105 replies to this topic

[DarkBazerker]

Adridos, on 16 August 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

Also, here's what basically happened to us (ZeeHypnotist made it, a guy that made a lot of lego parodies for C&C):

This says it all.

[Hexenhammer]

Dr Killinger, on 15 August 2012 - 05:06 AM, said:

Is the general gaming populace just not familiar enough with the F2P model yet? Have they been exposed to too many cheap pay-to-win iOS games?

Most F2P games are secret Pay to Win money grabs.

[Kyrie]

That YouTube lego video is awesome. :-)

Yeah, hating EA comes naturally.

[4braxas]

Free2Play and Overpriced underrated DLCs are a plague, and one of the worst things to happen to gaming.
Industry loves it, players DO NOT!
Overpriced multiplayer DLCs with little to no content (looking at you Call of Duty) are dividing the community.
Free2Play leeches on your wallet, in the end, you will pay a **** load more money on one game, instead of buying WHOLE PACKAGE games.
Free2Play model needs to die, ******** that made the Free2Play need to be locked up somewhere dark, FOREVER.

[Crimson S]

IronWolf Vascus, on 15 August 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

EA has made Command and Conquer go down hill since Red Alert 3 and Tiberium Twilight, but then again, what hasn't EA made go down hill? Over-priced DLC (almost as bad as CoD) save for maybe Battlefield 3, the price there seems reasonable, but most of their F2P games are either P2W, or just not good. BattleForge is hard to play without BF Points, Battlefield Heroes took the same road, now Commander and Conquer here seems to be making the same mistakes. As mentioned, free 2 play doesn't mean "Bad game" or "Wasted time". It means as it does, you can play it for free, but many games have a poor micro transaction system. MWO seems to be gearing up to do the right thing, they should learn from how League of Legends does their stuff, or atleast Blacklight Retribution, even though I hate rental systems. I still do enjoy that game.

agreed I enjoy both of the games you mentioned, and I don't understand how people don't understand F2P is not ALWAYS pay to win, games like Mabinogi and as you said LoL, Blacklight Retribution, are good examples of a fairly balanced game. (Mabinogi is iffy if you count the limited time pets but hey they come in handy for dungeons XD and by that I mean the summon stuns.)

Edited by Zer0mega, 17 August 2012 - 04:00 PM.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

CnC went downhill long before RA3 or Twilight. Tiberian Wars was horrible. Red Alert 2 and Generals were the last of the decent CnC titles as far as I am concerned. Comparing Tiberian Wars to Tiberian Sun is like comparing an original Star Wars movie to a prequal Star Wars movie.

[Maltduck]

well all i am seeing is forced 2 pay if u wont to play at this time and when and if it ever is open to all as they clame it will be the biggest billfold wins the arms /mech race as in wot some clans/units run only top tear tanks and use gold rounds now everday players with out gold are buggerd as they have less pentraion on the armer as the gold round .....i play wot all the time and if u load a special add on like gun rammer u have to have gold to remove it and u can only get gold with MONEY so keep telling everone it free2 play and keep chargeing player money to play your beta

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

Maltduck, on 17 August 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

well all i am seeing is forced 2 pay if u wont to play at this time and when and if it ever is open to all as they clame it will be the biggest billfold wins the arms /mech race as in wot some clans/units run only top tear tanks and use gold rounds now everday players with out gold are buggerd as they have less pentraion on the armer as the gold round .....i play wot all the time and if u load a special add on like gun rammer u have to have gold to remove it and u can only get gold with MONEY so keep telling everone it free2 play and keep chargeing player money to play your beta

1) Learn English. That was downright painful to read. If you can't; then stop using forums.
2) This isn't World of Tanks. There is no Premium tanks or bullets and it is not an armsrace. You can roll a Commando from day 1 and use it competitively your entire career. WoT is a P2W game, this is not.
3) If you don't want to pay for beta access then don't. Wait for the open beta. It's a pre-order reward, not a requirement. Once open beta access gets here "everyone" will be allowed to play regardless of wallet size; hence F2P.

Edited by Bluten, 17 August 2012 - 04:17 PM.

