'.   

Now where f2p can help is gettng more people to try your game, because any person is more likely to try if there is no cost involved.  but that doesnt help as much in weaker games like TERA, especially with 1-10 being quite poor.

Not sure I can agree with you.  Like you said, free2play is like a trial in a lot of ways allowing people to try the game to see if they like it.  After that it's the game's gameplay and design that decides who continues to play it.

Quote from 2/11/2011:  http://jeffhurtblog.com/2011/02/21/why-online-games-will-change-work-events/

The median age of an MMO player is 33, as compared to the median age of the general population, 35. People in their thirties make up the largest concentration of players, six times larger than the number of teens and three times the number of college students between 18 and 22. The average age for all online game players is 35 with 26% older than 50. 60% of the most active MMO players are female avatars who might or might not be women. (Data from Total Engagement)

If the younger people are playing then according to this their impact still isn't that large.  Most of what you are saying is heresay.

We don't know what people in their 30's are generally thinking.  We are hitting some hard economic times, money isn't something you toss around and not question a product's worth.  It also has to do with time investment:  If someone can only play 3-4 hours a week it may not be worth 15 bucks to them compared to the people putting in 30-40 hours a week.

  strangiato2112

Spotlight Poster

Joined: 9/21/12
Posts: 1566

1/11/13 3:00:43 PM#56
Originally posted by sapphen
Quote from 2/11/2011:  http://jeffhurtblog.com/2011/02/21/why-online-games-will-change-work-events/

The median age of an MMO player is 33, as compared to the median age of the general population, 35. People in their thirties make up the largest concentration of players, six times larger than the number of teens and three times the number of college students between 18 and 22. The average age for all online game players is 35 with 26% older than 50. 60% of the most active MMO players are female avatars who might or might not be women. (Data from Total Engagement)

If the younger people are playing then according to this their impact still isn't that large.  Most of what you are saying is heresay.

We don't know what people in their 30's are generally thinking.  We are hitting some hard economic times, money isn't something you toss around and not question a product's worth.  It also has to do with time investment:  If someone can only play 3-4 hours a week it may not be worth 15 bucks to them compared to the people putting in 30-40 hours a week.

Inexpensive entertainment products do well in tough economic times.  2012 was a record year for movies.  And the cost of going to see a movie is comparable to price of a one month MMORPG subscription.  And movies are only 1.5-2.5 hours of entertainment.  Citing the economy in a topic like this is just silly.  

And while we can only speculate their reasoning, we do know that older people tend to f2p less than younger people.  Its not that hard to see this is true if you spend a lot of time in games with a mix of both models.

  Theocritus

Apprentice Member

Joined: 7/15/08
Posts: 3613

1/11/13 3:05:11 PM#57
Originally posted by JudgeUK

OP - "wasn't playing much anymore......."

True for many players, hence the ftp change. No surprise really and no need for exclamation marks. If there was one game going this way it was Tera.

The only thing people where waiting for was how the ftp model would pan out.

 Yeah dont see how this move shocks anyone......The p2p model is going to be less and less effective as we go on......I'm surprised Rift hasn't gone this route yet also but it has a bigger following.

  Malamasala

Apprentice Member

Joined: 1/02/13
Posts: 9

1/11/13 3:07:40 PM#58
Originally posted by botrytis
Originally posted by Malamasala
Originally posted by lizardbones

 


Originally posted by Onomas
restrictions on there are almost as horrible as SWTOR. Was thinking of giving it another try, but whats the point when you are so limited in every way. Why i hate F2P games, just not worth it.



What are the limitations of the F2P? Do they restrict your ability bars? That still takes the cake for most nonsensical restriction I think.

 

The restrictions is your usual anti gold farmer design.

 

If you want to play for free, you only get 2 character slots. (Retarded, because it means you have to make 4 accounts to get 8 slots for free). You can only send 10 gold at a time (since they don't want gold selling transactions, and to prevent you from sending gold between your free accounts). 10 broker slots (again, so you don't make a lot of fast gold).

 

In most other senses it is the same as now. I think most of it except the character limit is OK. They are just shooting themselves in the foot with telling people to make multiple accounts instead of a single one for their characters. You can of course buy extra character slots, so I guess they simply wanted to make money. But the result is still that free2play people will make a ton of accounts.

2 slots PER SERVER - get real.

You are pretty poor at writing a sentence, so I'll just assume you attempted to claim that since it is 2 per server it is not a huge deal.

My point is that this is one of the more annoying types of convenience parts they are trying to sell you. To not have to log off accounts or play on multiple servers, you need to pay up. So your option is quit playing since you are bored at 2 classes, or pay up to make a new character. (Assuming you play with friends, without friends you can just change server)

It would make much more sense to try and hook people to keep playing, instead of give them choices between leaving or staying. More characters = Play longer = Higher chance at spending money or inviting a friend who pays money. It seems obvious to me, but apparently saving some 2 MBs memory on the server is worth the lost customers.

  sapphen

Novice Member

Joined: 1/06/07
Posts: 918

1/11/13 3:48:24 PM#59
Originally posted by strangiato2112

Inexpensive entertainment products do well in tough economic times.  2012 was a record year for movies.  And the cost of going to see a movie is comparable to price of a one month MMORPG subscription.  And movies are only 1.5-2.5 hours of entertainment.  Citing the economy in a topic like this is just silly.  

And while we can only speculate their reasoning, we do know that older people tend to f2p less than younger people.  Its not that hard to see this is true if you spend a lot of time in games with a mix of both models.

Citing movie sales and suggesting that older people don't care how they spend their money is just silly imo - along with this the direction of this conversation.  It's not the payment model's fault if the developer shifts their direction.  You would hope that they are competent enough not to redesign a game for the people who don't spend money on it.  Just because a game is going f2p that does not mean it's failed or the developers will suddently start making stupid decisions.

  strangiato2112

Spotlight Poster

Joined: 9/21/12
Posts: 1566

1/11/13 4:05:15 PM#60
Originally posted by sapphen
Originally posted by strangiato2112

Inexpensive entertainment products do well in tough economic times.  2012 was a record year for movies.  And the cost of going to see a movie is comparable to price of a one month MMORPG subscription.  And movies are only 1.5-2.5 hours of entertainment.  Citing the economy in a topic like this is just silly.  

And while we can only speculate their reasoning, we do know that older people tend to f2p less than younger people.  Its not that hard to see this is true if you spend a lot of time in games with a mix of both models.

Citing movie sales and suggesting that older people don't care how they spend their money is just silly imo - along with this the direction of this conversation.  It's not the payment model's fault if the developer shifts their direction.  You would hope that they are competent enough not to redesign a game for the people who don't spend money on it.  Just because a game is going f2p that does not mean it's failed or the developers will suddently start making stupid decisions.

Its not that they dont care, if they dont like the game they will pay.  however they arent petty and say 'well, I am only getting $6.34 of enjoyment so forget it'.  

 

And the only reason games go f2p is to increase revenue, so the key is how to get the f2pers to pay.  So yes, they have to design the game around those who don't pay in order to get them to pay.  otherwise there is no reason to go f2p.

 

And while going f2p doesnt mean failure (although it does mean relatively low subs...LOTRO is the only game above 200k to go f2p but much of that 200k was lifetime subs), TERA *is* a failure.  

5 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 » Search