605 replies to this topic

[Zahir]

Personally I thnk some games fit the F2P model and some games don't. Perhaps this view is born from my perception of the fictional Universe and this perception drives my acceptance or intollerance of this model.

I came to MechWarrior via MechWarrior 2: Mercenaries. I think it would help my immersion if I'm able to buy a vainety item or that mech with credits bought from real money. This addressing the likely cash store that comes with F2P games.

Also, the franchise is small and has been out of the limelight for some time. F2P allows this game to be a great secondary game to my subscription game, while inviting players who are curious but don't want to commit to a subscription before they've spent considerable time playing.

[Nardoon]

Hey all just signed up and doing a little reading thought a little input might help. I am a Beta tester for WoT played the game for a long time and have spent over $1400 on the game lol F2P any way i have of recent times been playing without the premium packages and have noticed to play at the highest tier is almost impossible without spending some kind of money. They have nurfed through time your ability to make credits etc from high tier stuff so turning it from a F2P to a its only F2P if you muck around with low tier stuff. Side note with gold rounds and clan wars you hold Land you earn gold being a commander in Iron wolfs earned me a bit of gold so Gold round where never a issue.

What i hope the devs here see is that a good F2P game has to remain F2P another words you should be able to play this game at all levels with out having to put hands in pocket. So unlike WoT if i spend over $1000 and then say hey you know what i gonna sit back for a bit and just play casual and do not want to have to put hand in pocket to play just on the weekends, Mind you in saying this i know there is still loads of people spending big$$$ in WoT to keep there gold rounds and prem accounts and i am sure the devs here will notice that to, It will come down to how much that dollar sign burns in there eye .

[Shivus]

Really you need only look as far as TORtanic or STO, or almost any game since 2004 that started out P2P to see the inherent failures in the P2P structure. There's a critical level of accounts that need to be maintained for the game to remain profitable and development to continue unabated. P2P titles also have a much higher expectation of quality, that if not met within the first 2-3 months, results in the near total cascade failure of the game. This shift occurred in the past decade, as back in 2003 there were relatively few high quality titles on the market. Everquest, Ultima Online, DAOC, Asheron's call, Eve online, then FFXI launched at the end of 03 and WoW in 04. Since then MMO's had a simple litmus test as to whether they'd succeed or fail. Were they as good at launch as WoW was at that point? If not, did they provide for a certain hardcore pvp, pve, or fan niche as eve online or FFXI did? Or were they inherently one time purchase F2P as Guild wars was?

Most games have failed that test, and reacted far too slowly to stem the hemorrhaging of accounts, or just adopted poorly planned F2P models, where DDO, and LOTR are fair oddities as they adopted quite well planned F2P models in time to not only retain accounts, but draw in new accounts. Even eve online has a pseudo F2P model in that reasonably successful capsuleers can in effect pay other people in game money in exchange for more account time, this was mainly to counter the real money trade, but has aided in account retention as well.

All that in consideration it's far easier to design a game with a good F2P model in the first place, than to try to go P2P just to scramble in the last moments for a shift to F2P. WoT, LoL, hopefully MWO, and GW2 will show that the classic P2P model is dead, because with the low server costs now it only serves as a placebo to the playerbase that they're getting a superior product. P2P does have one redeeming factor, it ensures the players you get actually want to be there for the most part, while entirely F2P games can be filled with trolls and idiots with no real cost for entry or subscription cost.

So overall the benefits of F2P for game survival and future expansion outweigh the cons of having to deal with the bad apples that get in.

Edited by Shivus, 07 June 2012 - 01:55 AM.

[Raiek]

***Edit: On review of some more videos, I love you guys (the devs) from what I've seen so far. I've struck out concerns under the TL;DR stretch at the bottom where it's relevant***

Free-to-play and game design choices:

This topic has been widely discussed already, but I'd like to chime in on the chance this is seen.

As an avid MechWarrior fan (bought my first joystick solely to pilot my first MechWarrior title!) I am most concerned with a lack of depth that seems to correlate with F2P games. Since the budget is aimed at a mainstream, wide-range audience, gameplay sometimes suffers from oversimplification.

Example: Microsoft Flight is widely criticized for being too easy, as it was intended for a -very- casual audience. Their purchasable DLC does not add additional mechanics, and does not significantly add dynamic content to the game. Popular review example: http://www.simhq.com...4/air_525a.html

I would really like to see features aimed (though not necessarily with a 'rock-paper-scissors' effect) towards intelligent and strategic players. A scout mech armed with sensor disruptors may be able to sneak past a heavily armored assault by maneuvering around a nearby hillside, outside of line-of-sight. The oversimplified version would be scout + assault + hillside = LRM waves w/o LOS and a dead scout. I did read that you (the devs) intend to ensure that all classes have a purpose, and I feel Eve Online is a fair example of class balance. I have been a part of waves of frigates (up to two dozen) that can take out a Tech II Battleship (highly expensive, and very tough) within seconds due to sheer numbers, planning, and organization.

