Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ...
8
9
10
11
LastLast
  1. #181
    Quote Originally Posted by Kittyvicious View Post
    Actually, opinions can be wrong. People used to think that the world was flat.

    You say that everyone who plays F2P and develops F2P is lazy. I'm pretty sure you are one of the only people around that think that. That's a pretty sweeping judgment that cannot possibly be right just through knowledge of how businesses work. Not to mention all the other details that can be observed.

    At this point I'm starting to wonder if Lathais is just a controversial character you play on forums and not your true self.
    No, these are my opinions and stances. Also, you cannot prove to me that any of these games are better off now than if they had actually fixed their game, or made it right from the start. They chose to go F2P and continue to get away with not releasing content at the speed or quality of Rift. Rift has proven that it is profitable and I do not see any model out there that would not turn me away from the game.

    Thought of a counter to the magazine counter too. Look at it like this, each month, you can choose to pay for just that month, same a a magazine stand, or you can choose to sub for a year and pay it all up front. Just like with magazines, you get both. If you want to compare F2P to magazines, show me a successful magazine that sells it's articles one by one. You can still buy the ability to play each month, and cancel anytime, or buy the 6 month or year sub options, just like a magazine.
    Rift - Lathais@Deepwood - 60 Rogue / Arrieleah@Deepwood - 60 Mage
    Check out this guide Guide for fresh 60's: The One Level 60 Guide - Updated for 2.5
    Check these out:Gaming/Computer Glasses
    My Multi-Touch Table Project

  2. #182
    Warchief theWocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    2,136
    I don't deny that F2P could work. I just think that the game would probably suffer if it did go F2P. I would stick around and monitor it, however. If, during the year that I've already paid for I start incurring costs, I'll probably rather spend that money on single player games. It could be good for the game, though. Would have to see it if it happened.

    This is my personal opinion, but I generally regard F2P mmo games as sub-standard. Can't explain it. I'm not saying it can't be done, but just the way I feel about it.

    Maybe if Trion was ever put in that position and found some way to do it right, I would change my mind.
    ★ twitter @WockyCC ★ blog wockycc.tumblr.comyou-tube: Wocky GAMING
    Recent Video ★ Enter the Wocky: an introduction
    Partner/Member of the CURSE "Union for Gamers" YouTube Gaming Network | ★ Wocky's Computer Specs: HERE
    #WOCKSTER Gaming CommunitySteam Games List"


  3. #183
    Titan Kelimbror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Bear Taco, Left Hand of Death
    Posts
    13,748
    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    No, these are my opinions and stances. Also, you cannot prove to me that any of these games are better off now than if they had actually fixed their game, or made it right from the start. They chose to go F2P and continue to get away with not releasing content at the speed or quality of Rift. Rift has proven that it is profitable and I do not see any model out there that would not turn me away from the game.
    I can completely prove that they are better off, but what you really mean is I can't change your mind. So I don't really need to try. People like to claim that F2P is brought on by a game dying, but then refuse to admit that the game still existing years later is proof that it's better off. Well...I'm sufficiently convinced the same logic will fail us in this situation so it is what it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    Thought of a counter to the magazine counter too. Look at it like this, each month, you can choose to pay for just that month, same a a magazine stand, or you can choose to sub for a year and pay it all up front. Just like with magazines, you get both. If you want to compare F2P to magazines, show me a successful magazine that sells it's articles one by one. You can still buy the ability to play each month, and cancel anytime, or buy the 6 month or year sub options, just like a magazine.
    Unfortunately magazines can't be used as a comparison at all because they make their revenue from advertising. Clearly they couldn't sell individual articles because they need to have high subscription and distribution numbers to make money. People are the product for magazine companies. The magazine is not the product.

    It's the same reason why if you look for them (or are in college and get spammed with them) you can find magazine deals for up to 95% off the retail price. You only need to pay to cover the paper and ink in your hand. The rest of the money they get from the thousands of ads inside.
    BAD WOLF

  4. #184
    Quote Originally Posted by Kittyvicious View Post
    I can completely prove that they are better off, but what you really mean is I can't change your mind. So I don't really need to try. People like to claim that F2P is brought on by a game dying, but then refuse to admit that the game still existing years later is proof that it's better off. Well...I'm sufficiently convinced the same logic will fail us in this situation so it is what it is.


