105 replies to this topic

[Adridos]

Problem with the C&C going completely F2P (all three universes) has 3 main roots.

1st: C&C fans were already at stakes. The last game was complete and utter fail, the support for earlier titles is non-existent and EA already fired 2 whole companies that were assigned to work on our games (one of them being the makers of RTS genre, RIP Westwood). They finally said they're going to redeem themselves. And now, after 8 months without any info and painful wait, they say: "Screw it, no campaign, no single-player, no mod support, we're going to make a simple F2P game!"
Who wouldn't be upset?

2nd: It's EA. I have played all but one of their F2P titles and while I must admit I had a lot of fun even in something like BattleForge, they were all completely P2W. No way around, everything was utterly based on how strong weapon you bought, how many legendary cards you had. Common sense tells you C&C Online will be no different.

3rd: Every time F2P was done on a normal RTS, it failed. RTS is not a genre where any kind of grinding is acceptable. Unless you are allowed to play with everything right from the start, you'll loose interest, since the games are based around thinking and using strategies, but what can I do when I can't build towers, walls, tech to a later age and only thing to do is spam the only millitary unit I happen to have unlocked at the enemy and wait until he gets destroyed (Yeah, AoE:O). F2P without grind however, doesn't generate profits, because "if there's nothing to unlock, then why waste time?", is the current generation's motto and since they want as much casuals as they can hold...we're doomed to a shadow of a game that will almost surely play badly.

Oh, and Origin....

Edited by Adridos, 15 August 2012 - 12:11 PM.

[Draco Argentus]

I don't see what the problem is with WoT - it's a pretty badass game, has been since CBT (yes, I was in CBT, even got my "gift" tank).
They have a decent f2p model, other than the gold ammo. The tanks that are only purchasable with real money are weaker than an elite tree tank of the same tier, the only advantage is in credit and exp earnings.
Actually, other than being of slightly lower graphical quality than MWO, WoT is a better game - each vehicle always performs the same way when the same upgrades are made - unlike MWO where weapon and armor performance varies wildly from one battle to the next.

I was quite leery of the f2p model at first (WoT being the first f2p by design game that I've played) - now, I wouldn't have it any other way. . . I can test the waters, so to speak, without forking over $50-$60 for a game I might not like. I learned my lesson with WoW - pay for the expansion, pay the monthly sub, and lose all that because the poor quality causes me to quit playing after a couple of hours. . .
With so little of the game economy having been implemented thus far, it's difficult to say where MWO will fall in the f2p spectrum - but it's still good enough for me to have upgraded the Founder package that my good friend bought me. . . whether it continues to be worth it remains to be seen.

[Johnny Recon]

Rixx, on 15 August 2012 - 06:22 AM, said:

Models like WOT give advantages in battle to those that pay.

at the risk of veering completely off topic...

Sure, gold rounds and consumables, but those are hardly necessary to be successful in non-tournament play. An average or good player won't need them, and they certainly won't help a poor player much.

I'm pretty crazy when it comes to these things, but even I'm not crazy enough to shoot nickels in a pub game.

Having said all that, I agree that because of this MWO has an edge on WoT in terms of "pure" FtP.

[Seadogs]

F2P is whats saving PC gamings *** right now folks. It's not going anywhere, just have to hope individual publishers do it right. When EA decides to cash in on it, we are all ****** again.

[Centagon]

The problem is that the video game industry has gotten gradually worse over the years, producing a higher frequency of poorly thought out, shallow titles. Sure we've reached out to a larger demographic, but games back in my childhood had much more depth and memorable experiences.

Occasionally we'll see a good title released, but then it'll be franchised and reproduced far too quickly, deploying sequels a little after 6 months down the road. Quantity is now preferred over quality, as launch sales and better marketing is what empowers the video game industry.

In the latest line of industry regressions, we see developers blaming decreasing fan-interest on the competition of free-to-play games, and moving their games to match this marketing model. It's a lot easier to offload and mask your game's lack of replayability and depth on the fact that it wasn't as accessible as a F2P game than admit that game development has gotten poorer.

