0
___________________________________________________________
We often see discussions of "F2P vs. P2W" in various contexts; many cross-game comparisons are made and the free/paid features are pointed out and compared, etc. Although it's good to discuss these different facets of video gaming, it's also important to ensure we all keep our definitions of key terms standardized.
Definitions of words, well, define what you're trying to say. If we can all agree on definitions, then the forums will significantly clarify itself. I will present a couple of terms, and what I personally believe to be suitable definitions for these forums. Afterward - a brief discussion, and open comments.
- FreeWare Game
- Free-to-Play Game
- ShareWare Game
- Pay-to-Win Game
I don't think these are unreasonable definitions. If I've gone way off-course with something, then please feel free to point it out.
I've anchored my definitions around the term "Combat Advantage." I feel that a "Combat Advantage" is having a bigger gun that free people can't get no matter what without cash. I do not think a "Combat Advantage" relates to how long it takes to earn enough money to change the weapons on your Mech, assuming that the option is still available. Here's where the Community is largely split:
What's the definition of "reasonable amount of time" to earn something?
Whatever that definition is, it serves as the difference between Free-to-Play and Pay-to-Win in the sense that not being able to mount a PPC without paying cash money severely limits what you can and can't do on the field as a Free Player. It's now the time to mention that I previously stated "reasonableness" is defined by the expected duration of play over the average players' through-put cycle. This factor is paramount in determining what's fair and not fair to expect in terms of the Free Player buying stuff with C-Bills and how long it takes to earn stuff.
Comparing the economics of MW:O to MW 1->4 isn't the best idea- they play very differently and have different risk/reward systems. In the typical story-driven campaigns we've experienced with MW2/3/4, we're expected to regularly acquire weapons, Mechs, and loads of booty on nearly every "Mission," along having to face repair costs and the risk of losing Mechs that get destroyed in-mission. There's also the "Restart Mission" button in the corner of the screen that will allow you to go back and fail less hard the next time around so you don't wind up losing half of your own Mech and 3 AI-bot-controlled Assault Mechs this time through. There's some High Risk element (you can lose Mechs) that's balanced by a High Reward element (you get loads of salvage weapons, Mechs, and cash with each drop).
But that hauntingly unbalancing feature called the "Mission Restart" button... there is no Mission Restart button in MW:O. The developers had the choice of either: 1) Make every mission payout so large that the losing team gets paid enough to buy new Mechs every single Mission, or 2) Make it so you never lose your Mech. Mechwarrior 1->4 were nearly modeled after option 1, where you get huge bounties and face high "risks." In the case of MW:O, being a persistent Online Multiplayer Game, they went with option 2. With MechWarrior: Online, you never face the risk of Mech Loss due to combat because there is no Mission Restart function. This is functionally coupled to reduced rewards - you'll never have to dig through your stocks to replace lost Mechs or lost Weapons.
A secondary consideration is that we're also used to the RPG's where you accumulate vast numbers of low-hanging-fruit weapons and sell them off as you go, constantly keeping the best weapons as you come across better and better ones. MW:O does not aim to employ low-hanging-fruit weapons or "better" weapons; they are intended to all be used. This contrast makes the idea of getting 6 medium lasers at the end of each battle non-comparable to getting a half-dozen level-1 Iron Knives every time you vanquish a group of Orcs.
So... where does this lead us? Option 2 directly correlates with the expected player through-put and the product lifecycle. The purpose of MW:O isn't to accomplish misisons by defeating AI bots along a path from drop to evacuation point. The purpose isn't to go into MechLab and "try to beat Level 4 with a different loadout than last time." The purpose of MW:O is for in-game organizations of Live Players to capture and hold territories in the face of Live Player opponents, with non-organizationally aligned players filling the ranks of the in-game organizations (be them Mercenary Corporations or House Military Units). The old games had a few tens of hours of unique playtime for each game playthrough, and in that time you're expected to get access to all the baddest Mechs and best guns. MW:O expects you to be slowly filling your Mechbay and Inventory over the course of Months (not like how you can gain a full hangar within 24hrs of a single player campaign), and it's also expected of you to take much longer to get those things.
... in fact, it's expected that content will continue to be injected to the game throughout it's entire Product Life. I wrote an earlier posting about how MW:O will never have a "Final Product" to display until the day they discontinue the game, but rather Game Launch, with the presentation of Community Warfare, should be considered MW:O's "First Product..." but that's a horse of a different color.
In the end, it comes down to understanding that MW:O's Persistent Universe environment creates a reason to diverge from the High Payout, Rapid Item Acquisition scheme employed b the campaign-based MW games. In my personal opinion, it is reasonable to expect a requirement for players to participate in more than just a couple 6-minute fights to make enough money to afford a brand-new ERPPC from the factory, especially if that ERPPC is covered under "guaranteed to remain in your inventory after the match, even if it gets blown off your body entirely" insurance. Repairs are expensive, though. At least you'll always have your weapons, and the developers have instituted a scheme that partially repairs all your Mechs and weapons to a minimum-functional state for free...