    Unfortunately magazines can't be used as a comparison at all because they make their revenue from advertising. Clearly they couldn't sell individual articles because they need to have high subscription and distribution numbers to make money. People are the product for magazine companies. The magazine is not the product.

    It's the same reason why if you look for them (or are in college and get spammed with them) you can find magazine deals for up to 95% off the retail price. You only need to pay to cover the paper and ink in your hand. The rest of the money they get from the thousands of ads inside.
    Please do completely prove it. You can't. Because you cannot go back in time and make them release the game when it's ready instead of before it is, then spending months playing catch up, then going F2P. The fact that they are still existing years later does not mean that they could not be bigger and better off years later if they had released a game worth paying the sub for. It just means that's what happened and there happen to be enough suckers that will sit there and pay for fluff.


    My point exactly, however it was an argument Fencers and HK were attempting to use.
    Rift - Lathais@Deepwood - 60 Rogue / Arrieleah@Deepwood - 60 Mage
    Check out this guide Guide for fresh 60's: The One Level 60 Guide - Updated for 2.5
    Check these out:Gaming/Computer Glasses
    My Multi-Touch Table Project

  5. #185
    Titan Kelimbror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Bear Taco, Left Hand of Death
    Posts
    13,748
    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    Please do completely prove it. You can't. Because you cannot go back in time and make them release the game when it's ready instead of before it is, then spending months playing catch up, then going F2P.
    So your new reason for games going F2P is because they are all games that were released before they should have been? Can we please stick to one line of reasoning instead of constantly shifting it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    The fact that they are still existing years later does not mean that they could not be bigger and better off years later if they had released a game worth paying the sub for.
    I didn't realize that arguing a businesses success depends on quantification of alternate reality scenarios. By that argument, every company that makes tablets can't be successful because they didn't make an iPad before Apple did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    It just means that's what happened and there happen to be enough suckers that will sit there and pay for fluff.
    Sure. Your reason (quoted) is the only one why F2P games have grown, put out new content, innovated new features, etc?
    BAD WOLF

  6. #186
    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    Then I have to worry if my raiders know that the new raid is coming out and if they have access to it. It's just plain dumb.
    If you're having to worry about that, then you either don't know/trust your raiders enough, or Trion would be doing a horrible job of delivering the news of what is included in an update. If you're a raiding focused guild, then there should be no questions about whether or not you raiders have the new content on the day it's released. Ever.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    Please do completely prove it. You can't.
    In lieu of me digging up numbers/data doing a ton of work now (at work on a Monday morning -_-), I'll simply provide an example.

    Warhammer Online: Still subscription only, playerbase has dwindled to next to nothing (as per my friend who gave it a shot last year, the one US server has only 1 active guild on it on the "bad" side), and it receives maybe 1-2 minor content updates/fix patches a year. It's basically stagnant.

    Vanguard: Was stagnant for years, not even receiving bug fix patches. Pre-F2P transition, they pulled an actual team on who did a ton of work fixing bugs and improving the game, and have kept the team on 6+ months afterwards. The team has created new content that's live, and is continuing to improve the existing game/fix bugs, and work on new content.

    Lineage 2: I pointed out the success of this after its F2P transition earlier, it's highly unlikely that "Fixing" the issues would have generated more subscribers as the initial box price and subscription are big barriers of entry for many people (Fencers discussed this more earlier in the thread).

    LOTRO/DDO: Two niche titles that are still getting updates/support to this day, years after transitioning to F2P. They're no powerhouses, but they're in far better shape than a game like Warhammer, which suffered from many similar design problems.

    So by examining the states of a few different games over the years, we can easily surmise the F2P transitions have surely helped these games, whereas the games that didn't (Warhammer, and until recently Vanguard) stagnated or shrank.

    Again, I'm not arguing that Rift should go F2P, I'm simply pointing out that the business change has improved, or maintained, the quality of existing games where sticking to the traditional model has not.

