The dirty tricks of Free-To-Play

[BloatedGuppy]

At no point did LotRO ever give you quest a reward that required payment to use. And, at no point did LotRO ever cut the amount experience you gain because you haven't paid yet.

Nope, they just bottle up content and dole it out in the form of micro-transactions, or have you grind tirelessly to unlock it.

Honestly though, what's your purpose here? Did you miss the part above, where I said I considered the game's FTP model to be one of the most abhorrent in the business, and expressed disbelief that anyone could support it? Did that signal to you that there was an opportunity here to convince me otherwise by insisting it's actually an excellent deal, or that it should be seen as meriting praise because you personally feel competing games are even crappier? After I entered the thread bashing the FTP model in its entirety? I just don't understand it. I don't find these "Yip yip yip/Nope nope nope" conversations with strangers invigorating. Your mileage may vary.

I'm really pleased you enjoy Lord of the Fees Online. As I've said before about many things in many topics, I wish I enjoyed it too. It's nice to enjoy things. I'd love to enjoy everything. I find your enthusiasm for a game and a business model I consider appalling to be puzzling, but I don't begrudge you your enjoyment of it.

 

[madwarper]

Nope, they just bottle up content and dole it out in the form of micro-transactions, or have you grind tirelessly to unlock it.

And, TOR is better... How?

Honestly though, what's your purpose here?

You said there is no "free". LotRO alone disproves your assertion.
As in game currency can be obtained *FOR FREE* by just playing the game.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

LotRO alone disproves your assertion.

"FTP" games make 95% of their profit off 5% of the player base, if the bean counters are to be believed. So yes, there is a large body of parasitic users, but SOMEONE is paying for you to play that game. It wasn't "free". Their business model just allows you to defer the cost on to someone else.

And even the most generous, non-predatory FTP models will encourage spending via tedium.

You are correct though, it's technically "free" for people who display an extraordinary resilience to tedium, and/or an ability to enjoy the dubious game play of one of the poorest MMOs of the last decade. Those who do not share their fortitude, yet are somehow still possessed of a desire to experience the dreck of LOTRO will bear the costs of keeping the servers online. You have bested me with your iron logic, sirrah. May we end the discussion now?

 

[Soopy]

I've often wondered if it would be feasible to give ever user the exact same experience, don't lock anything or hide it behind a tedium wall and them simply ask for a donation of the users choice, if they feel its warranted. There have been a few cases where the generosity of the fan base has far out numbered what was expected even if the media was sold in retail. I mean, look at StarCitizen as an example of what people will cough up.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I've often wondered if it would be feasible to give ever user the exact same experience, don't lock anything or hide it behind a tedium wall and them simply ask for a donation of the users choice, if they feel its warranted. There have been a few cases where the generosity of the fan base has far out numbered what was expected even if the media was sold in retail. I mean, look at StarCitizen as an example of what people will cough up.

They have to get their development costs back somehow. For games that often cost upwards of 50 million to make, I'm not sure if "by donation" would get it done. Especially since a vast majority of gamers appear to feel that any amount of money is too much money to pay.

 

[Soopy]

I've often wondered if it would be feasible to give ever user the exact same experience, don't lock anything or hide it behind a tedium wall and them simply ask for a donation of the users choice, if they feel its warranted. There have been a few cases where the generosity of the fan base has far out numbered what was expected even if the media was sold in retail. I mean, look at StarCitizen as an example of what people will cough up.

They have to get their development costs back somehow. For games that often cost upwards of 50 million to make, I'm not sure if "by donation" would get it done. Especially since a vast majority of gamers appear to feel that any amount of money is too much money to pay.

But we're seeing the opposite of this in other area's. I mean, people contribute vast sums of money to games that don't exist yet on Kickstarter.
If the game is good, people will contribute.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

But we're seeing the opposite of this in other area's. I mean, people contribute vast sums of money to games that don't exist yet on Kickstarter.

