idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Causation and correlation are different things. Let's say it again, causation and correlation are different things. One more time, CAUSATION AND CORRELATION ARE DIFFERENT THINGS.
The games you are citing failed because they were bad games. You pointed out yourself, their content production sucked during both F2P and P2P periods.
F2P isn't going to save a bad game. If there's nothing to do in the game, no one is going to play it. It doesn't matter if it's free to do nothing or a subscription to do nothing - you're pretty much just as unlikely to not be logging on and spending money, regardless of if that money is spent here and there or once a month.
F2P was a last-ditch effort by those developers to save a game that either wasn't getting the appropriate support from the publisher, or just had a fundamentally flawed development philosophy from the start.
I'm not talking about Tera because I have A, no experience with TERA under the F2P model and B, I've been limiting this discussion to the Western market, because the Eastern market is an entirely different beast.
I didn't enjoy Tera when it was a subscription game. I just didn't think it was a good game. The combat was okay, but that's literally all it had going for it. And it wasn't meaningfully more fun to me than GW2's combat, which I could access for free (and both PVE environments were equally cluster!@#$y, so it was no-win there). Tera went F2P because they couldn't get a population of players to make a subscription model profitable. If it fails under F2P, it's going to be for the exact same reason.
Why? Because the payment model isn't the issue here. Most of those players who quit weren't thinking "Well, I'd play this for free, but not for $15." They were thinking, "Wow, I'm bored."
And that's the point. If you want to make a serious argument about why F2P would be unable to produce content at the same rate and quality of a P2P game, then do it. But right now, the top F2P games are performing about on-par, content-wise, as the top P2P games (possibly excepting WoW).
If you're going to be turning to examples of the absolute worst games in the industry, then your example sucks. That's not a good counterexample, by definition.
Furthermore, re:GW2, you've given me an opinion piece that GW2 needs an expansion. That's nice, but it's not the design philosophy that the GW2 team is using. Their philosophy is rolling out the same amount of content over time (rather than have paid expansions).
Whether or not they're succeeding is another matter, but that's their goal - equal content without dropping it all at once. They used the traditional model with GW1 and decided the competition of the current market demanded a different approach.
I'm also going to point out that the poster here is specifically upset that they aren't following the WoW model of linear progression, where every 2 years they drop a new load of content that completely renders old content (sans the short leveling period of quests) inconsequential. I agree with the GW2 developers that this is ultimately extremely damaging to a game. Blizzard tends to agree, which is why they dumped so much money into revamping the old continent with Cataclysm (though ultimately didn't succeed all that much, for reasons I'm not going to get into here).
He's not annoyed at the lack of content, period, he's annoyed at the lack of content of a particular type he wants to see. That has nothing to do with the game being P2P or F2P, it has to do with the fact that they decided at a design level that this wasn't the kind of content progression system they wanted to be using.
The games you are citing failed because they were bad games. You pointed out yourself, their content production sucked during both F2P and P2P periods.
F2P isn't going to save a bad game. If there's nothing to do in the game, no one is going to play it. It doesn't matter if it's free to do nothing or a subscription to do nothing - you're pretty much just as unlikely to not be logging on and spending money, regardless of if that money is spent here and there or once a month.
F2P was a last-ditch effort by those developers to save a game that either wasn't getting the appropriate support from the publisher, or just had a fundamentally flawed development philosophy from the start.
I'm not talking about Tera because I have A, no experience with TERA under the F2P model and B, I've been limiting this discussion to the Western market, because the Eastern market is an entirely different beast.
I didn't enjoy Tera when it was a subscription game. I just didn't think it was a good game. The combat was okay, but that's literally all it had going for it. And it wasn't meaningfully more fun to me than GW2's combat, which I could access for free (and both PVE environments were equally cluster!@#$y, so it was no-win there). Tera went F2P because they couldn't get a population of players to make a subscription model profitable. If it fails under F2P, it's going to be for the exact same reason.
Why? Because the payment model isn't the issue here. Most of those players who quit weren't thinking "Well, I'd play this for free, but not for $15." They were thinking, "Wow, I'm bored."
And that's the point. If you want to make a serious argument about why F2P would be unable to produce content at the same rate and quality of a P2P game, then do it. But right now, the top F2P games are performing about on-par, content-wise, as the top P2P games (possibly excepting WoW).
If you're going to be turning to examples of the absolute worst games in the industry, then your example sucks. That's not a good counterexample, by definition.