What's important now is "Does the Free Player face a reasonable playtime to acquire the game's items?" Before diving in, I'll point out that I did purchase a Legendary Founder's Package back when they were frirst offered, and so far my account has always bee running on "Premium Time." I also have always disabled autorepair and autorearm because those autofeatures make tracking finances very dificult. Ever since the in-game economy changed from Console MW-style to the more conservative style employed now, I have kept a very keen eye on what kinds of Mech configurations are capable of being operated continuously at a profit under the premise of almost always dying and losing your match as a non-Premium Time player in a plain-Jane Mech. I'm runnig those, right now, the ones that cost less than $75K to refit. I like playing the game with affordable Mechs, but there also are many other things you can do with the more expensive technologies. I know that I've been getting access to them "sooner" with my premium time, but I'm also serving as a great market test niche; they guy who doesn't play all the time. I don't rack in c-bills by the millions every day, even with my temporary Premium Account and founder's Mechs.
Anywho, here's where it comes down to your personal preferences, and not wordly definitions. Are you playing the game mostly to drop in combat and shoot things, or are you playing the game predominantly to customize as quickly as possible? Do you feel the Developers have skewed the [Playtime needed/rate of item acquisition] ratio reasonably, or unreasonably? The term “grinding” usually implies forcing a player to experience the same game situation over and over until they achieve a certain level of gains (such as playing until you have enough money to buy something in particular form the MechLab). If you feel that it's reasonable to make players grind (read: fight in combat for several drops) in order to acquire more gear, instead of delivering enough c-bills to change your Mech every match, then you might say that MW:O fits the criteria of "Free-to-Play." Seeing that this “Grind” is that actual gameplay that we’re here to experience, I don’t see why forcing people to drop in combat for several matches before spec’ing out their Mech to infinity and beyond is a bad thing. One of my friends is an armed security guard that works on very large Government contracts to secure boats and facilities; he doesn’t get paid enough to buy a new AR-platform assault rifle with every paycheck. Mercenaries don’t get flooded with cash on every drop without the risk of losing their Mechs, either.
HOWEVER, Free-to-Play does not exclude Pay-To-Win. There are many games that are both: you can play for free, and buy in-game bonuses to give combat advantages. This is often expressed as F2P's "ugly side," but only exists if the Developers allow it to. So far, the Developers have stated that they will never sell in-game Combat Advantages (via Mechs, abilities, or items that confer Combat Bonuses and provide unfairly powerful items) to paying players. There [currently] is unique content, such as some Mech Variants that have different hardpoint configurations than other freely-available variants, and accounts that help you gain c-bills and XP faster. These unique cash-only "Hero Mechs" are carefully hardpoint-balanced to ensure that they do not offer Combat Advantages to the Paying Player that helps them defeat their freely-Playing opponents any faster or more easily than normal. The Premium Accounts do not affect weapons performances or the degree-of-effect associated with Leveling Bonuses.
The paid content of MW:O does not help you win more matches, but it does help you get your Mech(s) spec'd out faster than the free player. Does this mean that a Paying Player has "the advantage" in this respect? In the context of Community Warfare, it means that free players will be experiencing less excess funding to customize their Mech compared to a Paying player. This could be viewed as a disadvantage during the beginning of the player cycle, but once the Free Player gets to the point that they own a single Mech and have a single good, affordable loadout that woks for them, then they'll never be at a disadvantage ever again. Advantages and disadvantages in MW:O are predominantly determined by the degree of team communication and your ability to move & aim, and less-so based on the price of Mechs and Technologies brought to bear. One of the cheapest and most easily repaired loadouts in the game is also one of my favorites to play - The Hunchback 4G. It's powerful, sturdy, and [even with extra ammo on board] every single Mission Loss guarantees you money because the repairs from total destruction cannot possibly reach as high as the end-misison payout for a losing player without a Premium Account.
Based on what’s been running through my head while generating this rant and all the points that I’ve outlined, I think it’s safe to say that MechWariror: Online does not violate the premise of a Free-to-Play game, the “grind” is not unreasonable. I also feel that the paid-content of MW:O does not constitute Pay-2-Win in a significant form that has any impact on the long-term winibility of gameplay for paying players. It may have a significant impact on the Fun Factor based on how quickly you can change your Mech Specs, but you still can't buy WIN. I think it's okay to sell some extra fun, though. That's why we spend money on video games in the first place.
Edited by Prosperity Park, 31 October 2012 - 10:24 PM.