If the game is good, people will contribute.

Vast? No. We've seen small groups of enthusiasts pay enough to get something funded, in some cases funded reasonably well, but nothing close to what would be needed to launch a competitive AAA MMO. It'll be interesting to see how Camelot Unchained fares, although given how pared down it is in terms of features I'm not sure I'd consider an MMO, so much as an online PvP game with MMO style combat.

 

[Something Amyss]

I think the best thing to do is to stop calling it "free to play", as history has demonstrated it is most certainly NOT.

Subscription vs One time fee vs Microtransactions. There is no "Free".

Even worse, the hybrids. Dead god, the hybrids.

 

[lacktheknack]

But we're seeing the opposite of this in other area's. I mean, people contribute vast sums of money to games that don't exist yet on Kickstarter.

If the game is good, people will contribute.

Vast? No. We've seen small groups of enthusiasts pay enough to get something funded, in some cases funded reasonably well, but nothing close to what would be needed to launch a competitive AAA MMO. It'll be interesting to see how Camelot Unchained fares, although given how pared down it is in terms of features I'm not sure I'd consider an MMO, so much as an online PvP game with MMO style combat.

I think he meant "vast quantities of money" as in "ten thousand dollar donations".

Which you have to admit takes a HELL of an enthusiast.

 

[Vylox]

I think the best thing to do is to stop calling it "free to play", as history has demonstrated it is most certainly NOT.

Me and my wife have taken to calling them "Free to Pay"

;>

 

[hazabaza1]

Wanna see good F2P? DOTA2. Gameplay will always be the same. All you can buy are cosmetic/aesthetic changes and the ability to view tournaments in game. Most of the items can also be found by playing the game as well so yeah, it's pretty much great.

 

[Anthony Corrigan]

There is one good free to play that I have played Path of exile

http://www.pathofexile.com/

All the transactions are cosmetic only, they give you nothing so its your choice if and how much you spend

Oh and its made by a New Zealand company and all the voice actors are from NZ which is great variety from the US accents of every other game in existence

 

[ChrisCarTheMarauder]

Not all F2P games are awful and bad.

TF2 and Warframe are pretty damn fair in how they operate for example.

 

[secretkeeper12]

I am reminded of the tragedy of Realm of the Mad God

Long story short: Small developers make fun, skill-based game. Microtransactions are used for dyes (cosmetic), dungeon keys, and temporary stat buffs (both could be obtained through gameplay, so its simply "pay-4-convenience). Devs are bought by giant facebook gaming corp. Enter pay-2-win weapons, helms, spells, oh god WHY?!?!!?

Yes I'm bitter

 

[Sonic Doctor]

And even the most generous, non-predatory FTP models will encourage spending via tedium.

Just because someone is lazy or doesn't have any willpower to do the right things to keep the game free for them, doesn't mean that the game can't be called free to play.

I see plenty of whining insolence when playing LotRO:

F2Per: This sucks, there are so many restrictions, not enough to do. It is not free.

Me: Yes it is free. All you have to do is go through all the areas you are allowed, and do all the quests to help you complete all the deeds, as deeds give you free turbine points. All the points you get from those deeds are more than enough to purchase more areas and quest packs so you can move forward in the game.

F2Per: Wah, but that takes time. I can't do all of those quests.

Me: Yes you can, you just have to work at it, and boom free points to get free content.

F2Per: Well, it is stupid. The game is stupid. I shouldn't have to work for it.

Me: Well then leave, if you don't like the game why are you playing. Money-wise, the game is truly free to play. The only thing you have to pay out is time and effort, which any true gamer will do if they actually want to play the game and will do it without question.

Then of course that shuts them right up, though, they probably leave and stop playing the game, but such people are no loss to the community. We don't want people that are whiny and won't put in the effort to play the game.