Second is item renewal. Many F2P models (All Points Bulletin + many psuedo-mmo FPSs) require you to 'rent' weapons with ingame money, while real-world currency allows for either permanent, or grossly-overpowered weapons (with no 'free' parallel) which can have hidden stat bonuses found through patch notes or extensive testing/debugging. As a gold-ranked player, I risk dramatic item imbalance when my earned weapons expire, and I'm still playing against similarly ranked individuals using premium weapons.

My concern in this case is a glowing gold Atlas with paid armor bonuses plowing through droves of my teammates, while I have to try and regain in-game currency to re-rent an assault-class mech.

My final concern is combat:

With WoW unfortunately setting the bar for the MMO community, games within this genre suffer from pathological auto-attack and rolled blows. I truly wish to by able to fire my own rounds, aim at strategic locations (if I hit their arm enough, it explodes and takes out the corresponding weapons), and if, by golly, my round lands, it doesn't result in negligible damage due to a 'glancing blow' while they crit and I die.

TL;DR

Please don't oversimplify mechanics, allow advanced and strategic features to be present for players interested in using them Edit: Please continue adding advanced mechanics, like dropping coolant/ejecting/localized armor plates.
Please don't let earned items expire.
Please don't inadvertently omit stats/mechanics from an item that gives it an advantage.
In-combat aiming has been historically critical within the mechwarrior franchise; losing a mech's arm or legs is devastating, and should remain so.

Thank you for reading. I've read, and I'm sure I've missed areas where these concerns have been addressed, but it never hurts to reiterate.

- Kyle

Edited by Raiek, 07 June 2012 - 10:15 AM.

[Jaxwen]

Concern regarding spending money on free-2-play games.

In World of Tanks, I spent money building up multiple accounts for the multiple users in our family. Someone wanted a new Tier 8 money-making tank, handed me the cash, I paid with the credit card, away they went tanking. Some of the family members still play, some have gotten bored with it and moved on. A feature to allow common users to transfer purchased valuables from one account to another without repaying the higher costs would be a great "carrot".

In Runes of Magic, I spent even more money on the various characters development for multiple accounts, item transfer existed in limited ways but still fell short. The advantage of F2P status on this game is that we could take a long break and wait for the next major addition to the game to pull us back into interest to play so the money didn't feel like a waste so much as a long term investment.

Free-2-Play has many distinct advangages and I'm all for it. Even though I tend to get frustrated with the poor skilled players outnumbering me and outgunning me ending up winning rounds, (I don't care to play the best avatar all the time; gets boring and is "easy mode".) I still take some solice in the result of the battle that as a lower tier "standard" avatar, it took multiple higher tiers premium avatars to defeat me. Truth be told, there still is negative feeling associated with that. Yeah, you have to earn skill, but the balance can tip FAR TOO HEAVILY in favor of a walletwarrior with little to no skill and THAT BALANCE is critical for the design team to get right or MWO will end up being one of those failure F2P games that ends up losing the broader player base. The damage / health system and match making system for battles can take a great game and flush it right down the toilet.

I want MWO to be F2P so that I can invite others to participate for free and when they share my interest become paying customers to become emersed. I have faith that this long standing scifi world lore can & will be designed to correct past mistakes of other like games.

<jumps down off soap box>

Semper Fi,

A Knight

Edited by Jaxwen, 07 June 2012 - 12:32 PM.

[Tallnob]

As a WOT player who's dumped 700 in and almost 10k games, I'm really hoping they don't go the same route.

I don't care if someone can use cash to buy a mech. Do it! I hope the devs get rich off that stuff.

What I don't want to see, and this is huge, is convertable xp for cash.
You should have to put the time and effort into the chassis to elite the thing. Cash for mechs? Great. Cool rare premium mechs? I'll buy em.

Don't offer shortcuts on hard grinds. Don't do the "gold round" thing. Just those two, you've still got bills to pay. I don't think it's reasonable to take away all our incentives to pay, that would be marketing suicide and we want this to be huge.

[Freyar]

While I admire the stance I'm hearing from the devs, I always approach with a "We'll see" stance when it comes to any "Pay to Win" declarations. It sounds like they're trying, but in the end, we'll need to wait a good six to eight months first to see.

[Strisk]

They have said that it will not be Pay to Win, it's absolutely possible to do and I believe them when they say that. If it turns out otherwise I can always go play something else, but having played other FTP, not PTW, I don't think it will.

[Tallnob]

You'll be playing anyway if you're a mech fan, I know I will. Plus it's months till Hawken, and although I'm phsyched for that too it's not the same. I always preferred Mechwarrior over Heavy Gear, although both are worth playing.

[Freyar]

Strisk, on 11 June 2012 - 09:40 PM, said:

They have said that it will not be Pay to Win, it's absolutely possible to do and I believe them when they say that. If it turns out otherwise I can always go play something else, but having played other FTP, not PTW, I don't think it will.

I know full well what they stated. I know full well what publicly released information they've made available regarding their monetization scheme. It's not that I don't believe they want to keep a fair game, it's that I've seen plenty slip towards offering power incentives simply to stay afloat. Bottom line is cash is what will keep this game going. If there's not enough, or there's a sigificant chance at pulling in more or a wider audience, it will likely be done.