  7. #187
    Quote Originally Posted by edgecrusher View Post
    If you're having to worry about that, then you either don't know/trust your raiders enough, or Trion would be doing a horrible job of delivering the news of what is included in an update. If you're a raiding focused guild, then there should be no questions about whether or not you raiders have the new content on the day it's released. Ever.



    In lieu of me digging up numbers/data doing a ton of work now (at work on a Monday morning -_-), I'll simply provide an example.

    Warhammer Online: Still subscription only, playerbase has dwindled to next to nothing (as per my friend who gave it a shot last year, the one US server has only 1 active guild on it on the "bad" side), and it receives maybe 1-2 minor content updates/fix patches a year. It's basically stagnant.

    Vanguard: Was stagnant for years, not even receiving bug fix patches. Pre-F2P transition, they pulled an actual team on who did a ton of work fixing bugs and improving the game, and have kept the team on 6+ months afterwards. The team has created new content that's live, and is continuing to improve the existing game/fix bugs, and work on new content.

    Lineage 2: I pointed out the success of this after its F2P transition earlier, it's highly unlikely that "Fixing" the issues would have generated more subscribers as the initial box price and subscription are big barriers of entry for many people (Fencers discussed this more earlier in the thread).

    LOTRO/DDO: Two niche titles that are still getting updates/support to this day, years after transitioning to F2P. They're no powerhouses, but they're in far better shape than a game like Warhammer, which suffered from many similar design problems.

    So by examining the states of a few different games over the years, we can easily surmise the F2P transitions have surely helped these games, whereas the games that didn't (Warhammer, and until recently Vanguard) stagnated or shrank.

    Again, I'm not arguing that Rift should go F2P, I'm simply pointing out that the business change has improved, or maintained, the quality of existing games where sticking to the traditional model has not.
    Warhammer had it's own entire other set of problems that made it not succeed. However, if it had not had those problems, and the game was released well and bugs fixed quickly and updates in a timely manner, no telling if it would have been better off. Yes, I played it at launch.

    Vanguard: Again, had it's own set of problems. I actually played this one at release. Barely. Was not a fun game.

    Lineage 2: It's highly unlikely that fixing the biggest complaint from players that quit the game would have gotten them to stay? Really? Highly unlikely? We could have a whole discussion on this alone, however, the biggest complaint I heard about it was the grindyness. In it's F2P model you can buy 7-day XP Boosts. This makes it enjoyable to the people who said it was not. If you just granted that across the board to everyone instead of going F2P then charging for it, who is to say they would not have stayed anyway? Neither you or I. We both have our thoughts one way or the other though. So far this is the most compelling argument for a F2P model IMO.

    LOTRO/DDO: Tried both at release, neither were particularly engaging nor made me want to stay beyond the week or so that I did. how do you get people to stay in a game that is not particularly engaging? Let them play it for free. Then give them things to buy that make them want to stay. Again, if you made the game engaging from the start, you would not have to do things this way.

    So by examining games that were boring to play, which Rift is not, we can surmise that if you take something boring and make it free, people will play it because it's free. Then, when they have some time invested, they will spend money on things like XP Boosts or mounts to get you around faster. Now that they have spent money on it, completely voluntarily, they feel invested and must stay and defend their choice.

    Again, I am not saying that all F2P games are shit, ones designed that way from the start are ok-ish, but still not my cup of tea. I'm simply pointing out that games sticking to the traditional model were obviously not providing a service worthy of that fee.

    I will admit, the barrier to entry to get into some sub based games is high. I am not saying the P2P model is perfect either. It could use some tweaks. Free Trials really do not do justice. Some sort of F2P/Trial options that can let a games true features be seen is an excellent idea. However, it should be severely limiting. Also, box costs are typically too high, especially if you have to pay a sub on top of it. I think Rift handles this well though, being able to buy the original game for $5 and having a cheaper expansion than most others.
    Rift - Lathais@Deepwood - 60 Rogue / Arrieleah@Deepwood - 60 Mage
    Check out this guide Guide for fresh 60's: The One Level 60 Guide - Updated for 2.5
    Check these out:Gaming/Computer Glasses
    My Multi-Touch Table Project

  8. #188
    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    *snip*
    Every game has its problems at launch, it's just not that every game can fix them quickly or overcome them. Rift had its fair share of issues, but they were super quick to fix them. For those games that can't fix them as quickly as necessary, F2P becomes the "fallback" to help them bring in new players/revenue and improve upon the game.

    Warhammer: Still hasn't fixed most of the underlying issues, and has suffered greatly because of it. I played at launch too and it was a mess, great ideas behind it but terrible implementation. An earlier F2P conversion would have likely helped the game considerably as it would have brought in new players and revenue to help them maintain an actual development team.

    Vanguard: It's a bit unique in that it was basically launched in its pre-alpha phase, I played this at launch too (what a mess that was). It's still the most ambitious game released in the past 5 or so years, but because of the launch issues it stagnated. Even when they did address many of the problems in the post-launch patches (it was playable at least), there was no way they were going to pull back many people who left, or pull in new players. The only way for them to get new blood back in was a transition. It's very difficult to try to re-engage players who have let their subscription lapse for years, or to try and engage new players with an older subscription based game.

    L2: Again, in order to make those sales, they had to re-engage the playerbase. Fixing the "problems" wouldn't matter if it was still a boxed copy with a subscription, because that's a high barrier of entry for people to test out the "fixed" version. As I said with Vanguard, the hardest part for a subscription based MMO, especially a much older one with a stigma attached to it, is re-engaging lapses players and more specifically trying to engage new players. Aion still has the "grinder" stigma attached to it despite the grind being mostly gone.

    LOTRO/DDO: It wasn't engaging for enough people initially (though remember, the market was much different at the time), I agree. However they worked on the issues and by the F2P relaunch, apparently it was engaging enough to play again.

    The idea that people will play a "bad" game that's not engaging simply because it's free just isn't accurate in the current market. It's one of the myths that still exists from years ago (along with myths like "Every F2P MMO is P2W"), but is no longer true. With the number of MMO's out there, both free and subscription based, there is no shortage of games to try out. If you're not engaged with one particular MMO, you're not going to end up playing it. I've uninstalled/stopped playing every MMO that I haven't found enjoyable, because there are plenty of other MMO's that I do enjoy. It's mostly the same for the majority of the MMO playerbase. They're not going to stick around with a mediocre game, and they definitely won't be spending much money on it.

    I agree with you on Rift though, Trion jumped on the issues players had and dealt with them rather quickly. The biggest thing is that the game was all around pretty solid at launch to begin with, so there weren't any really big mechanical or design issues with the game, just a number of minor/medium sized ones that they fixed.

    F2P offered the above games a second "lease on life" essentially. They wouldn't have gotten that chance if they had stayed with a subscription model (as they hadn't after working on addressing the issues and hadn't seen a big return of lapsed players).

    I agree that Rift isn't in a position where it "needs" it by any stretch, the game is still quite healthy and Trion still do a great job of running it and delivering value for the subscription. I've never said otherwise and don't see this changing anytime soon.

  9. #189
    Titan Kelimbror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Bear Taco, Left Hand of Death
    Posts
    13,748
    Quote Originally Posted by edgecrusher View Post
    *snip*
    While you offer lots of great points, it doesn't take some things into account that refute his arguments. It actually somewhat supports that if a game needs a new 'lease on life' that it wasn't good enough. The problem is more complex than that.

    Every product out there has an audience. Some audiences are larger than others. This is true of really anything. Whether it's toilet paper or bacon or an MMO. Some products are going to naturally appeal to a more niche customer base. LotRO is an example of this. I think it was wishful thinking or poor initial calculations that led to the need for F2P. I honestly don't think it had anything to do with the game and more to do with the niche that the game fit in.

    It was also developed at a time when there was relatively little experience making games like this. A LotRO MMO was being planned since the late 90's by a few different companies, Vivendi one of them, but Turbine acquired the rights and announced LotRO in 2005. This was right after WoW launched basically.