[Crimson S]

Maltduck, on 17 August 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

well all i am seeing is forced 2 pay if u wont to play at this time and when and if it ever is open to all as they clame it will be the biggest billfold wins the arms /mech race as in wot some clans/units run only top tear tanks and use gold rounds now everday players with out gold are buggerd as they have less pentraion on the armer as the gold round .....i play wot all the time and if u load a special add on like gun rammer u have to have gold to remove it and u can only get gold with MONEY so keep telling everone it free2 play and keep chargeing player money to play your beta

you dont HAVE to pay to get in, just if you want in right now and don't want to wait you can pay to get in, and your rewarded for paying to get in, me personally I would rather wait.

[-Wolvine-]

LMAO... I loved your video DarkBazerker! EA has destroyed every game they have touched for years. My kids were so upset with mass effect 3, they now refuse to play 1 and 2 now for example (they use to to play them both daily till 3).

Hexenhammer, on 17 August 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

Most F2P games are secret Pay to Win money grabs.

Could not of said it better myself. They all turn into pay to win. Just wait till the money flow slows down. Then the gold plated PPC's will be up for sell, or depleted uranium AC-20 shells. (Example)
Myself i normally refuse to play F2P, or P2W as most gamers call them. Only giving this one a shot do to all the years i put into mechwarrior and mechcommander. That said, the moment i feel it becomes pay to win, will be easy to delete the game off my hard drive.

Edited by Wolverien, 17 August 2012 - 04:42 PM.

[PlutoniumX]

I like WoT's as well with how they did there model for f2p. They didnt really give people who payed that much of an advantage unless they payed for "gold rounds" but other than that not to much. I really hope this game will have a good model as well and alot of people get on board, if it's where people who pay dont really have any advantage in the battlefield than it should do really good. I can see why people dont like f2p but all i can say is give f2p a chance and try it out for yourselves.

[TizZ]

F2P has many models , mostly its about spending a small amount alot of times so in the end if you had paid £30 in the first place for a normal boxed game you would have been laughing ... games company's are here and are only in existence to make money once the accountants take over ... that said I hope the two long awaited games that have been absent for 10 years Return in a format of F2P that does indeed break the usual dogma of F2P ...MWO and Planetside 2 ( Although PS2 is sony we can live in hope cant we lol ) ..

Games company's form through love of making games etc enthusiasm , drive , but at some point it will inevitably change when the money becomes more important than the games .. good intentions at the start do not pay the bills in the future so to speak .. so we will have to wait and see guys , all we can do .

I am sure though the games company's can make money and make great games If they wanted to , without being lazy and work for there bux .

[Aescwulf]

I think people complain about a free to play model because of mostly every free to play model have been highly restrictive in what you can and can't do and most are infact play to win models.

There's one free to play model that everyone has heard of which is pretty good and that is Runescape which you get an area which you can explore freely ( which is pretty big ) and you don't have that many restrictions on what skills you can train up and the members is only like what? £2 ?

MWO isn't a pay to win game it is a free to play and you can't buy a " kill everything button "

[Extinction]

I Work in the IT-Industrie (not in PC Gaming area) and i am quite familiar with all the different Business models.

I just wantet do show the Pro and cons also from a Publisher/delevoper point of view without favoring one.

Pay to Play:
This model is the one most players are familiar with. Games like WoW and most other western MMO had this model for many years. It means the player hast to pay initially for the Product itself (for owning the Software). Then the User has to pay frequently for using it. Usually a fixed amount of cash every paying-period (often like every month).

Pro Player:
He can precisely plan the cost of this. He knows that he will be able to enjoy the whole content without any restrictions after he paid the fixed amount of money. We also know that no other player in the game will have any advantage over him (excluding maybe more free time to play).

Con Player:
He has to pay in advance..... wich means if the Product is no fun to him or full of bugs and flaws, he spend the money at his own full risk. And since sooo many Programs are close to unplayable due to bugs this is a HUGE disadvantage.


Pro Company:
This model offers a more easy planing. Because at beginning of a month you KNOW how much money come in. Therefore do a very detailed planing on you resources to keep things running wihtout the risk of high losses. Also you receive a large portion of you initialy investet money at release date. Providing fast fresh money to keep the show going.
At the development phase you can put more time and resources into making the game great. The other model forces you to put quite some design-power into tweaking the game to become a Cash-Cow of some sort.


Con Company:
To cover all your expenses and make a profit the typical player MUST play the game for a certain amount of time. If he leaves before that green number of months, then it was a fail. (Worst scenario beside not selling at all: Customer buys software, and doesnt subsribe at all and just uses the typical granted free month.)