Development is not a labor of love. Devs have to eat too, as do the servers and the people that maintain them. Free-to-Play is a very difficult position to work your way into without running askew of things. You can earn significantly larger amounts of revenue from the Free-to-Play model, but at the risk of changing core balance over time. While ValvE has an interesting stance that helps keep them in a more "moderate" position regarding balance, we see HoN, LoL, and APBR slipping towards that pay-to-win slope. People argue that LoL is balanced simply because everything is available in game through gameplay in itself. I'd argue that in such a team-oriented game that unless you have ALL tactical options available, the match isn't even.

I've seen a lot of Free-to-Play games move to Pay-to-Win (in terms of PvP) or Pay-to-Progress (in terms of PvE) far too often. I'm cynical that it's as easy as "that" to keep things as even as the devs would like and while I'm willing to give them a try, I strongly caution people to not just take up the notion that "Devs said so, so it must be true." Financial situations can sway countries, it can totally sway any entertainment product in a Free-to-Play market.

Edited by Freyar, 11 June 2012 - 10:11 PM.

[Strisk]

I did say I would go somewhere else if it became PTW. You can have every character unlocked in LoL without paying a cent, but most of them wouldn't get used anyway so there is no need for it...it has been stated here that you will be able to purchase mechs (watch the interview with Russ Bullock). So this game already is PTW for you? best get out now before it's too late.

[Freyar]

Strisk, on 11 June 2012 - 10:50 PM, said:

I did say I would go somewhere else if it became PTW. You can have every character unlocked in LoL without paying a cent, but most of them wouldn't get used anyway so there is no need for it...it has been stated here that you will be able to purchase mechs (watch the interview with Russ Bullock). So this game already is PTW for you? best get out now before it's too late.

I believe a lot of Free-to-Play games are "Pay-to-Win", or at the very least "Pay-for-Advantage" in many cases. The question is just how strong is that advantage and to what kind of advantage is it? A team in LoL that has the ability to pick any hero they choose has a significant advantage over another, even if some of the differences are merely nuanced. This is where it gets difficult to decide.

I have accepted and committed to purchasing the Founders pack. We will see over time whether or not it will stay in use.

[Unclecid]

folks just need to get used to the f2p and hybrid models as that is the way the industry is heading.

Crytek recently announced that they are moving to a f2p model of some sort once they are done with their current projects including Ryse for Xbox 360 and Crysis3 for 360, PS3, and PC.

[Spartan1313]

Well i just hope they adopt the LoL f2p model over WoT model. Well the premium function of WoT is alright for gaining 50% more money and xp but better ammo and other items to make you stronger ingame would turn me off this game

[Freyar]

Unclecid, on 13 June 2012 - 06:22 AM, said:

folks just need to get used to the f2p and hybrid models as that is the way the industry is heading.

Crytek recently announced that they are moving to a f2p model of some sort once they are done with their current projects including Ryse for Xbox 360 and Crysis3 for 360, PS3, and PC.

Don't need to "get used" to anything. Just need to keep an eye on the market in general. If I don't want to pay for unfair games, then I won't. As it is, I expect to be entertained for now. Bottom line though is even RETAIL games have moved away from fair matches too. It's a disappointing trend that no one acknowledges.

[Vileus]

rollermint, on 04 November 2011 - 03:33 PM, said:

That sound alright, pretty good.

But we are going to wait to hear the exact details first though We still don't know what we can or can't buy with real money. Can we buy superior weapons? Superior armor? superior engines et c etc? The infamous "gold" ammo?

I hope thats not the case though. I don't mind buying certain special mechs with real money though, since no mechs are superior than every other mechs. Besides the Lowes and T59s of WOT doesn't seem to be that good, anyway. No, gold ammo or components. Please.

I do wish this game to be a huge success. I really do.

I like the WoT pay model. Gold tanks are ok but overall they are more designed to make money than be a terror on the battlefield. Many on one team can sometimes lead to a win but not always. Gold ammo which I have used in randoms and in CW does not make much of a difference, I've had gold rounds bounce.
I think WoT is really a good F2P model because money does help but it does not make you invincible! The system is also diverse and allows the player to buy what is important to them.

[I Am Sancho]

I think subscription based games force devs to create content. Not that BT has any lack of content to pull from, but instead of rampant reconfigs of current content just for the sake of keeping subscribers, I'd rather have a f2p that gives devs time to really fully realize their ideas without subscriber pressure to deliver the product too early.

[Unclecid]

i dont get this "sub games force devs to create content" idea ive seen floating around various places...makes no sense to me.

some games only release content in their paid expansions...some release free content in between these expansions....you can find examples of both regardless of business model.

Edited by Unclecid, 30 June 2012 - 06:32 AM.

[Sky walker]

InnerSphereNews, on 04 November 2011 - 03:21 PM, said:

• Skill is earned.

And I always thought that the skill should be learnt. Not earned (whatever by $$$ or time spent grinding)

[Fire for Effect]

Sky walker, on 30 June 2012 - 07:01 AM, said:

And I always thought that the skill should be learnt. Not earned (whatever by $$$ or time spent grinding)

maybe a typo..