37 replies to this topic

[zmeul]

got micro-transactions ??

[Chavette]

Thirdstar, on 08 March 2013 - 07:07 AM, said:

I like this one better.

Almost the same reason I uninstalled too. I was GOOD and they were still running it.

[Ilwrath]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 March 2013 - 07:19 AM, said:

Then in the future, pick your insults better. It's called personal choice, and thank goodness we have it. The world would be very sad indeed, if we all thought like you sir.

Soon there will be no personal choice. All games will follow scam-like business models. The new generations are so used to it now that it is becoming the standard.

[Cebi]

Ilwrath, on 08 March 2013 - 06:36 AM, said:

I am not here because of the crappy business model. That is for sure. This is a promising game for other reasons.

Name one game that is better because its free to pay and not a normal game. The part of much longer life is not true. Just look at Starsiege Tribes. It did not last forever because it was free to play but because it was a damn good game.

Free to pay games also attracts all the children and cheaters.

World of Tanks. If it were a buy once game it would have less than a quarter of the maps and maybe a 5th of the tanks available. Oh and no cheats.

DOTA 2. If it were a buy once game... well... you would actually have to spend money on it... Haven't heard of cheats.

[Ilwrath]

Cebi, on 08 March 2013 - 07:26 AM, said:

World of Tanks. If it were a buy once game it would have less than a quarter of the maps and maybe a 5th of the tanks available. Oh and no cheats.

DOTA 2. If it were a buy once game... well... you would actually have to spend money on it... Haven't heard of cheats.

I see now reason why they could not have developed WoT as a normal game. Games got xp packs in the old days too and it was fine.

I have no idea about DOTA 2 so cannot say much about that.

[Yankee77]

I for one like F2P, it is a good model that allows more niche games to enter the market.

Like, say, MWO.

And yes, it does mean that MANY players will end up paying more than the box price. I have, for example. It also means that MANY players will pay far less (for example, NOTHING).

The real problem is that the cost of game development has gone up massively in the last 2 decades at the same time as the competition, and game prices have remained relatively static. The mainstreaming of gaming has helped there, but not enough. And the less "reliable" a game is, the greater the risk to the publisher and developer, and the end result is the endless stream of sequels we see today. The risks are so great these days, where a AAA game NEEDS to be a huge success to generate acceptable profit.

It's even worse when you consider many games flop, creating undue burden on the publishers, who turn to reliable franchises and shirk innovation in order to stay solvent.

So yeah, more revenue streams ARE needed to justify development expense, and that's what F2P does. It actually enable publishers to take greater risks and cater to more niche markets, as they can expect a good portion of their consumers to spend more throughout the lifecycle of the game than they would on a single-box-purchase.

So yes, bring on F2P. It's the future (and in many ways the present) of gaming, and what allowed to have another mechwarrior game.

[Ph30nix]

Ilwrath, on 08 March 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

Soon there will be no personal choice. All games will follow scam-like business models. The new generations are so used to it now that it is becoming the standard.

sadly i actualy agree with this post, reason being companies today (for the most part) at the very top do not give a crap about customers or employees, they are seen as little piggy banks and a means to yank the money out of those piggy banks.
Little companies doing F2P in a good or bad way is one thing, once big companies start getting into the game, especially games with greedy and anti customer track records to being with (EA, Activision) it will not end well.

Good example is the EXTREME DRM these companies have implemented that does ZERO against piracy, but creates tons of hoops to jump thru for actualy customers.
The real reason they do alot of what they do is control for the end result of forced spending, "oh you bout our game from 4 years ago? that millions still play? well we have a new version out and we will not be running the authentication servers for that game anymore so you have to buy the new game."
i havent heard of anything that bad or overt YET but only matter of time, the language in EULA and TOS give them all the legal coverage they need to do it.

I seriously forsee a day when you buy a game and its hard core leased to you (you currently lease the games but its only worded that way to protect themselves) so you get the game for say 6 months - a year and oh sorry if you want to play it any more you need to update your license. Kinda like how some antivirus companies work.

If you dont think it could and will happen then think about the biggest greediest ***** you know and imagine them running a company because guess what there are people like that and 10x worse.

and it doesnt help that most people under around 25 have zero idea of what real privacy is and are always willing to handover everything to get nothing.

Edited by Ph30nix, 08 March 2013 - 08:09 AM.

[BigBadHarv]

not to mention that winning free to play games is luck

[Ph30nix]

Itkovian, on 08 March 2013 - 08:03 AM, said:

I for one like F2P, it is a good model that allows more niche games to enter the market.

Like, say, MWO.

And yes, it does mean that MANY players will end up paying more than the box price. I have, for example. It also means that MANY players will pay far less (for example, NOTHING).

The real problem is that the cost of game development has gone up massively in the last 2 decades at the same time as the competition, and game prices have remained relatively static. The mainstreaming of gaming has helped there, but not enough. And the less "reliable" a game is, the greater the risk to the publisher and developer, and the end result is the endless stream of sequels we see today. The risks are so great these days, where a AAA game NEEDS to be a huge success to generate acceptable profit.

