| 198 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
The problem with F2P (not really the right term because most force you to pay to compete) and the reason I don't like them is because they favour the rich. If you are poor and cannot afford to sped hundreds a month in it, you will not be able to compete with the top players.
|
|
|
I agree with the O.P, and I'd like to add a few thoughts. Most of the subscription games lately seemed to view WoW as a cash cow. They seemed to try to copy and ship it ASAP to try to get their slice of the pie. The problem? In short, they suck. You can tell they were thrown together or revamped half-way through development, or revamped after going live--all on the hurry-up offence plan--in an attempt to cash in on Blizzard's action. Why didn't this work? WoW doesn't suck. What I mean is, it actually works. It wasn't built in a hurry, revamped halfway through development or, god-forbid, after it went live--a real kick in the groin to gamers. Because it doesn't suck, it's actually worth paying a subscription fee for. Gamers aren't as stupid as some producers seem to think. We really don't want to pay for stuff that doesn't work, even if it happens to be not working on a PC. This brings us full circle to the success of f2p games. If they suck, so what? It's free. Why not give it a try? If it's fun, great. If it doesn't draw me into some nasty RMT marketting scheme along the way. even better. The risks of this, if they exist, are still generally hidden so to speak. I can login to a subscription based game right away and tell whether or not the game is functional. If it's not, forget about it. Even if a f2p game has some crazy RMT model (e.g. you can be a pet trainer for free, but actual pets will cost you extra...), it's going to take me a while to figure out what's going on. This is especially true, sadly, if the game is marketted to minors; and many of these are. Personally, I think people will inevitably realize that some f2p games have user friendly business models, whereas others do not. It's going to take some time though. Once people figure this out, I expect the games with manipulative cash schemes to fizzle out, leaving only those who remain hooked on the experience, or continue to be unaware of the dynamics. Whatever the model, my preference would simply be that MMO producers are up-front about the cost of playing the game, and that they actually work. I think people generally don't like paying for broken games, and I think tolerance for hidden fees is at an all-time low; once people recognize they are actually there. |
|
|
porgie
 Apprentice Member
Joined: 11/18/05
SCULLY: What do you think? MULDER: I can''t believe how much faith we put in machines. |
This is the first time I've felt compelled to disagree with one of MMORPG.com's articles. I am sorry to the guy who wrote this, but I think you've missed some very huge marks. First off, anyone who is a traditional MMO player is not going to want to play many of the F2P games out there today. I have tried just about every one of them. And frankly, to me, they sucked. I could not get into any of them. The closest I came was with Runes of Magic. But the sound was bad. Really bad. And in spots, it wasn't even there. So I had to let it go. Secondly, I might be stepping out on a very small limb here, but I think that most MMO gamers (I mean real MMO gamers, not WoW gamers) don't mind spending a little extra money here and there to upgrade their computers. And lastly, I honestly do not want to play with someone who can't afford to get a nice computer. That might sound elitist, but I really don't care. I think it's time that the more mature gaming crowd start stomping its feet and making some noise. We are a market and we deserve the great games that are (dare I say it) hard to play. If that is elitist, then I'm damn proud to be one. And eventually, the children of today will grow up and they can be elitists too. The games you're speaking of are games that I would bet can run on a console. Let developers start making console MMO's and then the subscribers to things like XBox Live can download those. But do not ruin the in depth games that I have grown to love. And do not take my beautiful graphics away either. I love stepping into a beautiful world that is using the nicest technology available. I get the idea that the MMO gaming industry is about making money. But I also feel that there is a sweet spot of developers who also like doing it for other reasons as well. ----------------------- |
|
I don't post in the forums on this website. To do so is a fruitless endeavor that will only result in flaming and/or circular arguments, terrible grammar, and all manner of other Internet attrocities.
You completely ignored a few crucial facts: Now, I'm by no means a genius, but I'd say that a company with such adored titles as Warcraft (I, II, and III), as well as Starcraft (original, and it's expansion), would be exceptionally high in regards to visibility and vererability. Now, Blizzard then decides that it wants to create an MMO out of one of it's most successful "universes," Warcraft. Did anyone with even a slight modicum of intelligence actually expect WoW to fail? There's your reason for the success of WoW. If it didn't have such a massive PRE-EXISTING player/fan-base, then it would have been like any other MMO. But it does, and so it's not. Warcraft was/is even popular in the East. What other so-called "Western" MMO's, which had a preexisting fan-base in both regions due to massively popular games produced under 'X' title, do you know of that are massively popular in both the West and the East? Or, to even give you more room, what other games do you know of which meet the previously stated quota?
I don't understand why any of that wasn't immediately obvious to you, or anyone else. There were entecedent factors in place which allowed WoW to gain such a gargantuan player-base. FTP MMO's are attractive because they're free...
It's not because WoW is easy, though that may play a part. It's not the system requirements, though, to be redundant and annoying, that may play a small part. It's because Blizzard is known for making quality games, and many of us are extremely fond of the Warcraft title.
I view MMOs as a type of interactive artform. Stop suggesting that all MMOs be made to be simpleton's games. Stop suggesting that all MMOs be made to resemble a fourth-grade student's rendition of 'X.' You may enjoy the heavily exagerated, "cartoony" graphics of WoW, but I don't. I don't like the simplistic gameplay, and it saddens me that most MMOs have taken to this...direction, without considering all of the reasons WoW is so cursedly successful. Diversity is the key. Make all the WoW-clones you wish, but to even suggest that all MMOs should be the same level of difficulty and the same quality of graphics is, without doubt, the most foolish idea I've ever seen a sane person espousing on the Internet in all manner of sincerity.*
As an addendum, I'd also like to say that one can easily build a quality gaming rig for $600. I run Bioshock on full settings, and have no delay or lag. I can run Vanguard:SoH at full settings (wish shadows set to medium) at 40-50 FPS in moderately populated areas, Veskal's Exchange, for example. AMD Phenom II x550 Callisto BE *And I've been to Myspace forums. |
|
|
Shreddi
 Advanced Member
Joined: 3/10/04
"The decisions you make today will effect the rest of your life" |
Get a copy editor, Run this by someone who reads mmorpg making sure its not just fluff or mental masturbation. This is for your entertainment. Do you really think your telling someone reading mmorpg something they dont already know? By the way, Steam Sucks, Why Steam? Ever comb your registry after youve installed steam? After the HF code episode steam is the worste. F2P and P2P? Compare the top rated F2P (include micro's) and top P2P (subsription based). The top 2 and not one copy of another. That might be something we dont already know. This post is intentionally written not to make any sense what so ever. Thank You Very Much. |
Originally posted by Shreddi
ok... what was the point is that?
|
|
|
That we need more crappy games. Tested: 57 | Played: 24 | For More Than a Month: 5 (EVE, VG, LotRO, AoC, SB) | Presently: 0 |
|
|
Man tell me how 2 get ur article to EVERY game developer!? ur dead right!--i loved your comments!-i do alot of beta testing-and i have a fairly good comp.-recently got a beta test of a subscription turning over the game to a f2p aspect with micro-payments. was REALLY looking 4ward 2 play!-but the downloader is so complicated and the info on the forums so technical,i gave up! |
|
Originally posted by majinant
Competition has many aspects. You pay either in time(hours and hours per day) or in money. Not everyone can afford the time that raiding takes. Just as not everyone can afford the money that some games take. Its up to the players to determine which type of game they prefer. Talent will only take one so far. Then the force multiplier kicks in. That may be time and/or money depending on the game. Bottom line, if you want to be competitive, its going to cost you. |
|
|
This article, while making a slim point about accessibity, is complete bunk when it comes down to the facts. Just look at the comparisons. WoW doing well and AoC/WAR not because of graphics? Horse shit. There are so many grossly more important factors that AoC/WAR had wrong, and so much crap WoW has done to itself to pander to as many people as possible, that graphics are the LEAST of concerns. F2P games are still hardly "all the rage" being that they're still universally seen as a fairly terrible model by anyone interested in actually PLAYING the game or at least playing fairly. I've yet to see a quality game on a F2P budget either. Yeah, it's all the rage if you're counting accounts, but who's going to pass up free? Sorry, but it really is the truth. F2P is popular because it's free and kiddos want free stuff, and companies want to exploit their fanbase for as much money as they can, and premium games have been failing because they've been uninspired copies or down right broken executions with no imagination.