Free to Play / Pay to win:
These two descriptions are more closely tied together than most people want to hear. But its far less issue than most think. First there is to say that something like true Free to play doesnt exist (exception may be Fan made mods or Games). Every company wants to earn cash to pay their emplyees. NEVER EVER forget about this! So a developers job is to design a Game that is fun enough to suck players in. But also ensuring that players will have a much harder time if they dont pay.
A very good analogy is if you want to go skiing in the mountains. You got the equippment and the skill to have a nasty race there. However you have to get on top the mountain first. And it is absolutly free..... you can go climb the mountain and then get fully into the fun..... Or you can take the ski-lift for a fee to get on top much faster and without to exert oneself. This is what free to play means.
And every non-masochistically player will pay sooner or later or stop skiing.
So in conlusion: BOTH models mean you have to pay. Difference is the first will FORCE you and the other will PERSUADE you.


Pro Player:
You dont have to pay in advance! You can first check out basics of the game and see if its fun to you. And MOST IMPORTANTLY see if the game runs well. This has an enormously effect on the related industrie. As a developer you CANT release a half made game that is full of bugs. Because of the FtP/PtW model you would loose alot of potential customers in the first few weeks. Overal the FtP/PtW games are at a much better condition at release date than many other Products. Additonlly a player is NOT forced to pay regulary. He can decide for himself to invest 100 $ at start and then several month nothing or any other pace the play wishes.


Con Player:
Its usualy more expensiv over time (IF you are a realy dedicatet player). But that also in line with math..... normaly you dont just pay the typical 15$ a month but you also bought the game itseld for like 50 $ at start. So a standard company aims for a 25$ bucks a player should spend a month to stay in the green financial area.
After aroudn 5 Months you will normaly have people leaving for newer software. EVERY game gets abit old and more boring over time no matter how good it is (just some older faster than others).


Pro Comany:
Simply yields more Profit under the right circumstances (since this ist the absolut primary goal of any company i had to realy put it into larger letters). Dedicatet players will pay a MULTIPLE of the Pay to Play model in the same period of time. This is also a HUGE advantage in a industrie where its products can grow old and obsolete in weeks.


Con Company:
There are serveral risks in this model. Firstly if your Product "sucks" (meaning its no fun, or full of bugs) you wont even get the initial flow of money like in the Pay to Play model resulting in a financial desaster. Cause of this, there is usualy more quality assurance involved before release. And aso somehwant less money for the initial development (to minimize this risk).
Also there is the risk of presenting too much fun without paying. The game MUST have ALOT of paying customers to yield profit (and to keep it running at all). So if the customer can archieve things too easy without paying its a epic fail in design and resulting again in financial desaster. On the other hand it must provide just enough fun without paying to "persuade" the customer to get even more out of the game WITH paying. This is no easy feature to balance.

----------------------------------------------------------
I know there are fan-boys of both ways that will come up with tons of "good reasons" why their prefered model rocks........
But from a IT-Manager side of view its the money that made relevant at end of the day.
I realy love to play games.... but belive it or not my family hast to eat, live and bills have to be paid. Everyone who thinks that making a great game is the primaly goal of any developer is plain stupid.
The primary goal is to make money.... LOTS OF MONEY! And if that objektiv is archived... then every developer with passion for game will see if he can create a realy great and fun game. Its in that order and nothing else! :-)

Edited by Extinction, 18 August 2012 - 06:32 AM.

[TizZ]

Also forgot to add Piracy is not an issue with Free to play .

[Star Ace]

Mr. Extinction, not all F2P games are really P2win-all F2P games I've played have neer been P2win, seriously. And the amount I've spent of them (which I have) have been VERY little vs the amount I would have paid for similar games on a subscription model on a month to month basis. I am "dedicated", but not affluent, but to be fair, don't spend 40+ hours per week on any game(s).

I think we agree that the subscription model might not be the most profittable option for a company nowadays, unless you have a big hit on your hands, which it doesn't seem to be happening much. All I see is subscription games going "F2P" (whether it is true or not) as soon as they realize the folly of having asked a subscription fee in the first place.