It's even worse when you consider many games flop, creating undue burden on the publishers, who turn to reliable franchises and shirk innovation in order to stay solvent.

So yeah, more revenue streams ARE needed to justify development expense, and that's what F2P does. It actually enable publishers to take greater risks and cater to more niche markets, as they can expect a good portion of their consumers to spend more throughout the lifecycle of the game than they would on a single-box-purchase.

So yes, bring on F2P. It's the future (and in many ways the present) of gaming, and what allowed to have another mechwarrior game.

game Flops are almost 100% the responsiblity of the publisher, I give them zero sympathy. Look at the crap fest Aliens colonial marines turned into. if you dont know about it Look up "what happened to colonial marines" on youtube.
Zero game promises were met, the Demo looks and plays 10x better then the final etc etc.
The game was split up between so many developers it was pathetic all because gearbox was too busy with Borderlands 2.

Publishers are known to push and rush games out the door just to get the $$$ quicker even if it means we get **** poor merchandise that they MIGHT patch later. Publishers like that NEED to go out of buisness.

as far as cost of development, Like everything else the real costs are all Top Heavy, the people who tend to have ZERO to actually do with the game are the biggest expense yet they are seen as important? im starting to rant but hopefully you get my point. The cost of developing a game would be alot less if they stuck to what they actualy needed to develope it, workers, equipment and office space and a MINIMAL managment staff.

[Cebi]

Ilwrath, on 08 March 2013 - 07:49 AM, said:

I see now reason why they could not have developed WoT as a normal game. Games got xp packs in the old days too and it was fine.

I have no idea about DOTA 2 so cannot say much about that.

Too many tanks and maps, even for expansion packs. And we would probably be on WoT 3 by now. I like my tanks being persistent starting again every year for each new iteration of the franchise would be a pain.

[ThatOneEdgyGuy]

How are you guys gonna complain about a business practice as "greed"? Especially as you play the game, then proceed to complain NONSTOP on the forums about it's perceived errors. I'm sure it would be nice to have a bottomless bank account. Most companies don't. Welcome to the real world.

If the "big bad corporate greed" rustles your jimmies so much, feel free to stop playing.

Edited by ThatOneEdgyGuy, 08 March 2013 - 08:23 AM.

[Volthorne]

I, personally, would rather have a F2P game rather than (insert CoD $60 expansion being marketed as a "new" game).

If you can't see why, then maybe you shouldn't be playing video games or reading forums. Possibly both at the same time.

[Joseph Mallan]

Ilwrath, on 08 March 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

Soon there will be no personal choice. All games will follow scam-like business models. The new generations are so used to it now that it is becoming the standard.

There will always be personal choice.

[Ph30nix]

ThatOneEdgyGuy, on 08 March 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

How are you guys gonna complain about a business practice as "greed"? Especially as you play the game, then proceed to complain NONSTOP on the forums about it's perceived errors. I'm sure it would be nice to have a bottomless bank account. Most companies don't. Welcome to the real world.

If the "big bad corporate greed" rustles your jimmies so much, feel free to stop playing.

i personaly am not complaining about F2P when done fairly i guess you can say, and MWO i think is doing well not a HUGE fan of the costs of things but as far as "must have" items to play price is decent (need another MC sale)
its the ones that go beyond insane that bother me ($50 for a tank? seriously?)
and you can make ALOT of money without being greedy, Making money DOES NOT MEAN YOUR GREEDY nor do you have to be.

lets get back to the funny

Joseph Mallan, on 08 March 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

There will always be personal choice.

to the point of either bend over and take it, or dont get to play games, If it get the extreme that is.

[Ilwrath]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 March 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

There will always be personal choice.

Sure. Play or not play.

[Joseph Mallan]

Ilwrath, on 08 March 2013 - 08:59 AM, said:

Sure. Play or not play.

Exactly. same choice I made over a decade ago. Until you are dead you have lots of choices.

[DaZur]

You anti-capitalism conspiracy theorist really crack me up...

The premise that a business / corporation should seek only marginal profit and nothing more is so rift with socialist poison it's scary. The desire for a business / corporation to be "paid" is no different than your personal desire to work and be paid a fair wage...

Fair market value and supply / demand dictated by what a consumer is willing to pay a business / corporation for something in the same way the job market and employment demand dictates what your particular employment / job demands as a fair wage.

In either case (a business or you personally) both want as much money as the market will support. You want to be paid as much as the market will support right?!... Well, it's not unreasonable for a business / corporation to try and net as much profit as they can either....

It's not "being greedy" it's the core fundamental driving force of consumerism / capitalism.

The really cool part about F2P is the money sink for the most part, really boils down to "convenience" If you have patience, time and a little effort... You don't have to pay a flipping dime, quid, drachma, shilling, or bushel of wheat.

Sadly, way too many people want it NOW, FREE, and TOP TIER... But have no appreciation for what it takes or costs to provide this to them. All they know is they have been told they are "entitled" to it...

[Taizan]

This thread was moved to the Off-topic sub forum, where it is more appropriate.