Another example of a truly free to play, is Star Trek Online. I've max leveled two different Captains to the top (Vice Admiral) level, played a good bit of the story, and messed around in a ton of space battles, all for free. I even got to purchase special items and ships from the store with Zen points, which I was able to get by refining dilithium receive through normal quests and dailies, and then trading it on the dilithium exchange for Zen points.

There are plenty of free to play games that have stores and sub-fees, but people use real money on those if they are too weak willed to take the time to play the system.

Just because some people are stupidly paying, doesn't mean that the f2p games aren't f2p.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

\Just because someone is lazy or doesn't have any willpower to do the right things to keep the game free for them, doesn't mean that the game can't be called free to play.

I see plenty of whining insolence when playing LotRO:

F2Per: This sucks, there are so many restrictions, not enough to do. It is not free.

Me: Yes it is free. All you have to do is go through all the areas you are allowed, and do all the quests to help you complete all the deeds, as deeds give you free turbine points. All the points you get from those deeds are more than enough to purchase more areas and quest packs so you can move forward in the game.

F2Per: Wah, but that takes time. I can't do all of those quests.

Me: Yes you can, you just have to work at it, and boom free points to get free content.

F2Per: Well, it is stupid. The game is stupid. I shouldn't have to work for it.

Me: Well then leave, if you don't like the game why are you playing. Money-wise, the game is truly free to play. The only thing you have to pay out is time and effort, which any true gamer will do if they actually want to play the game and will do it without question.

Then of course that shuts them right up, though, they probably leave and stop playing the game, but such people are no loss to the community. We don't want people that are whiny and won't put in the effort to play the game.

Another example of a truly free to play, is Star Trek Online. I've max leveled two different Captains to the top (Vice Admiral) level, played a good bit of the story, and messed around in a ton of space battles, all for free. I even got to purchase special items and ships from the store with Zen points, which I was able to get by refining dilithium receive through normal quests and dailies, and then trading it on the dilithium exchange for Zen points.

There are plenty of free to play games that have stores and sub-fees, but people use real money on those if they are too weak willed to take the time to play the system.

Just because some people are stupidly paying, doesn't mean that the f2p games aren't f2p.

1. I'm not really sure "insolence" means what you think it means. If nothing else that's a really strange usage of the word.

2. Without people "stupidly paying" your "free" game would disappear.

3. There's another thing we do, in which we exchange enduring tedium for money. It's called "a job". I'm not sure I'd characterize it as "stupid" when people hesitate to devote their recreation time to tedious repetition in order to save a few dollars, nor do I think that is indicative of quality game design. However, different courses for different horses.

BONUS - 4. I never thought of the ability to endure tedium in the service of saving a buck here and there in a massively multiplayer roleplaying game was a testament to someone's "strength of will".

 

[Vergial]

There are plenty of games that are truly free to play. The way they make money is through cosmetic hoopla, which is perfectly fine in my eyes.

World of Tanks, DOTA 2 (which I actually loathe, to be honest), STO (which has been mentioned a few times), etc.

In the case of WoT, though, it's probably my favorite for a couple reasons. There is a SORT of pay-to-win item present, but it's being removed 'shortly'. The idea is that Wargaming want to make the game a competitive game to rival many others, so they want any instance of even nearly pay-to-win to be gone. Mind you, the items in question can be purchased with in-game currency (and it's not hard to do so, either. Play one good battle and poof, you have cash for the items).

It also offers "Wallet Warrior" tanks, but they are average at best for their tier. It requires a very skilled commander to handle the Wallet Warrior tanks properly and effectively, so even then no one is paying to win. As a short example, I've seen many many Lowe/KV-5 tanks driven by complete morons. They died swiftly, as expected, so they may have paid but they certainly won't win.

There are other examples, but I'll spare everyone. I've gone on long enough.

 

[Caiphus]

Well, the companies have to make their money somehow. Literally. If nobody paid for a "free" to play game, then nobody would get to play it. That's just what does business is like and stuff durp.