Edit: Please, PLEASE don't even start with that "It's my money I can spend it how I want" "You're either spending money or time" BS. It's a completely fallacious argument for so many reasons and still doesn't address the problem of fair and equal play, it just sidesteps it. |
|
|
People upgrade their computers, or buy new consoles, to experience the latest technology has to offer. Graphics = Immersion. People who play a game like vanguard are looking for an immersive experience beyond the simplicity of leveling and looting, which is all F2P caters to. If all games started being like WoW then there would be a huge void left for the more hardcore and mature crowd, people who have the money to invest in gaming. |
|
|
gnomexxx
 Hard Core Member
Joined: 2/26/06
"Every generation needs a new revolution." - Thomas Jefferson |
Same story as always. The rich are evil and the poor deserve a free ride. Sorry, I ain't buying it. I enjoy my subscription games. For a lot of reasons too. Foremost, they mostly keep the kiddies out. They can't get their parents to give them their credit card numbers. I also enjoy a more "epic" game. One that takes loads of development. Not just a dry and treadmill type gameplay model with cheap low grade graphics. I want the best and I'm willing to PAY for it. Look, I really have never considered WoW anything more than an anomaly in the MMO field. It's not normal. I also have a lot of trouble considering it a true MMO. I know, it fits the criteria, but I just never got the same feeling in it as games like Vanguard, EQ2, or even EQ. It's just too easy. I want that challenge. I want to be tested. And I want the danged best designers behind my game with their wit, creativity, and experience. I also want them to send me into a wonderfully layed out world with lots of beauty and inspiration. And I don't want them feeling like they "failed" because they don't match sub numbers of the WoW game. I really don't care for WoW and I think a lot of people feel the same. I'm not going to consider a designer a failure for not matching their stellar numbers. I think you're going to find that most people who agree with you are a younger crowd. They're mad because (like I said) their parents won't give them their credit card. That and you're going to find very young adults who are just getting started financially. There is a more mature MMO crowd out here. We don't mind paying and subsequently demand a lot more out of our games. Likewise, we're not afraid to plop down the money to build or buy a nice computer. We're not evil, we just are really into our hobby. =============================== |
Originally posted by ArcAngel3
yep your absolutly right people say this i want for my moneys worth gees i dont want to pay 125 $ for a capuccino |
|
|
This article is truth.
|
|
Originally posted by gnomexxx
soon you ll be able to lock level so you ll be able to kill level 20 foe at level 1 if its your thing best use i can see is lock it till all your quest are red then start questing and always lock it if quest arent red |
|
|
EVE is the anti-thesis of everything WoW is in terms of accessibility, yet it only grows and grows with it's complexity. There is a market for people seeking deep and involving games, and these people are generally willing to invest money in their hobby in the form of upgraded graphics. |
|
|
You also forgot about getting right into buisness.
No one dosn't want to pay for a game that "might" get better, at level 30. Most MMOs at level 1 you're taken through all these basic tutorials about how to kill target... so on, and then you're handed all these quests that are kill x number of things. Sure you can do bombing runs off giant bats when you reach level 70, sure you can particiapate in hardcore territory battles at level 50, don't forget that end-game content at level 90! But all this means nothing for somone that has only been playing the game for 10 days and just reached level 14. Demos, Free Trials, Betas.... all of these things are what would turn a gamer on or off the game. Sure you can hear lots of people talking about all these cool features a game has, or watch gameplay videos and see other people playing them.... but what good is it if YOU can't play them? First impression is everything in this world, it be Movies, Games, People. If somthing dosn't get "intresting" after the first 30 mintues... then you're going to have to say bye bye to you're customers.
P.S Not all F2P graphics are cartoony, anime, or pixels. The upcoming Korean games just look amazing! |
|
Originally posted by Trenchgun
your right people pay everyday for various thing involving their game gw player buy pvp kit f2p player buy various item wow sell cards that give ingame mount or bonus and verious collector item from t-shirt to dwarf beer buck but people rarelly pay for worthless item |
|
|
You're pretty right, people don't want games with such a high quality they won't be able to run, but they don't want pieces of crap either. My examples are Guild Wars and Aion, NCSoft has shown they have a good tradition of offering excelent graphics while greatly optimized. Funny thing is that I can run Aion on max settings with 40+ FPS while in WoW that would turn into 10~30 FPS. Miracle? No, just polishment. It does not explain the way F2P and P2P MMOs are taking though, this is more due to an idea of freedom. You can play whatever F2P you want without feeling yourself bound to play it eternally. That is not the case with monthly fee MMOs, when you pay a monthly fee you are expecting to play that same game for 30 days (or more). Until P2Ps in the West start offering subscriptions in hours which you can spend whenever you want, competition among the same sub model will keep harming themselves. People want fun and flexibility. You're wrong on the costs though, a F2P will cost much more for the average gamer than a P2P, with $15 you can barely do anything, these F2P games usually have items in the costs of $5~$10, and they are cassino-like, you will want to buy more and more. And I don't want to get the feeling I pay for randomly generated items instead of content and service maintenance. Still, you have the sense of flexibility, your money is bound to your character, not to a 30-day timeframe. |
|
Originally posted by snowyjoe men your ps is a very welcome news ty any exemple of title coming up per chance |
|
|
High Requirements wont make an MMO unsuccesful. Granted if you wanted a larger playerbase, then yes, it would have a fairly large factor in it. A huge playerbase doesnt necessarily facilitate a "successful" MMO, as some fill small niche areas (ie: EVE is a really good example).