What devs, but mostly publishers, don't want to admit is that it's not that other companies are releasing good games for free.... It's that these devs are no longer releasing games WORTH PAYING FOR.

Read up EA's earnings report meeting, and watch them blame SWTOR's failure on it not having launched as F2P, but then not mention that players left due to a lack of updates, neglect from devs, lack of content, awful management, and that it's a blatant copy-cat game.

CNC:G2 is another failure in a long line of EA CNC games. I bought some of them, I'd know. The quality of the games got worse and worse, and the devs never fixed game breaking bugs that carried over from one game to the next. The same hacks worked for different games on the same engine. EA would promise updates/patches for their sequels, but then fail to deliver, then apologize sincerely to the community, and make more promises for the next purchase. It is downright shameful how they conduct business, and F2P isn't going to save them. Their game, and their service is not worth paying for. I wouldn't even put faith in them if they paid me to play.

[StarfyrGuns]

ZI0N, on 15 August 2012 - 06:25 AM, said:

I thought I would hate F2P but Star Trek Online did it right. lock boxes are kind of annoying, but how they sell ships with an equipable ability and slightly better stats without becoming pay to win has really worked out for them.

lol..I collect them, and sell them on the ah...stack of 10 for 200-300ec lol

[River Walker]

I have no prob with F2P, I do played on a number of them,at list until I start to see the "The BOX".

I think most of you know what I am talking about. Ones the Box's start popping up I, be "popping out".

From what I have seen from other F2P the Box Infected F2P game in about 3 months after the door open up.

The excuse that is used most of the time is that the game is Free to Play and thy need to do it to pay for the sever or some other thing.

If MWO ever starts to Use the Prizes Box's it well be by by MWO For me

[River Walker]

StarfyrGuns, on 15 August 2012 - 06:31 PM, said:

lol..I collect them, and sell them on the ah...stack of 10 for 200-300ec lol

The Box has kill Star trek. the Box Infected the game and is hated by all that play it

[tyrone dunkirk]

Perigren, on 15 August 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

I loved Tribes2 and Vengeance despite most peoples feelings about it, I had high hopes for Ascend but it failed to capture my attention past release.

I just started playing it yesterday, because I heard good things about it lol I try not to ask too many questions, so I don't end up like the poor fools here who don't know their BT lore ( I do, by the way, know my BT lore XD )
I find it's great fun, the movement/travel system is an entertaining spin on the fast pace FPS of recent, and I'll be playing it alongside MWO when it comes out.

[Bashars]

How about if you have kids... those FTP games turn out to cost you a membership since all thier buddies can go and do things they cant without a monthy membership.. then "Dad I need more in game money to buy this and that, just goto 7/11 and get a game card you will even get bonus gear..." then boooooom all the buddies switch games and you have them asking all over again for stuff in the new game.

I dont mind spending money on a game if I like that game and you get your money worth. People have talked about Tribes in this tread, I did not have a problem with getting ingame money in Tribes. But later everytime I logged on you get a deal of the day shoved in your face trying to get you to spend money. And the ingame money you buy does not go as far as I think it should in that game.

Edited by Bashars, 15 August 2012 - 07:41 PM.

[light487]

Blame Zynga...

[Moira]

F2P and the issues on this case EA and C&C.

Its either PayToWin or the second what comes with F2P community. Latter has been major problem on this year for me in 7-8 betas on variety of games due ppls really dont give a damn and try to abuse/ruin a game even wipeout is coming in the end of the beta. Maybe the most notorious nuinance beta-test(s) was on TERA online where few ppls leveled fastly to max and got some kind of gear and then they camped and killed noobs on newbie zones non stop.

Ergo F2P has problems mostly what comes with communities, this summer LoL has had the worst time in my long memory of trolls, aka ppls that just want to ruin the gaming experience for others for variable reasons and mostly if comes down to the fact these ppls cant spend real cash ingame to get insinifigant bonuses (like skins/new heroes in LoL).

