[Megathread] Wildstar - Now F2P

[Deleted]

Which is why I prefer sub games. The goal is still to make money of course, but game systems are not limited in design by the need to use them as a cash shop funnel.

Well p2p games have also systems designed for the sole purpose of making money. I mean they make money by keeping people playing longer, so for example WoW introduced time gated grinds like daily quests, Valor/Conquest point caps, crafting cooldowns etc just to artificially slow down players in their progress. Also now they have other "fun" ways to keep people playing like Thunderforged gear which exists for the sole purpose of moving the carrot a little bit further away and extend the gear grind.

Perhaps the way game systems are designed to generate profit in p2p games doesn't bother you personally, but it doesn't change the fact that they are designed for that purpose. For me it's the opposite, having to grind my ass before being able to do a proper, fair pvp match bothers me much more then someone having a 50% faster mount bought with real money.

[Deleted]

i like gear, rep, attunement grinds.. has nothing to do with the payment model imo. I dislike the feeling of no progression with an mmorpg.. being given the best pvp gear and doing the same limited crap over and over is boring to me and if i want to play that kind of "end game" ill just play team fortess 2 instead.

[Edge-]

The naivety of some people truly amazes me. What do you think Anet talks about when they sit in design meetings and draw up plans for the game?

Having actually listened to some of their internal discussions while the game was in development (yay for perks of work being awesome sometimes), I can honestly tell you that while they did factor in their business model into every decision, it was discussed far less than the actual gameplay of the game.

Do you honestly think that the business model and revenue aren't factored into design decisions of subscription based games? Like, seriously, I'm curious. Because they absolutely are in many similar ways that they are in some F2P games.

Which is why I prefer sub games. The goal is still to make money of course, but game systems are not limited in design by the need to use them as a cash shop funnel.

No, but there are other tools that are used instead. Why do you think that every single tier of raiding is a gear reset rather than a lateral increase? Why do you think long reputation grinds were created? And even in subscription based games, they still monetize certain features and elements of the game into their own cash shops (both WoW and EVE have cash shops. FFXI is the only one without a cash shop).

[ShimmerSwirl]

Well p2p games have also systems designed for the sole purpose of making money. I mean they make money by keeping people playing longer, so for example WoW introduced time gated grinds like daily quests, Valor/Conquest point caps, crafting cooldowns etc just to artificially slow down players in their progress. Also now they have other "fun" ways to keep people playing like Thunderforged gear which exists for the sole purpose of moving the carrot a little bit further away and extend the gear grind.

Perhaps the way game systems are designed to generate profit in p2p games doesn't bother you personally, but it doesn't change the fact that they are designed for that purpose. For me it's the opposite, having to grind my ass before being able to do a proper, fair pvp match bothers me much more then someone having a 50% faster mount bought with real money.

That is a good point, I feel however that those are game design choices that could be avoided, as the only aspect a p2p game really need to be profitable is fun content that players enjoy, they are not forced to create grind content, its just a lazy, cheap design choice.

F2p on the other hand is always limited by the need to monetize their systems, there is no other option.

[Edge-]

That is a good point, I feel however that those are game design choices that could be avoided, as the only aspect a p2p game really need to be profitable is fun content that players enjoy, they are not forced to create grind content, its just a lazy, cheap design choice.

F2p on the other hand is always limited by the need to monetize their systems, there is no other option.

P2P games need timesinks. That's why you find so many of them built into them. Hell, while it's awesome, the entire pet battle system is one of the most brilliant time sinks built into a game in a long time. They could have dramatically reduced the amount of time/traveling it took to level up pets, but they left it in because it's a massive time sink that keeps people playing for months and months.

F2P isn't always limited by the need to monetize their systems. Again, I'll point out Tera and Rift as a few examples. Tera and Rift added essentially no new systems for monetization upon their transitions (Rift added the weapon change tokens, but that's more of an extension of the existing wardrobe system, and they added the option to change race/gender as well. Both are extremely reasonably priced though). In fact, both had tons of systems that could have been turned into something they monetized, but didn't. Rift could have easily completely monetized the wardrobe feature, the barber shop, raids, and a whole host of other aspects of the game. They didn't though.

The same goes for most of the other F2P games. They either don't monetize the majority of their features, or in the case of games like DCUO they allow you to avoid said monetization (raiding I think) by subscribing. Hell, DCUO even added an entire crafting system as part of a free content update, and a housing system that free players get basic access to and subscribers get full access to.

Again, I'm not saying that the F2P model/money don't play a factor in design decisions in F2P games, because they totally do. However for most games, you're dramatically overstating the importance that it has. If you overmonetize a game (SWTOR), you end up with potentially a group of dedicated players who will pay (in this case, SWTOR subscribers are the ones spending the most in the cash shop) which dramatically limits your overall revenue potential. If you can't maintain a big enough group of those players or keep them around, you're going to be in trouble as your business model isn't attracting new players. If you look at the trend of F2P models, I think most developers actually realize this.

[worprz]

I think you're being very naive about this. Any game that relies on a cash shop for revenue needs to design game features in a such way to get players into the shop. Im not talking about services like transfers and such, im talking about ingame systems like economy, travel, AH, trading, mounts, gear etc.

Take GW2 for example, basically what Anet did was design the game in such a way that gold is the most sought after resource. Gear, XP, Skills are all much, much easier to obtain than gold. The purpose of this obviously is to encourage the use of players buying gold through the Gem Store.


This choice does have wide-spread impact on overall game design. For instance I would guess the main reason mounts do not exists in GW2 is because Anet wanted to exploit an essential part of gameplay (travel) with a monetized teleport system that would serve as a constant gold sink. Add to this their huge open world and the design choice of downscaling to try and keep players out in it, and travel itself becomes a non-trivial expense.


Another example is the somewhat non-traditional move of making players repair gear from PvP damage. Combine this with Anet giving every class a rez to reduce the death penalty and encourage more deaths (again, a very purposeful choice), and you have the primary endgame activity (WvW) being another big gold sink. And thats not even considering the blatant P2W aspects of WvW, such as buying cannons etc. Again the goal is to increase the value of gold and drive players to buy gems through its rapid depletion.


The global AH itself is a very deliberate choice. The huge number of listings prevents the market cornering we see in WoW, and prevents most players from being able to play the AH for any substantial profit. Preventing face-to-face trading ensures that players are forced to use the AH and pay their tax.


In short, Anet's entire design with Gw2 is to keep players perpetually poor to force them as much as possible to buy more gold, or buy things that circumvent the need for gold. They manage to hide it very well, but imo GW2 is very clearly a Pay to Win game.

I disagree that GW2 is pay to win, I haven't spent any actual money on GW2 (besides when I actually bought the game). I have also made a lot of money off of their auction house, traveling is extremely cheap too. I make more gold then I spend on traveling, it might as well be free based on how much I make compared to how much I travel. Also gear repair doesn't ever go above 10 silver which you can earn in game in 5 minutes or less.

There are a lot of ways to save make money while not spending too much. For example, I don't craft so all crafting items I find I sell on the auction house, I also sell any dyes that I find. Another example is if you need to travel somewhere the easiest thing is to go to the pvp zone (which costs nothing and you can go there from anywhere in game) then take the portal to the main city Lions Arch (which costs no money as well). Lions Arch also has portals to every racial capital which are spread all over the world (which means it can save you a lot of money).

Most things you buy in the cash shop are also cosmetic items, nothing in the shop makes you any better at the game. To me if you spend a lot of actual money in the cash shop it's your own fault. Anything can be bought in the cash shop with gold, Guild Wars 2 is far from pay to win.


With that being said, I really hope Wildstar doesn't have a subscription, I may never play it if it does. I believe any mmo can be good without a subscription and I refuse to pay one.

[RoninaThorstone]

To me if you spend a lot of actual money in the cash shop it's your own fault.

Personal responsibility? How dare you!
If someone lacks the self control necessary to avoid buying a 40 dollar fire pony then that's the developers fault!

[zito]

Personal responsibility? How dare you!
If someone lacks the self control necessary to avoid buying a 40 dollar fire pony then that's the developers fault!

Damn them fire ponys

DAMN THEM

Oh wait I don't like ponys

[ShimmerSwirl]

P2P games need timesinks. That's why you find so many of them built into them. Hell, while it's awesome, the entire pet battle system is one of the most brilliant time sinks built into a game in a long time. They could have dramatically reduced the amount of time/traveling it took to level up pets, but they left it in because it's a massive time sink that keeps people playing for months and months.

F2P isn't always limited by the need to monetize their systems. Again, I'll point out Tera and Rift as a few examples. Tera and Rift added essentially no new systems for monetization upon their transitions (Rift added the weapon change tokens, but that's more of an extension of the existing wardrobe system, and they added the option to change race/gender as well. Both are extremely reasonably priced though). In fact, both had tons of systems that could have been turned into something they monetized, but didn't. Rift could have easily completely monetized the wardrobe feature, the barber shop, raids, and a whole host of other aspects of the game. They didn't though.

The same goes for most of the other F2P games. They either don't monetize the majority of their features, or in the case of games like DCUO they allow you to avoid said monetization (raiding I think) by subscribing. Hell, DCUO even added an entire crafting system as part of a free content update, and a housing system that free players get basic access to and subscribers get full access to.

Again, I'm not saying that the F2P model/money don't play a factor in design decisions in F2P games, because they totally do. However for most games, you're dramatically overstating the importance that it has. If you overmonetize a game (SWTOR), you end up with potentially a group of dedicated players who will pay (in this case, SWTOR subscribers are the ones spending the most in the cash shop) which dramatically limits your overall revenue potential. If you can't maintain a big enough group of those players or keep them around, you're going to be in trouble as your business model isn't attracting new players. If you look at the trend of F2P models, I think most developers actually realize this.

My point isn't that f2p means there will be blatantly obvious, in your face Cash Shop tie-ins to game systems. Im saying that in subtle, overarching ways the entire game design is going to manipulated (it has to be manipulated) to force players into the shop. For instance, go back to GW2...it does not cost you actual cash to use the teleport system, but the premium of gold indirectly drives you to the cash shop because you are forced to spend you gold on travel rather than other things. Same can be said for all the other ways Gw2 tries to keep players poor...non of these are directly saying "You must go to the cash shop!" but they are all keep you poor to make sure you remain dependant on the cash shop.

Both F2p and P2p need to keep players playing, both need long term grinds. If f2p players don't have continual reason to login they wont have an opportunity to spend money at the cash shop. The difference is that this is the only limitation on a p2p game, whereas f2p is also limited by the need to directly or indirectly monetize the game.

[Arlee]

Maybe the premium of gold drove you towards the cash shop, and that's why you don't like it. Personally I have never felt like I had to spend money on anything in GW2. It's one of the reasons I like their model so much. I can see how if you approach a game with the mentality of "having to get all the things right away is super important" then yea it's it's understandable why someone wouldn't like f2p and b2p games. But that's your personal viewpoint causing you issues, not a failure of game design.

[ShimmerSwirl]

Maybe the premium of gold drove you towards the cash shop, and that's why you don't like it. Personally I have never felt like I had to spend money on anything in GW2. It's one of the reasons I like their model so much. I can see how if you approach a game with the mentality of "having to get all the things right away is super important" then yea it's it's understandable why someone wouldn't like f2p and b2p games. But that's your personal viewpoint causing you issues, not a failure of game design.

Im not saying its a failure, its simply a fact that GW2 needs to design their game to get people into the cash shop.

[Deleted]

Real money tradable currency is bullshit and ive never seen it work.. also I hate having regional economies. Limited bag slots ( buying extra bank slots is fine though) my other big dislike.. especially when needing to do it per character.

If it avoids those things its a decent start into designing a f2p model.. still wanting a lotro hybrid though.

[Nirawen]

Real money tradable currency is bullshit and ive never seen it work.. also I hate having regional economies. Limited bag slots ( buying extra bank slots is fine though) my other big dislike.. especially when needing to do it per character.

I like Planetside 2's cash shop for the most part but this is my one annoyance on there, the fact that if I buy something visual for the Combat Medic and then swap to Engineer (you swap a lot, think TF2) I have to buy it again even if it looks exactly the same and then mutliple times again for each character. I think weapons are shared where applicable though.

[Kelimbror]

Personally I have never felt like I had to spend money on anything in GW2. It's one of the reasons I like their model so much.

Yup. Don't need a single thing in there. And if I did decide to buy a character slot, or bank space, what of it? It's a cost I won't ever have to pay again like in a subscription game where you owe the $40 + a monthly fee to even access the game. You can't even go to places you paid for 6 years ago. Think about how crazy that sounds.

I don't have a problem with subscriptions. In my head it is justified, but objectively it's a terrible system. While I feel it's the best entertainment I can buy, I'm not a fool to think everyone should feel that way. One of the problems is that they don't exist in a vaccuum. Sure one subscription is fine if it is all there is ever, but the reason subscriptions have fallen out are because you simply can't pay for multiple subscription and be satisfied with what you're paying or what you're getting out of it.

[Deleted]

There is so much hate against F2P.
When I find a game that I like, I dont care if it is F2P, B2P or P2P. As long as it is not P2W (Like World of Tanks). If I can buy myself comfort in a game it's fine as long as it doesnt give me a direct advantage over someone else in combat.
I always think that around 10 euro a month is what I pay for a game, no matter what kind of pay model they use. I buy a singelplayer game for 30 euro and I play it for three months, then I am satisfied, even if I never play it again. Play it less and I feel a bit disapointed, play it more and it feels that I earn money. If it is F2P, a happy spend around 10 euro a month if it keeps me playing and having fun.

What people are missing is that even F2P games need to finance their game also in order continue develop. Everyone wants everything for free, and when a F2P game more or less force you to pay for extra bag slots, even if it is pocket change, it is suddenly a huge thing.

With that said, SWTORs F2P model is a joke, while TERA and RIFTs are really good. Imho.

I am very curious about what Carbine have in mind for Wildstar, but hope there will be something in line with RIFT, where you can play for free for all the cheapskates, and with a premium model for us who doesnt mind throwing a few bucks to a developer that delivers fun.

[Deleted]

F2P has always this taste of the risk that it goes the wrong way. like SWToR or this Rune what ever thing.

Thats why i personaly just cant play F2P games.

[Kelimbror]

F2P has always this taste of the risk that it goes the wrong way. like SWToR or this Rune what ever thing.

Thats why i personaly just cant play F2P games.

I'm going to correct your statement for accuracy, to highlight why it is irrelevant:

Video Games always have the risk that they go the wrong way. Like *insert any game you didn't like*. That's why I personally just can't play games.

[RoninaThorstone]

With that said, SWTORs F2P model is a joke, while TERA and RIFTs are really good. Imho.

But even Swtor's F2P model is better than a subscription only game.
If you go and make a swtor account, get 40 dollars with of Cartel coins (and spend 20 dollars on Makeb) to make up for the lack of a 60 dollar box cost and then spend 15 dollars a month in either cartel coins or a subscription, it's pretty much the same thing as a subscription only game except you end up with a lot of perks.(and it has more players (and thus payers) than if it were subscription only)

[Deleted]

I'm going to correct your statement for accuracy, to highlight why it is irrelevant:

Video Games always have the risk that they go the wrong way. Like *insert any game you didn't like*. That's why I personally just can't play games.

hmm nice truth in your corrected statement ^^

maybe i should rethink my approach on F2P games.

[Valeron]

hmm nice truth in your corrected statement ^^

maybe i should rethink my approach on F2P games.

You are missing out on some nice games if you just dismiss them right away because of the payment model.