| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (17)

Posted: Feb 25th 2009 8:14AM Temko said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
i would like someone to name one game that is not Guild wars that is free to play and has ANY ammount of innovation, quality or life-time?


none?


....glad we agree.

Posted: Feb 25th 2009 8:26AM xenothaulus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Lots and lots of MU*s. Granted, playership has suffered a steep decline in the years since EQ and WoW, but the cream of the crop have survived and are better than ever.
Reply

Posted: Feb 25th 2009 8:29AM Sephirah said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
And GW has innovation, quality or life-time because you pay the game.
Reply

Posted: Feb 25th 2009 1:58PM Firebreak said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
There are several that are about to come out though that look very promising.
Reply

Posted: Feb 25th 2009 8:30AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Atlantica Online.

Fun game, a bit grindy. But a pretty good game nontheless, especially for f2p.

Posted: Feb 25th 2009 8:44AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
There are definitely different expectations of F2P games vs. P2P games. Whenever I see someone commenting on the quality of a F2P game, all praise seems to have the "for a f2p game" tacked onto it.

Posted: Feb 25th 2009 8:58AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Poor URU :(

Posted: Feb 25th 2009 8:58AM Pingles said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't doubt that the quality of a F2P game can be great.

I just don't like the idea of playing a portion of a game for free while they tease you with paid features.

I'll just pay up front without having to worry whether the features I've chosen to add make my bill higher than a standard subscription game.

Posted: Feb 25th 2009 9:08AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think expectations are always lower. Look at Runes of Magic. Its basically a WoW clone, but at free to play it can get away with it. If it charged as much as wow does there would be a noticable change in expectations of quality to be sure.

The flip side is, charging any sort of monthly fee lets you GIVE that extra quality that will be demanded for that fee. So while games that are paid to play receive higher expectations they have more ability to provide for those expectations.

ultimately it comes down to a sound business model and good old fashioned work by everyone involved. If you don't keep to the expectations set by whatever your pricing structure is then people will leave. So I don't think it matters much that people expect more from a pay to play game. What matters is value for the dollar. Even if that dollar is obtained a roundabout way by showing ads or by microtransactions.

Posted: Feb 25th 2009 9:46AM Saylah said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm like the advantage of not paying for games when I can't play them or am burned out. I get tired of doing the sub/unsub dance. If I find myself with a few days of game time, I'm not going to renew a full month sub so I do something else instead.

And let's drop the whole front about needing INNOVATION and NEW features. The last few P2P games with innovation have subscription numbers in sharp decline - some closing their doors altogether. The bottomline is really fun first and all else second.

Posted: Feb 25th 2009 10:21AM Temko said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
fun is linked to new features and innovation.

if i wanted the same fun i had 10 years ago i'd have gone to a UO free server. i've evolved over the years in my gaming needs and criteria, and so have games.

some done live up to their expectation (WAR) other blatently lie (AoC) and for that reason their numbers decline.

if we take LotrO, who's numbers are growing, it's becouse it delivers exactly what it set out to do, with a nice innovative twist.

it delivers a easy to learn had to master game in a (pretty well followed) world, has several interesting systems in place and does this in a way that doesn't alarm it''s communitie.

Posted: Feb 25th 2009 10:42AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't think whether a game is F2P or subscription based should matter any more. There are enough quality games out there, that the model doesn't matter too much as long as it is profitable for the company and allows them to keep pumping out good content and improvements for the game. People only have so much time and attention they can give to any game, usually it will go to the best quality and most fun experience.

Posted: Feb 25th 2009 12:04PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I have played more than a few f2p games that were gorgeous in appearance (er...well I like the korean style, sue me), but the problem is the games seem to keep tunneling you towards their marketplace. Runes of Magic was a great example. I kept playing it waiting for that other shoe to drop. That "You cannot proceed past here with out the Emblem of Whatever purchased in the company store". That never happened, but what did happen were quests that could be completed for better loot using the "buy the golden lasso for diamonds!" option. Basically hinting that you were going to get a crap reward if you didnt pay the company money to finish the quest. The much vaunted housing was very similar. Unless you purchased a larger amount of space via "diamonds" you got a box. Not a cardboard box, but the similarities are there. I would rather play a paid game that didnt constantly remind me of the real world, and how broke I am in said world damn stock market, than constantly being urged to purchase virtual items to keep up wth the joneses.

Posted: Feb 25th 2009 1:28PM Minofan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well my personal quality expectations of free-to-play unboxed games ( so not Guild Wars for instance ) are much lower, but my expectation of enjoyment is also much lower.

I go into 'costy' MMOs with high expectations of quality but also high expectations of becoming engrossed and potentially following the game for years.

I have yet to try a feeless MMO - aside from good old Guild Wars - that I anticipated playing for more than a month, and probably have not even played one beyond a week.

Posted: Feb 25th 2009 1:30PM Minofan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
N.B. Meant to type 'costly', rather than gibberish.

Posted: Feb 25th 2009 5:03PM Graill440 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This isnt out of context, but it is sad just the same...

"After all, if a game isn't quality, people won't stick around, most of us reasoned. "

With folks like these leading and shaping the gaming industry it makes me want to laugh till i puke, truly pathetic and ignorant.

Here is a term for you, "DUH!!!"

You supposed leaders and shapers of our gaming industry are worse than politicians, and just as useless.

Posted: Feb 25th 2009 6:41PM Saylah said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Nope - can't agree that fun is linked to innovation or new. Quests can be good or boring regardless of innovation or new mechanics. A game can have loads of innovation and be an uphill grind. Innovation + new doesn't equal fun.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW