ARR is a savior!Follow

Yeah, but, the only thing in those boxes is cash shop stuff... Like, exp boosts and random little aesthetic things. It's nothing that actually affects the game.

I mean, I can't say I've ever failed to enjoy a game because the only way to get an armor or weapon skin was through an RMT option. That's just... weird to me.

GW2 has plenty of great weapon/armor skins in the game. Why would I care?

As for content, I have two comments. 1, GW2 is a PVP game at its heart, so it's not surprising its PVE content wouldn't be quite up to par with other PVE-focused MMOs. That's not an issue with the F2P model.

Also, while the content updates themselves are small, they started delivering them every week. That's pretty huge in an MMO system where we've all just sort of gotten used to waiting months and months and months for new content.

Also, the holiday events I participated in for GW2 were a lot of fun, and I never found them particularly RMT-focused.

I wouldn't be quick to call F2P new. I could play dial-in BBS games back in the for but the price of a phone line our family already had. Or evolving further into game, stuff like Battle.net with Diablo/Warcraft/Starcraft or other browser-based games. All of these technically did get patched and updated, funded either by initial sales, advertising revenue, or simply the good nature of a dev's heart.

But then some folks realize, "Hey, we could make a lot of money off these suckers!"

The rest, as one might say, is history.


It may offer them more freedom, but I'm ever critical of the fact the money these individual games make for their companies doesn't go back to the games that made them first. XI suffered for XIV's production. Money from both are probably now funding other SE ventures, too, like XV, anime/manga/music sponsorship, and so on. Blizz's pie also has a few fingers poking at it via the games I mentioned earlier, then other stuff like Hearthstone, the nebulous Titan project, and who knows what else. If anything, I feel like Blizz should have gobs more games out there. That money must be going somewhere, though, and I doubt it's to overpay employees.

Was a more roundabout way of saying significant raises and/or bonuses. Sadly, in today's economy, I feel it's more likely the grunts asking for more pay would get axed and replaced with new blood just happy to have a job.

Pay to Enjoy is the wrong term to use because you're never really forced to pay and if you enjoy playing the game, farming isn't an issue. You can buy keys from the auction with in game currency. Outfits, weapon skins, XP boosts and just about everything else you can get from the cash shops(or boxes you need keys for) is available to you even if you don't spend real money to get them.

Farm(work) for 2 hours in game or use 2 hours of your earnings from work. Not only do you have access, but you have options on how you access the content. Something you might also be overlooking is the challenge for RMT. Players are far more likely to make purchases from the cash shop to sell in game for currency than purchasing currency from RMT sites. There is no risk of being banned and all of the proceeds go directly to the developer and fund creating more content for the game.

I've given it quite a bit of thought and I really can't find any drawbacks that impact the game or it's players in a negative way. I don't play GW2, but the way it works above is the model in TERA and it works out better for everyone.

Again, I can't speak on GW2 because I don't play it, but you don't need to touch the cash shop in TERA to open treasure boxes. If you had to purchase keys with cash only then I would definitely agree with you.


Thing is, you don't have to spend money to enjoy all of these games. As stated above, it's possible to run a cash shop without restricting access only to players who are willing to spend real money. It might fit GW2, but it's not accurate if you try to apply it to games with a different structure.

Tell me how you REALLY feel!

I do understand your point, though. This just goes to show, even more, how the P2P/F2P debate really isn't about money, but personal taste. To me, it's insane that anyone would want to play a game that doesn't just give full access to all the game has to offer. To me, P2P just feels like a big bait-and-switch scheme.

EDIT: Especially for people who are truly completionists, the P2P model is flawed. When I choose an MMO, I don't want to just play the core game. I want it all.

Edited, Feb 7th 2014 3:29pm by Thayos

Even if you can find an exception to the rule (though I find your assessment questionable), it hardly disproves the obviously current trend in gaming. You only have to look at the recently re-released Dungeon Keeper on iOS to see how it can take perfectly enjoyable gameplay from the past and milk it into a pay-per-click experience where you're severely punished for not constantly feeding EA money. This is a cancer that's killing the industry.