Furthermore, re:GW2, you've given me an opinion piece that GW2 needs an expansion. That's nice, but it's not the design philosophy that the GW2 team is using. Their philosophy is rolling out the same amount of content over time (rather than have paid expansions).
Whether or not they're succeeding is another matter, but that's their goal - equal content without dropping it all at once. They used the traditional model with GW1 and decided the competition of the current market demanded a different approach.
I'm also going to point out that the poster here is specifically upset that they aren't following the WoW model of linear progression, where every 2 years they drop a new load of content that completely renders old content (sans the short leveling period of quests) inconsequential. I agree with the GW2 developers that this is ultimately extremely damaging to a game. Blizzard tends to agree, which is why they dumped so much money into revamping the old continent with Cataclysm (though ultimately didn't succeed all that much, for reasons I'm not going to get into here).
He's not annoyed at the lack of content, period, he's annoyed at the lack of content of a particular type he wants to see. That has nothing to do with the game being P2P or F2P, it has to do with the fact that they decided at a design level that this wasn't the kind of content progression system they wanted to be using.
Actually, the games I am citing were quite fun. Many people felt the same way. You don't consider a game bad that has lasted since 2002: albeit, with a small base population and a rapidly dying one (if not already dead). The problem is, they didn't use F2P all the way. A lot of the time was spent as P2P. During P2P, despite Koreans getting content first, much was developed in terms of new zones and classes (you know: actual content). Interesting how going F2P is a sign of a game dying. As in, "Yeah, we're no longer going to support this but you can still play it anyways."
Which is exactly what F2P is. Want a more recent example? Did you even bother to read a quote from a fellow GW2 player? lol
Quote:
If the Living Story is a TV show, it’s the filler arc that people watch not because it’s compelling or enjoyable or even embodies what you liked about the show in the first place, but because it’s filler that allows you to spend a little more time in the world you bought into because of the main plot line. No-one is unhappy to see the filler arcs end and the story return to the main plot. Fillers are pacifiers, things that keep you occupied until what you really want comes along. Yeah, GW2 needs an expansion, Living Story is falling short.
Expansions add all new dungeons, all new weapon sets, all new maps, all new armour sets, new traits and skills (let’s be honest though, the current traits and skills aren’t even remotely balanced or complete), all new story (and not some side story like Flame and Frost which feels like it may as well have never happened, but something big and appropriate for the heroes that took on an elder dragon).
I will admit that the Consortium make a better enemy than Zhaitan ever did, not because they are more threatening but because they have motivations and not some mindless beast. They are compelling. This doesn’t make the Living Story good, it makes the Personal Story weak. Having said that, I feel that story telling efforts would be better spent on a real meaty story that has some greater relevance to Tyria. The Living Story so far just feels like the tiny selective plots from each of the maps of Tyria (like the human struggle with the centaur in Harathi) released slowly over a period of three months (show me someone who spent three months happily and actively playing in Harathi) with a major cash shop component and a mini-dungeon that relies on being temporary to supplement the need to be quality. The primary reason people play Living Story is the carrot on a stick (two back slot items, a bunch of titles and crazy MF buff) not because of compelling gameplay or story content.
If Living Story was more robust (and had more free content instead of most roads leading to the gem store for cosmetic or desirable loot) it might adequately supplement an expansion or at least give an more satisfying experience until it comes, but its current form is not enough. It’s early days but the story we’ve completed so far was mostly irrelevant (just an excuse for refugees, the Molten Alliance were terrible enemies both in terms of their motives and the consequences or lack thereof from defeating them, the consequences of that chapter are trivial compared to an elder dragon exhaling) and the additions to Tyria were frustratingly temporary.
If this was a TV show, I’d be tuning out until the filler arc ended.
None of the Living Story content even comes close to how robust the WoW content updates are. WoW updates add whole new raids, weapons, armours, boss fights (with phases and different mechanics – their dungeons are also more robust than GW2 dungeons) daily quests, robust class balance (in a game with less class discrimination due to poor balance) mini pets and the like. The GW2 updates have brought lesser versions of each of these things.
For what it is, the Living Story is enjoyable and the Secret of Southsun appears to have improved upon and learned from Flame and Frost, but it’s no replacement for an expansion. It might help bide the time until one and it will help to strengthen the core game (one that was released unfinished and needed strengthening) but it isn’t adding the value that an expansion would add to the game.