So I can understand C&C's fans going on rageflaming specially when you combine the EA's F2P model and possibility that their loved game gets a small amount of these "trolls" that on purpose try to ruin their beloved game.

[Kanaric]

most f2p games completely suck, thats why people hate it. The fact that usually you have to pay for content or that paying gives a HUGE advantage and it ends up costing MUCH more than paying $15 a month if you are into the game is why people hate it.

[Inkarnus]

Some games are just made f2p to suck money out of the players best example is the ex full price game Battleforge were EA still is not pushing out the last countent since 3 years to keep ppl jumping to the roof to get the little tidbits they release to fill there pockets

[Deceptor]

Runescape. 'Nuff said

[Star Ace]

It's rather ironic, given that the subscription model is worse IMHO. F2P is only bad when badly implemented, but there are subscription games that ALSO charge you extra for extra content. O.o I feel bad for people when they still consider a subscription model "fair" for them (and their wallet!), and "needed" to keep the games they love running-they deserve much better from their favorite game developers (it's not bad for these companies to make money, but there comes a point in which the way you make it matters.)

There's nothing wrong about buying stuff in F2P games, as long as it's not "required" to have a complete gaming experience (as in so-called pay2win.) I would gladly pay for additional content in F2P games if it enhances my own experience of the game, but not to become "better than others" at the game, or to have the full-game experience "revealed"-as others said, such a thing is only F2P in name.

That said, whatever people say on those reviews, I actually notice a great number of people NOT loving subscription models, unless you are the most fanatical WoW fan (I am sure the people working for them love the subscription model ) Even pay to play forever without subscription (ala Guild Wars 1/2) is much better than these outdated subscription models that rarely succeed. I believe it is rather crazy nowadays to start any online game with a subscription model, so bashing any game company for starting a F2P game would be as ridiculous (IMHO) as telling somebody it's "stupid" to do what's best for them.

That said, any "F2P" that behaves as or even worse than a subscription model doesn't deserve our time either. The true F2P games are awesome, because they allow players to invest in the game if they wish to do so, while not getting any advantage on their fellow gamers while doing so. One is more motivated to invest in a game when the developer does F2P right, than when one can see through their veiled attempts at milking their customers' money away.

Feel free to agree to disagree, of course.

[tezzaa]

black ops 2... $40 for single player and $40 for multi player = $80 if u wana play the full game *** is that about

Edited by tezzaa, 16 August 2012 - 06:27 AM.

[Rixx]

Bashars, on 15 August 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

How about if you have kids... those FTP games turn out to cost you a membership since all thier buddies can go and do things they cant without a monthy membership.. then "Dad I need more in game money to buy this and that, just goto 7/11 and get a game card you will even get bonus gear..." then boooooom all the buddies switch games and you have them asking all over again for stuff in the new game.

Being the adult, and parent, in the situation, you could just say "No." or perhaps make them earn/pay their own way.
Crazy right?
We wouldn't want to teach them about responsibility, the value of money, or making good, common sense descisions. Nah, stick to the entitlement parenting, that will teach them all the needed skills for skimming off wellfare for the rest of their lives.

lol

[Adridos]

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

[Mavairo]

qultar, on 15 August 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

as someone from the pre F2P days i can tell you that STO is dieing
there is no draw to sub in that game and they are adding P2W ships
and the fact that starbases are a time sink as they have no new content

i will be shocked to see the game around in 2 years

Just chiming in to back you up 100 percent on this. Though I will say this, Cryptic will be gone in 2 years, not just STO, thanks to their stupidity and incompetence.

I will say this, as fashionable as it is to hate on EA (and boy am I guilty of this too. Thanks for Dragonage 2 you ******s), they got nothing on Cryptic for the blatant money grabbing that they do.

Edited by Mavairo, 16 August 2012 - 02:58 PM.