    It still is a niche game, like many F2P games, but those games deserve a place in the market as well. The amount of people playing or the need to be F2P doesn't have any correlation to the quality of the game. There's no causality there for generalization.
    BAD WOLF

  10. #190
    Elemental Lord Arbs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Draenor
    Posts
    8,633
    Quote Originally Posted by edgecrusher View Post
    Warhammer Online: Still subscription only, playerbase has dwindled to next to nothing (as per my friend who gave it a shot last year, the one US server has only 1 active guild on it on the "bad" side), and it receives maybe 1-2 minor content updates/fix patches a year. It's basically stagnant.
    I loved Warhammer , If it weren't for EA being the greedy buggers they are & actually drop the sub I would be playing that game 100% on my off-time & days.
    Last edited by Arbs; 2013-01-28 at 08:55 PM.

  11. #191
    Quote Originally Posted by edgecrusher View Post
    Every game has its problems at launch, it's just not that every game can fix them quickly or overcome them. Rift had its fair share of issues, but they were super quick to fix them. For those games that can't fix them as quickly as necessary, F2P becomes the "fallback" to help them bring in new players/revenue and improve upon the game.

    Warhammer: Still hasn't fixed most of the underlying issues, and has suffered greatly because of it. I played at launch too and it was a mess, great ideas behind it but terrible implementation. An earlier F2P conversion would have likely helped the game considerably as it would have brought in new players and revenue to help them maintain an actual development team.

    Vanguard: It's a bit unique in that it was basically launched in its pre-alpha phase, I played this at launch too (what a mess that was). It's still the most ambitious game released in the past 5 or so years, but because of the launch issues it stagnated. Even when they did address many of the problems in the post-launch patches (it was playable at least), there was no way they were going to pull back many people who left, or pull in new players. The only way for them to get new blood back in was a transition. It's very difficult to try to re-engage players who have let their subscription lapse for years, or to try and engage new players with an older subscription based game.

    L2: Again, in order to make those sales, they had to re-engage the playerbase. Fixing the "problems" wouldn't matter if it was still a boxed copy with a subscription, because that's a high barrier of entry for people to test out the "fixed" version. As I said with Vanguard, the hardest part for a subscription based MMO, especially a much older one with a stigma attached to it, is re-engaging lapses players and more specifically trying to engage new players. Aion still has the "grinder" stigma attached to it despite the grind being mostly gone.

    LOTRO/DDO: It wasn't engaging for enough people initially (though remember, the market was much different at the time), I agree. However they worked on the issues and by the F2P relaunch, apparently it was engaging enough to play again.

    The idea that people will play a "bad" game that's not engaging simply because it's free just isn't accurate in the current market. It's one of the myths that still exists from years ago (along with myths like "Every F2P MMO is P2W"), but is no longer true. With the number of MMO's out there, both free and subscription based, there is no shortage of games to try out. If you're not engaged with one particular MMO, you're not going to end up playing it. I've uninstalled/stopped playing every MMO that I haven't found enjoyable, because there are plenty of other MMO's that I do enjoy. It's mostly the same for the majority of the MMO playerbase. They're not going to stick around with a mediocre game, and they definitely won't be spending much money on it.

    I agree with you on Rift though, Trion jumped on the issues players had and dealt with them rather quickly. The biggest thing is that the game was all around pretty solid at launch to begin with, so there weren't any really big mechanical or design issues with the game, just a number of minor/medium sized ones that they fixed.

    F2P offered the above games a second "lease on life" essentially. They wouldn't have gotten that chance if they had stayed with a subscription model (as they hadn't after working on addressing the issues and hadn't seen a big return of lapsed players).

    I agree that Rift isn't in a position where it "needs" it by any stretch, the game is still quite healthy and Trion still do a great job of running it and delivering value for the subscription. I've never said otherwise and don't see this changing anytime soon.
    Exactly. It's a fall back. It's what you do when your game is not worth the sub. It's not something any game should want or consider unless they need to. Rift obviously does not need to and any discussion about what model it should or would use just adds to the already crazy rumors and thoughts that it is and/or should go that route. They do not need a fall-back plan at this point as they are steadily growing and SL sales exceeded their expectations.

    There are other ways to re-engage your players. Rift has used them. There are many players playing now who said they tried it at launch and did not like it, after all the changes, they now love it. Did Rift need to go F2P to do this? Well, if you consider free weekends, free weeks and free trials a F2P model then I guess so. Rift has proven that, again when done right, you do not need F2P to bring people back.