Note that I have no affinity for IT management (not saying it's wrong, just not a thing I like), but although companies must profit, and people must get paid, there must be also some sort of mission statements in most companies other than "making more money than anybody else."This is what makes companies different from each other. So, of course a company must profit, but it doesn't need to rely on P2Win to do so, if they have decided against doing so. There are so many ways of making money by offering non-needed bonus fluff that offer no tactical advantage whatsoever in the game experience. It is highly possible for a company to offer these "fluffy benefits", as well as giving a bonus to money, etc. (as in MWO) which can only save time, but not diminish the experience of those who cannot afford to buy everything they put out. All I wanted to say, without making an argument of it to be sure, is that although there's money to be made, wise company owners/decision makers should get in touch with their player base before risking a money-grabbing venture that in all probability will backfire.

I disagree with all of those who think F2P is the same as P2Win. You just have to find the right F2P games. Feel free to disagree-bad gaming company decisions have given the true F2P model a bad name, and I wouldn't be surprised if anybody here thinks true F2P games do not exist (I know they do.)

[PelinalWhitestrake]

dude

Freaking out with F2p is that people who fears a F2P with horrible maintenance, Pay to Win and hacks

basically saying, is those virgins who played Korean MMO's or Crossfire

[Gaiastrider]

SakuranoSenshi, on 15 August 2012 - 06:39 AM, said:

The problem is "free to pay" is a very vague concept.  Some games have done it well, others have not.  If you can download the client and log in without paying the publisher any money, then it's a "free to play" game, however; unless the game can be meaningfully played without serious restrictions, it's not really "free" to play at all, it's an indefinite trial (which is the sort of language that was used for this for a long time).

I love LotRO, which was a pure subscription game for a long time, in fact I have a lifetime subscription... or rather I did, until it was converted into a continuous "VIP" account status when they made the game "free to play".  Problem is... it's not free at all.  You must buy all the content beyond the original release, so unless you never want to progress the story beyond the first few chapters you're definitely going to have to pay and we're not talking $10 either, we're talking 30 to 60 dollars depending on what you buy, exactly and that's per expansion.  That sort of thing frustrates people; on the one hand I wish they'd simply left it as a monthly subscription so I didn't have the stupidity of "VIP points" (I forget what they call them right now) and the endless adverts for yet another re-skinned horse, on the other hand players who like the look, feel and setting find out they have some serious outlay if they really want to play and feel lied to.

This mindset actually irritates me, to claim that expansion packs and the costs of them are a result and downside of F2P is just entirely wrong. We've had expansion packs for regular games for many years. WoW is a prime example of a sub game with expansions, which you have to pay for. Hell, even MW2 had an expansion. If you wanted to play the additonal content, you paid the coinage.It's not an f2P issue, it's a gaming issue. There's nothing wrong with F2P so long as it's done right. LotRO is a great model for the most part. Being sub wouldn't have made the game cheaper, you'd still have to buy the expansion and then you'd be paying money every month on top.

[Extinction]

Well i actualy like the Free to play/Pay to win model. Mostly because of fewer bugs. And pay to win doesnt mean that someone who does NOT pay cant win then...... it means that if you pay you have an advantage over players who do not. And thats true about almost EVERY F2p game. However in some games the difference is more or less significant.

A well made model is D&D online right now. You CANT buy any realy good items there for real money. But you can buy the adventure-modules who will provide you with good items IF you can survive them.
So its NOT pay to win... but a paying player has significant advantage over a not paying player. At least in the long run.....
And this aplies to nearly every game. And i have absolutly no doubts that it will be no different in MWO.

But this isnt a flame. I have no problem with that. Played tons of F2P games and therefore know the design all too well. Its not that bad after you simply accept the fact that you WOULD pay 50$ initialy and then 15$ a month for a Pay to play title. Invest the roghly 100$ over 3 Month in a F2P title (95$ you would pay for the Pay to play title). And guess what... you get a nice gaming fun for your 100 bucks.....

[avoidcde]

It's pretty easy to see why someone wouldn't like F2P. Lots of developers just throw the F2P model on top of a game it doesn't really fit with. They all like to put progression in their games (so you can pay to advance through it quicker). Profile progression in a competitive game only serves to unbalance the playing field based on random factors other than player skill (are ALL of my teammates/opponents playing with the same tool set that is available to me? What does this mean for the outcome of the match?)

I mean, if we examine the way developers have to balance F2P, the whole idea is to give you a fun game, and limit your access in frustrating ways that will drive you to pay. THAT NOT FUN. All of this when you can just buy any (good, balanced) competitive game and jump right in without all this bullshit in the way.

Edited by budgetmercenary, 18 August 2012 - 04:07 PM.