And isn't that why most P2P games also have a sub option?

I mean, I maintain my TOR sub because it's more convenient. I'd definitely SAVE if I was using the cartel store at this point, since I've gone ahead and used cartel coins granted through my sub to unlock pretty much everything I'd want unlocked (in case I want to switch to F2P). The sub is just easier to me than buying medical probes, exp boosts, FP/space battle weekly passes (allowing infinite rewards from them for a week, rather than the 3 cap). But I'd probably save a decent chunk of change at this point if I switched to F2P (and got the exact same game experience). I'm just lazy.

To be honest, it just sounds to me like you haven't really played F2P games? With the possible exception of LOTRO, all the RMT purchases in the games I've played were available for in-game currency on the market. Yeah, the player economy sets the price, but so what? That's actually pretty awesome, both from a game-design perspective and from an anti-illegal-RMT one.

That IS "included in the core game." There's nothing you can't access in any title I've played that you can't get by just playing the game. LOTRO is the possible exception, because I think you have to actually earn the currency, which is SUPER slow.

But there isn't a single aesthetic set in TOR I can't buy on the market.

And know why that's 100% okay? Because MOST players are buying those from the market. For the most part, those items are there because other people wanted to legally convert cash into in-game currency, and the worth of that transaction is relative to the market.

Some of them are subscription players using their complimentary coins, instead of RMT. Same thing - they could use those for unlocks or exp boosters. They use them to get credits instead.

That's a system that's fully integrated into the game. You might be accessing it from a different angle than some people, but that's entirely about how you choose to interact with the game. Neither is right or wrong, because it's just as important to the F2P system for there to be those in-game purchasers as there are the RMT purchasers.

TL;DR: You need to stop using such a reductionist scenario of the RMT store and actually look at how they are ACTUALLY functioning in a modern-day F2P game. Because gating content behind RMT transactions isn't the norm, and it's not anywhere close to being as simple as "let's drive RMT transactions."

Sure, that's the end goal, but it's the end goal in the same way as "let's get more subscribers" is a goal for a subscription MMO. These are both accomplished in relatively the same way - generate content that generates player interest. The F2P shop model is generally profitable because of the fact that there is a set of players fully willing to spend real money for in-game currency, and there are plenty of players willing to spend in-game currency for aesthetic items.

A SMALL subset of those purchases are people buying items for themselves. So the model isn't about "let's pressure the players to spend their money." It's about producing aesthetic content that players will want, so that they'll be willing to invest sufficient currency into the item to make it an appealing purchase for people looking to buy currency.

And it drives F2P economies really, really well.

I think the only way someone like me would be happy with F2P would be if the game also had an all-inclusive P2P option, which it sounds like at least one game does.

Even then, though, I'd be highly dubious about the quality of content updates for that game.

I'll readily concede that gaming trends are moving away from "old school" and more toward F2P, especially given the spread of casual games, Facebook games, etc. It's much easier to get someone in front of your game if there's no cost involved... that's common sense.

I'm just glad there's still a small corner of the market left for people who desire P2P.

Eventually, when developers get better at implementing F2P so that you really can't even tell that you're paying extra for anything, then maybe my thoughts on it will change. Until then... here's my card number, and let me play my game!

This is where we totally disagree; we have different definitions of content.

I was doing some reading on Terra, and appreciated most of what I saw regarding its f2p hybrid model.

Still, the one downside is they still appear to make "paid" items look better / more detailed than what you would get just by playing the game. However, I am assume they give the "paid" items to subscribers too, so that helps.

I would probably consider playing a game with a hybrid model like that, as long as the emphasis on content didn't suffer.

Yes, all signs point to XIV F2P soon enough.

/sarcasm