    As for barrier to entry, pre-SL, was almost non-existent. Not even counting Steam Sales, Raptr promos and all the like, the game is $5 on their site. I do admit that barrier to entry is the largest problem in a P2P game, especially when it is really B2P2P. I mean I already bought the game, now I have to pay more? I think the way P2P games should be is, free trial to 10-20 or whatever works for the game, then you want to keep playing, sub up. No box to buy, no game to purchase, just add that sub to your account and go, and that is barely enough. You should be able to get a taste of end-game in that trial, since that is the meat of the game. Hence my "F2P" model that includes 1-50 for free then if you want to continue you sub.
    Rift - Lathais@Deepwood - 60 Rogue / Arrieleah@Deepwood - 60 Mage
    Check out this guide Guide for fresh 60's: The One Level 60 Guide - Updated for 2.5
    Check these out:Gaming/Computer Glasses
    My Multi-Touch Table Project

  12. #192
    The Lightbringer Tharkkun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Minnesnowta
    Posts
    3,306
    That's why when people scream for F2P I think to myself...you're going to pay more if you actually want more than the basics. For example I tried to return to EQ2 but in order to play my existing Iksar character I needed to pay. It was not one of the free race/class combinations. I promptly uninstalled.

    The market for normal MMO players is long saturated so what you're seeing is players pulled in from different types of gaming and the thought of a subscription is unbearable. Dropping $20 every couple months seems perfectly legit.

    Lathais: You're definitely imagining a F2P model with a Trial mentality. If it was F2P you would have no limit on the primary zones, quests, etc. But you might be limited to 1 character slot, 3 souls per class, a couple bags, 1 bank slot, no upgrades with world currency, etc. Your character will be crippled in a sense but the content wouldn't be limited.

    You could then either subscribe with no limits (until your sub drops) or pay micro transactions to open up what you believe is necessary. This is the traditional and successful F2P model that many are jumping on.

  13. #193
    Its quite depressing logging in everyday and seeing this thread. Its really the last thing i want to think about when coming to these sub-forums.
    “Never half-ass two things. Whole-ass one thing.”

  14. #194
    Quote Originally Posted by Tharkkun View Post
    That's why when people scream for F2P I think to myself...you're going to pay more if you actually want more than the basics. For example I tried to return to EQ2 but in order to play my existing Iksar character I needed to pay. It was not one of the free race/class combinations. I promptly uninstalled.
    In good models (EQ2's model is about as bad as SWTOR's), you don't need to pay more as they deliver the majority of the game for free, or for very little. You shouldn't have had to pay for your Iksar character as SoE grandfathered in all existing characters allowing them to bypass the race/class restrictions. For gear though...you'd be SoL and would have to buy the unlocks for legendary and higher gear.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trialtm View Post
    Its quite depressing logging in everyday and seeing this thread. Its really the last thing i want to think about when coming to these sub-forums.
    Why? Ignoring something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's not as if people here are calling for Rift to go F2P, just discussing the hypothetical business models that could be used if it did go F2P, and discussing the business model as a whole in relation to MMO's.

  15. #195
    The Insane DeltrusDisc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    15,246
    Quote Originally Posted by edgecrusher View Post
    Why? Ignoring something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's not as if people here are calling for Rift to go F2P, just discussing the hypothetical business models that could be used if it did go F2P, and discussing the business model as a whole in relation to MMO's.
    I think it will be a while until this happens, but first, we need to stop associating "F2P" business models with "lesser" MMORPGs/games. I realize I am very much a victim of this thinking, and I'd like to change it, hopefully soon. Path of Exile sure is helping, though it does have a good amount of trolling Diablo 3, so it has some of that "free community of children" sort of thing going on, where they are running wild and rampant and doing all of the crap that we don't want. I don't want to name names, but I think you all know the F2P games and their communities I'm talking about, that are known for more immaturity among their ranks than paid-for games.