The most things that are breaking MMO's now is lack of polished content and game breaking bugs that are released. Investors have found that MMO's are the next big money maker, so theyll naturally invest in a studio, but then when theyre not getting ANY money back in the 3 years of development (sometimes less) they start to demand there money back. So then the studio has no other choice but to publish a non-polished, early to late beta version of the game and hope for the best (ie: Most MMO's published after WoW, prime example is Vanguard and AoC). Other companies publish a stable MMO but fail to listen to what the community wants, and fail to try and make logical compromises( ie: SWG and WAR).
F2P MMO's are like Diablo II, nice to play on the offtime, but most are not a very credible "timesink" to most people. And alot lack story and lore which are typical of Eastern/Asian MMO's. Western MMO's tend to focus around a pre-made lore IP and develop around that, which then tends to draw a much larger population to it.
Another focus of concern is sometimes too much is well...too much. Some MMO studios try to incorporate so many things into the game theyre making and the end-user gets so overwhelmed that they find no interest in the learning curve of the game. Not to mention this slew of features not only hinders performance, but incorporates an ASS ton of bugs that need to be squashed. Start out simple, and if the game is polished and well maintined, you can add these features in later so if there is a major bug in that feature, its easily handled and able to be fixed relatively quick. These are just a few of my observations. |
|
Originally posted by Kordesh
First, if a game is a slide show on your current system, how likely are you to keep a subscription? Not very much at all. Second, how many people are going to run out and buy a new system(or have the experience/knowledge/money to upgrade their own system)? Again, the answer is not very many. That means that games that have high system requirements(out of the box) aren't going to be nearly as successful as those which do not. Next, I'm always amused by those who make arguments about "fairness". "Fairness" is a subjective value judgement. Is it "fair" that some people have the hours and hours required to raid? Is it "fair" that some people have access to raiding guilds, that have enough people to raid? As I said, if you wish to be competitive you are going to spend time and/or money. Time/money are force multipliers that are applied in different situations to achieve ones goals. Spending money is no more "unfair" than spending time is. Its simply a matter of what one values more. |
|
|
If you're getting a slideshow in a game that really intrigues you then you will upgrade if you can afford it. Games push hardware sales, not the other way around. This is just a bad last few years PC gaming because the cheapness of the xbox 360 has substituted for needing a high end PC in the eyes of most gamers, leaving a smaller market for high end PC exclusives; But this can't last forever, because other forces are at work screwing up the market dynamics. Which is that microsoft is taking a huge loss on the sale of their hardware in order to gain marketshare. Austensibly they want to make it back with game sales, but they never do. They haven't made a profit on the console business since they started, and they don't plan to until they dominate the market so thoroughly that they can start charging people a lot more for the price of admission. |
|
|
The article dismisses the improvement in graphics which has driven every computer game genre since the genre started. We aren’t that bothered about better graphics apparently, but the whole history of gaming confounds his argument! WoW raised expectations in the MMO industry, every big title could expect equal success. It didn’t turn out that way, so now they are trying to find out why, but no one really knows why. MMO pundits search for answers and come across F2P (RMT) games, which are not doing badly. These are then treated like a saviour of the genre, which they are not. They are a different genre, for a different type of player. Pundits ask yourself this, maybe WoW just came in at the right time and has been a hard act to better? They might as well look at web based games now, and tell us they are the new saviour. We only need two dimensional graphics and instant gratification, utter nonsense. Come on pundits wake up, there simply was no room in the market for another big title and then another. Stop looking for reasons which are not there. |
|
Originally posted by Trenchgun
Your first is a good point, but is a special case. How many companies can risk the tens of millions required for todays large scale projects, on the chance that a sufficient number of people will be interested enough to upgrade their system to play? Its much safer(money/time wise) to get a sense of the typical system(and add a bit for when the game is released, in say two years) than it is to expect people to upgrade. As for the Xbox 360, Mickysoft is more interested in Xboxlive and its potential profits, than making money on their hardware. Only time will tell if this is a wise investment. |
|