Expansions add all new dungeons, all new weapon sets, all new maps, all new armour sets, new traits and skills (let’s be honest though, the current traits and skills aren’t even remotely balanced or complete), all new story (and not some side story like Flame and Frost which feels like it may as well have never happened, but something big and appropriate for the heroes that took on an elder dragon).
I will admit that the Consortium make a better enemy than Zhaitan ever did, not because they are more threatening but because they have motivations and not some mindless beast. They are compelling. This doesn’t make the Living Story good, it makes the Personal Story weak. Having said that, I feel that story telling efforts would be better spent on a real meaty story that has some greater relevance to Tyria. The Living Story so far just feels like the tiny selective plots from each of the maps of Tyria (like the human struggle with the centaur in Harathi) released slowly over a period of three months (show me someone who spent three months happily and actively playing in Harathi) with a major cash shop component and a mini-dungeon that relies on being temporary to supplement the need to be quality. The primary reason people play Living Story is the carrot on a stick (two back slot items, a bunch of titles and crazy MF buff) not because of compelling gameplay or story content.
If Living Story was more robust (and had more free content instead of most roads leading to the gem store for cosmetic or desirable loot) it might adequately supplement an expansion or at least give an more satisfying experience until it comes, but its current form is not enough. It’s early days but the story we’ve completed so far was mostly irrelevant (just an excuse for refugees, the Molten Alliance were terrible enemies both in terms of their motives and the consequences or lack thereof from defeating them, the consequences of that chapter are trivial compared to an elder dragon exhaling) and the additions to Tyria were frustratingly temporary.
If this was a TV show, I’d be tuning out until the filler arc ended.
None of the Living Story content even comes close to how robust the WoW content updates are. WoW updates add whole new raids, weapons, armours, boss fights (with phases and different mechanics – their dungeons are also more robust than GW2 dungeons) daily quests, robust class balance (in a game with less class discrimination due to poor balance) mini pets and the like. The GW2 updates have brought lesser versions of each of these things.
For what it is, the Living Story is enjoyable and the Secret of Southsun appears to have improved upon and learned from Flame and Frost, but it’s no replacement for an expansion. It might help bide the time until one and it will help to strengthen the core game (one that was released unfinished and needed strengthening) but it isn’t adding the value that an expansion would add to the game.
I probably could have bolded the entire thing and asked you to read it again. Do you have any idea how accurate this is and describes my feelings of GW2 AND all F2P MMOs down to a T.
Do go on and list some of these top F2P games, that you referenced in your post, that rival content put out by P2P MMOs. Funny enough, all I've seen you talk about is GW2. Then you go and call out someone like Thayos for only mentioning GW2. After that, I give you examples of F2P MMOs I've played in the past and you consider these bad examples.
Unlike Thayos, I will be much more blunt because I'm tired of your backpedaling and inconsistencies in your argument.
"Oh so you haven't played any F2P MMOs except that game. Your experiences are invalid."
"Oh, you've listed some other F2P MMOs you've played but those were bad examples (despite one of the games having moderate success and a sequel)."
"Oh you've given me the opinion that GW2 needs an expansion."
"GW2 doesn't need an expansion because that's the lame excuse a developer gave me instead of saying, 'We dun be broke and can't afford to allocate the resources to such a thing so here's some mediocre content released in a 3 month period with heavy RMT incentives.' "
No, my dear: a fellow GW2 player gave you that idea. Not even an expansion could save GW2, IMHO, so it's a futile thing to ask for.
Consider the following: perhaps there are no good F2P examples because F2P MMOs are sh*t. Despite the testimonies myself and others have given as to our positive experiences in F2P MMOs and listing our reasons for leaving them, I have a feeling this is all you really wanted to hear.
You know: as a developer, I'd rather make a F2P MMO. I could release a game and make quite a bit of money on initial sales if it had enough hype. I could then relax and develop content in a leisurely way since I had no obligation to my consumer base to produce anything and just had to maintain the servers with the occasional bug fixes here and there. Playing a F2P MMO sucks quite a bit but, on the business end, it's quite profitable. You realize, right off the bat, that your game will never be up to taking on the P2P MMO standard (WoW) so why bother trying to compete with it (making less money in the end). Why not just half *** it from the get go? Yeah, that sounds about right from a business perspective.
Glad we had this discussion.
Edited, Feb 12th 2014 2:26pm by HitomeOfBismarck