Free to play models have generally been getting better. The ToR one was pretty shitty, and I just subbed because I couldn't be bothered levelling at a slower rate and cherry picking the restrictions - of which there were millions - that I wanted to lose. I can't really think of a single thing that wasn't restricted. Which is amazing, really. Everything right down to run speed.
But that might have been their goal anyway.

Rift's one has been pretty good, my brother recently started playing it again, and hasn't dropped a cent on it so far. And his levelling experience has been decent. A bit slow, but he hasn't hit pay walls. He can get into battlegrounds and stuff without hitting "FUCKEN FREE FAGT PAY MONEE" screens.

We both tried LotRO last year. The microtransaction system in that game seemed pretty crap. Or maybe it was just confusing. Either way we didn't get much past level 10. Maybe it has improved. Either way, there are better games out there so go fuq dat.

Uuuh, and star trek online was a confusing mess.

And that's been my experience thus far.

Oh, I forgot, GW2's micro-transation system was actually pretty good, as in I'm not entirely sure if anyone ever bought anything. None of my 10 or so real life friends did. Got to level 65 without dropping a cent(apart from buying the game of course) before stopping.

I dunno, the MMO market is almost completely cornered at the moment. I sure as hell wouldn't want to have my money invested in one.

 

[Ferisar]

1. I'm not really sure "insolence" means what you think it means. If nothing else that's a really strange usage of the word.

2. Without people "stupidly paying" your "free" game would disappear.

3. There's another thing we do, in which we exchange enduring tedium for money. It's called "a job". I'm not sure I'd characterize it as "stupid" when people hesitate to devote their recreation time to tedious repetition in order to save a few dollars, nor do I think that is indicative of quality game design. However, different courses for different horses.

BONUS - 4. I never thought of the ability to endure tedium in the service of saving a buck here and there in a massively multiplayer roleplaying game was a testament to someone's "strength of will".

What you are describing still has no real basis. Yes, paying is essential to the F2P model. That DOES NOT mean you, the player, have the pay a dime to enjoy it. I play League of Legends. I've reached 30, I've played the game without ever paying for the leveling process or champion unlocking process, nor runes or IP boosters. I have, however, spent a good amount on skins. Am I going to complain about someone using that same money on XP/IP boosters? Not really, as they're not enough of an advantage. A level 10 who is good at the game will crush a level 30 who isn't. And when it's an even playing field, (aka, 30) none of those end up mattering.

World of Warcraft, Guild Wars 2, -insert MMO here- All have the same functions. They all require you to complete "tedious" quests to access other parts of the game. Raiding is "a job" to some. So on, so forth. However, there are those who actually enjoy questing or actually enjoy Raiding, despite their whole existence being an exercise in repetition. Is that a bad thing? No. It is a common thread among MMO's though, and hardly invalidates the same design existing in F2P models.

What I'm trying to get at: F2P games (at least, ones I've had the experience with) never require anything, but most oft have the ability to exchange money for, as you mentioned, convenience. That does NOT make a game micro-transactions-to-play.

But then again, I kind of lost the subject among the posts. I don't quite get what this argument is about anymore. There are plenty of F2P model games that work, plenty of those that don't. Most of the time when dealing with the latter it is largely the effect of questionable game quality compensated by an exploitative Pay-to-Win model rather than the overall status of the F2P genre as being terribad.

OT:
I mean... Yeah? It doesn't really bother me. The whole idea of using human psychology into motivating purchases doesn't just exist in F2P games, but it's most prevalent here because that's their main source of revenue. Are some of those scummy? Probably, and so we avoid them. That's the thing for me personally, a game that claims the F2P title without actually wearing it isn't really F2P, it's more of a demo-until-level-x-then-give-us-yo-moneh. Always rubbed me the wrong way to do that, too. There are quite a few functional and entertaining F2P games out there, though, so hey, lose some win some.

CAPTCHA: funny farm

Is that a farmville joke? Y u do dis to me CAPTCHA.