    Change the fact that F2P makes people think "it sucks" and get the communities to behave just a lick better, and a thread like this might not draw so much attention.
    i7-5820K | ASUS X99- Deluxe | Crucial 2x8GB DDR4 2133MHz | eVGA GTX 760 SC | Crucial MX100 512GB | Crucial M500 240GB | Crucial m4 128GB | Western Digital Blue 1TB | Western Digital Black 1TB | SeaSonic X660 Gold
    ASUS MX239H | Schiit Stack Modi + Asgard 2 | Audio Technica ATH-AD700 | Presonus Eris E5 Studio Monitors | Blue Snowball Mic | Razer Death Adder | Corsair K70 | CyberPower 1500PFCLCD UPS

  16. #196
    Quote Originally Posted by DeltrusDisc View Post
    I think it will be a while until this happens, but first, we need to stop associating "F2P" business models with "lesser" MMORPGs/games. I realize I am very much a victim of this thinking, and I'd like to change it, hopefully soon. Path of Exile sure is helping, though it does have a good amount of trolling Diablo 3, so it has some of that "free community of children" sort of thing going on, where they are running wild and rampant and doing all of the crap that we don't want. I don't want to name names, but I think you all know the F2P games and their communities I'm talking about, that are known for more immaturity among their ranks than paid-for games.

    Change the fact that F2P makes people think "it sucks" and get the communities to behave just a lick better, and a thread like this might not draw so much attention.
    Every new game in a genre that comes out has trolling at the start. Tera, Rift, SWTOR, GW2, everything. It's part of the nature of early adopters, the community is shit. Most F2P games do end up "evening out" and stabilizing as far as trolls/community goes, just as they do with subscription based games. Eventually the trolls get bored (most do) and leave for a newer game. Look at older F2P games where the communities have stabilized and you don't see the kind of nonsense you do with freshly launched games. Heck, some of the F2P games have better communities than I've seen in subscription based MMO's. CoH is the best example of this, and it still has the friendliest and most helpful community of any game I've played to this date (FFXI would take that crown, but it was only one guy and not a ton of them).

    I agree with the "F2P is an equal and not lesser business model" mentality too. I've seen games using that model come a long way in quality, and rather than it being a "failure" of the game as a subscription based game, I view it as a tool to reinvigorate the game with an influx of new players (See the recent Star Trek Online producer letter where he says there are over 2 million accounts now. He doesn't specify if they're all active or not, but that's still pretty solid). Those games aren't all worse because of the F2P business model, it's just a different model. I can name my fair share of mediocre subscription based MMO's as well, and the mediocre ones that transitioned to F2P are still mediocre games.

    I'd be happy with it as a F2P/hybrid game and wouldn't view a business model change as a bad thing (I'd most likely remain subscribed anyways), but it's not as if I want them to change. Again, I'm totally happy with Rift as a subscription only game and with the level of service that's being delivered.

  17. #197
    The Insane DeltrusDisc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    15,246
    Quote Originally Posted by edgecrusher View Post
    Every new game in a genre that comes out has trolling at the start. Tera, Rift, SWTOR, GW2, everything. It's part of the nature of early adopters, the community is shit. Most F2P games do end up "evening out" and stabilizing as far as trolls/community goes, just as they do with subscription based games. Eventually the trolls get bored (most do) and leave for a newer game. Look at older F2P games where the communities have stabilized and you don't see the kind of nonsense you do with freshly launched games. Heck, some of the F2P games have better communities than I've seen in subscription based MMO's. CoH is the best example of this, and it still has the friendliest and most helpful community of any game I've played to this date (FFXI would take that crown, but it was only one guy and not a ton of them).

    I agree with the "F2P is an equal and not lesser business model" mentality too. I've seen games using that model come a long way in quality, and rather than it being a "failure" of the game as a subscription based game, I view it as a tool to reinvigorate the game with an influx of new players (See the recent Star Trek Online producer letter where he says there are over 2 million accounts now. He doesn't specify if they're all active or not, but that's still pretty solid). Those games aren't all worse because of the F2P business model, it's just a different model. I can name my fair share of mediocre subscription based MMO's as well, and the mediocre ones that transitioned to F2P are still mediocre games.

    I'd be happy with it as a F2P/hybrid game and wouldn't view a business model change as a bad thing (I'd most likely remain subscribed anyways), but it's not as if I want them to change. Again, I'm totally happy with Rift as a subscription only game and with the level of service that's being delivered.
    I didn't want to name games, but you did, so I feel compelled to say, the game whose community I've really not seen have much improvement after years of existence is League of Legends. Don't get me wrong, I have a number of mature friends that play it, but for every one of those I know, it seems there are another 5 I am introduced to this way or that, who seem to have not even a fraction of their maturity. I'd also know because I've seen at LAN parties how a lot of these folks behave.

    Take for instance my old college computer club's LAN parties: the three most popular games (I typically would be flying solo in Rift) were SC2, L4D2, and LoL. Those that would play SC2 (I may join on a rare occasion) were generally very quiet, only a small yell here or there, but mostly very intense and focused, no BS on the screen between players, either. L4D2 turns up the yelling, but it's mostly just logistics and such. LoL takes a ridiculous turn into immaturity with suddenly everyone wants to throw out curse words (which I as a former officer would help try to stop) left and right and it's all about pointing and laughing, pretty much.

    SC2 costs money, L4D2 costs less money, LoL is entirely free.

    It doesn't paint a very pretty picture or make me particularly interested in a F2P community. (Thus why I turned off General/Trade chats in Path of Exile, as I've read enough about what one can expect in those channels here in the mega thread on mmo-c.)
    i7-5820K | ASUS X99- Deluxe | Crucial 2x8GB DDR4 2133MHz | eVGA GTX 760 SC | Crucial MX100 512GB | Crucial M500 240GB | Crucial m4 128GB | Western Digital Blue 1TB | Western Digital Black 1TB | SeaSonic X660 Gold
    ASUS MX239H | Schiit Stack Modi + Asgard 2 | Audio Technica ATH-AD700 | Presonus Eris E5 Studio Monitors | Blue Snowball Mic | Razer Death Adder | Corsair K70 | CyberPower 1500PFCLCD UPS

  18. #198
    Heh, Leagues community is a byproduct of the genre. The entire ARTS/Moba/whatever you want to call is is trash, and has been since Dota. It was horrid in Dota, horrid in HoN, horrid in League, and horrid in Dota 2. You can put a price in front of it (HoN did) and the community would still be shit.

    It's the nature of the type of game (low time commitment per match). Being F2P absolutely doesn't help out League, as banned players can come right back on a new account, but it's not something specific to League alone.

    Outside of League though, that kind of behavior is reserved for launch months and then it trails off though. I know I remember late beta/early Rift (early Rift from hearing stories from friends who played, as I didn't play at launch) and how horrid the general chat and player interactions could get. It was just as bad in Tera (which I did play at launch).

    I will agree though, that the initial purchase price helps keep out repeat offenders. The other thing that does is long-term time investments. I'd be surprised to see people who spent a hundred+ hours getting to max level and getting some good gear acting like complete asshats in a MMO. In League, it doesn't take too long to hit 30 so the loss of an account with few or no champs unlocked and few runes isn't too big.

  19. #199
    The Insane DeltrusDisc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    15,246
    If anything, I'd hope they would keep the requirement to buy the game in there.
    i7-5820K | ASUS X99- Deluxe | Crucial 2x8GB DDR4 2133MHz | eVGA GTX 760 SC | Crucial MX100 512GB | Crucial M500 240GB | Crucial m4 128GB | Western Digital Blue 1TB | Western Digital Black 1TB | SeaSonic X660 Gold
    ASUS MX239H | Schiit Stack Modi + Asgard 2 | Audio Technica ATH-AD700 | Presonus Eris E5 Studio Monitors | Blue Snowball Mic | Razer Death Adder | Corsair K70 | CyberPower 1500PFCLCD UPS

  20. #200
    Quote Originally Posted by DeltrusDisc View Post
    If anything, I'd hope they would keep the requirement to buy the game in there.
    If they were to make a transition, B2P has some good support behind it. The GW1/2 model has proven to be pretty popular, and I know TSW's transition met with good success for the game (70k new sales in the first month for a decidedly niche title).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •