[Megathread] Wildstar - Now F2P

[Deleted]

What exactly is wrong with paying for additional bag/character/bank slots in a F2P/B2P game?

I'm not a fan of paying for gear respecs, but if they're cheap enough and there's enough flexibility to not make them "necessary", that's fine.

Mount speed? As long as the game isn't specifically designed to be disgustingly massive to make traveling without it, who cares?

And gear, as long as you can't buy the highest tiers, it really doesn't matter. You still have to do the same hard work for the best gear that everyone else does.

Again, I don't inherently see any issues with this. It's no different than a subscription based MMO putting in a daily quest area with a reputation faction that takes two months of dailies to max out.

It's a fucking scam, that's what the problem is. The default stuff you get in the game is purposely much worse, inadequate or insufficient to what should be normal, in order to encourage players to actually spend money for stuff that should have already been in the game. Or it is indeed available in the game but acquiring it requires monumental grinding, also to encourage players to spend money for it.

It's how f2ps/b2p with cash shops work.

[zito]

It's a fucking scam, that's what the problem is. The default stuff you get in the game is purposely much worse than what should be normal, in order to encourage players to actually spend money for stuff that should have already been in the game.

It's not a scam when none of those things are required.

[Edge-]

It's a fucking scam, that's what the problem is. The default stuff you get in the game is purposely much worse, inadequate or insufficient to what should be normal, in order to encourage players to actually spend money for stuff that should have already been in the game. Or it is indeed available in the game but acquiring it requires monumental grinding, also to encourage players to spend money for it.

It's how f2ps/b2p with cash shops work.

No it's not. Some games overly restrict things (SWTOR, EQ2), but the vast majority don't. Oh noes, a F2P game wants you to spend a little bit of money to unlock a few bag slots. Heavens to betsy, at least the nice subscription based game charged you $60 for the box and another $15 a month for no bag slot limitations!

Yes, limitations exist that restrict purely optional and convenience based aspects of the game. But if you look at the vast majority they're usually pretty fair, and are usually very cheap to unlock.

So again, I don't see your issue here other than, "The game I pay for doesn't restrict me but this other game I'm not currently paying for has some minor restrictions that are a slight inconvenience!"

I'm actually curious, have you played any of the recent Western MMO's that made the F2P transition recently? (barring SWTOR) I ask, because you sound like you're used to playing the shitty mid 2000's F2P games that had horrible F2P models and have almost entirely been phased out of the market.

[zito]

No it's not. Some games overly restrict things (SWTOR, EQ2), but the vast majority don't. Oh noes, a F2P game wants you to spend a little bit of money to unlock a few bag slots. Heavens to betsy, at least the nice subscription based game charged you $60 for the box and another $15 a month for no bag slot limitations!

Yes, limitations exist that restrict purely optional and convenience based aspects of the game. But if you look at the vast majority they're usually pretty fair, and are usually very cheap to unlock.

So again, I don't see your issue here other than, "The game I pay for doesn't restrict me but this other game I'm not currently paying for has some minor restrictions that are a slight inconvenience!"

You forgot to add there are usually some sort of way to earn cash shop currency in the game like Rift with Rex or GW2 with gems and Astral diamonds in neverwinter.

So it's a moot point :/

[ShimmerSwirl]

What exactly is wrong with paying for additional bag/character/bank slots in a F2P/B2P game?

I'm not a fan of paying for gear respecs, but if they're cheap enough and there's enough flexibility to not make them "necessary", that's fine.

Mount speed? As long as the game isn't specifically designed to be disgustingly massive to make traveling without it, who cares?

And gear, as long as you can't buy the highest tiers, it really doesn't matter. You still have to do the same hard work for the best gear that everyone else does.

Again, I don't inherently see any issues with this. It's no different than a subscription based MMO putting in a daily quest area with a reputation faction that takes two months of dailies to max out.

That model completely invalidates anyone except the "1%". If the only thing off limits for the cash shop is the highest quality of gear and items, then the game just became pay to win for everyone except the ultra-hardcore.

---------- Post added 2013-06-24 at 06:29 PM ----------

No it's not. Some games overly restrict things (SWTOR, EQ2), but the vast majority don't. Oh noes, a F2P game wants you to spend a little bit of money to unlock a few bag slots. Heavens to betsy, at least the nice subscription based game charged you $60 for the box and another $15 a month for no bag slot limitations!

Yes, limitations exist that restrict purely optional and convenience based aspects of the game. But if you look at the vast majority they're usually pretty fair, and are usually very cheap to unlock.

So again, I don't see your issue here other than, "The game I pay for doesn't restrict me but this other game I'm not currently paying for has some minor restrictions that are a slight inconvenience!"

I'm actually curious, have you played any of the recent Western MMO's that made the F2P transition recently? (barring SWTOR) I ask, because you sound like you're used to playing the shitty mid 2000's F2P games that had horrible F2P models and have almost entirely been phased out of the market.

Im not bothered by the fact that they try to get you in the cash shop so much as I think its bad for the game overall that design is limited by that very fact. Eg the dev team comes up with a really cool feature, but it's design is forced into limitation by the need to monetize the feature, or the feature is just not implemented at all because it cannot be monetized. Whereas in a P2p game that same feature can be made with no restrictions whatsoever and the only guiding principal is playability and enjoyment.

[Edge-]

That model completely invalidates anyone except the "1%". If the only thing off limits for the cash shop is the highest quality of gear and items, then the game just became pay to win for everyone except the ultra-hardcore.

How does that invalidate everyone except the 1%? How does my mount being 25% faster than yours on a PvE server detract from your gameplay experience? How does my having an extra bag make your experience worse? How does my buying some entry level dungeon gear that will quickly be replaced with minimal effort make the gear you worked for somehow less valuable?

And nothing I even remotely mentioned is P2W. The concept of P2W has been pretty much dead in the past 3-4 years except for a few old Korean games still hanging on, and the odd Korean import that somehow makes its way over.

[zito]

Im not bothered by the fact that they try to get you in the cash shop so much as I think its bad for the game overall that design is limited by that very fact. Eg the dev team comes up with a really cool feature, but it's design is forced into limitation by the need to monetize the feature, or the feature is just not implemented at all because it cannot be monetized. Whereas in a P2p game that same feature can be made with no restrictions whatsoever and the only guiding principal is playability and enjoyment.

Do we have different definitions of monetize here? Because by the definition I'm going by contradicts your statement. If there is a cash shop there is a flow of money just like a sub except your "sub money" gets directed towards things you want instead of a subscription that offers nothing.

[RoninaThorstone]

That model completely invalidates anyone except the "1%". If the only thing off limits for the cash shop is the highest quality of gear and items, then the game just became pay to win for everyone except the ultra-hardcore.

At least it doesn't take it's players money and spend it on developing content that only a few % actually see like subscription games do.
That's worse than invalidating them. That's robbing them.

[Edge-]

Im not bothered by the fact that they try to get you in the cash shop so much as I think its bad for the game overall that design is limited by that very fact. Eg the dev team comes up with a really cool feature, but it's design is forced into limitation by the need to monetize the feature, or the feature is just not implemented at all because it cannot be monetized. Whereas in a P2p game that same feature can be made with no restrictions whatsoever and the only guiding principal is playability and enjoyment.

The only game that's really done this is SWTOR (looking at you, patch 2.1). I can't think of another game that's monetized so many secondary systems as SWTOR has.

That's bad design, and that kind of stuff happens in subscription based games too.

Server transfers? WoW charges for them while Rift (now F2P) doesn't. Same with charging for faction changes, race changes, gender changes etc. Subscription based games monetize features just as F2P games do. And they also both add in new features for free as well.

[ShimmerSwirl]

How does that invalidate everyone except the 1%? How does my mount being 25% faster than yours on a PvE server detract from your gameplay experience? How does my having an extra bag make your experience worse? How does my buying some entry level dungeon gear that will quickly be replaced with minimal effort make the gear you worked for somehow less valuable?

And nothing I even remotely mentioned is P2W. The concept of P2W has been pretty much dead in the past 3-4 years except for a few old Korean games still hanging on, and the odd Korean import that somehow makes its way over.

Really? How does you buying things that make your character more powerful in a open, persistent world, multiplayer game affect other players?

Your mount allows you to get places faster, farm more nodes, have a better chance at getting rare spawns, and a better chance at getting virtually anything that exists in the world.

Inventory management is a standard element of RPGs. You buying extra bags gives you an less to manage and less to worry about over me. You don't have to go back to your bank to drop things off like I do. You don't need to pick with the same discretion which gear or items you carry with you. You have removed or weakened a gameplay challenge that I still have to deal with.

You have bought gear that allowed you to bypass entry level content, content that I have to run still. You have cut days, weeks, months (who knows) off of a gear grind that I am going to have to do. I just spent a month building up and entry level set, you just spent 2 mins on their website buying your way to the same point of character progression.

A real life equivalent of this would be the kid who works his butt off to get straight A's to get into the school he wants, and his lazy-ass C- classmate gets into the same school because his dad pulls some strings for him. Does it affect the A kid in a tangible way? Maybe not. Does the principle of it bother him? Definitely.

[zito]

Your mount allows you to get places faster, farm more nodes, have a better chance at getting rare spawns, and a better chance at getting virtually anything that exists in the world.

/stopped reading here

/put back on ignore

[ShimmerSwirl]

The only game that's really done this is SWTOR (looking at you, patch 2.1). I can't think of another game that's monetized so many secondary systems as SWTOR has.

That's bad design, and that kind of stuff happens in subscription based games too.

Server transfers? WoW charges for them while Rift (now F2P) doesn't. Same with charging for faction changes, race changes, gender changes etc. Subscription based games monetize features just as F2P games do. And they also both add in new features for free as well.

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.

[Newbryn]

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.

while I'll agree there are certain parts of gw2 that are designed around the cash shop like transmuting, but that's really not an issue the rest of your post is pretty laughable.

[Valeron]

Sure are a lot of tinfoil hat armchair developers around here

[ShimmerSwirl]

while I'll agree there are certain parts of gw2 that are designed around the cash shop like transmuting, but that's really not an issue the rest of your post is pretty laughable.

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? "Hmmm....yeah lets not do face to face trading," "why not? players seem to like it" "Yah I know...but I just dont want to..no reason really I just dont like it."

"Ok well what about mounts, players love mounts and they would probably like to have them." "Yeah....no. I know they're awesome and players love em, but I just dont want to. No reason really I just don't feel like it today."

Newsflash: every single decision in the corporate world is based on the premise of profit. Whats laughable is to suggest that Anet bases decisions on anything other than that.

[Valeron]

Newsflash: every single decision in the corporate world is based on the premise of profit. Whats laughable is to suggest that Anet bases decisions on anything other than that.

If you go by that then guess what, Wildstar is going to have a very similar approach to their payment model and cash shop.

[Newbryn]

If you go by that then guess what, Wildstar is going to have a very similar approach to their payment model and cash shop.

Pretty much methinks he should just give up on any future mmos.

[ShimmerSwirl]

If you go by that then guess what, Wildstar is going to have a very similar approach to their payment model and cash shop.

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.

[Valeron]

Indeed, WoW is proof of that

[RoninaThorstone]

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.

So letting servers die and refusing to merge them while offering 25 dollars to let people transfer isn't funneling people into a cash shop?
Hilarious.